The piracy battle

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't think Irishman's scenario is immoral at all. Textbooks are overpriced.

Then don't go to college.

Buy the international version of the textbooks for $19.99 plus shipping (from thailand? $10).

It's been recently deemed legal--and the publisher based in the US sued this American in order to stop him from producing books from abroad and then exporting them to the US. The publisher lost, and the guy bought the rights anyway, so he was within the law.

If the publisher had won, TGD would still support the IP rights and its consequences (obviously, overpriced textbooks)---and less people going to college!, which is amusing since TGD wants more people to be educated yet supports policies which increase the price of education. Hmm... counterproductive!

Where can I find these deal?

I still don't understand how it is legal for the textbook/bookstore monopoly to function. For example a calculus textbook can easily cost $100 and be required, even though there haven't been very many groundbreaking improvements in the last couple hundred years or so. Yet new additions are released and required simply for $. I don't get how somebody can get a copyright on mathematics?

Well, they get the copyright on their way of explaining the material and on the problems which they create. Of course, [insert reductio ad absurdum], and one should be able to copyright "2+2=4." But people draw some gray area between the absurd and the not-so-absurd.

I have no problem with any copyright infringement, so long as they give original credit (e.g. the international editions are and should be legitimate--which is funny since that would contradict the law on other types of copyright infringement (e.g. downloading movies and selling them for $1).

How to find:
Whenever you search for a certain textbook, use its ISBN or title and insert "international edition" next to it. Google usually brings up some results--and the sellers are on trustworthy enough websites (maybe not on Amazon, but probably abesbooks.com and all that).

Also, for my photocopier deal, I haven't seen whole texts put in the folder, just the selected essays that we're being taught.

Haha, well if each essay has a copyright, then it's illegal--unless you get the creator's and/or publisher's* permission.

*For example, if you were to publish a book, usually you yourself can't release your own work in a free, electronic version without the publisher's permission (which will usually deny your ebook). "You see? Copyrights create more innovation!"

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't think Irishman's scenario is immoral at all. Textbooks are overpriced.

Then don't go to college.

Buy the international version of the textbooks for $19.99 plus shipping (from thailand? $10).

It's been recently deemed legal--and the publisher based in the US sued this American in order to stop him from producing books from abroad and then exporting them to the US. The publisher lost, and the guy bought the rights anyway, so he was within the law.

If the publisher had won, TGD would still support the IP rights and its consequences (obviously, overpriced textbooks)---and less people going to college!, which is amusing since TGD wants more people to be educated yet supports policies which increase the price of education. Hmm... counterproductive!

The guy bought the rights anyway? Seems both legal and moral and therefore not the same scenario as originally proposed.

Your second paragraph is very ironic given your views on market competition. People not attending (and therefore not paying for) college seems a good way for the market to solve the problem of overpriced textbooks. But I can see how you find the concept of stealing someone's work enticing. Please be sure to send me your address so I can steal some of your stuff. Alternatively, please let Army of God steal your stuff so he can sell it to me cheaper than I could otherwise buy it from you.

We already explained why your analogy fails to describe cyber "piracy."

You have to admit that your stance is counter-productive to increasing education (not just college attendance).

The guy who won got lucky. When he signed a contract with the publisher, there was some agreement where he could not produce abroad AND export to the US. The court failed to uphold that part of the agreement. Had they upheld that agreement, you would have support the IP law regardless (which is odd. Your moral compass seems glued to the Law on this issue--regardless of outcome).

[thegreekdog]

I don't think Irishman's scenario is immoral at all. Textbooks are overpriced.

Then don't go to college.

Buy the international version of the textbooks for $19.99 plus shipping (from thailand? $10).

It's been recently deemed legal--and the publisher based in the US sued this American in order to stop him from producing books from abroad and then exporting them to the US. The publisher lost, and the guy bought the rights anyway, so he was within the law.

If the publisher had won, TGD would still support the IP rights and its consequences (obviously, overpriced textbooks)---and less people going to college!, which is amusing since TGD wants more people to be educated yet supports policies which increase the price of education. Hmm... counterproductive!

