Stage 9 gets cease and desist order from CBS

[Professor Zoom]

Yeah ideas don't exist except within our minds and cannot be punished for having them so of course when I say "idea" I mean "expression of an idea" in your language.

A novel exists. A song exists. A painting exists. These are expressions of an idea. They can be copyrightable.

If an element of one story is sufficiently similar to an element of another story somewhere in the world whether deliberately or by chance, opens the door for someone to pursue legal action. For example the cardassian Obsidian Order on Deep Space Nine was originally going to be called the "Gray Order" but once they learned that Babylon 5 was going to have a "Gray Council" they changed the name to "Obsidian Order".

A very good example of potential copyright infringement!

Yes that sounds like a problem for the author. But why should it be my problem?

You don't care about the author? You don't care if they have food to eat? I guess at most it's your problem because you like their art and at the very least because I assume you are a human being who cares about other people.

Maybe the government or some other entity could invent a way to compensate the author.

Hmm... a way to compensate the author... hmmm, like some sort of legal protection against theft? Like, say, a copyright?

It's not my fault things can be copied easily or people get replaced by technology in the work place.

If you are choosing to steal work without compensating the artist, it's your fault.
Do you hold no value to your favorite writer? Your favorite musician?
Because something is easy to do, doesn't mean it's right to do.
Again: you're sounding like an entitled child who is content to steal because they don't think it's a big deal. "No one is getting hurt." When, in fact, you put people's livelihoods into jeopardy.

There are so many newsrooms in the US that are struggling because everyone demands their news for free. A ton of local newspapers around the country are failing because people don't want to pay subscriptions because they feel, I guess, reporters should work for free.

 

[fireproof78]

You don't care about the author? You don't care if they have food to eat? I guess at most it's your problem because you like their art and at the very least because I assume you are a human being who cares about other people.

More that the work isn't of value. At least that's the arguments that are coming across in this particular venue.

 

[marsh8472]

You don't care about the author? You don't care if they have food to eat? I guess at most it's your problem because you like their art and at the very least because I assume you are a human being who cares about other people.

No one's forcing people to be artists either. If the price of having more entertainment produced from money hungry people is court battles, lawyers, high fines, jail time, prison overcrowding due to governments intellectual property laws then maybe having those particular artists doing something else more productive to society would be more preferable.

If you are choosing to steal work without compensating the artist, it's your fault.
Do you hold no value to your favorite writer? Your favorite musician?
Because something is easy to do, doesn't mean it's right to do.
Again: you're sounding like an entitled child who is content to steal because they don't think it's a big deal. "No one is getting hurt." When, in fact, you put people's livelihoods into jeopardy.

There are so many newsrooms in the US that are struggling because everyone demands their news for free. A ton of local newspapers around the country are failing because people don't want to pay subscriptions because they feel, I guess, reporters should work for free.

Copying and stealing are 2 different things. Yes yes and taxi's are going out of business because of uber. That's life.

 

[fireproof78]

No one's forcing people to be artists either. If the price of having more entertainment produced from money hungry people is court battles, lawyers, high fines, jail time, prison overcrowding due to governments intellectual property laws then maybe having those particular artists doing something else more productive to society would be more preferable.

Ah, we have now come full circle. Instead of being a free exchange of information there is now an advocacy for artists to no longer be artists and "contribute" to society. Art truly is worthless.

 

[marsh8472]

Ah, we have now come full circle. Instead of being a free exchange of information there is now an advocacy for artists to no longer be artists and "contribute" to society. Art truly is worthless.

Yea it's hard to find a use for art these days. It's unfortunate. Music and art are being cut from schools now.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/14/arts-programs-in-schools-often-in-danger-of-being-/ One creative way to make art useful that I can think of is drawing art for video games and having games that need to run off of a server that people can subscribe to like World of Warcraft. I don't envy the people who intend to make a living doing it.

 

[fireproof78]

Yea it's hard to find a use for art these days. It's unfortunate. Music and art are being cut from schools now.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/14/arts-programs-in-schools-often-in-danger-of-being-/ One creative way to make art useful that I can think of is drawing art for video games and having games that need to run off of a server that people can subscribe too like World of Warcraft. I don't envy the people who intend to make a living doing it.

Just proves the point of protecting content creators and their property. Especially in a day and age when stealing content is so common I'm surprised that rum sales haven't increased with all the piracy.

 

[Professor Zoom]

No one's forcing people to be artists either.

No one is forcing you to steal either.

If the price of having more entertainment produced from money hungry people is court battles, lawyers, high fines, jail time, prison overcrowding due to governments intellectual property laws then maybe having those particular artists doing something else more productive to society would be more preferable.

Prison overcrowding die to governments intellectual property laws?
You can't be serious with this line of reasoning, such as it is. Where are these overcrowded prisons full of people who have violated copyright? OH THE HUMANITY!

Copying and stealing are 2 different things. Yes yes and taxi's are going out of business because of uber. That's life.

If you don't have permission to make a copy, you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. That's stealing.

