Sykotyk;1060787 wrote:Never in my life have I stolen something where the 'victim' was never deprived of what was 'stolen'.

If I steal your car, you no longer have it. If I make an exact duplicate of it, I didn't 'steal' it. How could you? You still have your car. I now have a duplicate.

Just because it's cheap to do doesn't make it any less illegal.

The problem with copyright is the problem with an 'ownership' society. We want to make money off of owning things, rather than producing something. A musician should make money for the live production of the music in venues where tickets are sold. Movies should make money from the live production of it in theatres, things that most commoners don't have at home nor the ability to access film of such quality to exhibit.

So, we buy tickets for things. That's where they money is. But, that's not enough. They want money every time you hear or play a song or movie. Any mention or comment. Any pronouncement or discussion. They want money. Simply because they own something because the federal government (of/by/for the people) decided years ago, foolishly, that copyright is a lifetime right to profit as much as possible for doing as little as possible.

And under the Disney world, copyright law will keep getting pushed further and further back to make sure that Mickey Mouse never becomes public domain. Copyright was intended to be temporary to cover the short term cost of producing the work to make back the money in a reasonable amount of time of the life of the creator of the work. That doesn't hold true anymore. Especially with corporations owning things when they can't 'die' and can keep reselling it to other entities.

Eliminate modern copyright and go back to the rules when copyright was first created and we wouldn't have the need for SOPA/PIPA/DMCA, etc.

Succinct and perfect.

I Wear Pants;1060797 wrote:That's seriously what you took from that?

you responded with a question?

/pants'd

Glory Days;1060795 wrote:So it would be ok to make a duplicate of someone's ticket to a concert?

After they've gone to the concert, then yeah it's perfectly fine. That is illegal today because of the copyrighted logo on it somewhere.

If you duplicate the ticket prior to the concert, and go, you're stealing their spot, and it goes right back to the car situation.

See how that works?

I Wear Pants;1060797 wrote:That's seriously what you took from that?

no, i also got that people think everything should be free or cheap and that if you create something, you shouldnt bitch about people taking it or profiting from it.

Tobias Fünke;1060841 wrote:After they've gone to the concert, then yeah it's perfectly fine. That is illegal today because of the copyrighted logo on it somewhere.

If you duplicate the ticket prior to the concert, and go, you're stealing their spot, and it goes right back to the car situation.

See how that works?

the ticket can get you into the building though or even its general admission. just because you copy someone's car, doesnt mean you have to park in their garage.

so if someone writes a rock song and i use the same lyrics but play the song with a flute, its ok? they still have their song, and i still have mine.

Glory Days;1060843 wrote:no, i also got that people think everything should be free or cheap and that if you create something, you shouldnt bitch about people taking it or profiting from it.

Well you misread or distorted what he said then.

What he said was that we do not have a very good copyright system in this country. Which is pretty much fact especially when you get into things like software patents and such. It's very much broken and will remain so until someone seriously does something about patent trolls.

And people don't think that everything should be free. It's just that I mean, the SOPA proponents used Avatar allegedly being downloaded illegally 21 million times to try to justify that shitty bill. Avatar made $2,782,275,172 at the box office alone. Those downloads did not hurt it. Does that mean that people should feel free to download things that people create? Absolutely not. But pardon me if I don't cry a fucking river because the MPAA and RIAA tell me to. I've given more money to most artists in their tip jars at shows than the RIAA pays them so the idea that they are looking out for the creative people is fucking ridiculous.

Glory Days;1060844 wrote:the ticket can get you into the building though or even its general admission. just because you copy someone's car, doesnt mean you have to park in their garage.

so if someone writes a rock song and i use the same lyrics but play the song with a flute, its ok? they still have their song, and i still have mine.

Actually that is okay with today's laws. You are allowed to cover songs. Why do you think so many covers of popular songs are allowed to be on Youtube? Until you try to sell your version of that song or pass it off as your own you have done absolutely nothing wrong. If you want to sell it you'll need to reach an agreement with the original artist.

Oh look....
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/the-legislation-that-could-kill-internet-privacy-for-good/242853/

Representative Zoe Lofgren, (D-Calif.), one of the most vocal opponents of the bill, presented an amendment to rename the bill the "Keep Every American's Digital Data for Submission to the Federal Government Without a Warrant Act."

These fuckers in congress are unbelievable. Especially since these last few bills have seen very much support from the Republican side (SOPA and PIPA were sort of even on support but my next point gets to why I'm focused on the Pubs) who claim to be anti-big government. Yet this new bill literally requires the ISPs to track all the sites you visit, credit card numbers, your name, address, bank account numbers, IP Addresses for 18 months and then give all that information to the government or police anytime they ask for it. No warrant, no charges, no probable cause, literally nothing it needed but for them to ask. It's straight up Orwellian.

Sykotyk;1060787 wrote:Never in my life have I stolen something where the 'victim' was never deprived of what was 'stolen'.

If I steal your car, you no longer have it. If I make an exact duplicate of it, I didn't 'steal' it. How could you? You still have your car. I now have a duplicate.