The guy bought the rights anyway? Seems both legal and moral and therefore not the same scenario as originally proposed.

Your second paragraph is very ironic given your views on market competition. People not attending (and therefore not paying for) college seems a good way for the market to solve the problem of overpriced textbooks. But I can see how you find the concept of stealing someone's work enticing. Please be sure to send me your address so I can steal some of your stuff. Alternatively, please let Army of God steal your stuff so he can sell it to me cheaper than I could otherwise buy it from you.

We already explained why your analogy fails to describe cyber "piracy."

You have to admit that your stance is counter-productive to increasing education (not just college attendance).

The guy who won got lucky. When he signed a contract with the publisher, there was some agreement where he could not produce abroad AND export to the US. The court failed to uphold that part of the agreement. Had they upheld that agreement, you would have support the IP law regardless (which is odd. Your moral compass seems glued to the Law on this issue--regardless of outcome).

Re: underlined - Haggis attempted to explain the difference and was rebuffed (without a return reply from him) so I take umbrage with the underlined. You holding on to your television and not letting me steal it is retarding my education.

Re: bold - Okay.

On the rest - My moral compass is not glued to the law. I'm not sure where you got that impression. If you would kindly post where you got that impression, I will explain why you're mistaken. My insistence on the necessity of intellectual property rights (ah, isn't that term so much better than intellectual property law) is based on morality and the market. Your insistence on the lack of necessity for intellectual property rights is based on immorality and socialism.

[Army of GOD]

I would say most of the time the ONLY textbooks that are required are science/math (depending on whether or not the professor gives written hw or online hw).

This past semester, of five classes and I'd say about 4 or 5 "required" textbooks, I only pirated one and didn't bother with any others.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I can't really imagine a way in which some entity would have enough power over the internet to stand a chance at stopping piracy without also fundamentally changing the anonymous, distributed nature of the internet.
Maybe there is a way, and if I see it maybe I'll change my mind about this, but until then, the reality is that the solutions currently being pushed are quite bad.

I can't really disagree with you on these types of things, but there are more intelligent people than you or me working on this (presumably).

So we agree that, given the option between letting piracy continue as it is and pushing stuff like SOPA, letting piracy continue is the lesser evil?

The problem I have with your argument is twofold

First, you're operating from the assumption that a creator (for lack of a better term) is not able to adapt to a new technology (the internet). Why are you making that assumption? A better question is why is the creator required to adapt to the technology? Why is the technology not required to adapt to the creator? The internet is a great thing, but it's not perfect. And it is most certainly problematic when the reaction of the internet community to copyright infringement accusations is to say "you need to adapt" as if there is no other argument but their own argument. This is especially problematic in the context of number two.

Isn't this adaptation pretty much how the business world works? Did kodak have the government ban digital photography so they wouldn't have to adapt? Did IBM have the government ban personal computers so they wouldn't have to adapt? Is Microsoft currently trying to ban tablets and smartphones so they don't have to adapt?
I bet they all would have loved to do that, but they couldn't. They had to adapt or die.
That's what new technology does, it changes the landscape.

Microsoft and IBM seem like weird and probably inappropriate analogies. I understand that ultimately you want television companies and publishers to make works available online. I understand that this is the endgame that most people desire. I also believe this will be the end result (not of piracy, but of the internet generally). This is the natural progression of entertainment on the internet (in my opinion).

But, again, none of that has to do with piracy. You're discussing the adaptation of Microsoft to a competing product. The internet may compete with cable television, for example, but the internet is not competing with the television producers of Breaking Bad or with Metallica or with George RR Martin.

So yeah, internet changed the landscape, but, as I indicated above, it didn't change the morality of (again) stealing someone's work and providing it for free, thereby depriving that person of income.

Again, I'm not discussing morality here, just practicality.
You originally asked: " A better question is why is the creator required to adapt to the technology? Why is the technology not required to adapt to the creator?"
My answer was "Because that's the way the business world works".

Are you saying that the only reasonable course of action for Metallica, GRRM and co is to stare slack jawed at internet piracy phenomena and then gesture madly towards the government yelling "FIX IT! FIX IT!" ?

