Skepchick Warring with Dawkins Again

[Coito ergo sum]

The "average?" Yes, absolutely. The vast majority are trustworthy to carry a gun, and will try to be impartial on a jury.

And thats pretty much comes down to why our politics are different, I don't know a good alternative to giving people the vote but there are clear alternatives to allowing people to carry a gun and the jury system is an abomination which most sensible countries don't use

Actually, most sensible countries do use the jury system. Almost all common law countries use jury trials. The US and Canada use jury trials a bit more, in non-criminal cases. But most sensible countries use juries for criminal cases.

If I were arrested, I'd much rather have a jury than not have one.

[MrJonno]

If I read a friends copy of a book, I'm not stealing anything. If I go to a library and borrow a CD or DVD, I'm not stealing anything. If I download a movie I want to see that is out of stock in the stores and unavailable from legit sources, I'm not stealing anything, they have not made it available to steal. Again, if they don't want people doing it, they should move with the times. Itunes, Steam, Amazon, Audible, Netflix, these are all companies who have had trouble with the old school distribution networks attempting to stifle their businesses.

It's legal to read a friend's book but there is absolutely no reason why this should be, if book publisher wanted to sell a book that had a license that came with it that said you couldnt lend (or sell it ) to anyone else that I would support the book publisher right to ( and the consumer right to say to tell the publisher where to go). It would of course be somewhat hard to enforce but with e-books that is getting easier

Libraries pay a lot of money to be allowed to lend out books more than an individual does

If you can't get a movie when and in what format you want to , tough you don't get it , doesnt entitle you to steal it

[Audley Strange]

CES

I think it's different in the U.K. let me go check...

"all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without prior permission of the Publisher. Any person who does any unauthrised act in relation to this publication may be be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages."

"This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publishers prior consent"

I don't know if that is the same in the U.S. probably not.

Yep. If they don't want me to copy their shit, then they should put encryption protection that will prevent me from copying it. They just don't want to go through the trouble.

Well that is part of the problem (as Pord pointed out above.) DRM encryption and the like has made the honest consumer jump through fucking hoops, where as they can dl a ripped copy without any of that shit. Thus they have shot themselves in the foot by punishing the honest consumer. They had a captive market for so long and now other avenues have opened up

[Audley Strange]

If I read a friends copy of a book, I'm not stealing anything. If I go to a library and borrow a CD or DVD, I'm not stealing anything. If I download a movie I want to see that is out of stock in the stores and unavailable from legit sources, I'm not stealing anything, they have not made it available to steal. Again, if they don't want people doing it, they should move with the times. Itunes, Steam, Amazon, Audible, Netflix, these are all companies who have had trouble with the old school distribution networks attempting to stifle their businesses.

It's legal to read a friend's book but there is absolutely no reason why this should be, if book publisher wanted to sell a book that had a license that came with it that said you couldnt lend (or sell it ) to anyone else that I would support the book publisher right to ( and the consumer right to say to tell the publisher where to go). It would of course be somewhat hard to enforce but with e-books that is getting easier

Libraries pay a lot of money to be allowed to lend out books more than an individual does

If you can't get a movie when and in what format you want to , tough you don't get it , doesnt entitle you to steal it

I'm not stealing it. You cannot steal something that is not available to steal.

[MrJonno]

Actually, most sensible countries do use the jury system. Almost all common law countries use jury trials. The US and Canada use jury trials a bit more, in non-criminal cases. But most sensible countries use juries for criminal cases.

Most 1st world countries do not use juries the English speaking countries are the exception not the norm. Nothing is more scary than 12 random people from the public most of whom will be from the bottom of society who couldnt find a good excuse to get out of it (which is what middle class people tend to manage)

[MrJonno]

I'm not stealing it. You cannot steal something that is not available to steal.

Actually you can, if I something in the bin and leave it outside , you then proceed to take it from the bin you have commited theft against me even if I don't want want what is in the bin

Everything belongs to someone even if its the public in general, if you take something (anything) and don't have explicit permission to do so you have stolen it even if its value is zero to the person you are taking it from

[Coito ergo sum]

If I read a friends copy of a book, I'm not stealing anything. If I go to a library and borrow a CD or DVD, I'm not stealing anything. If I download a movie I want to see that is out of stock in the stores and unavailable from legit sources, I'm not stealing anything, they have not made it available to steal. Again, if they don't want people doing it, they should move with the times. Itunes, Steam, Amazon, Audible, Netflix, these are all companies who have had trouble with the old school distribution networks attempting to stifle their businesses.

It's legal to read a friend's book but there is absolutely no reason why this should be, if book publisher wanted to sell a book that had a license that came with it that said you couldnt lend (or sell it ) to anyone else that I would support the book publisher right to ( and the consumer right to say to tell the publisher where to go). It would of course be somewhat hard to enforce but with e-books that is getting easier

Libraries pay a lot of money to be allowed to lend out books more than an individual does

If you can't get a movie when and in what format you want to , tough you don't get it , doesnt entitle you to steal it

Libraries don't pay a lot of money to be "allowed" to lend out books. If you accumulated a bunch of books, you could start a library, and lend out your collection.

