are they selectively enforcing copy write law
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-12-2012, 12:08 PM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(11-12-2012 11:54 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 10:34 AM)nach_in Wrote:  For example, the BSA published this year its study on software piracy for 2011, in Argentina the 69% of software copies are illegal, that means that for software alone 69& of the population should be in jail and paying a lot of money in damages. That is WRONG, no law can be called fair if it criminalizes 69% of the population.

Wrong, wrong, WRONG!

Would you live in a country where 69% of the population was raping their neighbors? Would you say that "no anti-rape law can be called fair if it criminalizes 69% of the population"? What about murder, would you live in a country where 69% of the population is murdering their neighbors? Sure, that population wouldn't exist very long, but still, would you live there? What if it was just mutilation, cutting off hands or feet, would you live in a country where 69% of the population was mutilating their neighbors?

Just because a lot of people do something illegal, that doesn't mean laws should be changed to make that thing legal.

Sure, physically raping, killing, or mutilating someone are all much more serious issues than stealing their software. I'm not trying to equate these things things as similar offenses. I am trying to demonstrate that your assertion here is meaningless bias on your part - you obviously feel that copyright is bad so you're willing to use this silly idea that you shouldn't criminalize 69% of a population for doing something that YOU think is OK, but I bet you wouldn't feel the same way if 69% of the population was doing something that YOU think is not OK. If that's true, then your whole argument about not criminalizing 69% of the population is merely a bogus straw man to meaninglessly pretend to support your own notion that copyrights are bad. If that is not true, well, then I don't believe you because NO sane person would want to live in a country where 69% of the population is raping, murdering, or mutilating each other.
Of course I wouldn't want to live in such country, but such country doesn't exist (I think) because the laws in place to stop it from happening are somewhat effective. If they weren't then the laws should change to fix the problem in a way people can obey.

I am NOT saying people should be able to consume every copyrighted work without paying anything or without any benefit for the author. I'm just saying that the laws in place to make that are not effective and people don't obey them, therefore making them ineffective.

Laws aren't magic words that a bunch of legislators invoke in a mystic ritual and automatically everyone obeys, laws must fit the idiosyncrasies of a society to be effective, evidently, copyright laws fail to do that, therefore they should be changed so it can do it.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 12:41 PM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
So wait, what's the difference then?

In Argentina, they have copyright laws that make it illegal to steal software, but 69% of the people break that law. They also have laws that make it illegal to murder your neighbor, but everyone (almost everyone) obeys that law.

You're suggesting that the no murder law is OK because people follow it and the no software theft law is bad because people break it? Based solely on the numbers of people breaking the law?

You're also not saying that people should be able to consume "every" copyrighted work without paying for it - so which copyrighted work should be paid for and which should not?

Of course laws aren't magical words. Legislators make laws to protect their populations. These laws include not murdering the population, but they also include provisions for the population to earn income from their labors, including artistic labors. Laws are not crafted to "fit the idiosyncrasies of society" - if a society idiosyncratically murdered their neighbors, I don't think legislators would create new laws to legalize murder.

Laws are created to protect people from predation by other people. We don't need laws to make us do what we want to do. I don't need laws to tell me to breathe, to make love to women, to eat food, to watch TV, etc. I don't need laws to tell other people to do those things either. What I do need is laws to keep the bad guys from murdering me, stealing my stuff, raping my children, beating me up, etc. I need laws to protect me and my family from being victimized by bad people.

One kind of victimization is theft. It's illegal for you to break into my home and steal my TV. It's illegal for you to steal my car. It's illegal for you to steal my wallet. It's illegal for you to steal my novel from a bookstore shelf. It's illegal for you to steal an electronic copy of my novel. It's illegal for you to reprint my novel and sell it for your own profit. These are all laws to protect me from being victimized by anyone (not just you). The laws won't stop you, but they can punish you for doing it, which might make you stop yourself for fear of being punished if you're caught.