Yea it's hard to find a use for art these days. It's unfortunate. Music and art are being cut from schools now.

Yeah, it's a shame, it's almost as if people don't value art any more...

 

[marsh8472]

No one is forcing you to steal either.

If you had some media on a DVD and I physically took it then that's considered stealing. If I make a copy of the DVD where you still have the original then that's called copying.

One of Webster's definition of:
Stealing: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice.
Property: the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing
Take: to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control: such as to seize or capture physically

Making a copy of something isn't really taking it, it's copying it. It's called "property" artificially by the government. Calling it stealing is circular if we're talking about getting rid of intellectual property rights.

Prison overcrowding die to governments intellectual property laws?
You can't be serious with this line of reasoning, such as it is. Where are these overcrowded prisons full of people who have violated copyright? OH THE HUMANITY!

It contributes to the problem of prison overcrowding due to non-violent crimes like smoking pot.

If you don't have permission to make a copy, you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. That's stealing.

They can have permission with the First Amendment through communication on the internet. Or they get permission from whoever granted them access to copy whoever is sending them a copy. Or you can call it without permission because of the IP laws and then call it stealing because of that but it's just name-calling and circular again and "might makes right" logic.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, how dare we have laws to protect people from the misuse of personal property and the ability to profit from it.

 

[Sgt_G]

Not surprising, but some of the same people who are advocating elimination of copyright laws also want a 100% inheritance tax............

 

[marsh8472]

Yes, how dare we have laws to protect people from the misuse of personal property and the ability to profit from it.

But laws that violate the 8th amendment: " Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.".

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota-woman-songs-illegally-downloaded <-- $220,000 fine for 24 downloaded songs.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article45262635.html <-- 3 years in prison and fines for this guy for sharing music

They could keep it in the civil courts in cases of lost revenue or damage to reputation can be proven instead of making it into a criminal matter

 

[Professor Zoom]

If you had some media on a DVD and I physically took it then that's considered stealing. If I make a copy of the DVD where you still have the original then that's called copying.

And stealing.

One of Webster's definition of:
Stealing: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice.
Property: the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing
Take: to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control: such as to seize or capture physically

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property

Check out 2 c.
Copyright gives an artist legal title.

Making a copy of something isn't really taking it, it's copying it. It's called "property" artificially by the government. Calling it stealing is circular if we're talking about getting rid of intellectual property rights.

1. Artificially by the government? Lol. By that logic our rights and freedoms don’t really exist, as they are enshrined here in the US in the Constitution. (*whispers* just like copyrights). So if copyrights are artificial so is my right to vote and to free speech.

2. No one but silly people are seriously talking about getting rid of copyright laws.

It contributes to the problem of prison overcrowding due to non-violent crimes like smoking pot.

Uh huh. Sure. How many people have been incarcerated for copyright violations?

They can have permission with the First Amendment through communication on the internet.

I’m sorry the First Amendment is an “artificial” right. It’s not real.

But, seriously, because theft is easy, doesn’t make it right. Nor does the First Amendment, which protects you from the government, allow you to steal. Or shout fire in a crowded movie theater

Or they get permission from whoever granted them access to copy whoever is sending them a copy. Or you can call it without permission because of the IP laws and then call it stealing because of that but it's just name-calling and circular again and "might makes right" logic.

Lol. Who will think of the poor persecuted man who just wants to freely download his tv shows without having to pay for it! Woe is him. Sure, it costs money to make a tv show, but what about FREEDOM! And ease of copying!

 

[fireproof78]

But laws that violate the 8th amendment: " Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.".

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota-woman-songs-illegally-downloaded <-- $220,000 fine for 24 downloaded songs.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article45262635.html <-- 3 years in prison and fines for this guy for sharing music

They could keep it in the civil courts in cases of lost revenue or damage to reputation can be proven instead of making it into a criminal matter

Irrelevant to this topic. The point is that art has value, as it requires human effort, time, resources and/or money. This is demonstrable and has legal precedent. Now, copying essential is taking that time and rendering it worthless as it deprives the creator of potential profit, and of control of their property.

Ultimately, this comes down to power and control and a sense of entitlement towards franchise material. Individuals would be more protective of creative works if they realized that they actually have worth just like any other work. Unless individuals work for free?

Lol. Who will think of the poor persecuted man who just wants to freely download his tv shows without having to pay for it! Woe is him. Sure, it costs money to make a tv show, but what about FREEDOM! And ease of copying!

Clearly it isn't worth while to make it, so all art should be shut down to be more productive to society.​

 

[Jinn]

No one's forcing people to be artists either. If the price of having more entertainment produced from money hungry people is court battles, lawyers, high fines, jail time, prison overcrowding due to governments intellectual property laws then maybe having those particular artists doing something else more productive to society would be more preferable

That sounds like an awful society. The way I understand your argument it would lead to essentially all entertainment that can't be accessed freely to die. I don't know about you, but a lot of the entertainment I consume has to be paid for, like books, comics, video games, etc. Pretty much all of that would go away if your system would be implemented and people would actually use it.

