figment seems to be forgetting what the original purpose of patent and copyright protection were: To encourage sharing. Not \"To give inventors total control over their works.\"
If it seems that I've been promoting unlimited and draconic control of creators over their work, it's simply because there has been little discussion of how much control creators do/should have. Since this discussion started about game piracy, and much of the discussion has been centered around recent games, the length of copyright/patent shouldn't even be much of an issue. While I have stated that most countries that have copyright laws extend that copyright for the life of the creator, nothing has been brought up about the appropriateness of copyright length.
Copyrights used to be around 15 years when the concept orginated, though now, congress extends copyright terms every time it appears that Disney is about to lose Mickey to the pubilc domain.
Yes, the perpetual extension of copyright is a troubling issue. However, the extension of copyright to the life of the creator does not seem outlandish. Many authors create works with the same characters and concepts throughout their lives. Terry Pratchett first published a Discworld novel in 1983, and had published 17 books by 1994 (15 years ago). Many of the characters he introduced are still being written about, by him. The most recent novel, "Unseen Academicals", features Rincewind, a character introduced in the very first novel.
If the Disney company deserves the same protection because they're still producing Mickey Mouse stories is an interesting debate (especially since the mouse ears are trademarked, and trademarks don't expire), but ultimately has little bearing on if it is legally, ethically, morally correct to pirate a game that has just been released in the past year or decade.
Cute dodge, but the point was that yes, the legal status is what makes the difference, because if you get into the other stuff you could also argue that overpricing is theft, or that it's not theft coz they deserve it (hello Robin Hood) etc. and we'd get nowhere.
That wasn't a dodge at all. It is of utmost importance to realize that laws do not spring up out of nothing. Laws are made with a purpose and intent. Even when the motivation is ignoble, or the execution if flawed, laws do not exist in a vacuum. "The legal
stuff" is not what makes the difference. What is legal is not always what is desirable, and what is praiseworthy is not always legal.
Overpricing cannot be theft unless a person is forced to pay that price. No one is forced to buy games. They are not an essential component of life. The pricing of games is not done by force, nor is it done in secret.
As for a "robin hood" argument, isn't that what those arguing that piracy is acceptable are saying? Common to the definition of theft and stealing is taking
without right. If you claim that individuals can freely download media with no caveats, you are saying that they have the right to do so, and thus are not stealing. The crux of this debate has been if individuals do have that right, in spite of the law.
Look, more word masturbation... copyright infringement is still not covered under theft laws, thats' why they made new laws for it like those two. Just ask the supreme court:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)
I'm just going by the dictionary definition of the words theft and steal. Let me draw a parallel. To the insurance industry the word "flood" has a specific meaning. It applies to the rising of lakes, rivers, ponds, etc. A broken pipe that completely fills a basement with water is not a flood as defined by insurance policies. However, in common usage a flood is "a great flowing or overflowing of water". If you call a plumber and tell him a pipe burst and flooded your basement, he's not going to argue that there hasn't been any rain for weeks. The legal definition of words is not always the same as common usage. Which is why I have tried and tried and tried to switch from the word theft to the word steal. However, every time I have said "steal" those who disagree with me have gone back to arguing about "theft". It's total BULLSHIT!
That said, shall we examine what the ruling in Dowling v. United States actually said (emphasis mine):
"interference with copyright
does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud.
....
"infringement plainly implicates
a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. As a result, it fits but awkwardly with the language Congress chose - "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" - to describe the sorts of goods whose interstate shipment 2314 makes criminal."
This is a ruling that a law about interstate trafficking of stolen goods does not apply to copyright infringement because the law was written specifically about goods. This does not say that copyright infringement is not theft at all, but that it is not the specific type of theft that 18 U.S.C. 2314 was written about. It is a conservative ruling, that is declining to extend the coverage of a law beyond it's intended purpose. This does not preclude all laws from defining copyright infringement as theft, nor does it change the common usage of the word.
Furthermore, you obviously have not read the whole of the ruling yourself as this quote is relevant to the issue at hand:
"in United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407 (1957), this Court held that the term "stolen" included all felonious takings with intent to deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership, regardless of whether the theft would constitute larceny at common law."
The Supreme Court agrees with me. Copyright infringement is stealing because it is done "with intent to deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership", even though it doesn't constitute larceny. (As to felonious, bear in mind that a non-felony offense, if I'm not mistaken, would be outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court).
So, even if we throw out the word theft from this argument, stealing is still most definitely appropriate applied to copyright infringement.
Why yes i am... they have no moral or ethical right to sell stuff and then take it back when they feel like it coz you where only \"renting\" it, or not allow you to sell it (or the right to use that certain work) to someone else or other crap like that.
Ah yes, them damn women property owners. A small portion of them have been abusing the system and using their property to exploit people. Just goes to show that women shouldn't have the right to own property at all!
Sorry, you can ignore that if you want. My point is this, I have not argued for unlimited control by authors. The copyright system provides protections for both the creator of the work and the consumer. (the "
first-sale doctrine" would be a good example, though there are others). If these protections for the consumer are inadequate for digital mediums, that only increases the need for updating copyright law.
The righs of creators need protection, and definition, in the law, as do the rights of consumers. When I have said that creators have a right to control their work, I have been saying that with the assumption that it is understood that the rights given to a creator are limited, by law and by reason. However, it is understandable that you're confused on the matter, since your comments indicate that you think that laws spring out of nothing, for no reason, are unchangeable, and exist only to be exploited. (I base this on your refusal to talk about the rational underpinnings behind laws, and your claims that laws are the only deciding factor between what is and isn't acceptable behavior.)
Many people today are clamoring to get patent protections considerably shortened, because today's reality is not the same as the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries. I know that my own patents were woefully out of date in only a couple of years. If patent protection needs another look (as many feel it does) why not copyright protection?
Copyright protection does another look. However, that doesn't mean it should be abolished completely and all distribution rights taken away from creators.
There is a large difference between the life of a patented work and that of a copyrighted work. The difference between a mechanical doodad, and a character named Doodad. If a patent expires and others are free to use doodads and derivatives of doodads, that doesn't materially change the value of the original inventors refinements to the same concept (as far as I can figure). However, if Doodad passes out of copyright, and other people are free to write their own stories about the character, that can drastically change the value of future Doodad works from the original creator (for better and for worse).
I think figment is also forgetting that I'm not one of \"them\"..those evil pirates. I'm a musician, with published CD's to my name (
here's one). I'm an inventor, with
3 patents. I'm an author: I have published a book of
irish sheet music which is available for purchase in several music stores. I've also written poetry which has been published (which I wish I had a link for, but I don't). I'm a computer programmer, and often do contract work where copyright is an issue. And yes, as a
intellectual property creator I believe that copyrights and patents need another look.
Frankly I don't care what your motivations are. Your arguments have been flawed, and that's all I've been arguing against. Yes, copyright and patent law needs refinement in light of the abilities that computers and the internet have given us. However, it does not follow that simply because copying has become easy that it has become a right. It is similarly illogical to claim that if copyrights have been extended too long, then it is acceptable to ignore copyright completely regardless of how long since the material was created.
