dshimel

This argument is so ignorant, it is horrifying.

Bands would still fill stadiums? Oh really. What if 10 guys named Emenem were all in town tonight, all singing the exact same songs? Which one would you go see? The one that sang the version on the radio?

Sorry, there are no radio stations. Radio is funded by commercials intended to create brand name recognition. If anyone can slap any brand and model label on any product, there is no value in brand name recognition.

So, it is the M&M boy you saw on TV that you'd want to go see. Sorry, no TV for the above reason. Of course, you could pay $30 a month per station to subscribe, but how do you know you are getting the real MTV with the real M&M. Anyone can broadcast anything under the name MTV.

Doesn't matter, becuase you can't get to the concert anyway. You went to the BMW dealer and bought a car, but the car was really just a Yugo with a BMW label on it.

You decide to go to McDonalds for a Taco Bell Grande and a Coke. The Coke is really Joe's Cola and the Taco Bell Grande is a tortilla with some lettuce.

You want to go to a movie, but all theaters collapsed when no new movies were made. Why make a movie when one theater will by it, give copies to everyone, then show it for next to nothing?

You walk home in you Nike running shoes, that look like Adidas, but are really just generic shoes that were made by one of 200 different companies that make all kinds of shoes and slap random labels on them.

You get home to download M&Ms song, but you're stuck using many year old equipment. No one wanted to spend any money designing new chipsets or operating systems once they couldn't make their money back on the R&D cost.

There hasn't been a single new medicine discovered in the last several years. Why spend millions developing a new drug, when the generic drug companies will just copy what you've discovered, and sell it at manufacturing costs?

Without copyright, there would be NO R&D in any product line. Why develop anything when you can just steal everyone elses designs. Oh, there would be a few people that produced stuff in their spare time as a hobby, but nothing like what we have today.

The world would really suck without copyright.

Arrowman

I have no sympathy for companies like Nike, Reebok etc when SE Asian markets sell cheap imitations of their products. Because all those products are, is image - not any particular quality.

(Yes, I know some Nike shoes are actually high quality but many are not, and in any case they are outrageously overpriced, based only on the cool nature of the brand and not quality.)

So if the product can be reproduced to all intents and purposes, and to the satisfaction of the customer, by simply mimicking the label, then I don't have a lot of sympathy for a company which trades solely on image and not on any particular practical "contribution" in quality.

I laugh when Nike executives, in their argument against product piracy, claim that customers are being "ripped off" because they think they're buying the real thing. Of course the customer knowsd they're buying a knockoff. And that's what pisses Nike off - the customer doesn't care.

But it's still illegal, and yes, immoral.

I have no sympathy for large record companies who lose sales (no matter how few) to piracy; after all, those companies add little or no value to their overpriced product (except limos for their executives) and artists (especially in modern times) could (increasingly, will) produce their own CDs etc.

But it's still illegal, and immoral.

Arguing that copyright doesn't or shouldn't matter is just rationalisation to support your own desire to own things for free.

LordSnooty

Copyright is an intense irritation. Obviously, in theory copyright law is good and fair. But in reality, it's abused by corporate bullies.

Companies tend to dictate copyright and trademark law to government rather than the other way around, and that's where the problems lie. Copyright law has evolved into a liberty-stealing device by big business.

For instance - and this is a very minor example - I once worked on a magazine. I reviewed the Sony website, and included a screenshot from it. I am legally entitled to do so. It even portrayed Sony in a positive light. But once the issue went to press, I had an irate Sony solicitor on the phone, threatening me with legal action.

It's a minor point, but that sort of thing is hugely widespread. They will attack anyone, for any reason, just because they think that copyright law gives them the right to do so. It's as if they think that if they threaten enough people, everyone else will be too scared to infringe their copyrights.

Remember when the legal threat was given to everyone hosting Star Trek Websites several years ago? Or how about the young girl driven to tears by nasty (and groundless) threats from Warner after she created a Harry Potter Website?

Something needs to be done to ensure that Copyright gives protection to those that create, without giving them the right to cancel out freedom of speech and force people into silence.

Just my opinion. We couldn't do without copyright, but it shouldn't be used as a tool for legal thuggery.

Paul

Buddrow_Wilson

uh nice rant Dshimel, too bad you ignored my first post where I said this:

My main argument is that it should not be illegal to exchange information. What may or may not be illegal is only relevant to how that information is used. If you use someone else's song in a commercial without permission, you would still be liable. If you go on stage claiming to be a band that you aren't you would get your ass sued in either situation.

