What? This is such a terrible counter argument it's almost a non-sequitur. One technology making another obsolete is completely different from copying existing technology without the owner's consent, rendering their original worthless.
So no, if you were making buggy whips and the Model-T put you out of business, you weren't stolen from. At least we can agree on that.
So from what I've read Sony did that to take advantage of the EU's extension of the lifetime of copyright works from 50 to 70 years. Sony wasn't going to lose it because they never released it, they were going to lose it because it was going to expire. In other words, not releasing it did not change the fact that they held the rights for 50 years.
Now, because IANAL, I don't understand why releasing it allows them to take advantage of the extended term length, but that's beside the point.
So making a copy is OK because the original is still there, as opposed to when you steal something physical, right?
My counter argument to that is that if it can be copied for free, then the original has no value. If it was actually possible to go to a dealership and copy a Ford, paying the dealer nothing, then the dealer's original Ford is worthless to them. What's the difference between inventory worth nothing, and inventory that's been stolen?
I agree with your premise, that piracy can't be stopped, and that people will choose legitimate options as long as they are not too much of a pain in the ass. But this statement made me think of a few things:
The next day, the grocery store stops carrying milk because the dairy farmers signed an exclusive distribution deal with STORENAME. If I want milk, I must make a separate trip to STORENAME. The next day, the same thing happens with bread, only it's only available at OTHERSTORE.
First of all, this does happen to an extent. You can only get certain brands in certain stores, but usually that has to do with the brand being owned by the same company that owns the store. Bread and milk (as well as certain other foods, like butter and eggs, I believe) are a bit different because there are special controls and rules in place for them. But anyway, the point is not to nitpick your analogy.
What this makes me think of are restraint of trade and anti-trust regulations. I believe (IANAL), for example, that Heinz could not exclusively sell ketchup to McDonald's, but refuse to sell to Burger King. So what if we take the legal model that we apply to the distribution of goods like ketchup, and apply them to intellectual property?
In other words, it would be illegal for the content provider to sign exclusivity deals. If they allow Hulu to distribute content, then they have to allow Netflix to as well (assuming Netflix wants to and is willing to pay). However, just to be clear, it would be perfectly fine for Netflix to exclusively distribute their own content (analogous to the store brands).
Am I crazy, or does this seem like the obvious solution to all of this nonsense?
Analogies don't have to be completely the same, by definition. This discussion is not about border hopping using a VPN, it's about people turning to piracy because Netflix is blocking VPNs, and whether or not that should be OK. We can argue about the way things should be, but not about the way they are.
But if you can just make as many copies of the original without paying for them, then the original has no value. What's the difference between having no inventory and having inventory that's worth nothing?
But if you can just make as many copies of the original without paying for them, then the original has no value. What's the difference between having no inventory and having inventory that's worth nothing?
The ability for these foreign companies to block access to Canadians isn't an "essential service" either.
That is not what's happening. Other companies have bought the exclusive distribution rights within Canada. By extension, Netflix does not have the right to distribute the content in Canada, and is in fact violating their contract if they do so.
If enforcing contracts aren't an "essential service", then why should you get paid for your job? Why should your ISP have to honor the contract by providing you with internet after you've paid? Why shouldn't the security guard confiscate all your groceries at the door, regardless of what the receipt says? Why should anyone honor any agreement?
You're right, they aren't completely the same. But, they are the same in the sense that while someone owns them, they are afforded the same protections under the law. That's what's relevant to this discussion.
"If you don't use it you lose it" doesn't apply to rights. They have the exclusive right to copy, period. That doesn't mean they have to provide copies.
You have freedom of speech, does that mean you don't have the right to remain silent?
I'll remember that when a mugger steals your phone and wallet; why should my taxes pay for police to protect you from that? Your view that Intellectual Property is different from normal property is ludicrous.
Imagine we're talking about a car. You want to buy a new Ford, but Ford only licenses one dealer near to you to sell them, and you think their prices are too high. Want to buy a used Ford from someone? No problem. Want to buy a Toyota instead? No problem. Want to buy a new Ford that was stolen off the lot? Problem.
