Skepchick Warring with Dawkins Again

[Svartalf]

Because a copy of IP material still is a discreet item that is acquired as property. I'm fucking buying a copy, not renting the whole thing. That copy becomes my property, and mine to do with as I want (barring reproduction rights). A book, or DVD for that matter, is effing expensive, and I have a right to get some of the price back by selling it on the used market once I've satisfied my curiosity, or become tired of that work.

[Svartalf]

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

Being a good capitalist you can't begrudge me the right to make a buck off a used piece of property I own.

[PsychoSerenity]

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.

The fundamental difference is between material and immaterial property. They are very different concepts and society tends to treat them differently.

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

Should they also be allowed to say that the information you have read must be forgotten? After all it's their material and you are keeping a copy of it in your mind. Or perhaps that's just a bit silly.

[MrJonno]

Because a copy of IP material still is a discreet item that is acquired as property. I'm fucking buying a copy, not renting the whole thing. That copy becomes my property, and mine to do with as I want (barring reproduction rights). A book, or DVD for that matter, is effing expensive, and I have a right to get some of the price back by selling it on the used market once I've satisfied my curiosity, or become tired of that work.

You own the paper or the other media you do not own the contents of the book. Books or DVD's are not expensive compared to what they cost to produce. A book cost £100K + to write and sell, a movie £100 million. What you pay for them is an utter pittance and in fact it is closer to renting (perpetually) them than actually buying them .

Its why people hate DRM is doesn't change anything legally but what it does it allows technology to actually enforce the law. You never owned the contents of a DVD now the film producers can actually enforce this

[MrJonno]

The fundamental difference is between material and immaterial property. They are very different concepts and society tends to treat them differently.

The main difference is one is easier to steal than the other and because its easy to do , many people do so they try to justify IP theft . If a large number of people break a law it doesn't necessary make it a bad law it just makes most people criminals

Should they also be allowed to say that the information you have read must be forgotten? After all it's their material and you are keeping a copy of it in your mind. Or perhaps that's just a bit silly

Can't make you forget the information but you are restricted in exploiting them (patents)

[Svartalf]

Because a copy of IP material still is a discreet item that is acquired as property. I'm fucking buying a copy, not renting the whole thing. That copy becomes my property, and mine to do with as I want (barring reproduction rights). A book, or DVD for that matter, is effing expensive, and I have a right to get some of the price back by selling it on the used market once I've satisfied my curiosity, or become tired of that work.

You own the paper or the other media you do not own the contents of the book. Books or DVD's are not expensive compared to what they cost to produce. A book cost £100K + to write and sell, a movie £100 million. What you pay for them is an utter pittance and in fact it is closer to renting (perpetually) them than actually buying them .

Its why people hate DRM is doesn't change anything legally but what it does it allows technology to actually enforce the law. You never owned the contents of a DVD now the film producers can actually enforce this

I'm still buying an object, not actually licensing the work for derivative or reproduction rights... that copy still is my property, and my rights about said property need defending against corporations that would build self destruction devices in it or tell me how I may dispose of it without letting me have my say at contract negociation.

[MrJonno]

I'm still buying an object, not actually licensing the work for derivative or reproduction rights... that copy still is my property, and my rights about said property need defending against corporations that would build self destruction devices in it or tell me how I may dispose of it without letting me have my say at contract negociation

The object you are buying is the physical media (which is fundamentally worthless and in the future won't exist), you are in effect renting the right to use the data on it.

You do have say in the contract its the crap that you that no one ever reads but you voluntary agree with when you install software or play a film. It usually says if you don't agree with this take it back and get a refund.

[Svartalf]

I'm buying a whole, content and medium, though I'm not licensing reproduction rights for the work, meaning I'm not entitled to photocopying my book before selling it.
By selling the medium, I implicitly alsso transfer any rights I had acquired on the contents, and deprive myself of the same in the very act, since I can't consult said copy anymore.

[MrJonno]

I'm buying a whole, content and medium, though I'm not licensing reproduction rights for the work, meaning I'm not entitled to photocopying my book before selling it.
By selling the medium, I implicitly alsso transfer any rights I had acquired on the contents, and deprive myself of the same in the very act, since I can't consult said copy anymore.

Until the European court ruling this wasn't true you didn't buy the contents you effectively rented it, now we I guess we shall see. I suspect we will see some serious trade disputes over this ruling

[Svartalf]

Thank Shit for sensible judges.

[PsychoSerenity]

MrJonno, what you are arguing, taken to its logical conclusion, is that the rights to control, restrict and profit from the flow of any and all information, ought to be available to be bought and sold. This would clearly be ridiculous.

While many societies grant limited instances of rights to control information, they sensibly recognise that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

[MrJonno]

MrJonno, what you are arguing, taken to its logical conclusion, is that the rights to control, restrict and profit from the flow of any and all information, ought to be available to be bought and sold. This would clearly be ridiculous.

While many societies grant limited instances of rights to control information, they sensibly recognise that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Unrestricted rights no but nothing in life is free, even if the costs are shared.

When we are talking luxuries like fiction books or movies the balance should be towards the producers not the consumers as simply the consumers get a choice on whether to accept these restrictions.

Something like drug patents need to be balance making it profitable for the drugs companies and making sure the drug is easily available for everyone

[JimC]

It's just the absoluteness with which he pontificates. "EVERY abortion..."... Bullshit. "Mugging me"... bullshit. And even if they did, boo fucking hoo. Every absolute opinion Jonno gives is always ultra simplistic and inherently selfish. "We give money to the poor so they don't kill us"... Actually, many advocate giving money to the poor because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THEM. Whatever it's got to do with us personally, is a very distant consideration. He never used to be like this. I don't know what happened. I suspect he got mugged and suffered brain trauma. Most of his posts are full of grammar and spelling errors now (they never used to be). Essentially, it just hurts my brain to read his guff now.

You can replace every with most if you really want, politics is about statistics not individual exceptions. Doing the right thing is often not enough to change the world, appealing to self interest is often useful in getting the right thing done.

What I have said is straight out of the book Freakonomics (ie more abortions equals less crime) but I've taken that view for a long time before I ever read that book.

Grammer and spelling errors are probably due to not working out to switch the spell checker on in firefox, probably should look into it at some point

Enlightened self-interest can and should be a component in ethical decision making, but it is only one component out of several.

[pErvinalia]

The software piracy thing is more of a function of the thing being "stolen" is not identified as a "thing" at all.

It's amazing how people really try to persuade themselves that stealing intellectual property is somehow different to shoplifting.

Anyway I do pirate stuff occassionaly not because I think its morally right but because I am unlikely to get caught, I would also steal a nice new TV if I thought the chances of me being caught were zero (and I could carry it)

It amazes me how some people really don't see any difference between "stealing" intellectual property and shoplifting.

As it happens I wouldn't steal a new TV, even if the chances of me being caught were zero.

It's just wildly different points of view I suppose.

[pErvinalia]

I subscribe to this too. My own moral code would prevent me form theft except in exceptional circumstances (to pay for food for family might be one).

As do most people. Jonno just blurts this shit out, as it gets him attention or something. I can't believe for a second he holds the ridiculously simplistic views he purports to hold.