Trying to reign in piracy is fine, but once you observe the reality that is piracy and the difficulties associated with stopping it perhaps a reasonable business might try adapting it's ways to take advantage of the internet rather than suffer from it.

I agree that it's stealing. I agree that it's immoral.
It is not "as immoral" as physical theft though.
There's plenty of differences, such as that piracy is copying the artifact and thus not depriving anyone else of it. Such that piracy can POTENTIALLY have beneficial effects similar to viral marketing (not saying this makes up for lost revenue, but classic stealing has no such potential benefit). Additionally when looking at piracy figures one must keep in mind that only a fraction of that is actually lost revenue, the vast majority would not have actually bought the product if it weren't available for free.

Basically, if getting stuff online for free was the same as stealing stuff from someone's home, then we wouldn't have content producers that put their own stuff for free online. (and there are plenty of these)

I'm not ardently in favour of piracy, I'm just taking a pragmatic approach.
Given the options available today (piracy vs. SOPA etc), piracy is definitely the lesser evil.
I also think crispy is pretty spot on about the big entertainment industry having a bit of a hissy fit over this, cause they don't want to change.

Piracy is the lesser evil for you, but not for others. I think this is where I get angry. Primarily, the only reason that anyone is in favor of piracy is because that person believes he or she has a right (or desire) to receive entertainment illegally (and immorally). I get angry because I have no idea how this is a valid argument. It's like saying, "I want free food, so I should have the right to get it for free."

SOPA is bad, sure. I don't disagree with that. Big entertainment has more to worry about from legal providers, no? I mean you have Netflix now publishing it's own television shows with great success. That's where the adaptation must come from, not from a response to illegal pirating.

Let me make it as clear as I possibly can. I think piracy is immoral. I don't think I have a right to download pirated stuff. When I do download pirated stuff (hypothetically ofcourse) I am engaging in an immoral act.
What I'm saying is that, CURRENTLY, letting piracy continue is better than the alternative. Not only for me, not only for the 99% of the internet users who do not live of of original content, but also for most of the small time content creators. Really the only ones I think would benefit from implementing stuff like SOPA to cut piracy are the so-called "big-entertainment".
As you point out, these "big-entertainment" firms will have to adapt regardless of how piracy is handled, since now things like netflix exist.

So let's just not jump to implement SOPA to help the big entertainment firms who will have to adapt to the new landscape anyway. That is all I am saying.

Btw. You didn't touch the stuff on the difference between piracy and stealing a TV. Does that mean you agree with me that the 2 are different?

[thegreekdog]

So we agree that, given the option between letting piracy continue as it is and pushing stuff like SOPA, letting piracy continue is the lesser evil?

I would put it differently. I think different solutions should be proposed. Practically speaking, different solutions are not proposed because the pirates and their supporters are unconcerned about coming to the table with a better solution. I leave the other side out of that equation because they have the political clout to do what they want.

Are you saying that the only reasonable course of action for Metallica, GRRM and co is to stare slack jawed at internet piracy phenomena and then gesture madly towards the government yelling "FIX IT! FIX IT!" ?

Trying to reign in piracy is fine, but once you observe the reality that is piracy and the difficulties associated with stopping it perhaps a reasonable business might try adapting it's ways to take advantage of the internet rather than suffer from it.

I'm not saying that's what they should do. What I am saying is that is all they need to do (see above). I also think that companies are coming around to different styles (to which you may retort "because of internet piracy") of putting out their products.

So let's just not jump to implement SOPA to help the big entertainment firms who will have to adapt to the new landscape anyway. That is all I am saying.

I think SOPA is horrendous. But, as indicated above, the entities and individuals with the power have the upperhand so the individuals and entities without the power need to come with the table with something better. And they haven't; and as far as I can tell, they haven't even tried. So f*ck'em.

Btw. You didn't touch the stuff on the difference between piracy and stealing a TV. Does that mean you agree with me that the 2 are different?

I did touch that stuff. I believe I indicated that I couldn't disagree with you more. Here is a link:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=191300&start=15#p4186707

[BigBallinStalin]

We already explained why your analogy fails to describe cyber "piracy."