That's why we have laws. To protect people.

Artists put time and effort into creating art. If they won't be compensated for it, then they need to get a different job to survive. An author spends his time writing. He gets paid for that when his books sell. He uses that money to buy food and pay for his home and costs of living. If everyone just takes his books without paying for them, reprints them and gives them to friends or customers without paying the author, then he's going to stop writing books and start waiting tables in a restaurant somewhere. No more books from that guy. Do it to all authors and no more books. Do it to all artists, and no more movies, TV shows, paintings, video games, music, dancing, whatever. All gone.

So we protect the people who create things by enacting laws to ensure that if what they create is good enough, they can find a way to market it and profit from their effort. This encourages good artists to produce art instead of waiting tables.

Just because 69% of Argentinians want to steal art doesn't mean we should say "wow, I guess copyrights suck, let's just change our laws to fit the idiosyncrasies of this culture so they can steal and reproduce all the art they want without compensating the artist".

That's not an idiosyncrasy. That's just idiotic.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 01:29 PM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(11-12-2012 12:41 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  So wait, what's the difference then?

In Argentina, they have copyright laws that make it illegal to steal software, but 69% of the people break that law. They also have laws that make it illegal to murder your neighbor, but everyone (almost everyone) obeys that law.

You're suggesting that the no murder law is OK because people follow it and the no software theft law is bad because people break it? Based solely on the numbers of people breaking the law?
Most laws are respected spontaneously by people, every time you buy a candy and you pay for it and you receive the candy in return you completed a contract. If everyone just start to steal candy from stores instead of buying them, then something must be changed to fix the situation, making more restrictive laws usually don't fix such situations, so the best course of action is to find a way to make laws in a way that people respect them, leaving only a small amount of fringe cases for the judiciary system to solve.
The number of people breaking copyright law is indicative of a situation in which the copyright law is failing to compel people to respect it. Making it more restrictive, or invading other rights (like privacy for example) to fix it is a bad solution.

(11-12-2012 12:41 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  You're also not saying that people should be able to consume "every" copyrighted work without paying for it - so which copyrighted work should be paid for and which should not?
Every copyrighted work should benefit the artists, poor choice of words on my side... mea culpa Tongue

(11-12-2012 12:41 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Of course laws aren't magical words. Legislators make laws to protect their populations. These laws include not murdering the population, but they also include provisions for the population to earn income from their labors, including artistic labors. Laws are not crafted to "fit the idiosyncrasies of society" - if a society idiosyncratically murdered their neighbors, I don't think legislators would create new laws to legalize murder.
Actually, laws against murder fit our idiosyncrasies, in other pars of the world things are different (honour killing). Laws always follow the society, not the other way around.
I'm not saying that we should legalize murder, but we should have laws that respect our values, it's called democracy.

(11-12-2012 12:41 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Laws are created to protect people from predation by other people. We don't need laws to make us do what we want to do. I don't need laws to tell me to breathe, to make love to women, to eat food, to watch TV, etc. I don't need laws to tell other people to do those things either. What I do need is laws to keep the bad guys from murdering me, stealing my stuff, raping my children, beating me up, etc. I need laws to protect me and my family from being victimized by bad people.

One kind of victimization is theft. It's illegal for you to break into my home and steal my TV. It's illegal for you to steal my car. It's illegal for you to steal my wallet. It's illegal for you to steal my novel from a bookstore shelf. It's illegal for you to steal an electronic copy of my novel. It's illegal for you to reprint my novel and sell it for your own profit. These are all laws to protect me from being victimized by anyone (not just you). The laws won't stop you, but they can punish you for doing it, which might make you stop yourself for fear of being punished if you're caught.

That's why we have laws. To protect people.
The right of access to cultural and scientific goods should also be protected against people abusing their intellectual property right.

