OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion

[Phoenix-D]

Originally posted by PvK:
[qb] One objection to this is that "property" should not include "intellectual property", a modern abomination championed by media cartels. Whether an idea, song, or any piece of infomation, even the digital representation of a motion picture or a computer program, can ever be "property", is an open legal and societal question. The mainstream and corporate western convention may have said so recently, but technology is tending to make it impossible, impractical, and extremely counter-productive, to view as property. Once our society finds a better way to reward creators and allows free distribution of published content, we can stop jealously hoarding our music, literature, software, ideas, etc., and take full advantage of them.QB]

Like what, PvK? I as of current see no reliable way to ensure creators get paid for their work other than to not allow access unless they ARE paid.

EDIT: oh, and Fryon I misread that. Sorry.

[ December 04, 2003, 01:45: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by PvK:
One objection to this is that "property" should not include "intellectual property", a modern abomination championed by media cartels. Whether an idea, song, or any piece of infomation, even the digital representation of a motion picture or a computer program, can ever be "property", is an open legal and societal question. The mainstream and corporate western convention may have said so recently, but technology is tending to make it impossible, impractical, and extremely counter-productive, to view as property. Once our society finds a better way to reward creators and allows free distribution of published content, we can stop jealously hoarding our music, literature, software, ideas, etc., and take full advantage of them.

Which would require the copyright owners relinquishing their rights to their creations to the public domain, which makes downloading them for free no longer an issue of theft at all. It still does not change the fact that music etc. can be copyrighted, thus making acquiring it illegally be stealing it.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
...
Like what, PvK? I as of current see no reliable way to ensure creators get paid for their work other than to not allow access unless they ARE paid.
...

We've had at least one other long thread about my suggestions for other ways, which were accepted by some, and balked at by others who started calling me a communist or a taxmonger or whatever. There are many possible approaches which will be more or less accepted by people with different views. So far in this thread, we're still bogged down trying to stiffle the cries that corporations should be allowed to publish data in copyable form yet we should still enforce any unauthorised act with that data. Maybe we should dig up the old thread on suggestions before dumping them on this thread as well.

PvK

[Fyron]

Originally posted by PvK:
The definition of "stealing" isn't so much the question as the definition of "property" is. See my previous post.

PvK

We seemed to be operating under the assumption that it qualified as property, so then the issue became whether acquiring wrongfully was stealing it or not. But since music, etc. is property under current models...

Now, whether they should be "property" or not is an entirely different debate. One that I believe you will see I am inclined to agree with you on (at least partially)...

[Phoenix-D]

Originally posted by PvK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
...
Like what, PvK? I as of current see no reliable way to ensure creators get paid for their work other than to not allow access unless they ARE paid.
...

We've had at least one other long thread about my suggestions for other ways, which were accepted by some, and balked at by others who started calling me a communist or a taxmonger or whatever. There are many possible approaches which will be more or less accepted by people with different views. So far in this thread, we're still bogged down trying to stiffle the cries that corporations should be allowed to publish data in copyable form yet we should still enforce any unauthorised act with that data. Maybe we should dig up the old thread on suggestions before dumping them on this thread as well.

PvK

---

Allowed to publish data in copyable form? There IS no form that will let you access the data and still not copy it!

[Fyron]

Originally posted by PvK:
So far in this thread, we're still bogged down trying to stiffle the cries that corporations should be allowed to publish data in copyable form yet we should still enforce any unauthorised act with that data.

Yet another interesting way to read Posts... Corporations are irrelvant to the discussion at hand. Pirating SE4 is still quite possibly stealing it, even though MM and Shrapnel hardly qualify as corporations.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
...Which would require the copyright owners relinquishing their rights to their creations to the public domain, which makes downloading them for free no longer an issue of theft at all.

Exactly.

It still does not change the fact that music etc. can be copyrighted, thus making acquiring it illegally be stealing it.

Sure it does. A new concept akin to copyright could give you the exclusive right to keep it to yourself and not publish it, or to offer it in ways that people can't copy, if you can pull that off somehow without recourse to lawsuits, and to be recognized and rewarded by society for your creation, by mechanics to be agreed upon. But it absolutely changes your right to claim "stealing", because it would no longer considered "property" by anyone. Once you published something in a trivially copiable form, others would have the right to share it around, and you'd be happy, because more people would appreciate your work, and the new mechanism would give you more fame and fortune.

PvK

[ December 04, 2003, 02:01: Message edited by: PvK ]