EPT
Infringement by Streaming might become a Felony - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
yrba1
United States325 Posts
| ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
On June 16 2011 10:01 cfoy3 wrote: I think some people here are being a little ridiculous. I mean corporation's have rights too. Hollywood spends a lot of money making quality entertainment. They need revenue. If this law starts to clamp down on the illegal streaming of entertainment, such as tv shows, then I think its a good thing. If we do not make the business of producing entertainment profitable, then their wont be a business. No, you dont understand. The artificial scarcity is twhat is ridiculous. It is purely evil, due to enforcement of violence over rights that no one need have. | ||
|
Nothing-to-No-One
United States15 Posts
This law is a pure act of greed. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On June 16 2011 10:21 Nothing-to-No-One wrote: Why should a minority profit from it currency wise when the whole world could be enriched by it? Don't you realize that if a minority couldn't profit from it then it wouldn't exist in the first place and thus the world wouldn't be enriched by it anyway? | ||
|
tok
United States691 Posts
Don't worry about this if you aren't a criminal you should have nothing to hide. | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
| ||
|
Nothing-to-No-One
United States15 Posts
Don't you realize that if a minority couldn't profit from it then it wouldn't exist in the first place and thus the world wouldn't be enriched by it anyway? Since when was the speed of sound $19.99? There is no equation that relates the physical being of sound waves to what is charged for them. You cannot say what would motivate a person in such a way. The fact that there is a long list of artists who post their music for free on line is the only argument I need against you. Digital music is no hard product and should not be sold as such. What if God started charging for births(clearly to religious people). What if parents charged their children for limbs as clearly they're the ones who gave them to their child. Just because someone can make money off of making sharing wrong doesn't mean you should. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
On June 16 2011 10:10 xarthaz wrote: Intellectual property is cancer to society. It creates scarcity and conflict where none is necessary. Media can be peacefully and globally shared without anyone pointing a gun toward someone else. It is purely barbaric to punish people for using content that takes nothing away from anyone else. No, you dont understand. The artificial scarcity is twhat is ridiculous. It is purely evil, due to enforcement of violence over rights that no one need have. You know theres easier way to let people know youre a moron. People who have issues with IP are either children, have the mental capacity of children, or never able to grasp the idea of actually creating somethign for profit. Some of us worked hard not to be minimum wage fry makers like you. | ||
|
Nothing-to-No-One
United States15 Posts
People who have issues with IP are either children, have the mental capacity of children, or never able to grasp the idea of actually creating somethign for profit. Some of us worked hard not to be minimum wage fry makers like you. You are raised in a society that has such a firm belief of monetary value you can't imagine any other way of living. You are narrow minded and theres no reason to insult the children. ALSO.....music (rarely)makes money not food water shelter or safety..... | ||
|
qdenser
Canada133 Posts
On June 16 2011 10:50 abominare wrote: You know theres easier way to let people know youre a moron. People who have issues with IP are either children, have the mental capacity of children, or never able to grasp the idea of actually creating somethign for profit. Some of us worked hard not to be minimum wage fry makers like you. whoa there put down the copy of ayn rand, step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath. isn't oxygen calming? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On June 16 2011 10:47 Nothing-to-No-One wrote: Since when was the speed of sound $19.99? There is no equation that relates the physical being of sound waves to what is charged for them. You cannot say what would motivate a person in such a way. The fact that there is a long list of artists who post their music for free on line is the only argument I need against you. Digital music is no hard product and should not be sold as such. What if God started charging for births(clearly to religious people). What if parents charged their children for limbs as clearly they're the ones who gave them to their child. Just because someone can make money off of making sharing wrong doesn't mean you should. If you don't think that copyright infringement stifles creativity and innovation then you are just wrong. Do you think Hollywood is going to spend $300 million to make a movie that they lose money on? | ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
On June 16 2011 10:54 qdenser wrote: whoa there put down the copy of ayn rand, step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath. isn't oxygen calming? I er, uh, you know what you obviously didn't read her work so I'm not going to explain why you fail at trying to use that joke. Ayn Rand was also and idiot. IP laws are a requirement of a capitalist society regardless, you can't have a functional western marketplace without them. I mean sure we can totally go back several thousand years to an agrarian city state society but I like how it is now. | ||
|
Nothing-to-No-One
United States15 Posts
If you don't think that copyright infringement stifles creativity and innovation then you are just wrong. Do you think Hollywood is going to spend $300 million to make a movie that they lose money on? Since when the hell was Hollywood the only ones who made movies? And your missing my point. I am arguing that the sale of a file that can be copied with much ease is a largely less legitimate business then the sale of a theater ticket. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On June 16 2011 10:21 Nothing-to-No-One wrote: They do not deserve to profit off of something that can be so easily shared. The Internet is a resource and this limits that resource. Why should a minority profit from it currency wise when the whole world could be enriched by it? Individual greed sabotages mankind as a whole. I hate a world in which sharing is considered wrong. The whole reason theft is illegal is because it removes an item from the person who worked to acquire it. This lets everyone have an item someone worked to acquire. Imagine being able to have one person work, keep his original, and share his creation with the world. This law is a pure act of greed. What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property. An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence. The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal. | ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
