The next 'war on drugs'...

[mouse]

The purpose of copyrights and copyright law is to make intellectual property tangible.

Making an exact duplicate of a song without permission is stealing the intellectual property.

So if convicted, we spend time in Cyber jail?

[Useruser666]

The purpose of copyrights and copyright law is to make intellectual property tangible.

Making an exact duplicate of a song without permission is stealing the intellectual property.

You quoted me, but i don't feel what you stated relates to anything that I said.

If what you do can be duplicated at nearly no cost to anyone, and absolutely at none to you, why should you be rewarded for it? Before music could be recorded and sold on some type of media, how did artists make money, live performances? Now that the media is no longer needed, it's a difficult argument for you to make to me that they should profit from something that costs them nothing. I agree that it should be illegal to make a profit from the sale of the works, but not much more than that. It is a false sense of worth that has been exposed by technological advancement.

[Blake]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Cons ution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Nothing about making "intellectual property tangible" there...

I didn't reference the Cons ution. Why would you think I did?

Copyrights have been around before it and the term intellectual property came long after.

[Blake]

You quoted me, but i don't feel what you stated relates to anything that I said.

Yeah, you mentioned the grape being a tangible item.

If what you do can be duplicated at nearly no cost to anyone, and absolutely at none to you, why should you be rewarded for it?

Seriously?

One of the best answers to this question is specifically stated in the section of the Cons ution that ElNono just quoted.

[ElNono]

I didn't reference the Cons ution. Why would you think I did?

Who claimed you did?

Copyrights have been around before it and the term intellectual property came long after.

And? That Cons utional mandate became the law of the land and voided anything else coming before it as far as the US is concerned (like the British copyright laws).

As far as that cons utional mandate is concerned, your contention that the purpose of copyright and copyright laws is to make "intellectual property tangible" is factually incorrect.

[Useruser666]

Yeah, you mentioned the grape being a tangible item.



Seriously?

One of the best answers to this question is specifically stated in the section of the Cons ution that ElNono just quoted.

Well first off, I'm not ElNono.

Second, when was that section written? Before or after the internet's birth?

Third, does making a copy at no cost and not making a profit from said copy reduce the author/inventor rights? To get a bit more to the point, it’s the right to profit from their work.

For example, recorded media was an invention that allowed artists (really record companies) to sell copies of their work without having to perform live. This was a boon to the industry. Before this, I would assume they were paid only for live shows. Now, digital media/the internet has reduced the value of recorded media. Artists may not sell as many physical/digital copies as before as the value of the media has been reduced. The right to profit from the work should be protected, but you can’t artificially inflate the value of an antiquated medium.

Times have changed.

[Spurminator]

You quoted me, but i don't feel what you stated relates to anything that I said.

You'll have to excuse Blake, he's clearly out of his league here. He can't even keep up with what HE'S saying.

[ElNono]

You'll have to excuse Blake, he's clearly out of his league here. He can't even keep up with what HE'S saying.

I'll save him what's likely going to be his reply:

crofl you lil pirate, you

[velik_m]

The Evil New Tactic Behind Anonymous’ Massive Megaupload Revenge Attack

The hacktivist collective Anonymous is in the middle of a huge revenge spree after the Feds shut down popular filesharing site Megaupload today. But they're using an evil new tactic that tricks people into helping their attack if they click an innocuous link.

The Department of Justice, MPAA and Universal Music websites have all been taken down in the past hour as part of Operation Megaupload, which is shaping up to be the biggest Anonymous campaign in months.

Here's one reason they've been able to muster so much firepower: Anonymous members are distributing a link that ropes internet users into an illegal DDoS attack against these websites simply by clicking it. The link is being shared widely on Twitter and in Anonymous chat rooms, often with no context except that it relates to Operation Megaload. I clicked it a few minutes ago because it was being spammed in an Anonymous chatroom and found myself instantly DDoSing Universalmusic.com, my computer rapidly pinging the page with no way to stop except quickly closing the window.
...

http://gawker.com/5877707/

[Wild Cobra]

The Evil New Tactic Behind Anonymous’ Massive Megaupload Revenge Attack

The hacktivist collective Anonymous is in the middle of a huge revenge spree after the Feds shut down popular filesharing site Megaupload today. But they're using an evil new tactic that tricks people into helping their attack if they click an innocuous link.

The Department of Justice, MPAA and Universal Music websites have all been taken down in the past hour as part of Operation Megaupload, which is shaping up to be the biggest Anonymous campaign in months.

