Traktion Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 So, in your view, copying is fraud but is not stealing? Copying something and passing it off as your own work, is fraud. Copying something without passing it off as your own work, is not fraud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Copying something and passing it off as your own work, is fraud. Copying something without passing it off as your own work, is not fraud. What about copying something, acknowledging that it's someone else's work, then selling your copy and keeping all the dosh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 It's not ownership, it's the provision that would be generally be governed by the contract. The car has not been provided by the supplier in the way in which the software can be provided. If the car could have been cloned, it would have been fine. Before something can be cloned it has to be created. At present if you create a software application it belongs to you- you own it- which means you can sell it to your client. If Intellectual property law was abolished there would be no legal connection between you and the software- it would belong to no one. So at this point the application exists but belongs to no one- anyone can use it freely without incurring any cost. Can you explain to me why your client should pay for something they can already use freely and at no cost? You provided no product or service of any kind-legally speaking- since you have no legal claim on the software and therefore can make no claims regarding it's creation. Legally speaking there is no link between you and the software at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Copying isn't theft.It also doesn't answer my question. You said "No I'm not bound to pay because there is nothing to pay for". If there was nothing to pay for, what on earth did you ask for?! If somebody freely gives you gift- is there anything to pay for? If data is free there is nothing to pay for. But let's cut to the chase here: You argue that all data should be free of intellectual copyright- that anyone should be able to copy and distribute data at will without paying the creator of that data anything at all. Ok- lets do this thing properly and pass the following law: "Henceforth all data held in any form shall be freely available to all. Anyone holding data in any form must- if requested by anyone else- immediately supply a copy of that data at no cost except those costs incurred in the act of making the copy." So in future any data you might possess you must-on demand from me, or anyone else- supply a copy for free. This is what you claim to want. So do you agree that this law should be passed? If not- why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Fraud is when you falsely represent. If Injin says he is Douglas Adams then he's a fraud. If he says here's a copy I made of a book, he isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 If somebody freely gives you gift- is there anything to pay for? If data is free there is nothing to pay for. But let's cut to the chase here: You argue that all data should be free of intellectual copyright- that anyone should be able to copy and distribute data at will without paying the creator of that data anything at all. Ok- lets do this thing properly and pass the following law: "Henceforth all data held in any form shall be freely available to all. Anyone holding data in any form must- if requested by anyone else- immediately supply a copy of that data at no cost except those costs incurred in the act of making the copy." So in future any data you might possess you must-on demand from me, or anyone else- supply a copy for free. This is what you claim to want. So do you agree that this law should be passed? If not- why not? Why do you leap to compulsion? Why not just leave people alone ans stop telling them what they must or must not do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Allowing copying does not remove anyone ownership rights, it simply adds more things to own and more owners, with no corresponding loss. So would you be in support of my new law: "Henceforth all data held in any form shall be freely available to all. Anyone holding data in any form must- if requested by anyone else- immediately supply a copy of that data at no cost except those costs incurred in the act of making the copy." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 So would you be in support of my new law: "Henceforth all data held in any form shall be freely available to all. Anyone holding data in any form must- if requested by anyone else- immediately supply a copy of that data at no cost except those costs incurred in the act of making the copy." Nope, laws are evil. In addition, copying is fine because the copier provides the materials for copying, they use their own resources. There is also the problem with your idea that by not banning something people then have to do it. Terrible logic, shit morality, poor argument. Anything else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Before something can be cloned it has to be created. At present if you create a software application it belongs to you- you own it- which means you can sell it to your client. If Intellectual property law was abolished there would be no legal connection between you and the software- it would belong to no one. No, it belongs to you. Anyone who makes a copy also has a copy. You both have ownership. So at this point the application exists but belongs to no one- anyone can use it freely without incurring any cost. Can you explain to me why your client should pay for something they can already use freely and at no cost? You provided no product or service of any kind-legally speaking- since you have no legal claim on the software and therefore can make no claims regarding it's creation. Legally speaking there is no link between you and the software at all. You are going to keep on with these ridiculous strawmen, aren't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) If somebody freely gives you gift- is there anything to pay for? If data is free there is nothing to pay for. Forming a contract is nothing to do with gifts. But let's cut to the chase here: You argue that all data should be free of intellectual copyright- that anyone should be able to copy and distribute data at will without paying the creator of that data anything at all. Ok- lets do this thing properly and pass the following law: "Henceforth all data held in any form shall be freely available to all. Anyone holding data in any form must- if requested by anyone else- immediately supply a copy of that data at no cost except those costs incurred in the act of making the copy." So in future any data you might possess you must-on demand from me, or anyone else- supply a copy for free. This is what you claim to want. So do you agree that this law should be passed? If not- why not? You really don't understand why voluntarism is good and its opposing violence and coercion is bad, do you? Your starting point was that using violence is fine, to support an obsolete business model. Now, your latest suggestion is using violence to force people to tell you stuff against their will! How about you find a solution which doesn't involve threatening people to do things against their will? edit: typo Edited January 18, 2012 by Traktion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 What about copying something, acknowledging that it's someone else's work, then selling your copy and keeping all the dosh? That's fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Fraud is when you falsely represent. If Injin says he is Douglas Adams then he's a fraud. If he says here's a copy I made of a book, he isn't. What if Injin sells the copy he made and pockets all the cash? E.g. Douglas Adams writes a book. Injin finds