On June 16 2011 11:05 OsoVega wrote: What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property. An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence. The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal. A-La the prime functions of a governnment to define liberties, protect property, and secure safety for its citizens. You know john locke, this wasnt a hard concept to grasp hundreds of years ago. If history has taught us anything the preservation of original thought is an important one, to not protect it stifles creativity by removing the most desireable of motivations for it. Without it you end up a defunct country with a meme attached to it. | ||
|
Nothing-to-No-One
United States15 Posts
An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence. So shouldn't whoever made the camera's a movie was filmed with get royalties for enabling a creation to exist. Go back through history and we all owe everything we have to cumulative knowledge and culture. This knowledge and culture snowballed through the generations. Why should we hinder this snowball by giving the exclusive rights of an object to someone? It is for the good of mankind that whenever something can easily be shared that it is. This will advance us as a race and not just pay someone. | ||
|
naonao
United States847 Posts
On June 16 2011 11:04 Nothing-to-No-One wrote: Since when the hell was Hollywood the only ones who made movies? And your missing my point. I am arguing that the sale of a file that can be copied with much ease is a largely less legitimate business then the sale of a theater ticket. Do you think game companies would continue making games if they simply gave it away for free? Do you think software companies will continue producing software if its for free? These are items that are simply files which you can easy copy and distribute. | ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
Or companies could try doing something like changing their business model to include online streaming, like netflix and nbc. I hope to god every day that cable networks go out of business so maybe I can just pay for tv that I want online instead of their entire shitty network. If we do not make their business profitable, then they will change their business. Which is a good thing. Amazing, even. I do agree with you. They should do all those things and more, but what they should do is not at issue. What is at issue is whether what we are doing, the streaming of their intellectually profitable is right. Even though I like to stream, I have to admit that its morally wrong. If I want to watch their property I should pay for it.Again, I think you are right they should change their bussiness model, but not based on the fact that we the people steal their property. | ||
|
KomradeKevin
United States88 Posts
On June 16 2011 10:29 BlackJack wrote: Don't you realize that if a minority couldn't profit from it then it wouldn't exist in the first place and thus the world wouldn't be enriched by it anyway? Einstein did not study physics for a profit. The Wright Brothers did not invent flight to make money from it. The best inventions/innovations in the world today were not spawned by desire to make money. Starting to get into why capitalism is not the most efficient way to share resources and provide for the most people possible. The artists don't actually make the amount they should because it gets diluted through an unnecessary corporate structure with too many people being bosses and not enough providing a service or creating a good. Basically copyrights only exist as a way of censoring what thoughts make it to public back when literacy became more common. They claim it is about money but the people saying that have plenty. It is about control and power. They need to stop instituting bandwidth caps and trying to pass legislation to keep internet streaming lower percentage of bandwidth usage. Streaming video is currently 20% of the world's bandwidth. And during peak times in the US it can get much higher. They can't figure out a way to make streaming profitable compared to the companies and individuals who already are. They are scared that their companies will die. If companies are not allowed to go by the waste-side when they are no longer useful/profitable then you take away the very basis of capitalism(free market) but keep the bad side effects or real world capitalism like the only motivation being money instead of improving society in some way. These ever increasing copyright laws are similar to not allowing the starving people in the world eat because they don't have money. There is no food shortage, there is a money shortage in Africa. If they had money, they would not be starving. There is plenty of extra in the first world but it costs money. You cannot listen to that song or hear that speech or watch that sport because you don't have enough money even though it costs almost nothing to stream it and they can get ad revenue still. Think about it, who steals a bunch of music or food if they have the money to pay for it to begin with? Of course people would rather be able to pay but it is not always possible. The problem being that even though the ability, technology, and manpower exist, if the money isn't there neither is whatever could have been. An example of this would be the lack of true high speed fiber optics throughout the US. No reason it isn't there yet other than the money for it isn't there. Isolated areas are still choosing satellite or dial up because they do not represent a big enough customer base to justify allowing them access to the internet. There is still cable tv in a lot of these areas here in Kansas, but the cable companies don't offer internet, only tv. At what point do they really need more money and at what point can we learn to share? Information should be free. We should stop holding back our own development because of a lack of money, which was created to make trade easier, it is now not necessary and only creates problems. On a side note, we have the technology, raw materials, and manpower to replace 50% of all jobs by computers/robots. The reason we cannot do this is because how would that 50% be able to pay for things if they have been replaced? This is why we are in the beginning of the next stage in human evolution. I can't wait until a system like the Federation of Planets is our governing body and educating the youth is a top priority. | ||
|
Nothing-to-No-One
United States15 Posts
Do you think game companies would continue making games if they simply gave it away for free? Do you think software companies will continue producing software if its for free? These are items that are simply files which you can easy copy and distribute. Everyone will die. All the money and wealth you accumulate when you are gone won't be in your possession. Money, objects, items all go away but what sticks are the things you do that enable your fellow humans. It is selfish and goes against the best wishes of the human race to only allow people privileged enough to be born into a scenario where they can pursue a decent job access to an idea and even more so to prevent them from expanding on it. Single minded selfishness hinders world wide development. | ||
| ||