Your analogy is flawed. It leaves out the fact that I designed and built my car at a cost of millions of dollars, with the intention of selling copies of it myself, or licensing the right to allow others to do so. Making a copy of it indeed is stealing that work.

Just because it's cheap to do doesn't make it any less illegal.

True. No matter how people argue the case, there's no way around the fact that intellectual property is property, it has owners, and using it without the consent of the owners is stealing.

I Wear Pants;1060847 wrote:the SOPA proponents used Avatar allegedly being downloaded illegally 21 million times to try to justify that shitty bill.

While I am against the legislation on due process grounds, it's a pretty good example for the proponents.

Avatar made $2,782,275,172 at the box office alone. Those downloads did not hurt it.

The second sentence in no way proves the first to be true. Some of those people, whether 10%, 1%, or .01% would have paid for the movie if stealing it wasn't possible.

But pardon me if I don't cry a fucking river because the MPAA and RIAA tell me to.

No one's asking you to, they're asking you to pay for a product you use. The justification that the rich owner has made "enough" money on it always comes up in these discussions, and is laughably weak. There are better arguments than this.

I've given more money to most artists in their tip jars at shows than the RIAA pays them so the idea that they are looking out for the creative people is fucking ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than the idea that stealing from the rich is somehow a stand for the little guy.

queencitybuckeye;1060888 wrote:....

True. No matter how people argue the case, there's no way around the fact that intellectual property is property, it has owners, and using it without the consent of the owners is stealing.

This is the entire point of this issue.

queencitybuckeye;1060888 wrote:Your analogy is flawed. It leaves out the fact that I designed and built my car at a cost of millions of dollars, with the intention of selling copies of it myself, or licensing the right to allow others to do so. Making a copy of it indeed is stealing that work.

no its ok if its Ford or GM. its not ok if its you, the little guy designing and making your own car....

I Wear Pants;1060855 wrote:Oh look....
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/the-legislation-that-could-kill-internet-privacy-for-good/242853/

Representative Zoe Lofgren, (D-Calif.), one of the most vocal opponents of the bill, presented an amendment to rename the bill the "Keep Every American's Digital Data for Submission to the Federal Government Without a Warrant Act."

These fuckers in congress are unbelievable. Especially since these last few bills have seen very much support from the Republican side (SOPA and PIPA were sort of even on support but my next point gets to why I'm focused on the Pubs) who claim to be anti-big government. Yet this new bill literally requires the ISPs to track all the sites you visit, credit card numbers, your name, address, bank account numbers, IP Addresses for 18 months and then give all that information to the government or police anytime they ask for it. No warrant, no charges, no probable cause, literally nothing it needed but for them to ask. It's straight up Orwellian.

I didn't read the bill and don't support it based on the information I did see, but your ISP already has your name (at least the account holder's name), address, financial (payment) information, and I would assume any IP addresses that have been assigned to you (for as long as they choose to store the information, which would likely be nowhere near 18 months).

Comments in the article from people who did read the bill indicated that there is no language in the bill at all involving web history being tracked/stored, just the amendment of already existing laws to include mandatory storing of IP address history for 18 months.

The big issues are obviously

a) The ease with which the information could apparently be obtained. Obviously there is an issue if a subpoena/warrant isn't needed.
b) If web history is actually intended/required to be tracked, that's incredible and I see no possible way that could be Constitutional. That would be akin to tapping every citizen's phone, recording all calls, and saving the recordings for 18 months to be accessed at request.

But if all the bill ends up being is an amendment to current law for the inclusion of issued IP addresses to be stored for an 18 month period, with a warrant still being required to access them, I don't really care. I think 18 months of data storage for every customer is a pretty unfair burden to put on the ISPs, but from a privacy perspective an IP address is semi-personal, at best.

I COULD make mention of how one person here is a definite law/government sycophant who will argue until the end of time for anything that gives those groups more power and intrusiveness AND against anything which relaxes their authority (as threads concerning things like the laws against marijuana have shown), so it really is pointless to argue, as that person will defend this thing forever even if every sane person realizes that, regardless of its intentions, it was horribly drawn up...because it's easy to get the idea that person would be perfectly at home in an Orwellian world as long as he's part of Big Brother.

But where's the fun of that? This is the Internet, where logic and reason fall to pot-stirring every damn time. So, I present you with...

I work for a living. Because of this, I am forced to pay taxes. Every paycheck I receive already has a good chunk gouged out of it before that money reaches me. If I was trash or "disabled", instead of having money taken from me by the government, they would be giving me that cash. And I'd probably have a bigger TV and more modern computer and all sorts of great shit...for just sitting on my ass and cashing checks.

As far as I'm concerned, the so-called "powers that be" should be thanking me for not taking more. You want to take from me to support pill-popping, baby-factory trailer trash, overseas wars and everything else I don't give a shit about that my tax money goes into...fine. But don't bitch when I find ways to take from others. Just following your "fine" example. Got a problem with that? Then solve my problems or go fuck yourself. I do not care. You either take or you're a victim.