(11-12-2012 12:41 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Artists put time and effort into creating art. If they won't be compensated for it, then they need to get a different job to survive. An author spends his time writing. He gets paid for that when his books sell. He uses that money to buy food and pay for his home and costs of living. If everyone just takes his books without paying for them, reprints them and gives them to friends or customers without paying the author, then he's going to stop writing books and start waiting tables in a restaurant somewhere. No more books from that guy. Do it to all authors and no more books. Do it to all artists, and no more movies, TV shows, paintings, video games, music, dancing, whatever. All gone.

So we protect the people who create things by enacting laws to ensure that if what they create is good enough, they can find a way to market it and profit from their effort. This encourages good artists to produce art instead of waiting tables.

Just because 69% of Argentinians want to steal art doesn't mean we should say "wow, I guess copyrights suck, let's just change our laws to fit the idiosyncrasies of this culture so they can steal and reproduce all the art they want without compensating the artist".
You're twisting my words, I never said we should allow people to steal art without compensating the artist. I just think that the current way of doing so is not working as it should.

(11-12-2012 12:41 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  That's not an idiosyncrasy. That's just idiotic.
Ok, so lets invade every idiotic culture that make things different than we think they should, and show them how a civilized society works. See? i can twist your words too No

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 01:46 PM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(11-12-2012 11:51 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 09:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you saying that you can print the content of my book and sell those copies without payment to me? Or reproduce my photograph and sell it without payment to me?
Of course you have the right to protect your IP (intellectual property) and you deserve compensation.
However it's not always that cut and dried, Chas. If you write a book and I have a blog that reviews books for free. We'll say it's a hobby -- there's no ads -- I receive no compensation whatsoever. I include picture of you and an image of the book (both downloaded from the web). You or your publisher can actually go after my blog (even if I receive no compensation whatsoever nor do I ask people to pay). Just for reproducing your image and displaying the book. Now, to muddy the waters further, let's say I hate your book. Let's say your book is trash (in my opinion) and I write a scathing review of it. And let's further speculate that I have a blog-buddy who wrote a review of your book also, with the same images, except they loved it. They thought it was great!

Now in this mythical blogging world, your publisher or a representative of you (with or without your direct knowledge) can have my entire blog eliminated with one letter to the host site (be it blogger, wordpress, etc.), claiming copyright infringement. They don't have to give a lot of detail either. Yet, my blog-buddy who loved your book is ignored.

This scenario is actually a very big reality in the blog world where people claim copyright infringement in a rather willy-nilly way.

A good friend published a recipe and someone (won't say who) who published a very similar recipe in a cookbook got her panties in a twist. The friend had no clue about the cookbook. The recipe was something she'd been making for years for parties -- the recipe wasn't even exact. But for a common thing that really has been around for a long time. In fact if you google there are literally thousands of hits -- all are about the same recipe. The image was her own, she'd taken in her kitchen....yet she came under heavy fire for this.

She did win the right to have her blog restored but she's since given up blogging -- she considered taking her blog private so that only certain people can read it but decided but would never increase her readership that way. She did enjoy the fact that people were reading her blog and liked her content.

Thats the problem there's just no continuity and I'll say this -- It has some really good (unaffiliated) bloggers rather nervous.
That's covered under fair use and other laws.

I am talking about reproducing my work and selling it. That is what is illegal. And should be.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
11-12-2012, 01:48 PM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(11-12-2012 11:53 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  Patents are even more time-limited than copyright. Trademarks are virtally forever.
Yes, those are specific differences for each type of intellectual property

(11-12-2012 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  This is a completely daft idea false distinction. Patents and copyrights are both protecting intellectual property.
I have developed software that is patented. I have photographs that are copyrighted. Both are my property. You may use them, but you will pay me because I created them and own them.
It's not a false distinction, patents protect designs or processes for making goods, that makes the profitability of the invention attached to the supply and demand law.
The protection for trademarks is oriented to protect both the business and the consumer, the trademark by itself has almost no value.
Artistic works have a cultural value, not an economic value, that's why protecting it in the same way doesn't have the same results.
(11-12-2012 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  What the internet changed was the ease of copying and the ease of theft. It did not change what intellectual property is.
Agreed, that makes the difference between intellectual property and basic property more visible.

