Internet Regulations

SixNein

Quote by Evo

Copying and downloading anything that is legally for sale without paying for it.

So would you disagree with fair use?

On a side note, have you ran down every single line of code your computer uses and ensured you have paid all patent licenses?

Evo

Quote by SixNein

So would you disagree with fair use?

On a side note, have you ran down every single line of code your computer uses and ensured you have paid all patent licenses?

Please go back and read the rest of what I said.

SixNein

Quote by Evo

It's theft. You are taking income away from the rightful owner. You're stealing money, removing income, by any name it's theft. When an employee "fixes" the books at work and moves "numbers" to other accounts, you think it's not theft? Authorities would disagree. I know you're going by what's being claimed online, I've seen the arguments, by the same authorities that claim doctoring numbers in a ledger is theft.

It's ridiculous to say because it's not physical it's not theft, and I know old laws are written that way. When a film is made, is it wrong to charge to see it? When music is recorded is it wrong to charge to hear it? When a book is written, is it wrong to charge to read it?

How else are artists to make their money? If everything they make is stolen, then we will have no more films, no more recordings, no more stories, because people can't make livings anymore.

Intellectual property is being stolen, and in this day and age, that can be worth much more than any piece of physical property.

According to me, Ryan, and the Supreme Court, it's not theft.

Copyrights have nothing to do about the decision of artists to sell or not sell their work. Copyrights are about exclusive rights over a work. For example, a music group like the beastie boys is impossible today because they sampled a lot of their music. Today, a group like that simply couldn't exist because copyrights are very strong.

SixNein

Quote by Evo

That's incorrect, search engines like google just help you find things, they have nothing to do with accessing it.

Search engines like google build very large databases of other people's content. You can go right now and do a search for images, and you will see images pop up from all over the web.

Here are some images associated with physicsforums.com that google happily serves up.

https://www.google.com/search?q=phys...w=1920&bih=946

In fact, you could find numerous examples of copyright and trademark violations just from images being posted all over the forum. For example, someone posts a picture of their kids holding a Pepsi is a violation of IP. People have to either blotch out the logo or put tape over it. A youtube video with that tv playing in the background is violating copyrights.

Evo

Quote by SixNein

Search engines like google build very large databases of other people's content. You can go right now and do a search for images, and you will see images pop up from all over the web.

Here are some images associated with physicsforums.com that google happily serves up.

https://www.google.com/search?q=phys...w=1920&bih=946

In fact, you could find numerous examples of copyright and trademark violations just from images being posted. For example, someone posts a picture of their kids holding a Pepsi is a violation of IP.

Yeah, that's what I said, search engines find things.

Evo

Quote by SixNein

According to me, Ryan, and the Supreme Court, it's not theft.

Copyrights have nothing to do about the decision of artists to sell or not sell their work. Copyrights are about exclusive rights over a work. For example, a music group like the beastie boys is impossible today because they sampled a lot of their music. Today, a group like that simply couldn't exist because copyrights are very strong.

And I'm saying that the definition of theft will need to be changed.

Did you read through the thread before posting?

SixNein

Quote by Evo

Yeah, that's what I said, search engines find things.

Those images are stored on Google servers. If they weren't, then google would be profiting off of other people's bandwidth.

Evo

Quote by SixNein

Those images are stored on Google servers. If they weren't, then google would be profiting off of other people's bandwidth.

They're a search engine, of course the search page is on google's servers, did you expect it to be somewhere else?

What does this have to do with the misunderstanding the member had?

Today something has been published on the Web if and only if the search engines like Google can read and list it

SixNein

Quote by Evo

They're a search engine, of course the search page is on google's servers, did you expect it to be somewhere else?

What does this have to do with the misunderstanding the member had?

I'm trying to figure out a way to explain to you in a convincing way why I'm not a fan-boy of copyrights, and I was trying to use Google as an example. Google is arguable committing copyright infringement. But let me drop this approach and try a more straight forward approach:

I suppose my greatest concern with intellectual property is how it allows people to control, through exclusive rights, the building blocks of knowledge. For example, mathematics can be both patented and copyrighted when it is employed on a computer (Something that concerns me GREATLY). In addition, there has been a long history of continuous extensions to the term of copyright protection and also the scope of such protection. Also, there is little consideration given to how a copyright effects the public in the long term. The only consideration being given is corporate profits.

