Alright, I conceed to your idea of the "replicator" example I made.
My thing is, though - copyright law really wasn't made to protect the user, even thought it might at first. Using the Constitution, the whole point of copyrights and patents are to provide the incentive for smart people to develop these technologies. As much as I personally support Open Source technology and the freedom of information, most people don't. Living in a capitolist society will provent people from making decisions based on the greater good - in fact, it's quite against it.
If these people that have these ideas think that they'll just get raped after they put thousands of manhours of work into it, they are not going to even try. (Again, this is the typical person, not someone who's using the Greater Good mentality.) Now, if you provide this economic incentive, these people will have a reason to inovate and make things better, in hopes of getting rich.
The public suffers when this is taken away. When the artist's patent or copyright runs out, the public is the benefactor, in that these works are now usable fore everyone - free, and legally protected free. While a work created now might not go public domain in our lifetime, it will eventually work towards the greater good by letting our prodginy use it in the future. Without this, we jump the gun and get some things up front, but it's lesser and perhaps lower in quality due to the research and development happening in someone's spare time. Not always bad, but most of the main technological things we take for granted wouldn't be around without copyrights or patents.
While I can see how the technical term of stealing isn't applicable, you still have to see how you might be "robbing" society of these things by being greedy ourselves.
Plaidy
How is this not stealing? Criminal or civil, it doesn't matter.
That's one more person who got what normally would be priced for free. That, IMO, is bad. You are being gyped out of money for something that's rightfully yours. You put the time into it. You decided that if people want to share in it, they have to pay you. Most countries agree with this viewpoint to the point that they have laws protecting copyrights.
The person that pirates is stealing. Period. Trying to call it anything but that just gives it another name, and that's all. You are still taking something and not paying for it.
Who cares if it's still there? I can't just clone a CD player/TV/computer on the spot. If I could, wouldn't that be stealing too?
Plaid
While I won't argue with anyone about how the Rec. Industry needs to be overhauled, I have one question to ask everyone about stealing music:
If we allow people to just take music because they can, why do we prosicute people who steal from the rich? If someone just robs someone in a mansion, takes a TV, and runs off with it, we arrest them, right?
We don't just let people steal. Period.
Copyright infringment in a different form of stealing. Ask anyone here who's a software developer, and they'll agree. They don't want their stuff stolen - neither do artists, or record labels, no matter what's going on with their shady buisness practices.
Sorry if I'm a voice against, but people need to realize that it's not P2P that leads to overpriced CD's - sure, it's part greed on the label's parts, but DVD's are equally overpriced and nobody's trying to take the movie studios to task.
This free CD thing isn't novel, either. I personally got 10 CD's off Columbia House for damn near nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Alright, I conceed to your idea of the "replicator" example I made. My thing is, though - copyright law really wasn't made to protect the user, even thought it might at first. Using the Constitution, the whole point of copyrights and patents are to provide the incentive for smart people to develop these technologies. As much as I personally support Open Source technology and the freedom of information, most people don't. Living in a capitolist society will provent people from making decisions based on the greater good - in fact, it's quite against it. If these people that have these ideas think that they'll just get raped after they put thousands of manhours of work into it, they are not going to even try. (Again, this is the typical person, not someone who's using the Greater Good mentality.) Now, if you provide this economic incentive, these people will have a reason to inovate and make things better, in hopes of getting rich. The public suffers when this is taken away. When the artist's patent or copyright runs out, the public is the benefactor, in that these works are now usable fore everyone - free, and legally protected free. While a work created now might not go public domain in our lifetime, it will eventually work towards the greater good by letting our prodginy use it in the future. Without this, we jump the gun and get some things up front, but it's lesser and perhaps lower in quality due to the research and development happening in someone's spare time. Not always bad, but most of the main technological things we take for granted wouldn't be around without copyrights or patents. While I can see how the technical term of stealing isn't applicable, you still have to see how you might be "robbing" society of these things by being greedy ourselves. Plaidy
How is this not stealing? Criminal or civil, it doesn't matter. That's one more person who got what normally would be priced for free. That, IMO, is bad. You are being gyped out of money for something that's rightfully yours. You put the time into it. You decided that if people want to share in it, they have to pay you. Most countries agree with this viewpoint to the point that they have laws protecting copyrights. The person that pirates is stealing. Period. Trying to call it anything but that just gives it another name, and that's all. You are still taking something and not paying for it. Who cares if it's still there? I can't just clone a CD player/TV/computer on the spot. If I could, wouldn't that be stealing too? Plaid
While I won't argue with anyone about how the Rec. Industry needs to be overhauled, I have one question to ask everyone about stealing music:
If we allow people to just take music because they can, why do we prosicute people who steal from the rich? If someone just robs someone in a mansion, takes a TV, and runs off with it, we arrest them, right?
We don't just let people steal. Period.
Copyright infringment in a different form of stealing. Ask anyone here who's a software developer, and they'll agree. They don't want their stuff stolen - neither do artists, or record labels, no matter what's going on with their shady buisness practices.
Sorry if I'm a voice against, but people need to realize that it's not P2P that leads to overpriced CD's - sure, it's part greed on the label's parts, but DVD's are equally overpriced and nobody's trying to take the movie studios to task.
This free CD thing isn't novel, either. I personally got 10 CD's off Columbia House for damn near nothing.
Plaid