No its my desire to be free to exchange information without fear of reprisal.

I honestly don't see it this way. If i did think it was wrong, I wouldn't be arguing here. In my youth I shoplifted on occasion, but at no time did I try to convince others that what I was doing was moral and right. In those cases I was only motivated by my desire to acquire free things, but here i am trying to make a logical argument to seperate information from tangible "things."

Simply put, if you are trying to sell copys of information you need to have some reason for me to buy this beyond just the information (i.e. product support, limited edition inserts, etc). And it must be priced low enough. I quit paying for music long before I discovered the joys of file-swapping programs. The truth is that music has been horribly over-priced for a long time, and the record companies know it.

I'll save other arguments for later...

jofo

Well, this is a matter of legal definition, and I think it is the foundation of this *definition* that we're discussing, right? You can't argue against my point that copyright are a bad idea, by saying that it's illegal to break a copyright. That's not an argument. "Is" does not imply "should be".

Again, *why*? A person who makes, say, a loaf of bread, is allowed to decide if and to whom he's going to sell it, but there end his rights. He can't tell his customer what to put on his sandwiches, or what he's allowed to drink to his snack.

If my using "your stuff" does not affect you directly in any way, but benefits me very much, why is it wrong? You're not presenting any convincing arguments that I can see, you're just iterating that it's your "right" to decide what ahppens to your "stuff".

What is your stuff and what's not is dictated by society, all your "rights" must be backed by some force that imposes corresponding obligations on everyone else. Otherwise they're empty. I think information is inherently different from "stuff" and should be treated that way. Not by imposing restrictions on everyone so that we can go on pretending that it is just "stuff".

jofo

Well, this is a matter of legal definition, and I think it is the foundation of this *definition* that we're discussing, right? You can't argue against my point that copyright are a bad idea, by saying that it's illegal to break a copyright. That's not an argument. "Is" does not imply "should be".

Again, *why*? A person who makes, say, a loaf of bread, is allowed to decide if and to whom he's going to sell it, but there end his rights. He can't tell his customer what to put on his sandwiches, or what he's allowed to drink to his snack.

If my using "your stuff" does not affect you directly in any measurable way, but benefits me very much, why is it wrong? You're not presenting any convincing arguments that I can see, you're just iterating that it's your "right" to decide what happens to your "stuff".

What is your stuff and what's not is dictated by society, all your "rights" must be backed by some force that imposes corresponding obligations on everyone else. Otherwise they're empty. I think information is inherently different from "stuff" and should be treated that way. Not by imposing restrictions on everyone so that we can go on pretending that it is just "stuff".

Well, I wasn't relying on any "greater good" arguments, I was merely saying that I wasn't convinced by utilitarian arguments *for* copyright. Are you saying that these "lame arguments" do speak for copyrights? Then I'm prepared to agree with you

Autonemesis

There's a corrollary to this question of whether copyright violation is theft. If a royalty is collected on a product that makes use of no copyrighted work belonging to the royalty recipient, is the collection of the royalty to be considered theft, or other wise unethical?

Currently, you pay a royalty to the RIAA on all blank digital media: CD-R, DVD-R, DAT, all of it. This royalty is collected even if you put your own works on the media. In effect, you must pay a royalty to the RIAA for works that you have copyrighted. Is this theft?

Autonemesis

No, I bought a shiny silver disk, a physical object. I signed no contract when I purchased it, there was no license agreement, not even a silly end user "I Agree" click-through. First sale doctrine rules here: the disk is mine. I acquired the disk, and I agreed to no restrictions at the time of purchase, or before it, or after it.

jofo

If this is true, I think it may very well be used as an argument for pirating music, etc... after all, you're paying for it anyway! It sounds like a really stupid way of handling things and I'm sure it will only widen the gap between companies and consumers. Who's going to like somebody who openly assumes that everyone is a thief?

I see it as another example of the absurdity of copyright laws. Is everyone buying blank media now assumed to be using them for "illegal" activity?

Buddrow_Wilson

This is the first I've heard about this. Can anyone paste a link to a reliable source stating this as fact please? Thats one of the most frightening things i've heard in a long time. If it is true though, I would consider it a license to copy AND distribute even for profit, since they are apparently getting their piece of the pie regardless. wow....insanity rules.