You have to admit that your stance is counter-productive to increasing education (not just college attendance).

The guy who won got lucky. When he signed a contract with the publisher, there was some agreement where he could not produce abroad AND export to the US. The court failed to uphold that part of the agreement. Had they upheld that agreement, you would have support the IP law regardless (which is odd. Your moral compass seems glued to the Law on this issue--regardless of outcome).

Re: underlined - Haggis attempted to explain the difference and was rebuffed (without a return reply from him) so I take umbrage with the underlined. You holding on to your television and not letting me steal it is retarding my education.

Re: bold - Okay.

On the rest - My moral compass is not glued to the law. I'm not sure where you got that impression. If you would kindly post where you got that impression, I will explain why you're mistaken. My insistence on the necessity of intellectual property rights (ah, isn't that term so much better than intellectual property law) is based on morality and the market. Your insistence on the lack of necessity for intellectual property rights is based on immorality and socialism.

Intellectual property rights are mandated by the state. It creates its own restrictions and privileges--regardless of how ridiculous and cumbersome they can become for others...

Hmm, let's try a new approach. What is your ideal model for intellectual property (patents, copyrights, trademarks)?

[thegreekdog]

We already explained why your analogy fails to describe cyber "piracy."

You have to admit that your stance is counter-productive to increasing education (not just college attendance).

The guy who won got lucky. When he signed a contract with the publisher, there was some agreement where he could not produce abroad AND export to the US. The court failed to uphold that part of the agreement. Had they upheld that agreement, you would have support the IP law regardless (which is odd. Your moral compass seems glued to the Law on this issue--regardless of outcome).

Re: underlined - Haggis attempted to explain the difference and was rebuffed (without a return reply from him) so I take umbrage with the underlined. You holding on to your television and not letting me steal it is retarding my education.

Re: bold - Okay.

On the rest - My moral compass is not glued to the law. I'm not sure where you got that impression. If you would kindly post where you got that impression, I will explain why you're mistaken. My insistence on the necessity of intellectual property rights (ah, isn't that term so much better than intellectual property law) is based on morality and the market. Your insistence on the lack of necessity for intellectual property rights is based on immorality and socialism.

Intellectual property rights are mandated by the state. It creates its own restrictions and privileges--regardless of how ridiculous and cumbersome they can become for others...

Hmm, let's try a new approach. What is your ideal model for intellectual property (patents, copyrights, trademarks)?

Intellectual property rights are not mandated by the state. Where did you get that idea?

My ideal model for intellectual property is that people pay to use or consume a person's intellectual property. Otherwise, they don't get to use or consume it.

What's your ideal model?

[BigBallinStalin]

We already explained why your analogy fails to describe cyber "piracy."

You have to admit that your stance is counter-productive to increasing education (not just college attendance).

The guy who won got lucky. When he signed a contract with the publisher, there was some agreement where he could not produce abroad AND export to the US. The court failed to uphold that part of the agreement. Had they upheld that agreement, you would have support the IP law regardless (which is odd. Your moral compass seems glued to the Law on this issue--regardless of outcome).

Re: underlined - Haggis attempted to explain the difference and was rebuffed (without a return reply from him) so I take umbrage with the underlined. You holding on to your television and not letting me steal it is retarding my education.

Re: bold - Okay.

On the rest - My moral compass is not glued to the law. I'm not sure where you got that impression. If you would kindly post where you got that impression, I will explain why you're mistaken. My insistence on the necessity of intellectual property rights (ah, isn't that term so much better than intellectual property law) is based on morality and the market. Your insistence on the lack of necessity for intellectual property rights is based on immorality and socialism.

Intellectual property rights are mandated by the state. It creates its own restrictions and privileges--regardless of how ridiculous and cumbersome they can become for others...

Hmm, let's try a new approach. What is your ideal model for intellectual property (patents, copyrights, trademarks)?

Intellectual property rights are not mandated by the state. Where did you get that idea?

My ideal model for intellectual property is that people pay to use or consume a person's intellectual property. Otherwise, they don't get to use or consume it.

