bodhisamaya wrote:

But then, I support the idea that a person's income should be capped at $25 million/year with the excess going to public works.  Kind a Capitalist/Socialist morph I am

What do you think millionaires do with their money? Do you think they keep it tucked under a pillow? They do put it back into the public works, through investments. Which, when done by the private sector, do far and away more good than any government could do with them. For example, what would've happened if the government took all Warren Buffets money when he was only a small time investor? The government would have spent it in a second on some meaningless project. Instead Warren grew that money into a multi billion dollar fund, which is invested in companies which keep thousands and thousands of jobs alive. And it's still growing. Too bad Warren is a moron, and has pledged to take all this wealth and investment out of the worlds economies and plunge it into the black hole that is Africa.

vosmiura wrote:

If everybody was like that then many creative works would never have been made.

Most people are like that. The population of the world is more than 6,000,000,000 and most of them use their money to feed their families.

vosmiura wrote:

Borrowing and making use of your brothers or libraries things is not the same, and you are not violating copyright if you do that.

What if my brother is so generous and he offer his books to everyone on the street?

What if he lends his e-books to his friends in other countries using the internet?

Most file sharing advocates treat the humanity as their brothers and sisters, and have no objection to show them/lend them what they buy.

vosmiura wrote:

I'm just wondering do you think it would be OK to take some product from a shop without paying for it?

This is not borrowing, this is stealing something physical.

When you steal something from someone, he lose it. But you can't steal an idea. You can steal a book from a shop, but you can't steal something not physical.

Borrowing is not stealing. Copying is not stealing, because you make two copies or more and you don't take the first one!

Last edited by ahibba (2009 June 14, 6:20 pm)

By the way, one of my brothers in humanity lent me his copy of Essential Japanese Verbs CD. It contains more than 3000 example sentences with audio.

He allowed me to lend his copy to anyone interested in it!

My brother support copyright and CosCom. He bought the CD with his money. But he has no objection to lend anything he bought to anyone interested in it. Is he wrong?

ahibba wrote:

When you steal something from someone, he lose it. But you can't steal an idea. You can steal a book from a shop, but you can't steal something not physical.

Borrowing is not stealing. Copying is not stealing, because you make two copies or more and you don't take the first one!

Rubbish.  You can steal an idea.  If someone writes an original book and you copy it and then sell it, then that is stealing their idea - people no longer have to buy from the originator.  If you copy it and give it away for free, that is exactly the same.

Last edited by vosmiura (2009 June 14, 7:01 pm)

ahibba wrote:

kioku3 wrote:

But you don't want that one, do you?  You want the good translation, right?  Why should anyone take years to translate a much improved translation to give to you for free?

If he want to make money, it's better to open a restaurant or coffee shop.

Knowledge and literature should be free as they were for centuries.

If someone's field of expertise is translating ancient Greek or writing or music or the visual arts, s/he should give it away for free but if the expertise is in cooking or serving coffee, s/he can charge for it?  Why?

Last edited by kioku3 (2009 June 14, 7:29 pm)

ahibba wrote:

If he want to make money, it's better to open a restaurant or coffee shop.

Knowledge and literature should be free as they were for centuries.

I think you ought to read some history if you think knowledge was free.  Knowledge has never been as free as it is today.  Just 10 years ago, if I wanted to cook something I didn't already know about, I had to own several cookbooks to get it done.  If I wanted to look up something in an encyclopedia, I had to have it there.  I'm guessing anybody here who didn't grow up with the internet can tell you how much more difficult and expensive knowledge and literature was before 1995.

welldone101 wrote:

I think you ought to read some history if you think knowledge was free.  Knowledge has never been as free as it is today.  Just 10 years ago, if I wanted to cook something I didn't already know about, I had to own several cookbooks to get it done.  If I wanted to look up something in an encyclopedia, I had to have it there.  I'm guessing anybody here who didn't grow up with the internet can tell you how much more difficult and expensive knowledge and literature was before 1995.

The concept of copyright originates with the Statute of Anne in 1710.

I'm not talking about the last two centuries.

ahibba wrote:

weldone101 wrote:

Knowledge should be free after a certain amount of time spent profiting from it, so that one can support themselves.

If I were smart and invented a new treatment for AIDS or cancer, is it right for him or his company to monopolize this treatment for a certain amount of time until millions of people die?

This is just silly.  Of course he can monopolize it.  He made it up.  If he didn't exist, neither would the treatment.  Whether or not it's right has to do with your religion I'd assume.
What's wrong with him treating millions of people, and making a lot of money in the process.  Many drug makers sell expensive drugs to America and give the same ones away in Africa by the tonnage.  The creators of them get their due and many people are saved.
Given the system you are supporting I fail to see why this person would have worked so hard to create a cure in the first place, so I'd say your "scenario" is hog wash.  An education in the science required to study advanced drugs costs in the half a million dollar range.  You propose he finance his education out of pocket and work at a coffee shop while developing your cancer cure on the side?

Rights related to creative works differs between nations and there are at least four different ideas/views that is combined to form today's laws. It also helps explain the different stances that people takes in the debate.