To provide an example, suppose I created a software program. I would own the copyrights to the program for my entire life and even 50 years after my death. And this assumes that congress does not decide to extend copyrights yet again in the meantime (And congress has a long history of periodically doing exactly that). Even patents provide a 20 year protection, and software qualifies for both copyright and patent protection. In a basic nutshell, I have been granted exclusive rights over what is likely well beyond the lifetime of the actual usefulness of the product. And the public will be unable to so much as create an extension to my software without my permission. Quite frankly, we aren't talking about me making some profit for my troubles. We are talking about my great grandchildren having exclusive control over something I made long after I've turned to dust.

My opinion is that monopolies shouldn't be handed out so freely. They should be rare and limited in scope and span; otherwise, the real theft is theft of the public. (Theft is still a bad word for it)

Drakkith

I'm not seeing the problem SixNein.

Astronuc

Here is a reasonable perspective on copyright infringement.

Call it What You Will, Copyright Infringement is “Theft”
http://www.jonathanpinkesq.com/call-...ement-is-theft

Ref: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17

Note:
■CHAPTER 1—SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT (§§ 101–122)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1
■CHAPTER 5—COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES (§§ 501–513)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-5

SixNein

Quote by Astronuc

Here is a reasonable perspective on copyright infringement.

Call it What You Will, Copyright Infringement is “Theft”
http://www.jonathanpinkesq.com/call-...ement-is-theft

Ref: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17

Note:
■CHAPTER 1—SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT (§§ 101–122)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1
■CHAPTER 5—COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES (§§ 501–513)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-5

I disagree about the perspective in link #1 as being reasonable. Instead, the perspective is from an Attorney making a sales pitch to potential clients.

According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School, the widespread use of the term “intellectual property” is a fashion that followed the 1967 founding of the World “Intellectual Property” Organization (WIPO), and only became really common in recent years. (WIPO is formally a UN organization, but in fact represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents, and trademarks.) Wide use dates from around 1990. (Local image copy)

The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the bias introduced by the term “intellectual property” suits them.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml

Evo

Sixnein, what I am discussing is simply the theft of artistic products - music, films, literature, where profits due the artists are stolen from them. That's all. Something needs to be done to address this as more and more of these products are produced/made available through the internet instead of traditional physical products.

TheMadMonk

Quote by Evo

And I'm saying that the definition of theft will need to be changed.

Why, what benefit does changing the definition of theft in a jurisdiction achieve? Seems like a complete waste of time to me. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. It isn't theft in any of the legal systems in the UK yet that doesn't prevent action being taken against those who infringe upon the copyright of others. There is simply no need to change the definition of theft, at least where I live.

nazarbaz

With the current Internet Infrastructure, it's a lost cause. The business must live with it. Here in France, they charge 15 to 20 euros for a music album on average (I heard that it's a bit cheaper in the US). I don't see how an average teenager could get access to the music he likes. That's the real theft : most of it goes to the industry, not the artists.
You're not going to change the actual trend with moral or legal injunctions while the authorities lack the means to enforce them.

Evo

Quote by TheMadMonk

Why, what benefit does changing the definition of theft in a jurisdiction achieve? Seems like a complete waste of time to me. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. It isn't theft in any of the legal systems in the UK yet that doesn't prevent action being taken against those who infringe upon the copyright of others. There is simply no need to change the definition of theft, at least where I live.

The problem is that it is broken. The laws are outdated and don't address the current problems. Due to the internet, there are new types of theft and the laws need to be re-written to include them.

Drakkith

Quote by nazarbaz

With the current Internet Infrastructure, it's a lost cause. The business must live with it. Here in France, they charge 15 to 20 euros for a music album on average (I heard that it's a bit cheaper in the US). I don't see how an average teenager could get access to the music he likes. That's the real theft : most of it goes to the industry, not the artists.

Theft? No. It takes a great many people to make any major star successful. Those people work hard and deserve a paycheck too.

As for teenagers not being able to afford the music they like, well, welcome to life.

Similar Threads for: Internet Regulations
Thread	Forum	Replies
Safety regulations for motorcycle frames	Automotive Engineering	14
Federal regulations on privacy may be coming soon	Social Sciences	0
Cost of Regulations?	Nuclear Engineering	6
Credit card regulations	Current Events	3
Research and Regulations	Biology	13

Drakkith Recognitions: Gold Member	I'm not seeing the problem SixNein.

Evo Mentor Blog Entries: 4	Sixnein, what I am discussing is simply the theft of artistic products - music, films, literature, where profits due the artists are stolen from them. That's all. Something needs to be done to address this as more and more of these products are produced/made available through the internet instead of traditional physical products.