Your logic is so wonderfully asinine:
ASSERT: I don't have to pay them If I don't pay them, then they don't have to provide it to me If they don't provide it to me, then they don't deserve legal protection If they don't deserve legal protection, then I don't have to pay them QED
What is a "natural" right, as opposed to a right, and why is there a distinction? All rights come with responsibilities, not just those that you decide to categorize differently out of convenience.
The mods in this thread so far obviously have no sense of reality, abusing the pathetically tiny amount of power that they have to promote their unfounded worldview.
Your comments, which state a truth that many here (apparently) want to ignore, are being modded into oblivion, while (e.g.) serviscope_minor's, who clearly understands nothing about Intellectual Property, are being lauded.
Intellectual Property is just that, property, just about any principle that applies to someone's car or house or smartphone applies to copyrighted materials. Maybe copyright laws are out of control, the terms are too long, and distribution models are outdated in the modern global economy, but that's a completely different discussion.
We can argue all day about the way things should be, but your statement of the way things are is completely accurate.
This is nonsense. You obviously have no idea how the primaries work, or how polling works. In the general electorate, Trump has the lowest favorability rating among any candidate in the last 9 Presidential elections, in either party.
The reality is not "the complete opposite" of what the polls predicted. The polls have had him at between 30-40%, and that is exactly where he has stayed. What the analysts did get wrong is predicting that his supporters would peel off to more mainstream candidates. However, he hasn't managed to pick up many more supporters either.
I'm a US citizen who lives abroad. It depends how much you make, there's a foreign exemption of about $100,000 (as of now, it increases every year). If your foreign earned income was less than that amount, you don't pay anything to the IRS, but you still have to file every year.
Slashdot Mirror
To start with, Intellectual Property does not exist.
Nonsense, the law disagrees. Find me a lawyer that agrees with this assertion.
If you think it shouldn't exist, then that's another thing entirely.
Is Netflix using public funds to block VPNs?
Yes, value that was stolen from the original without paying for it.
What? This is such a terrible counter argument it's almost a non-sequitur. One technology making another obsolete is completely different from copying existing technology without the owner's consent, rendering their original worthless.
So no, if you were making buggy whips and the Model-T put you out of business, you weren't stolen from. At least we can agree on that.
So from what I've read Sony did that to take advantage of the EU's extension of the lifetime of copyright works from 50 to 70 years. Sony wasn't going to lose it because they never released it, they were going to lose it because it was going to expire. In other words, not releasing it did not change the fact that they held the rights for 50 years.
Now, because IANAL, I don't understand why releasing it allows them to take advantage of the extended term length, but that's beside the point.
So making a copy is OK because the original is still there, as opposed to when you steal something physical, right?
My counter argument to that is that if it can be copied for free, then the original has no value. If it was actually possible to go to a dealership and copy a Ford, paying the dealer nothing, then the dealer's original Ford is worthless to them. What's the difference between inventory worth nothing, and inventory that's been stolen?
In the same way that the law and penalty for burglary is different from the law and penalty for grand theft auto.
I agree with your premise, that piracy can't be stopped, and that people will choose legitimate options as long as they are not too much of a pain in the ass. But this statement made me think of a few things:
The next day, the grocery store stops carrying milk because the dairy farmers signed an exclusive distribution deal with STORENAME. If I want milk, I must make a separate trip to STORENAME. The next day, the same thing happens with bread, only it's only available at OTHERSTORE.
First of all, this does happen to an extent. You can only get certain brands in certain stores, but usually that has to do with the brand being owned by the same company that owns the store. Bread and milk (as well as certain other foods, like butter and eggs, I believe) are a bit different because there are special controls and rules in place for them. But anyway, the point is not to nitpick your analogy.
What this makes me think of are restraint of trade and anti-trust regulations. I believe (IANAL), for example, that Heinz could not exclusively sell ketchup to McDonald's, but refuse to sell to Burger King. So what if we take the legal model that we apply to the distribution of goods like ketchup, and apply them to intellectual property?
In other words, it would be illegal for the content provider to sign exclusivity deals. If they allow Hulu to distribute content, then they have to allow Netflix to as well (assuming Netflix wants to and is willing to pay). However, just to be clear, it would be perfectly fine for Netflix to exclusively distribute their own content (analogous to the store brands).