Scandinavian (1220, nonprofit rights) The Westrogothic law (old Swedish law) states that you should give "Honour where honour is due".
Brittish (1703, economical rights) Authors own the right to print their works.
American (1787, economical rights) As an incentive to create, the creator of a work should be given monopoly of providing it to the public.
French (19th century, economical and nonprofit rights) Victor Hugo claims that an author have morally right to be honoured and economic compensation.

Here is some quotes from this threads and which idea/view they support (my interpretation, tell me if you disagree):

Scandinavian
*If I had some creative idea that would help others, as long as I had enough to live a semi-modest life, that contribution would be all the reward I would want. (bodhisamaya)
* Most people have a fairness instinct about them and contribute to some cause or another at some point in their lives. (bodhisamaya)
* If you say that something is your which is not, then you are a liar. But if you copy something, you don't steal anything. (ahibba)

Brittish
* If the people who create the product think it's ok to copy it, then by all means feel free to distribute it. But while they don't want it copied, you can't just say 'oh, but I know better, so I'll distribute it'. (lagwagon555)

American
* Copyright has never been of net benefit to society, and instead serves to enrich a few at the expense of creativity. (ahibba)
* Saying that having downloads available actually helps business is all fine and all, as long as you actually practice what you preach and buy the product if you like it.  If you just leech stuff and you think that somehow you're helping the world by doing that then you have issues. (vosmiura)
* A team has sat down and worked to create KO2001, and you're saying that all their time and effort is worthless (in a monetary sense), and their product is only worth the paper and ink it's printed on? (lagwagon555)
* Yeah, it's so unfair that someone who worked for a long time to create something should be paid more than the paper it got printed on... (vosmiura)
* But you don't want that one, do you?  You want the good translation, right?  Why should anyone take years to translate a much improved translation to give to you for free? (kioku3)
* If everybody simply used the intellectual property without paying for it, then that would deprive the creator of a way to make effective use of his creation - and would lead to many creative works not being funded. (vosmiura)
* Knowledge should be free after a certain amount of time spent profiting from it, so that one can support themselves. (welldone101)
* What do you think millionaires do with their money? Do you think they keep it tucked under a pillow? They do put it back into the public works, through investments. Which, when done by the private sector, do far and away more good than any government could do with them. (lagwagon555)

French
* So long as this model of society is the norm, there will be a need to protect people's creation and make sure they are retributed for their work (regardless of quantity, since we don't really have minimum "revenue of existence" or maximal wages as part of human rights). (ファブリス)
* My brother support copyright and CosCom. He bought the CD with his money. But he has no objection to lend anything he bought to anyone interested in it. (ahibba)

Seems like the American view is the dominating one on this forum. I wonder how well the writer's origin matches the origin of the views of rights to creative works. I prefer the Scandinavian view which is not very surprising as I'm a Swede.

Chandlerhimself wrote:

I hope that everyone that thinks that all information should be free, posts their real name, credit card number, SS number and bank account numbers in this thread. All those things are intangible and information, so everyone here should have free access to it. If you are ok with copyright theft, you should be ok with identity theft, seeing as nothing tangible is being stolen from you(you're just copying).

Not that I'm saying I agree or disagree with people using the material that haven't purchased it, that is their own personal moral decision to make, but the argument above is ridiculous.

A credit card or SSN number does not increase anyone's knowledge.  On their own they are simply numbers.   They only have value as numbers because they DO represent one's REAL property (one's identity, money, etc).

The point was someone said all information should be free. If people are trying to argue that the information has to increase your knowledge somehow, then how can people justify the copying of fiction books, music, movies, etc. Harry Potter doesn't increase your knowledge anymore than someone SS number. Also credit card debt isn't a real thing either, it's just an idea, however the money you have to pay to get rid of it unfortunately is. When you copy something you lower it's demand and thus it's value. Value of course is an idea, however the money you get for something because of it's value is real and tangible(well if they pay in cash).
  It would be nice if people didn't take into account things like supply, demand, labor, etc when setting prices. Lobster in Yokohama would most likely be cheaper than apples. On the other hand I doubt many people would be willing to catch lobsters if that was the case.

Chandlerhimself wrote:

I hope that everyone that thinks that all information should be free, posts their real name, credit card number, SS number and bank account numbers in this thread. All those things are intangible and information, so everyone here should have free access to it.

The point was someone said all information should be free.

That information is already free for everyone to use. I'm free to create my own system using the numbers and presentation like those used with credit cards, bank account or SS numbers.

Besides, all copyright laws requires a work to reach a certain threshold of originality to qualify. I very much doubt that there are any country which would consider a string of numbers or a combination of names to have enough originality.

If you are ok with copyright theft

What's copyright theft? If you mean copyright infringement, you should just write that. Even if you don't see the difference between copyright infringement and theft, the laws does. And that doesn't change just because you call copyright infringement what it isn't.

you should be ok with identity theft, seeing as nothing tangible is being stolen from you(you're just copying).

That's fraud. A completely different crime.

I also don't understand why everyone is bringing up libraries. Libraries aren't free. Authors don't just give books to libraries, the libraries, buy the books. The author gets paid and the library let's you use the books.

Libraries exist to spread knowledge to the population, yet copyright forbids or limits the citizens to do the same.

Even more interesting is that authors protested strongly when libraries were created. They said it was theft of their property, that no one would buy when they could read the work for free at a library and therefore no author would want to write new books.