Jump to content

Sky Slate Blueberry Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate

Law professor says illegal downloading not theft

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic
  • Members
  • 251 posts
  • Last active: Dec 19 2012 03:54 PM
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2006

I think i understand where your confusion lies.

You assume something intelectual can be property... lets play this game then shall we?

if i make 1 chair how many can i sell?
if i make 1 idea/book/song.... how many can i sell?
So then you argue that as the creator you can make copies. remember the chair it cost time and supplies while the idea may have cost only time (less overhead)?

False. The book writer had to pay his bills and put food on his table with real money while he was writing his book. which may have took years. You were off making chairs making money while he was holed up in his room. He also may have paid real money for his education. The school wanted real money, the professors needed to pay their bills too, the authors of all those text books as well. All his time in school - years - you were rolling in chair profits while he was spending his money, investing in his future, a future that offered no guarantees and no repayment for his time other than by being able to sell his product someday. He might fail and not be a good author, unable to support himself, just like you might not be a good chair maker. I don't know how much you invested to learn chair making, but that cost is rolled into the price of your chair too.

So is the problem just with the amount of money that a creator can make on their item? If there was a means to ensure people were adequately compensated for their time and effort - what entity would decide that is a different story - would the book writer suddenly have some rights to their work? Do we need to limit the profits of the chair maker too?

Why is the sweat from the chair maker more important that the sweat from the book writer? Perhaps you don't think so, but instead the chair makes deserves to insist on selling his chairs and has the right to complain when they're stolen because he's provided some material. Is it only the material costs that make his stolen chair valuable? Mind you, he didn't make that tree grow before he cut it up into chair parts, he didn't produce the land on which it grew and he didn't make it rain. He just cut up the tree and turned it into a bunch of chairs. If he bought the tree, is that tangible commodity much different to him than the intangible education that the book writer paid for? If the chair maker isn't buying the wood for his own pleasure - other than the fact that he *likes* to work with wood - is it that much different from the book writer buying his education and the computer he writes his book on? And are their products any less valuable? I'm thankful for my chairs and my books, I wouldn't want to be without either, and I'm glad chair makers and book writers a like can make a profit.

You assume you are so unique that one of any other 7 billion humans could never have the same intelectual process.

No I didn't... not sure why you presume that either.

you also assume that you are capable of creating a thing without borrowing concepts from others.

Not at all. I paid people good money to learn from them, and invested a lot of my time doing so, while you were making chairs. They agreed my money was a fair trade for their knowledge.

if you sell something you are trading it for money. Only if you are licensing/leasing something do you still own it. I have never once leased music.

And like a book, you own the physical media, and the right to share it but not the "right" to redistribute it without limits. Not the right to sell copies to others. I'm glad that at least *you* are buying it, even if you believe you should be able to give a free copy to anyone and everyone you see fit.

So let me ask, if all music can with a license agreement right on the cover - "you are buying this media but only have a license to listen to the music" - would suddenly you be ok with it? Or should your existing music and digital copies all be destroyed in a house fire, would you then refuse to ever buy music again because you only want to buy it if you own the rights to the music and not just the media? My guess is you would buy the music anyway and consider it a fair trade, because my guess is you did buy music before there was a time you *could* conceivable copy it and give a copy to the entire world. I don't understand why you think you *should* have the right to simply give the music away to everyone.

If others see hear or otherwise experience this thing and find it valuable would they not decide to show the value and purchase it as well.

Many selfishly will not if they can have it for free, that's correct. They value it personally, but they hope/assume/*could care less* that the money that *you* paid the author will be enough to compensate them.