Here's one reason they've been able to muster so much firepower: Anonymous members are distributing a link that ropes internet users into an illegal DDoS attack against these websites simply by clicking it. The link is being shared widely on Twitter and in Anonymous chat rooms, often with no context except that it relates to Operation Megaload. I clicked it a few minutes ago because it was being spammed in an Anonymous chatroom and found myself instantly DDoSing Universalmusic.com, my computer rapidly pinging the page with no way to stop except quickly closing the window.
...

http://gawker.com/5877707/

And these people expect us to support them when thy place viruses on our computers?

Shows they do need shut down!

[Blake]

Who claimed you did?

so you posted a part of the Cons ution that nobody asked for in order to show where "intellectual property" isn't located.

And? That Cons utional mandate became the law of the land and voided anything else coming before it as far as the US is concerned (like the British copyright laws).

As far as that cons utional mandate is concerned, your contention that the purpose of copyright and copyright laws is to make "intellectual property tangible" is factually incorrect.

I didn't say that making "intellectual property" tangible was cons utionally mandated. Again, I never mentioned the Consitution to you.

I'm guessing by your previous response though that this is just another post where you are letting us know where something that nobody asked for isn't located.

[Blake]

Well first off, I'm not ElNono.

Right. I thought it was pretty clear I was talking to you regarding your specific question.

Second, when was that section written? Before or after the internet's birth?

Before.

Third, does making a copy at no cost and not making a profit from said copy reduce the author/inventor rights? To get a bit more to the point, it’s the right to profit from their work.

The potential is there, but it's really an irrelevant argument.

Whether an artist has the intention to make a profit off of his creation or not, if he says you can't copy it, then you can't.

If you do, you are stealing it.

It really is very simple.

[Blake]

You'll have to excuse Blake, he's clearly out of his league here. He can't even keep up with what HE'S saying.

I've kept up with what I'm saying.

I've kept up with what you are saying too, Long John.

[Blake]

I'll save him what's likely going to be his reply:

crofl you lil pirate, you

Close, no cigar.

[Useruser666]

Right. I thought it was pretty clear I was talking to you regarding your specific question.



Before.



The potential is there, but it's really an irrelevant argument.

Whether an artist has the intention to make a profit off of his creation or not, if he says you can't copy it, then you can't.

If you do, you are stealing it.

It really is very simple.

I disagree that it’s irrelevant and also disagree that copying = stealing.
Example:
I buy a cd. I allow others to copy it for free. In this case the work was purchased from the
IP creator and that purchased item was the one copied. The copy has no value so can there be theft?

And I also disagree that it is simple. So 3 for 3 I guess. lol

[Agloco]

I disagree that it’s irrelevant and also disagree that copying = stealing.
Example:
I buy a cd. I allow others to copy it for free. In this case the work was purchased from the
IP creator and that purchased item was the one copied. The copy has no value so can there be theft?

And I also disagree that it is simple. So 3 for 3 I guess. lol

I'm not making an argument one way or the other here. I'm simply asking about what might be a literal vs figurative translation of the word "value".

From my perspective, the copy must have value or it would not have been created in the first place. Granted, that value is limited to the person(s) requesting the copy I suppose.....

My question is then, about what is the sense in which we talk about value? What metric do we use to determine it? I know some posts hinted at tangible vs intellectual property. Is that the central question being debated here?

Apologies if the question seems a bit off, it's just that I'm not versed on Cons utional law whatsoever. I also didn't have time to review all of the posts here.

[Blake]

I disagree that it’s irrelevant and also disagree that copying = stealing.

You and many others have made that quite clear.

Example:
I buy a cd. I allow others to copy it for free. In this case the work was purchased from the
IP creator and that purchased item was the one copied. The copy has no value so can there be theft?

You are allowing others to walk away with property that they don't have the right to take.

As has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread, from a legal jargon standpoint, the law does not look at that as theft.

From a plain dictionary standpoint, I look at it as theft. From a common sense standpoint, I think it's silly to suggest it's not.

[Blake]

I'm simply asking about what might be a literal vs figurative translation of the word "value".

From my perspective, the copy must have value or it would not have been created in the first place. Granted, that value is limited to the person(s) requesting the copy I suppose.....

If there is a copyright on the CD, then the copyright holder has placed a value on it greater than zero, be it monetary, sentimental or any other kind of value.

[ElNono]

so you posted a part of the Cons ution that nobody asked for in order to show where "intellectual property" isn't located.

I posted an example of purpose of Copyright that flies in the face of your claim. It's understandable you don't like that.

I didn't say that making "intellectual property" tangible was cons utionally mandated. Again, I never mentioned the Consitution to you.