Heretic;1061067 wrote:I COULD make mention of how one person here is a definite law/government sycophant who will argue until the end of time for anything that gives those groups more power and intrusiveness AND against anything which relaxes their authority (as threads concerning things like the laws against marijuana have shown), so it really is pointless to argue, as that person will defend this thing forever even if every sane person realizes that, regardless of its intentions, it was horribly drawn up...because it's easy to get the idea that person would be perfectly at home in an Orwellian world as long as he's part of Big Brother.

Mulva;1061025 wrote:I didn't read the bill and don't support it based on the information I did see, but your ISP already has your name (at least the account holder's name), address, financial (payment) information, and I would assume any IP addresses that have been assigned to you (for as long as they choose to store the information, which would likely be nowhere near 18 months).

Comments in the article from people who did read the bill indicated that there is no language in the bill at all involving web history being tracked/stored, just the amendment of already existing laws to include mandatory storing of IP address history for 18 months.

The big issues are obviously

a) The ease with which the information could apparently be obtained. Obviously there is an issue if a subpoena/warrant isn't needed.
b) If web history is actually intended/required to be tracked, that's incredible and I see no possible way that could be Constitutional. That would be akin to tapping every citizen's phone, recording all calls, and saving the recordings for 18 months to be accessed at request.

But if all the bill ends up being is an amendment to current law for the inclusion of issued IP addresses to be stored for an 18 month period, with a warrant still being required to access them, I don't really care. I think 18 months of data storage for every customer is a pretty unfair burden to put on the ISPs, but from a privacy perspective an IP address is semi-personal, at best.

Yes those things are already had, but this particular bill makes it so easy for the government or law enforcement to get all that info without having to give a warrant or reason.

Change it to where they need probable cause, filed charges, or a warrant and I really don't have a problem with it (as far as this law goes for people accused of distributing child pornography). It's not that we're against enforcement of things like copyrights or in the case of what I just posted child pornography laws. We just want the laws that allow them to access our private information to be written very clearly and succinctly. Broad and vague laws are only cause for abuse both purposeful and accidental.

But even though I wouldn't have much objection to it as long as the things I said above are done I still don't understand how "small government" Republicans think they are being conservative by forcing private industries to track a year and a half of data on all their customers for the purpose of having it so that they can hand it to the federal government when they want it.

Glory Days;1060795 wrote:So it would be ok to make a duplicate of someone's ticket to a concert?

Attempting fraud is not a copyright violation. There's many places I can find photocopies of old Super Bowl tickets, and to print out a copy is perfectly legal (fair use, look it up). I just can't sell copies for personal gain, or, as mentioned in the first sentence, try to commit fraud with it since a ticket is seen to the government as a contract, albeit one-sided.

queencitybuckeye;1060888 wrote:Your analogy is flawed. It leaves out the fact that I designed and built my car at a cost of millions of dollars, with the intention of selling copies of it myself, or licensing the right to allow others to do so. Making a copy of it indeed is stealing that work.



True. No matter how people argue the case, there's no way around the fact that intellectual property is property, it has owners, and using it without the consent of the owners is stealing.

There's nothing wrong with reverse engineering. It's perfectly legal. I can take any device, protocol, equipment, etc and recreate it for my personal use. True, I can't sell it for a profit myself, but I can recreate it for myself. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it. The issue you have is that it cost you a lot of money and you want it protected. It is, you're the one that gets to make money off it. But it doesn't mean you get to make all the money off it for the rest of eternity.

That's the problem with IP rights. Years ago, nobody argued that IP was truly property. It was a short-term restriction by others to sell your idea for their own profit for you to have a decent chance to make back your initial investment. It wasn't carte blanche to restrict anybody for the rest of eternity from making it and you could live high on the hog for the rest of your life in the bahamas drinking fruit-flavored beverages with little umbrellas in them.

That's the part of the problem with becoming an ownership society. We see IP as a modern sweepstakes. if you're the first of 300 million to come up with an idea you get to sell it nationwide (even an average of $1 per person profit is more than you will ever need to retire on). It's the get-out-of-the-rat-race-free card. No work needed. You don't even have to produce your product at all. You can create it in your head, patent it/copyright it, and then sue the living shit out of anybody else who had the unfortunate circumstance of thinking up the same idea just a few days after you.

That's not what patents and copyrights were designed for. That's not why the American people agreed to let this artificial creation exist. There were very set rules for it. Simple and meager to let creators create and have the government agree to hold off the rabble at the gate while the creator has a chance to make back their initial investment. It wasn't a guarantee. It was a chance. You have the CHANCE to make back your money. Some inventors/creators might spend thousands to produce something and realize that their idea doesn't sell well. Sometimes it becomes huge AFTER it became the public domain. It was a chance.

But in the end, the sum of human knowledge was intended to become free in the public domain for any and all to participate in building upon those ideas. Instead, the government has become a bought and paid for enforcer, a mafia henchman out to break the legs of anyone who gets in the way of those doing the creating because the right of the 'creator' trumps everyone else.

There's a reason why the U.S. requires drug companies to make their discoveries public domain after x number of years and only certain exemptions that must be applied for if they want an extension. Every 'generic' drug is public domain. The reason they're so cheap. Could you imagine if every drug ever created still was charging the original prices when they were still being protected by the government from competitors?

^^^ Reps.