Also, this is the deal --

There is no common law right to copyright. I.e. - traditionally, if someone makes a song, they couldn't stop someone else from singing it or selling copies of it.

Copyright law was enacted to provide LIMITED rights to the creator of a work -- that right is a limited right to reproduce and a limited right to distribute. Among the limitations is the 'first sale doctrine' which means that once I come into lawful possession of a work, I am allowed to dispose of it as I see fit. I can distribute my copy, give it away, lend it, whatever. the copyright owner cannot restrict downstream trade in the thing because he has exhausted his rights. This is to prevent the copyright owner from restraining trade and restraining the alienability of goods.

This applies to downloaded programs too; ,

in Europe, the European Court of Justice ruled on July 3, 2012, that it is indeed permissible to resell software licenses even if the digital good has been downloaded directly from the Internet, and that the first-sale doctrine applied whenever software was originally sold to a customer for an unlimited amount of time, as such sale involves a transfer of ownership, thus prohibiting any software maker from preventing the resale of their software by any of their legitimate owners.[2][3] The court requires that the previous owner must no longer be able to use the licensed software after the resale, but finds that the practical difficulties in enforcing this clause should not be an obstacle to authorizing resale, as they are also present for software which can be installed from physical supports, where the first-sale doctrine is in force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

[Audley Strange]

I'm not stealing it. You cannot steal something that is not available to steal.

Actually you can, if I something in the bin and leave it outside , you then proceed to take it from the bin you have commited theft against me even if I don't want want what is in the bin

Everything belongs to someone even if its the public in general, if you take something (anything) and don't have explicit permission to do so you have stolen it even if its value is zero to the person you are taking it from

The thing you put in the bin is available to steal. A better analogy would be that you stopped dumping stuff in your bin because you didn't want people stealing it, but your neighbour who has the same stuff gladly leaves it out for others to take and you are complaining that your neighbour is encouraging people to steal "your" stuff.

[MrJonno]

The European Court of Justice is wrong, it shouldnt be saying ( no judge shoudl be) what is legal or not legal thats not a courts job, its elected politicans

Copyright exists to allow people with intellectual property to make money, any restrictions on it are to benefit society as whole (ie are socialist). I'm not particularly a big fan of socialist restrictions on things that are not vital for life like movies and music but these things need to be far stricter on drugs which are.

Amazes me how right wing people are so happy to preach the market for physical goods but as soon as its easy to pinch start waffling on about 'fair use'.

If 'fair use' makes it too easy to steal then fair use needs to go not copyright

[Svartalf]

Publishers would prevent me from reselling my used books, I need courts to make sure my rights over my property (that is, the physical copy I bought) are upheld.

[MrJonno]

Publishers would prevent me from reselling my used books, I need courts to make sure my rights over my property (that is, the physical copy I bought) are upheld.

Why shouldnt publishers prevent you from selling licensed work?, there are two main reasons tradition and enforcebility . You could argue you own the paper so if you tipex over all the words you can then sell it.

When it comes to ebooks there is no tradition and the option does exist to restrict which is exactly what is happening.

As Coito ergo sum mentioned the European Courts disagree with me and they think you actually 'own' software but there is no natural law saying that is true

[Svartalf]

Did you read the quoted copyright copy earlier? it did say that the thing can't be resold without publisher's authorisation... without courts to make sure I can dispose of my stuff as best I deem, they might try to enforce that shit too.

[Coito ergo sum]

[
As Coito ergo sum mentioned the European Courts disagree with me and they think you actually 'own' software but there is no natural law saying that is true

...and the same goes for the publisher. There is no natural law saying that they CAN restrict downstream distribution of copyrighted work, and in fact the only reason they have any rights at all to restrict distribution and reproduction of copyrighted works is because the government grants it to them by statute, so the government could just as easily repeal the copyright protection altogether.

Every sensible country, however, has attempted to strike a balance. You, for some reason, want "Big Publisher" to have a monopoly on distribution, even secondary and tertiary distribution, of published works.

[MrJonno]

Did you read the quoted copyright copy earlier? it did say that the thing can't be resold without publisher's authorisation... without courts to make sure I can dispose of my stuff as best I deem, they might try to enforce that shit too.

Missing the point why shouldnt publishers not be allowed to sell licensed material which such conditions?, you may not way to agree with such conditions and not buy it but fundamentally I see no ethical reason why publishers shouldnt be able to put any restrictions they want to do on their material.

If a publisher wants to sell you a book on the condition you must destroy it within 30 days of purchasing it, why shouldnt they be allow to put that in the contract you effectively sign when you access copyrighted material. If they sold the book at say half the price of a permanent book I would probably buy it you might not but thats up to you

You are taking a position that you have some sort of natural rights when you purchase a book when in fact you actually have none bar what you negotiate with the seller and what the society (ie the law) grants you

[MrJonno]

Every sensible country, however, has attempted to strike a balance. You, for some reason, want "Big Publisher" to have a monopoly on distribution, even secondary and tertiary distribution, of published works

Being a good capitalist I want the publisher to make as much money as possible as long as it doesnt damage society as whole, as the work belongs to the publisher (the consuemr is just paying for the limited privelge to view it) the default position should be they should be able to put any restrictions that they want until that proves socially damaging