Is your argument that I'm wrong? If it is, let's see your argument for "the purpose of Copyright and Copyright laws is to make intellectual property tangible".

[ElNono]

I'm not making an argument one way or the other here. I'm simply asking about what might be a literal vs figurative translation of the word "value".

From my perspective, the copy must have value or it would not have been created in the first place. Granted, that value is limited to the person(s) requesting the copy I suppose.....

My question is then, about what is the sense in which we talk about value? What metric do we use to determine it? I know some posts hinted at tangible vs intellectual property. Is that the central question being debated here?

Apologies if the question seems a bit off, it's just that I'm not versed on Cons utional law whatsoever. I also didn't have time to review all of the posts here.

I think this is where things get murky. I understand that if the copyright holder decided to give out a complimentary copy at a loss (happens all the time, for example, with loss leaders), it's very likely that copy represents a lost sale for him. I just don't necessarily agree that such dynamic translates, in all cases, to unauthorized copies. I think there's instances where some people are fully aware of the legal nature of the copy they obtained, and do reward the IP creator. There's many reasons to see how this would work (CuckingFunt was giving an example before, where certain material wasn't available on the format he/she wanted/needed).

And this isn't pointing towards justifying anything. Everybody pretty much knows what they're doing and what the consequences of such actions are.

[Blake]

I posted an example of purpose of Copyright that flies in the face of your claim. It's understandable you don't like that.

lol flies in the face

I figured it would be understood that if it is impossible to physically touch intangible property that it would therefore be impossible for the law to allow a person to touch it.

Is your argument that I'm wrong? If it is, let's see your argument for "the purpose of Copyright and Copyright laws is to make intellectual property tangible".

.....The term intellectual property can be found used in an October 1845 Massachusetts Circuit Court ruling in the patent case Davoll et al. v. Brown., in which Justice Charles L. Woodbury wrote that "only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests are as much a man's own...as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." (1 Woodb. & M. 53, 3 West.L.J. 151, 7 F.Cas. 197, No. 3662, 2 Robb.Pat.Cas. 303, Merw.Pat.Inv. 414).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

/your face

[ElNono]

I figured it would be understood that if it is impossible to physically touch intangible property that it would therefore be impossible for the law to allow a person to touch it.

So why do you make such a claim if you already know it's bull ?

/your face

I still don't see any Copyright mandate or Copyright law expressing that it's purpose is to make intellectual property tangible... let me know when you find that.

crofl still flying in your face

[boutons_deux]

Despite social media campaign, Lamar Smith moving on SOPA

Despite a public relations victory for the tech industry against online piracy bills, a San Antonio lawmaker at the center of the firestorm vowed Thursday to continue with legislation targeting foreign websites selling counterfeit U.S. goods.

Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he bowed to pressure and removed the most contentious measure in the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA.

And even with a crescendo of criticism that the bill will foster censorship and an expansion of law enforcement power, Smith said: “I am prepared to move forward.”

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-o...oving-on-sopa/

===============

PIPA Vote: Sen. Harry Reid Postpones Vote, Seeking Compromise On Anti-Piracy Bill

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Friday morning that he would postpone a vote Tuesday on the Protect I.P. Act (PIPA).

"In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday’s vote on the PROTECT I.P. Act," he said in a statement. "There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved. Counterfeiting and piracy cost the American economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs each year, with the movie industry alone supporting over 2.2 million jobs. We must take action to stop these illegal practices. We live in a country where people rightfully expect to be fairly compensated for a day’s work, whether that person is a miner in the high desert of Nevada, an independent band in New York City, or a union worker on the back lots of a California movie studio."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) urged Reid to shelve the bill Thursday. The bill lost several prominent supporters, including many original co-sponsors, on Wednesday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...=Daily%20Brief

[Blake]

So why do you make such a claim if you already know it's bull ?

I still stand by what I said. For future reference, feel free to ask for clarification if you don't get it.

To clarify: because ideas aren't tangible, people wanted a way to give their ideas substance.

I still don't see any Copyright mandate or Copyright law expressing that it's purpose is to make intellectual property tangible... let me know when you find that.

I never said there was a law stating such purpose. Did you think I did?

If not, then once again, you are coming up with things that nobody said, nobody alluded to and nobody asked for.

I did quote an SC Justice that stated purpose for copyright law, comparing intangible property to tangible property.

Justice's opinion > ElNono's opinion

still /yourface

[mouse]

I wonder if i SHARE this topic with others on another site if Blake will report me for stealing.