it, makes 1 million copies, sells them all, and pockets all the cash. Douglas Adams, meanwhile, hasn't got any cash for the work he wrote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erat_forte Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 How about this: you can own, and therefore someone else can steal from you, an object. But you cannot own, and therefore someone else cannot steal from you, pure information. Because, pure information does not exist; only embodied information exists. This means, information that is somehow encoded into a physical object. That physical object, like any other, can be owned, and stolen. That is all. You can make agreements with other people with whatever conditions are mutually agreeable to you. But you can't unilaterally impose conditions onto an unwilling person. You can also misrepresent things or people. That is fraud. But neither of these have anything to do with owning things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 How about this: you can own, and therefore someone else can steal from you, an object. But you cannot own, and therefore someone else cannot steal from you, pure information. Because, pure information does not exist; only embodied information exists. This means, information that is somehow encoded into a physical object. That physical object, like any other, can be owned, and stolen. That is all. You can make agreements with other people with whatever conditions are mutually agreeable to you. But you can't unilaterally impose conditions onto an unwilling person. You can also misrepresent things or people. That is fraud. But neither of these have anything to do with owning things. That's just a world without copyright legislation. Naturally, I'd say it would be a big improvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 What if Injin sells the copy he made and pockets all the cash? E.g. Douglas Adams writes a book. Injin finds it, makes 1 million copies, sells them all, and pockets all the cash. Douglas Adams, meanwhile, hasn't got any cash for the work he wrote. I assume you haven't been keeping up with this thread, as we've already been around this sort of thing a few times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipbuilder Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) What if Injin sells the copy he made and pockets all the cash? E.g. Douglas Adams writes a book. Injin finds it, makes 1 million copies, sells them all, and pockets all the cash. Douglas Adams, meanwhile, hasn't got any cash for the work he wrote. Maybe Douglas Adams shouldn't have left the book lying around? In any case he is obviously free to make copies and sell them as well. He's the author and Injin isn't, so he will probably sell more. He can also make money from readings etc., whereas Injin can't. He could also ask people who really like his work to 'pre-pay' for his next novel - something which happens more and more in publishing and music. I'm sure there are numerous other business models that don't involve asking the state (funded by the taxpayer, of course) to check if anyone, anywhere in the world is copying his book. Edited January 18, 2012 by shipbuilder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erat_forte Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 That's just a world without copyright legislation. Naturally, I'd say it would be a big improvement. Thanks, actually it's an attempt to describe the real world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 You really don't understand why voluntarism is good and its opposing violence and coercion is bad, do you?Your starting point was that using violence is fine, to support an obsolete business model. Now, your latest suggestion is using violence to force people to tell you stuff against their will! How about you find a solution which doesn't involve threatening people to do things against their will? edit: typo But it's ok to copy and distribute people's data against their will? Ok- say we compromise and agree to this: If someone agrees to let their data be copied then it's ok to copy it- if they don't agree then it should not be copied- sound fair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) No, it belongs to you. Anyone who makes a copy also has a copy. You both have ownership. Suppose you want to make a copy of my data but I refuse to let you- would you respect my right to protect my data from being copied or would you use force to make me give you a copy? Edited January 18, 2012 by wonderpup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 But it's ok to copy and distribute people's data against their will? The person doesn't have to tell anyone else what the data is, if they don't want other people to tell more people what it is. You want to use force to either stop people from telling someone something or to force them to tell someone something. I'm just arguing for using no force at all. Ok- say we compromise and agree to this: If someone agrees to let their data be copied then it's ok to copy it- if they don't agree then it should not be copied- sound fair? Nope - it's not a decision for the data creator to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Suppose you want to make a copy of my data but I refuse to let you- would you respect my right to protect my data from being copied or would you use force to make me give you a copy? I don't need to use force to make you give me a copy. I have eyes and a memory. You have no right over my nervous system. How can you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfp123 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 The person doesn't have to tell anyone else what the data is, if they don't want other people to tell more people what it is. You want to use force to either stop people from telling someone something or to force them to tell someone something. I'm just arguing for using no force at all. Nope - it's not a decision for the data creator to make. can i copy the deeds to your house and lay claim to your property? the law on copyright is as synthetic as the law on your physical property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 can i copy the deeds to your house and lay claim to your property? the law on copyright is as synthetic as the law on your physical property. The whole concept of deeds is daft too. Some bits of paper are not needed to define ownership and photocopying them certainly doesn't change who owns a house. If I created/bought the bricks and constructed the house (or commissioned another to do it), it is clearly my property. If you can clone my house, sure, go ahead. We will then both have a house. If you want to take my house from me, depriving me of shelter, that will be theft though. I wouldn't appreciate that at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfp123 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 The whole concept of deeds is daft too. Some bits of paper are not needed to define ownership and photocopying them certainly doesn't change who owns a house. If I created/bought the bricks and constructed the house (or commissioned another to do it), it is clearly my property. If you can clone my house, sure, go ahead. We will then both have a house. If you want to take my house from me, depriving me of shelter, that will be theft though. I wouldn't appreciate that at all. i disagree, we are all part of mother nature earth. no one owns anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 i disagree, we are all part of mother nature earth. no one owns anything. Fair enough. You would be in a minority and I doubt most people would want much to do with you, tbh. If every time your friends turned their backs, you stole the things they had spent time creating/trading for, I doubt they would be friendly with you for long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.