What's your ideal model?

Suppose I invented a compact computer which conveniently fit onto your desk. I patented the idea, and now everyone must pay to use or consume my intellectual property. Obviously, this would be absurd, so would you care to provide more details?

If you wish to argue that no one should be able to produce PCs until given permission by the First Inventor of the PC, then please do.

[thegreekdog]

Why are you making up absurd examples? The corrallary to what you just proposed was that Tolkien would have intellectual property rights to all fantasy novels and movies. You don't need to make up absurd examples, we already disagree on the intellectual property rights regarding copyrighted television programs, movies, games, and novels. Use one of those. Maybe you can use the example of Game of Thrones. Something like this:

Suppose I wrote Game of Thrones. I copyrighted the idea and now everyone must pay to use or consume my intellectual property.

Still absurd?

Also...

What's your ideal model?

[AndyDufresne]

Suppose I invented a compact computer which conveniently fit onto your desk. I patented the idea, and now everyone must pay to use or consume my intellectual property. Obviously, this would be absurd, so would you care to provide more details?

If you wish to argue that no one should be able to produce PCs until given permission by the First Inventor of the PC, then please do.

BBS, your logic fails here!?! If such a situation arose, we'd all just move compact computers from desks to end tables. And then once they came for the end table compact computers, we'd move to the coffee tables. And then after that, we might have to get more creative. Like using TV trays or ottomans, or, even...even...the floor.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Why are you making up absurd examples? The corrallary to what you just proposed was that Tolkien would have intellectual property rights to all fantasy novels and movies. You don't need to make up absurd examples, we already disagree on the intellectual property rights regarding copyrighted television programs, movies, games, and novels. Use one of those. Maybe you can use the example of Game of Thrones. Something like this:

Suppose I wrote Game of Thrones. I copyrighted the idea and now everyone must pay to use or consume my intellectual property.

Still absurd?

It depends. If we held a talk about his book series/TV show, then should we punished by law?

According to you, we must pay to do so. "My ideal model for intellectual property is that people pay to use or consume a person's intellectual property." That's really vague...

which is why I'm trying to find your limits here, so I'll be starting with the absurd and 'absurd'.

What's your ideal model?

I agree that one shouldn't be able to patent the idea of a PC--even though, that of course falls under the category of "intellectual property."

[BigBallinStalin]

Suppose I invented a compact computer which conveniently fit onto your desk. I patented the idea, and now everyone must pay to use or consume my intellectual property. Obviously, this would be absurd, so would you care to provide more details?

If you wish to argue that no one should be able to produce PCs until given permission by the First Inventor of the PC, then please do.

BBS, your logic fails here!?! If such a situation arose, we'd all just move compact computers from desks to end tables. And then once they came for the end table compact computers, we'd move to the coffee tables. And then after that, we might have to get more creative. Like using TV trays or ottomans, or, even...even...the floor.


--Andy

BLAST!!


FIRE ALL MISSILES!!

[thegreekdog]

Why are you making up absurd examples? The corrallary to what you just proposed was that Tolkien would have intellectual property rights to all fantasy novels and movies. You don't need to make up absurd examples, we already disagree on the intellectual property rights regarding copyrighted television programs, movies, games, and novels. Use one of those. Maybe you can use the example of Game of Thrones. Something like this:

Suppose I wrote Game of Thrones. I copyrighted the idea and now everyone must pay to use or consume my intellectual property.

Still absurd?

It depends. If we held a talk about his book series/TV show, then should we punished by law?

According to you, we must pay to do so. "My ideal model for intellectual property is that people pay to use or consume a person's intellectual property." That's really vague...

which is why I'm trying to find your limits here, so I'll be starting with the absurd and 'absurd'.

What's your ideal model?

I agree that one shouldn't be able to patent the idea of a PC--even though, that of course falls under the category of "intellectual property."

Until you give me a basis of comparison, I'm going to figure that I've won this argument.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why are you making up absurd examples? The corrallary to what you just proposed was that Tolkien would have intellectual property rights to all fantasy novels and movies. You don't need to make up absurd examples, we already disagree on the intellectual property rights regarding copyrighted television programs, movies, games, and novels. Use one of those. Maybe you can use the example of Game of Thrones. Something like this:

Suppose I wrote Game of Thrones. I copyrighted the idea and now everyone must pay to use or consume my intellectual property.