Am I crazy, or does this seem like the obvious solution to all of this nonsense?
Are you talking about the way things are, or the way they should be?
IP is, according to the law, the same as P. If you are saying that it shouldn't be that way, that's a different discussion.
Providing copies and defending copyright are two different things.
Also, if someone steals your car and you don't call the police, don't expect them to catch the guy.
Analogies don't have to be completely the same, by definition. This discussion is not about border hopping using a VPN, it's about people turning to piracy because Netflix is blocking VPNs, and whether or not that should be OK. We can argue about the way things should be, but not about the way they are.
If you can just make as many copies of the original without paying for them, then the original has no value.
But if you can just make as many copies of the original without paying for them, then the original has no value. What's the difference between having no inventory and having inventory that's worth nothing?
But if you can just make as many copies of the original without paying for them, then the original has no value. What's the difference between having no inventory and having inventory that's worth nothing?
The ability for these foreign companies to block access to Canadians isn't an "essential service" either.
That is not what's happening. Other companies have bought the exclusive distribution rights within Canada. By extension, Netflix does not have the right to distribute the content in Canada, and is in fact violating their contract if they do so.
If enforcing contracts aren't an "essential service", then why should you get paid for your job? Why should your ISP have to honor the contract by providing you with internet after you've paid? Why shouldn't the security guard confiscate all your groceries at the door, regardless of what the receipt says? Why should anyone honor any agreement?
You're right, they aren't completely the same. But, they are the same in the sense that while someone owns them, they are afforded the same protections under the law. That's what's relevant to this discussion.
"If you don't use it you lose it" doesn't apply to rights. They have the exclusive right to copy, period. That doesn't mean they have to provide copies.
You have freedom of speech, does that mean you don't have the right to remain silent?
I'll remember that when a mugger steals your phone and wallet; why should my taxes pay for police to protect you from that? Your view that Intellectual Property is different from normal property is ludicrous.
Imagine we're talking about a car. You want to buy a new Ford, but Ford only licenses one dealer near to you to sell them, and you think their prices are too high. Want to buy a used Ford from someone? No problem. Want to buy a Toyota instead? No problem. Want to buy a new Ford that was stolen off the lot? Problem.
Your logic is so wonderfully asinine:
ASSERT: I don't have to pay them
If I don't pay them, then they don't have to provide it to me
If they don't provide it to me, then they don't deserve legal protection
If they don't deserve legal protection, then I don't have to pay them
QED
What is a "natural" right, as opposed to a right, and why is there a distinction? All rights come with responsibilities, not just those that you decide to categorize differently out of convenience.
The mods in this thread so far obviously have no sense of reality, abusing the pathetically tiny amount of power that they have to promote their unfounded worldview.
Your comments, which state a truth that many here (apparently) want to ignore, are being modded into oblivion, while (e.g.) serviscope_minor's, who clearly understands nothing about Intellectual Property, are being lauded.
Intellectual Property is just that, property, just about any principle that applies to someone's car or house or smartphone applies to copyrighted materials. Maybe copyright laws are out of control, the terms are too long, and distribution models are outdated in the modern global economy, but that's a completely different discussion.
We can argue all day about the way things should be, but your statement of the way things are is completely accurate.
Glasses wouldn't help a bat that's blind...
Parties are not part of the government. They are private organizations that can set up whatever rules they want for picking a nominee.
This is nonsense. You obviously have no idea how the primaries work, or how polling works. In the general electorate, Trump has the lowest favorability rating among any candidate in the last 9 Presidential elections, in either party.
The reality is not "the complete opposite" of what the polls predicted. The polls have had him at between 30-40%, and that is exactly where he has stayed. What the analysts did get wrong is predicting that his supporters would peel off to more mainstream candidates. However, he hasn't managed to pick up many more supporters either.
I'm a US citizen who lives abroad. It depends how much you make, there's a foreign exemption of about $100,000 (as of now, it increases every year). If your foreign earned income was less than that amount, you don't pay anything to the IRS, but you still have to file every year.
Yeah Vsauce is pretty cool, I only started watching a few months ago.