Movie industry demands US law requiring ISPs to block piracy websites
Movie industry demands US law requiring ISPs to block piracy websites
Opponents say SOPA-like proposal would block plenty of legitimate websites.
You're viewing part of a thread.
It's really not. A pair of shoes has one owner by its nature we can't both wear it. If I take yours you can no longer wear it. Because valuables are locked up the only way to take it is usually to commit some other crime like breaking into your house or your locker or assaulting your person.
Copyright isn't something I agreed to or even had any meaningful say in its something lawmakers promised they wouldn't let happen on my behalf without any input from me before I was born. Rather than enforcing the safety of my person and home against removal of my property it says that you own certain combinations of words and even if I use my paper and ink to write them as soon as I write enough similar words it becomes your property. Moreso than just not being an enforcement of the inherently exclusive nature of physical property it is a violation of it because it assigns my physical property to you.
Sorry, but you wrote with many letters something which doesn't say how it becomes honest that you get a thing or a knowledge on very specific conditions and then violate them with the intention to do that.
IANAL
Physical property can not be copied, so if physical property is taken, then the physical property can be stolen.
Digital property can be copied, so if it's copied, you no longer have a single instance of said property, you now have the original property and the copied property.
Can we actually say with absolute affirmation that it is theft if a good is copied, regardless of what the law states? Is it moral or immoral to copy a good? Can we equate it to actual physical theft of property and state that it has the same level of immorality that allegedly causes harm?
This is where Intellectual Property and Copyright play a role. Copyright is a License granted to use a service or medium of an original work. Anything that can be duplicated, copied, or otherwise easily reproduced without affecting physical removal isn't necessarily theft. The harm that's typically claimed is that of affected income.
If I file for a trademark for a Logo, Character, or otherwise recognizable branding, then it "can be said" that "I own said 'property'". At this point, it becomes trademarked intellectual property. That's how and why someone that "owns an IP for a character" can sue someone else for use of said "intellectual property".
Typically, when someone wants to access said "property", they need to "pay to gain access" or "gain permission for use", e.g. a License.
I can only go off of what I've read from official sources. Regardless, I think it's immoral to own an idea. It would be more beneficial to share with society than to hoard ideas that are essentially copyable and easily reproducible mediums of information. It doesn't cost anything to copy, reproduce, and redistribute the copyable good.
I think a solid middle ground that would benefit both individuals and society as a whole would be to enforce attribution, but not property rights upon non-physical goods or services, e.g. only require accreditation for critical services like health care, insurance, banking, electrical, etc.
For example, Owning the intellectual property for, let's say, a camera for over 75 years and requiring anyone that produces a camera to pay royalties is absurd. Anyone should be able to produce and distribute a camera. Owning the idea for how to create a camera, allowing that to affect anyone that can, and does, produce a camera is immoral, even if it is lawful.
The nuances of how this is considered is open to debate.
Still not talking about what I said.
If you’ve promised to not copy to get what you copy - it’s quite close.
You never promised to not copy anything. You were given a copy, are allowed to create copies, but agreed to not distribute copies for income.
I can purchase a book, copy the book for my own use and purpose, but not redistribute copies of the book, especially for income. Once the distribution process affects income, then it's claimed to be harmful.
With software you accept an EULA. It's just a technicality due to the law being in place with books and movies, so it's implicitly considered your obligation there, which is, I agree, not nice.
You'll just have an EULA for books and movies to accept.
Your arguments for that situation?
EDIT: Also I don't get how it's still not a condition violated. Don't see any decipherable arguments except for silent downvotes.
Except when you didn't even agree to EULA. For example you buy laptop that comes with windows preinstalled and dump disk without launching windows. Or you use public computer(for example in library). In neither examples EULA was accepted.
You'll just have an EULA for books and movies to accept.
Also there is no such thing.