(11-12-2012 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is your opinion. "Oh, everybody does it." It is theft. You're starting to sound like a Satanist.
My opinion is not "everybody does it then it should be allowed" my opinion is that no law should make 3/5 of the population criminals, and that's not even an opinion, it's the way laws must be made, there's a purpose for laws and that is to achieve peace and the common good, I highly doubt that making everyone punishable fulfils that purpose.

(11-12-2012 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, protecting our rights has costs.
But if the costs are higher than the benefits then it shouldn't be acceptable, and every right has limitations. Is the logic behind anti-trust laws, everyone has the right to make a profit from their work, but if making that profit leads to a trust and that trust hurts the whole economy, then nobody has the right to profit that much. The same logic applies to every right.

(11-12-2012 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, that's a great argument - let the poor artists starve.
Again, I'm not saying that artists shouldn't profit from their work, I say, again, that the current system is at odds with the general interests of society, hence, we should find a better solution that satisfies everyone (as much as possible)

(11-12-2012 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  But you sound just like an angry 4chan troll. Please tell me how you are not. Consider
Because I'm giving you the reasons in which I base my opinions and I'm honest enough to acknowledge I have an opinion on the subject (with reasons to sustain it, but an opinion nonetheless). If I sound like a troll is probably because I'm tired and english is not my native language so it's hard for me to phrase things better, cut me some slack in the "sounding" area ok? Tongue


You have sufficiently muddied the waters that I can't tell what it is you object to or whether you are suggesting a solution.

The idea that my work is not mine is the troubling idea you appear to be promoting.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 03:03 PM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(11-12-2012 01:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 11:51 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Of course you have the right to protect your IP (intellectual property) and you deserve compensation.
However it's not always that cut and dried, Chas. If you write a book and I have a blog that reviews books for free. We'll say it's a hobby -- there's no ads -- I receive no compensation whatsoever. I include picture of you and an image of the book (both downloaded from the web). You or your publisher can actually go after my blog (even if I receive no compensation whatsoever nor do I ask people to pay). Just for reproducing your image and displaying the book. Now, to muddy the waters further, let's say I hate your book. Let's say your book is trash (in my opinion) and I write a scathing review of it. And let's further speculate that I have a blog-buddy who wrote a review of your book also, with the same images, except they loved it. They thought it was great!

Now in this mythical blogging world, your publisher or a representative of you (with or without your direct knowledge) can have my entire blog eliminated with one letter to the host site (be it blogger, wordpress, etc.), claiming copyright infringement. They don't have to give a lot of detail either. Yet, my blog-buddy who loved your book is ignored.

This scenario is actually a very big reality in the blog world where people claim copyright infringement in a rather willy-nilly way.

A good friend published a recipe and someone (won't say who) who published a very similar recipe in a cookbook got her panties in a twist. The friend had no clue about the cookbook. The recipe was something she'd been making for years for parties -- the recipe wasn't even exact. But for a common thing that really has been around for a long time. In fact if you google there are literally thousands of hits -- all are about the same recipe. The image was her own, she'd taken in her kitchen....yet she came under heavy fire for this.

She did win the right to have her blog restored but she's since given up blogging -- she considered taking her blog private so that only certain people can read it but decided but would never increase her readership that way. She did enjoy the fact that people were reading her blog and liked her content.

Thats the problem there's just no continuity and I'll say this -- It has some really good (unaffiliated) bloggers rather nervous.
That's covered under fair use and other laws.

I am talking about reproducing my work and selling it. That is what is illegal. And should be.