Still absurd?

It depends. If we held a talk about his book series/TV show, then should we punished by law?

According to you, we must pay to do so. "My ideal model for intellectual property is that people pay to use or consume a person's intellectual property." That's really vague...

which is why I'm trying to find your limits here, so I'll be starting with the absurd and 'absurd'.

What's your ideal model?

I agree that one shouldn't be able to patent the idea of a PC--even though, that of course falls under the category of "intellectual property."

Until you give me a basis of comparison, I'm going to figure that I've won this argument.

I really don't know what you want. "A basis of comparison"... of what?

You provided a vague model. I asked for clarification, and you refused. That's not helping your position.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I would put it differently. I think different solutions should be proposed. Practically speaking, different solutions are not proposed because the pirates and their supporters are unconcerned about coming to the table with a better solution. I leave the other side out of that equation because they have the political clout to do what they want.

...

I think SOPA is horrendous. But, as indicated above, the entities and individuals with the power have the upperhand so the individuals and entities without the power need to come with the table with something better. And they haven't; and as far as I can tell, they haven't even tried. So f*ck'em.

Wait, what?
So, because the little guys haven't been able to propose a good solution you say "f*ck the little guys, let's just adopt the atrocious solution that the big guys want" ?

I'm not saying that's what they should do. What I am saying is that is all they need to do (see above). I also think that companies are coming around to different styles (to which you may retort "because of internet piracy") of putting out their products.

To adopt your line of reasoning, the big guys seem to prefer asking the government to fix their problems than adapting to the new situation. So f*ck 'em. Let them go bankrupt for all I care, other companies will spring up that are more flexible.

Btw. You didn't touch the stuff on the difference between piracy and stealing a TV. Does that mean you agree with me that the 2 are different?

I did touch that stuff. I believe I indicated that I couldn't disagree with you more. Here is a link:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p4186707

[/quote]

I responded to that and provided several differences between the two which you haven't rebutted.

I agree that it's stealing. I agree that it's immoral.
It is not "as immoral" as physical theft though.
There's plenty of differences, such as that piracy is copying the artifact and thus not depriving anyone else of it. Such that piracy can POTENTIALLY have beneficial effects similar to viral marketing (not saying this makes up for lost revenue, but classic stealing has no such potential benefit). Additionally when looking at piracy figures one must keep in mind that only a fraction of that is actually lost revenue, the vast majority would not have actually bought the product if it weren't available for free.

Basically, if getting stuff online for free was the same as stealing stuff from someone's home, then we wouldn't have content producers that put their own stuff for free online. (and there are plenty of these)

Once more, if piracy == stealing TVs, then why are so many content creators making a living by putting their stuff online for free, but it seems no one can make a living by giving away their TVs for free ?

[AndyDufresne]

Once more, if piracy == stealing TVs, then why are so many content creators making a living by putting their stuff online for free, but it seems no one can make a living by giving away their TVs for free ?

Related and unrelated to your above discussion...

I often listen to The Indoor Kids, a podcast about gaming and gaming news, and they recently had a discussion about used games and how the games industry hates the fact essentially that after the initial game is purchased, that is the end of the line of their revenue stream, etc. It sort of boiled down to, other creative mass-consuming markets (TV, Movies, Music, and even books now) have multiple revenue streams, so if things are pirated, or even just passed along after one's use is done, concerts (or movie openings), syndication, licensing (like for streaming services or DVDs or digital editions), ads or product placement, etc, are viable revenue streams that make up for losses from piracy or used versions.

Revenue streams for games a little more difficult, since after the initial purchase (or continuing purchases through DLC or subscription services), there is fewer potential streams to make back their investment.

What all of this means? I am not entirely sure, since I leave the big thoughts to you fellas. Ha.


