Intellectual Property rights, good or bad? Should they be re-evaluated?

Then don't produce. That is your choice. Society is held back by the lack of technological advancement due to intellectual property. It is not held back by lack of "art".

 

But it doesn't matter if they would buy it or not. They're consuming what OTHERS are purchasing. They're a scourge of content creators. And regardless, if you're willing to watch, play or listen to something because it's free you should be paying for it because you want to consume the content. By your logic, when someone steals a BMW they couldn't afford, it's ok because hey, they couldn't or wouldn't buy it anyway. But if they tell their friends how great a car it is, it's like free advertising n stuff. BMW should be happy people steal their cars😀

 

If I steal your BMW then you no longer have your BMW, but if I make a copy of your BMW then you still have your BMW … see the difference? Copying is not stealing, they are two different words with two different meanings.

When I clicked on this thread title from the “opinions and beliefs” thread list, a copy of your work was transferred to my computer. Now I have a copy of what you wrote. Are you seriously claiming that I stole your words because I now have a copy of them?

 

As far as original art goes a copyright is useless these days because it is completely unenforceable across the world, just as copyrights were unenforceable a hundred years ago across borders. The only way to make money is through astute marketing.

If your designs are copied and offered for sale you need to outsmart those sellers rather than sitting at home whining. You should seek out the bloggers and other operators who are the gurus of the space you are selling into and get them on your side by being friendly and sincere. This can take time and effort but it will secure your ability to profit from your work in a way that a stupid copyright will never do. You need to make a name for yourself and make sure people know where to get the authentic, numbered and signed and individually copy proof coded. Start by offering signed and numbered copies of already stolen designs for a lower price than the thieves. If you are as good as you think people will buy them. If not then maybe you are not so good after all. Once you have regained your name and your fans know where to buy from the money will be yours.

 

I think your argument there is a little bit suspect, but I would simply say that it is no secret that people rip off anything that touches the internet. If you are an "artist" then perhaps you should "create" in a medium that cannot be easily stolen--like giant bronze statues, architecture and such. There is a reason banks don't pile their cash in the lobby.

 

Perhaps I was baiting a trap with a little manure. I just think it a bit dishonest that people keep using the word “steal” or “stole” when is what they really mean is copy or copied.

The internet makes copying certain types of things easy, and monopolists have a love-hate relationship with that. They love that cheap copies can expand their public exposure, but they hate that they are not the only ones who can take advantage of the ease of which copies can be created.

You said “stolen” but I know that you meant copied. Your examples hint that you know the difference. I believe it is no accident that you chose physical objects – which, if stolen, would deprive their owner of possession – to use as examples.

Suppose that you are a policeman called to the scene of an alleged street robbery. A hysterical woman (the victim of the alleged crime) claims that someone stole a large photograph which she had just purchased at the art gallery. You see a large photograph leaning on the wall behind the victim and ask if perhaps she just misplaced her photograph, leaning it against the wall behind her. The woman looks at you like you are the biggest idiot in the world. Pointing to the photograph leaning against the wall, shaking with anger, she proclaims that “this … this is the photograph which that man stole from me. Now, are you going to go after him and get it back, you idiot”. Keeping your cool, you ask the woman “how can the photograph have been stolen if it is still here, in your possession?” With yet another demeaning look upon her face, she explains that the thief was taking pictures of the building behind them, while she was walking by with her photograph exposed in the foreground. She tells you “when I saw the flash of that mans camera, I knew that at that moment, my photograph, this photograph right here behind me, had been stolen”.

Given the scenario above, you being the police officer, are you going to:

A) Chase after the man and confiscate his camera, and charge him with theft.

or

B) Direct this crazy woman to the nearest mental health hospital.

Do you believe a case can be made against the man, the alleged thief? Given that the woman still has in her possession the photograph which she claims to have been stolen. If not, then you know the difference between stealing and copying, and In the future you will be able to use the correct terminology.

 

No I meant stolen not "copied". Technically, illegally downloading copyrighted material is theft, so for now, stolen is a correct word to use. So many people do it, that it just isn't taboo compared to walking into a bank and taking a dollar out of the drawer.

I recently listened to a Howard Stern interview with Chris Martin who is the frontman of the British group Coldplay. Howard asked him about this issue. His response was interesting. Basically he didn't get upset by it because he still made a lot of money in spite of illegal downloading and discussed that things might end up going back toward the old artistic patronage system. You don't make the money on the recordings, but on the performances, promotional, and private events scene. He, over several interviews I have seen/heard, usually differentiates between the art of music and the business of music. I think that is probably right. IIRC, he said something about he wouldn't do it and it is harder for people who do just try to sell music via downloads without actually going out and touring, meeting fans, and the like.

