“I was at the movies yesterday and before the movie started they had this long ad where they were trying to say like — you know those ads where it’s like, “Don’t download things illegally, et cetera,” —- and the way they did it was they were like, “You wouldn’t steal a purse, would you? You wouldn’t think of stealing a car.” And I was thinking about it, I was watching it and I was like, “You know what? I would steal a car if it was as easy as touching the car and then thirty seconds later I owned the car. And, like, I would steal a car if by stealing the car, the person who owned the car, they got to keep the car. And um, I would also steal a car if no one I had ever met had ever bought a car before in their whole lives.”
But if that imaginary world existed, it might make copying cars illegal, just like we make copying IP illegal.
Yes, but unfortunately, you and the person who made it still don’t see how cars and IP are not the same thing.
I’m sorry if some people can’t handle the notion of intangible property, but it exists. I guess alot of people have grown up with the internet and got used to taking whatever they wanted for free, and never stopped to think through the idea that doing something can be illegal and use the term “property” in its protection, even if it’s not a thing you can hold, but that’s the way it is. Most people grow up and figure out that not every “thing” is a tangible thing.
It might. The question is whether it should. If it harms nobody - and that hypothetical makes it abundantly clear that it does, in fact harm nobody - the answer is no, it shouldn’t.
The point of the hypothetical is to make them the same thing, and to demonstrate (and it still appears to need demonstrating, absurdly) that copying does no harm.
I’m all for IP ownership rights, as I’ve repeatedly stated, and I’ve never suggested anyone should be allowed to take anything for free against the owner’s will.
Please, for once, address the arguments I’m actually making.
Yes. So we’re back to square one. The silly car stealing story was an attempt to say that copyright shouldn’t exist. The analogy fails, because cars are cars, and works of art are works of art.
No, it doesn’t, because the analogy is a massive failure.
Copying a car and copying works or art or inventions are not the same thing.
But they are NOT the same thing.
Why not? Is there harm done? Tell me exactly why you support IP.
I wasn’t necessarily referring to you, just the thread in general.
But if you haven’t made a statement to the contrary, that doesn’t clear it up. I’ll assume that you think stealing is wrong since it would be rude to assume otherwise. But please understand - some people here have said, point blank, that stealing is NOT wrong.
I support the right of any creator to attempt to profit from their creation, and to prevent anyone else from doing so - the reason being, someone else profiting for their work is observable, measurable harm.
Note carefully the word “attempt”. They do not have an intrinsic right to profit from their creation. What they have is the right to be the sole one who does. This right is, of course, transferable by contract.
Claiming someone else’s work and profiting from it is, in fact, stealing - that’s what IP theft is.
And you haven’t stated that you believe rape is wrong. Some things should just be assumed unless otherwise stated.
My issue with copyright is specifically with the complete disconnect between patent and copyright with regard to IP protection.
While I agree file sharing copyrighted materials is illegal in most places, I wonder why is it massively centered on movies and music? While literature, art, technical documents, and software do not see nearly the same level. And sports broadcasts are almost non-existent by comparison despite the huge viewership numbers they enjoy. What drives the massive infringement in some areas while there is little in others despite the massive appeal of those other areas? That is what I am most interested in knowing. As I think finding that answer leads you well on the way to finding a solution that will reduce the amount of infringement.
I can at least answer with sports: sports are timely, and have no value very long after the competition is over. The rest I’d guess just aren’t as popular, or aren’t as insanely overpriced, or are just inherently seen as more valuable. And books have libraries, and art has galleries, where we can their value for free without piracy. And, honestly, I’d say software piracy used to be bigger, and would still be if people did not have active animosity towards the MPAA and RIAA. They saw their tactics and realized it was bad for them, because they knew that piracy can’t actually be stopped.
I personally think music is still overpriced at $0.99 a song and digital movies are overpriced except on Netflix. There is other content out there now. That’s why sales are dropping, and not piracy. People like me go completely without traditional movies or music, as I have other things to occupy my time online.