--Andy

[patches70]

I often listen to The Indoor Kids, a podcast about gaming and gaming news, and they recently had a discussion about used games and how the games industry hates the fact essentially that after the initial game is purchased, that is the end of the line of their revenue stream, etc.

The game developers have adapted to this problem. It's called DLC's (downloadable content). I got Black Ops II and I've downloaded the Revolutions and Uprising map packs using xbox points which I had to buy at the local gaming store. Lots of games now a days have DLC's that are put out month after month and improve the game. And people buy them.


But what's really bad is the plans for games when Xbox 1 comes out. At that point when you buy a game you'll get a code. Once you enter that code the game will work only for that console that you inputted the code for. You won't even be able to loan out your game to your buddy to play on his console as it won't work.

Now, if you want to take your game in to Gamestop and trade it it, Gamestop will be able to get the clear code from Xbox and clear the game so that it can be sold as a used game. Except for Gamestop they'll have to pay to get that clear code, which will be passed on to who ends up buying that used game. It is estimated that if Xbox goes through with this that the used games will increase in price to almost the same cost as a brand new game, single handed destroying the entire used game market as it makes no sense to buy a used game for 5$ cheaper than a brand new game.

There was strong backlash at these plans by gamer's and even Gamestop and Xbox is rethinking that plan to code new games to a single console. We shall see how this all turns out I suppose.

[thegreekdog]

Why are you making up absurd examples? The corrallary to what you just proposed was that Tolkien would have intellectual property rights to all fantasy novels and movies. You don't need to make up absurd examples, we already disagree on the intellectual property rights regarding copyrighted television programs, movies, games, and novels. Use one of those. Maybe you can use the example of Game of Thrones. Something like this:

Suppose I wrote Game of Thrones. I copyrighted the idea and now everyone must pay to use or consume my intellectual property.

Still absurd?

It depends. If we held a talk about his book series/TV show, then should we punished by law?

According to you, we must pay to do so. "My ideal model for intellectual property is that people pay to use or consume a person's intellectual property." That's really vague...

which is why I'm trying to find your limits here, so I'll be starting with the absurd and 'absurd'.

What's your ideal model?

I agree that one shouldn't be able to patent the idea of a PC--even though, that of course falls under the category of "intellectual property."

Until you give me a basis of comparison, I'm going to figure that I've won this argument.

I really don't know what you want. "A basis of comparison"... of what?

You provided a vague model. I asked for clarification, and you refused. That's not helping your position.

I proposed a vague model and you've proposed no model; therefore there is no basis for comparison. I requested that you provide a model so we had a basis of comparison. The current discussion is that I believe there should be protections for intellectual property and you believe... what?

You did not ask for calrification. You proposed an absurd scenario, which I responded to with an absurd scenario on the other side trying to gauge what you believe should be intellectual property protections. I prefer to engage in conversation that is constructive rather than preparing different scenarios and thoughts for you to address. Therefore, I would need some sort of basis to have a discussion rather than for me to continually post the same thing, in different variations, while you ask questions and pose various absurd scenarios.

If you want, since I'm very accommodating, I do have an argument for your personal computer example that provides a nice market-based position that you may love. But that wouldn't move the ball forward here, so I'll refrain (unless you want me to).

[thegreekdog]

Wait, what?
So, because the little guys haven't been able to propose a good solution you say "f*ck the little guys, let's just adopt the atrocious solution that the big guys want" ?

Yes, basically, although I wouldn't use the terms "big guys" and "little guys." The entities/individuals that are the "big guys" are also the ones whose intellectual property is protected both morally and legally. The entities/individuals that are the "little guys" are the ones obtaining intellectual property immorally and illegally. I think if anyone needs to move their needle, it's the little guys.

To adopt your line of reasoning, the big guys seem to prefer asking the government to fix their problems than adapting to the new situation. So f*ck 'em. Let them go bankrupt for all I care, other companies will spring up that are more flexible.

Yeah, they should go bankrupt, but the companies that force them into bankruptcy should be doing things morally. I have a major problem with competition putting people out of business if it's done immorally.

On the stealing of tangible property, I did miss your response. Apologies. However, I'll direct you to my response to BBS:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=191300&start=30#p4186722