 

[urbandefault]

In other words ...

 

[Sgt_G]

8th amendment: " Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." <-- $220,000 fine for 24 downloaded songs.

That wasn't a fine but rather punitive damages awarded by the jury in a civil suit. Huge difference.

Was it a stupid amount? Yes. But it wasn't a FINE, which is paid to the government; rather it was "damages" paid to the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit and won the case.

 

[marsh8472]

And stealing.

You're the one that wants to force people to pay for things that cost them almost $0 to copy. That sounds more like stealing to me.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property

Check out 2 c.
Copyright gives an artist legal title.

Yes but in the context of talking about whether copies of data should be considered owned by the original copy's author, calling it property to defend your claim of calling it stealing is circular. Or if you want to insist on calling it stealing I could just say, is stealing always wrong? "The reason you can't do it is because it's wrong" <-- that's all your saying when you call it stealing.

1. Artificially by the government? Lol. By that logic our rights and freedoms don’t really exist, as they are enshrined here in the US in the Constitution. (*whispers* just like copyrights). So if copyrights are artificial so is my right to vote and to free speech.

2. No one but silly people are seriously talking about getting rid of copyright laws.

Without having an entity to enforce those freedoms, they wouldn't exist. If you were in the wilderness surrounded by a pack of hungry wolves the constitution will not save you. But I don't have a problem with the First Amendment existing as a law. The idea of fairness is also artificial. That's why you don't need to get paid for something people don't have to pay for. If I go out to eat and don't leave a tip, that's okay and not stealing because I don't have to pay even if it may not be fair.

Uh huh. Sure. How many people have been incarcerated for copyright violations?

don't know, would have to research. Too many

I’m sorry the First Amendment is an “artificial” right. It’s not real.

But, seriously, because theft is easy, doesn’t make it right. Nor does the First Amendment, which protects you from the government, allow you to steal. Or shout fire in a crowded movie theater

Making generic versions of medication before a patent runs out is also illegal but 3rd world countries do it so that they can provide medications at cheaper prices rather than paying the patent owners. Right and wrong don't always correlate to legal and illegal either. Even if it's wrong, shouldn't make it illegal.

 

[Sgt_G]

 

[Professor Zoom]

You're the one that wants to force people to pay for things that cost them almost $0 to copy. That sounds more like stealing to me.

I’m not the one ignoring the value of the artist and their work to create the original. Just because it’s “cheap” to copy doesn’t mean it was cheap to create. Why do you insist on devaluing art and artists?

Yes but in the context of talking about whether copies of data should be considered owned by the original copy's author, calling it property to defend your claim of calling it stealing is circular.

Listen, I’m not the one that brought up Webster in an attempt to claim that intellectual property wasn’t really property. That was you. It’s not my fault, nor circular, that Webster also supports my argument.

Or if you want to insist on calling it stealing I could just say, is stealing always wrong? "The reason you can't do it is because it's wrong" <-- that's all your saying when you call it stealing.

Yes. Stealing is wrong. You might be doing it for “right” reasons—like to feed your family. But because it’s essy isn’t. You are stealing the livelihood out of someone else’s pocket—their ability to feed their family and all you can muster is a shrug.

Without having an entity to enforce those freedoms, they wouldn't exist.

That is true of every single law. So... what’s your point?

If you were in the wilderness surrounded by a pack of hungry wolves the constitution will not save you. But I don't have a problem with the First Amendment existing as a law.

Ok. Great. So? I don’t have a problem with copyright existing.

The idea of fairness is also artificial. That's why you don't need to get paid for something people don't have to pay for. If I go out to eat and don't leave a tip, that's okay and not stealing because I don't have to pay even if it may not be fair.

If you go out to eat and don’t pay for it, what would that be?

Do you honestly think that buying a book is the same as “tipping” the author?

don't know, would have to research. Too many

I can wait.

Making generic versions of medication before a patent runs out is also illegal but 3rd world countries do it so that they can provide medications at cheaper prices rather than paying the patent owners. Right and wrong don't always correlate to legal and illegal either. Even if it's wrong, shouldn't make it illegal.

1. Patent law is different. Patents run out long before copyright.

2. Do I wish that pharmacutical companies do better when it comes to poorer countries, of course. Do I think it’s ok to make illegal knock offs? No. Because it’s dangerous for one and illegal as well.

3. It can take 10 of millions of dollars to make that first pill. If they can’t recoup it, why would they spend 10s of millions of dollars? They have 15 years to make as much back as possible. No government has the resources to spend that sort of money and maybe come up with something.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes but in the context of talking about whether copies of data should be considered owned by the original copy's author, calling it property to defend your claim of calling it stealing is circular. Or if you want to insist on calling it stealing I could just say, is stealing always wrong? "The reason you can't do it is because it's wrong" <-- that's all your saying when you call it stealing.

Actually, you're infringing upon the content creator's First Amendment rights to control their speech (art is free speech after all) by stating that anyone can copy it without creator consent.

Never mind depriving a person fro making money off of their labor. You are asking the artist to work for free.