 

I'm not selling my words here, duh. To claim that an artist wouldn't have made any money off you in the first place doesn't discount the act of you stealing. And COPYING IS STEALING!!!! I've heard this argument since the days of Napster and earlier and hey, WE ALL DID IT. But that was before I grew up and became a professional and understood the concept of making something of value. If you download a movie or game, don't claim you wouldn't have watched/played it....you DOWNLOADED it. If its worth downloading to see/play, its worth something to you and that something should be going to the person who made it. Its NOT YOURS. You have no rights to it. If you pay for it, THAT copy is yours. The attitude that copying isn't stealing always comes from the exact same type of people....those who CREATE NOTHING and want EVERYTHING. Freeloaders.

 

Really? From where do they obtain this right?

If we are going to make up rights, why not a right to protect music, or writings, or new inventions, or even free healthcare?

 

Somehow, it rises to the level of a crime if the man cuts out that picture, blows it up, frames it, and shows it to his friends.

 

I know that you've been told that, but it is a lie.

No it is not. Not so long as the original remains in the hands of its owner.

The two are completely different. If you steal a dollar from the bank drawer, the bank no longer has access to and control over that dollar. If you make a copy of that dollar the bank still has their dollar. Counterfeiting is illegal, but it is not stealing.

Copying reduces scarcity, every copy made might reduce the value of the original, but as copies are additions to overall wealth, I can have an item identical to your item, but without stealing your item. You are pretending that competition is stealing. Like if a plumber quits his job and starts his own business, you would say that his profits are stolen from his previous employer. Sorry, but I just cannot agree with that mind-set.

 

Sure because people being charged with piracy is a lie too

You don't get to decide what theft is. The government does.

More lies on your part. If the law says that jaywalking is theft then jaywalking is theft no matter how you want to parse words.

When you illegally download a song instead of paying for it, you have stolen a dollar from amazon.

Exactly the opposite. By illegally helping yourself to other people's efforts you are increasing scarcity by reducing the likelihood of scalable production.

No you are pretending that stealing is competition.

If he steals his employer customer and supplier database when he quits, then yes his profits are stolen from his previous employer and courts routinely smack former employees down hard who do this illegal act even if it is "just a copy".

 

The purpose of this thread is to question the validity or benefits of the intellectual property laws. When it is the validity of the law that is in question, you cannot cite the law as support of your argument. Your entire post is pure garbage.

Me: the laws that protect slavery are immoral and wrong.

You: the law says that if you help a slave escape from his owner you are a thief.

Me: I know what the law says, but the law is wrong.

You: only government can decide what is right and wrong, government says slavery is good, so slavery is good.

Me: you are brainwashed beyond any hope of repair.

 

If what you say is true, then patents should never expire. What would THAT world look like? We would all still be cavemen.

Sorry, but your claim that copying is stealing is just too evil to be believed.

Furthermore, I looked up the word "copy" in the dictionary and not a single definition of the word mentioned anything about stealing, stolen, or theft. It seems that you are just making crap up.

See for yourself: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/copy

 

Intellectual property protections for artists holds back society by causing a lack of technological advancement?

Bizarre sentiment.

 

As with everything in the "business of America is business" country of ours, IP, copyright and patent laws are over-used to great benefit by Wall Street, the corporations, and the lawyers, and the humongous detriment of society.

 

Only bizarre if you think art is the purpose of IP laws and not actual profitable enterprise like say cellphones. Apple and Samsung sue each other like every other day over technology.

 

Because artists are marketing gurus and or just automatically have all sorts of connections to bloggers and 'other operators'.

Lowering ones price to undercut thieves is little better than working for free. Being an artist isn't cheap. You're basically telling people - many of whom are already operating at a loss while they try to become established - to take an even bigger loss by gambling on the false promise that what you say will work.

Apparently you don't know anything about art merchandising. Lower prices don't equate to more sales. It's actually the opposite. If you lower your price, people will assume your work is inferior and you'll lose sales. We aren't going after Walmart bargain shoppers. That's not our target market.

 

The dishonesty is with the one who pretends that copying is never stealing, no matter the context.

 

IP is supposed to prevent unlawful distribution of copies without compensating the creators. IP can be abused or misapplied of course but the concept is valid.

 

Such a suggestion reveals that you understand virtually nothing about art or artists, nor the skills required to work in a particular medium. Being an artist doesn't mean one can just switch mediums at will, or that changing to another medium will bring success.

 

Art is not a profitable enterprise? That's a falsehood. But your contempt for art (and we can logically assume artists) is duly noted.

 

IP is in fact about profiting legally from ones work of art. You appear to have an issue with profits. If so, why?

 

Then weld at the local factory by day to feed yourself and be an "artist" by night. The issue of creativity and the issue of business operate separately. If you are complaining about the business, then creativity does not matter. It is about dollar and cents, and anybody who thinks that they can put something out there that is easily taken and still have a scalable enterprise knows nothing of business. Computer doodles in a digital medium is the worst decision anybody could ever make if they think they are going to make money.

 

So you are against profiting from artistic creations but not from factory labor? Why isn't creating and selling art properly a business operation?