I will not comment before coffee....I will not comment before coffee....:-) I'm sorry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 10:22 PM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2012 06:49 AM by nach_in.)
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(11-12-2012 01:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 11:53 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Yes, those are specific differences for each type of intellectual property

It's not a false distinction, patents protect designs or processes for making goods, that makes the profitability of the invention attached to the supply and demand law.
The protection for trademarks is oriented to protect both the business and the consumer, the trademark by itself has almost no value.
Artistic works have a cultural value, not an economic value, that's why protecting it in the same way doesn't have the same results.
Agreed, that makes the difference between intellectual property and basic property more visible.

My opinion is not "everybody does it then it should be allowed" my opinion is that no law should make 3/5 of the population criminals, and that's not even an opinion, it's the way laws must be made, there's a purpose for laws and that is to achieve peace and the common good, I highly doubt that making everyone punishable fulfils that purpose.

But if the costs are higher than the benefits then it shouldn't be acceptable, and every right has limitations. Is the logic behind anti-trust laws, everyone has the right to make a profit from their work, but if making that profit leads to a trust and that trust hurts the whole economy, then nobody has the right to profit that much. The same logic applies to every right.

Again, I'm not saying that artists shouldn't profit from their work, I say, again, that the current system is at odds with the general interests of society, hence, we should find a better solution that satisfies everyone (as much as possible)

Because I'm giving you the reasons in which I base my opinions and I'm honest enough to acknowledge I have an opinion on the subject (with reasons to sustain it, but an opinion nonetheless). If I sound like a troll is probably because I'm tired and english is not my native language so it's hard for me to phrase things better, cut me some slack in the "sounding" area ok? Tongue


You have sufficiently muddied the waters that I can't tell what it is you object to or whether you are suggesting a solution.
ok, I'll make it simple:

There are issues with the current copyright system, those issues lead to undesirable situations, therefore we must change the system to solve those issues.

That's all, nothing more nothing less.
If fixing things require some modification on how we think about intellectual property then so be it, if it makes it harder for artists to profit from their work, then so be it (law is not there to provide business models or solutions)

I don't know what would be the perfect system, but I do say that we should start thinking before things escalate even further.



Quote:The idea that my work is not mine is the troubling idea you appear to be promoting.

I'm saying your work is not yours in the same sense that your house is yours. Your work is yours, but in a different way



EDIT: I've been searching and found this nice article that explains pretty well how things are nowadays, it doesn't offer a definitive solution but points out how things are different and that gives me the basis to say that we need to review copyright laws.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2012, 07:24 AM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(11-12-2012 10:22 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 01:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  You have sufficiently muddied the waters that I can't tell what it is you object to or whether you are suggesting a solution.
ok, I'll make it simple:

There are issues with the current copyright system, those issues lead to undesirable situations, therefore we must change the system to solve those issues.

That's all, nothing more nothing less.
If fixing things require some modification on how we think about intellectual property then so be it, if it makes it harder for artists to profit from their work, then so be it (law is not there to provide business models or solutions)

I don't know what would be the perfect system, but I do say that we should start thinking before things escalate even further.



Quote:The idea that my work is not mine is the troubling idea you appear to be promoting.

I'm saying your work is not yours in the same sense that your house is yours. Your work is yours, but in a different way



EDIT: I've been searching and found this nice article that explains pretty well how things are nowadays, it doesn't offer a definitive solution but points out how things are different and that gives me the basis to say that we need to review copyright laws.
Thank you for clarifying. I agree there are problems with intellectual property law, but there are problems with every body of law.

When you say my work is not mine in the way my house is mine, please tell me how they differ.
I see no substantive difference. I own them. You don't.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-12-2012, 07:46 AM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(12-12-2012 07:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 10:22 PM)nach_in Wrote:  ok, I'll make it simple:

There are issues with the current copyright system, those issues lead to undesirable situations, therefore we must change the system to solve those issues.

That's all, nothing more nothing less.
If fixing things require some modification on how we think about intellectual property then so be it, if it makes it harder for artists to profit from their work, then so be it (law is not there to provide business models or solutions)

I don't know what would be the perfect system, but I do say that we should start thinking before things escalate even further.




