I am beginning to believe that YOU actually believe that, however for the sake of others who may read this thread, I will again point out why it is not so.

One simply cannot make those arguments while defending a belief in intellectual property rights/laws as they exist.

It is a complete contradiction.

/shrug

__________________

These rights, are designed for the sole reason to create the benefit of the whole. There is no inherent right to Intellectual Property, and there is no human right to IP. There is a civil right pursuant to the nations interest. And since it is predicated upon the nations interest there is no reason to support copyright laws the way they are currently written.

The RIAA pursuing their selfish interests have expanded copyright laws above and beyond what they should ever be, and in doing so have no claim to sympathy when people are 'stealing' from them items which by all rights should have entered the public domain long long ago.

I believe wholeheartedly that IP laws should be

1. Federal (not subject to state interpretations, as today's communication allows instant transport across stare (and country) borders.

2. Changed, as many are either ambiguous leading to wide interpretations, or unfair.

And there are "rights" to IP...of a sort... As an author, it falls within my "rights" to the possession and distribution "rights" of my material, regardless of the specificities of any one certain law.

I do agree with many sentiments here. I just also agree that IP laws NEED to exist.

__________________

I agree, it would help more than anything if they would just tell us what we can and cannot do. I don't think it's really a matter of right and wrong, it's just a huge greyzone.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

Its only a grey zone because the internet is relatively new. As we become more and more adapted to it, our laws will become more specific with regard to the internet and more specificaly protect the IP of those using digital means to distribute their media. Everything will clear up with time.

How is it a contradiction to say that while something is not theft, in the traditional sense, it is still a crime? Is theft the only crime?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Alrighty I can agree with that, certainly I have no qualms with Patent Law, merely with the extent that copyright law goes to.

That is not correct.

It is not about taking the purchased product from the consumer; rather it is about taking the product from its ‘inventor’, and the result of such a theft on society. Read on.

Basically, by ‘copying’ the car, or the song, you have made it such that the recipient of the copy does not have to purchase one from the person who created the product. That effectively takes money out of the hands of the person who put out the effort to create the desired product.

It is not as straight forward as stuffing a CD in your pants, or hotwiring a car on the dealers’ lot, but imagine you wrote a hit song, and looked forward to putting your kids through college with the profit from the sales. Next thing you know, some guy on the street has a table full of copies he burned at home, and is selling them for a bit less than they cost in the store. Yours don’t move, and the royalty check never comes in the mail, while the pirate has a pocket full of cash he earned selling your song. That’s theft. Furthermore, even if it is just given away, passed from kid to kid, the author never gets his compensation. The consumers get to enjoy the tune, but never pay.

Thus, the creative mind is not rewarded, and fails to create. It is forced to do other jobs to put food on the table, and the next great creation, be it a song, or water powered automobile, never comes to light.

This example of how profits in the market benefits man and mankind is applicable to all forms of creativity, or production. Be it the next organic farming innovation, the next ‘Google’, or the next prescription drug, if we remove the profit incentive, the effort needed to move the idea from concept to useful product will not happen.

Reject socialism, embrace the free market and capitalism.

Chester

If you did not create it, it is not yours to sell or distribute for profit, or distribute in a way that denies the creator his compensation. It is realy that simple, and has been codified for centuries. The law is commonly seen in the FBI warning at the beginning of rental movies, and at the end of football broadcasts.

You may play your copy for friends, but you may not charge them, or give them duplicates. Profit is reserved for the people, be they artists or athletes, who put out the effort to make the product desirable.

What technology has changed is the ability to make quality duplicates easily. No longer do we need a room full of Monks, nor do we have to listen to poor quality tape recordings.

As an aside, that may be why “You Tube” is being left alone – from my limited experience, none of the samples on the site are anything I’d replay to many times. If I liked it, I’d go buy a better version.


Chester

Since YouTube.com was acquired by Google, a good deal of copyrighted content has been removed from YouTube...

Steve

You must be high.

So, to continue the train of thought you've shared above, it would make sense, then, that you would have no problem with someone tapping into your phone or cable lines to use a service that you pay for...

Steve

You are assuming that the person who received the copy would have purchased the product had he not received it. But you don't know whether he would have done that or not.Nope. It's not. Where is your proof that he would have purchased as my inflated price? You have none. Again, theft, in the traditional sense, would be taking the copy of the CD that was made/burned by the writer and keeping it so he does not have it.You are, once again, assuming that the author would have received compensation for his song in the first place.What exactly does this have to do with free market or socialism? All I am saying is that copyright infringement is not theft. It isn't murder, either.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

I don't see the connection.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.