I'm saying your work is not yours in the same sense that your house is yours. Your work is yours, but in a different way



EDIT: I've been searching and found this nice article that explains pretty well how things are nowadays, it doesn't offer a definitive solution but points out how things are different and that gives me the basis to say that we need to review copyright laws.
Thank you for clarifying. I agree there are problems with intellectual property law, but there are problems with every body of law.

When you say my work is not mine in the way my house is mine, please tell me how they differ.
I see no substantive difference. I own them. You don't.
There are different kinds of ownership (usufruct, condominium, etc. not sure if those are the correct english terms) but all those kinds emanate from the same basic right of property, which include all of them (think about them like being sub-sets of all the rights that property grants).


But the right is just the legal side of the coin, the other side is possession, actually having the thing in your power (not holding it, you can't hold everything you own, but having the power to affect the object at will without interference of others). Possession is a fact, not a right btw.
For intellectual property you can't have this, nobody can empirically possess an story or a song or an image. Because you can't exercise that ownership in the same way you do with objects, then there's a fundamental, ontological difference between the two kinds of goods.

And because of that difference the legal solutions for classical property don't always apply for intellectual property. If someone steals you car or trespasses your house you just take those things back by force. With intellectual property the solution was (and is) to take the book or the painting back (and all the copies) by force also, but with internet that is becoming increasingly difficult, and to make it possible today we need to monitor everything people do on the internet, and that kind of surveillance affect other rights, like privacy.

That's why I said that until now things worked well enough, but now those ways to enforce the law are getting too invasive and there're few signs that things will get better anytime soon. This is the reason I brought up the idiosyncrasy thing, we have to find a way to make revenue for the artists possible with a spontaneous respect from everyone else. And to make it so, we need to take into account the essential differences between classical property and intellectual property, otherwise we'll just make the same mistakes again.

We can't change the facts by law (that's why I said is not magic), but we can change the law to accommodate the facts and make people behave in the way we think is the best.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
12-12-2012, 08:47 AM
are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(12-12-2012 07:46 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(12-12-2012 07:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  Thank you for clarifying. I agree there are problems with intellectual property law, but there are problems with every body of law.

When you say my work is not mine in the way my house is mine, please tell me how they differ.
I see no substantive difference. I own them. You don't.
There are different kinds of ownership (usufruct, condominium, etc. not sure if those are the correct english terms) but all those kinds emanate from the same basic right of property, which include all of them (think about them like being sub-sets of all the rights that property grants).


But the right is just the legal side of the coin, the other side is possession, actually having the thing in your power (not holding it, you can't hold everything you own, but having the power to affect the object at will without interference of others). Possession is a fact, not a right btw.
For intellectual property you can't have this, nobody can empirically possess an story or a song or an image. Because you can't exercise that ownership in the same way you do with objects, then there's a fundamental, ontological difference between the two kinds of goods.

And because of that difference the legal solutions for classical property don't always apply for intellectual property. If someone steals you car or trespasses your house you just take those things back by force. With intellectual property the solution was (and is) to take the book or the painting back (and all the copies) by force also, but with internet that is becoming increasingly difficult, and to make it possible today we need to monitor everything people do on the internet, and that kind of surveillance affect other rights, like privacy.

That's why I said that until now things worked well enough, but now those ways to enforce the law are getting too invasive and there're few signs that things will get better anytime soon. This is the reason I brought up the idiosyncrasy thing, we have to find a way to make revenue for the artists possible with a spontaneous respect from everyone else. And to make it so, we need to take into account the essential differences between classical property and intellectual property, otherwise we'll just make the same mistakes again.

We can't change the facts by law (that's why I said is not magic), but we can change the law to accommodate the facts and make people behave in the way we think is the best.

I started to read this then remembered you're in law school. Laughat

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: