Do Not Steal Intellectual Property

[Yorzhik]

Do you believe you have the right to copy a $100 bill in your wallet and spend it as if it were real?

So I answer this question rather completely, in as much as is practical in forum, and people just continue discussing it as if no one addressed it at all.

Maybe this will help?:

Yes, it is OK to copy a $100 bill and spend it as if it were real as long as one made it clear it was a copy.

 

[Yorzhik]

You know, this the typical view of Romans 13, but there are honestly a number of ridiculous aspects to it. Does virtually any activity magically become immoral just because we have a government that feels the need to write a law about virtually anything?

Basically, yes. Just remember that when a country starts getting ridiculous its end is near.

I wouldn't do that, but our currency system is already fraudulent to begin with, so I don't see why I should care.

This is irrelevant. Even if the gov't was able to control themselves and back their paper money with commodity money, the special case still stands.

OK, I'm still a little confused but I think I understand this.

Yes, I'm writing fast and short and it can be confusing. I'm responsible because I'm not a better writer. However, no copyrights and patents would actually make little difference in the end to an economy. In the end, people will innovate even without copyrights and patents because they will make money doing so.

I admit that my stance on IP is not settled and that I'm playing Devil's Advocate but... why do you have an inherent right to someone's possible future purchase?

You wouldn't have that with anything else.

How is not buying something theft?

Good points all. It's another inherent problem with IP. In the end it makes conclusions based on trying to tell the future (thereby altering the future so there is no way to know), and engage in thought control. Doing either of these is fraught with danger.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And Nick would be correct.

So you believe that if the government does immoral things then it's okay for you to do immoral things?

Yes, it is OK to copy a $100 bill and spend it as if it were real as long as one made it clear it was a copy.

If you made it clear it was a copy you wouldn't be able to sell it to anyone.

Therefore in reality your answer is actually... No, you DO NOT have the right to copy a $100 bill in your wallet and spend it as if it were real.

 

[Yorzhik]

If you made it clear it was a copy you wouldn't be able to sell it to anyone.

That's exactly the point. This would not be true of making a copy of a book and selling it. What's the difference?

Therefore in reality your answer is actually... No, you DO NOT have the right to copy a $100 bill in your wallet and spend it as if it were real.

Now hold on there. I meant exactly what I said. Yes, you do have the right as long as you aren't committing fraud.

BTW, if someone did copy a bill now in the US, would they be arrested for copyright violations? And after answering that one, consider the same situation in a place that did not have copyright laws.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That's exactly the point. This would not be true of making a copy of a book and selling it. What's the difference?

The difference is.... the moment you tell somebody your $100 bill is counterfeit it loses all value. Yet telling someone that you have made a copy of a song or a book doesn't lose all value. People can still listen to the copy of the song (in exact digital detail), and they can still read the copy of the book. In other words... they are getting the full value of the product from you even though it cost you nothing to produce and you have little to no investment in it's creation.

One of my sources of income is digital clip art. Myself, My brother, and My father (God rest his soul), invested years of our lives drawing the images and converting them to digital clip art files to sell on the internet.

I have found people that take my files and resell them on eBay and Craigslist. This is obviously devastating to my income because it robs me of potential sales. You would side with the thief who is stealing from me and my family. That kinda offends me.

 

[Yorzhik]

The difference is.... the moment you tell somebody your $100 bill is counterfeit it loses all value.

And this would be true in a country that didn't have copyrights. Therefore, it isn't right to equate copying a bill with copying a book.

Yet telling someone that you have made a copy of a song or a book doesn't lose all value. People can still listen to the copy of the song (in exact digital detail), and they can still read the copy of the book. In other words... they are getting the full value of the product from you even though it cost you nothing to produce and you have little to no investment in it's creation.

It's not true that it costs nothing. Even time to make a copy costs something. People will know this and pay accordingly. Just note copying a bill and copying a book cannot be equated. It's the same with a signature; copying a book and copying a signature are not the same for many of the same reasons.

One of my sources of income is digital clip art. Myself, My brother, and My father (God rest his soul), invested years of our lives drawing the images and converting them to digital clip art files to sell on the internet.

I have found people that take my files and resell them on eBay and Craigslist. This is obviously devastating to my income because it robs me of potential sales. You would side with the thief who is stealing from me and my family. That kinda offends me.

But I don't side with the person violating copyright. If the law of the land is copyright, we must abide by that law for the reasons I gave earlier in this thread.

In a country with copyrights and patents, the market is skewed because the government creates false signals. This is what you are blaming me for, and I'm not the one doing it.

If the country did not have copyrights and patents, then you would have a clear understanding of what people wanted and what they would pay for it. You might have other delivery systems, or other addons to your product. There is no way to know because we don't live in that world.

This is exactly the same as our criminal justice system. It's really messed up, and we advocate for the correct system, but we live in and abide by the current one. Take any current case and imagine what it would be like in a good justice system; but wait, would we have even had that case if the justice system had been correct? There is no way to know. In the end, we find out what is correct and advocate for that.

 

[Lighthouse]

I admit that my stance on IP is not settled and that I'm playing Devil's Advocate but... why do you have an inherent right to someone's possible future purchase?

You wouldn't have that with anything else.

How is not buying something theft?

I'm not sure I understand the first question you ask here.

And not paying for something yet obtaining it is theft, unless it is a gift from someone who either purchased it legitimately or is the author of it.

I'm a pretty decent artist. If I draw a picture of a character of my own creation then I am free to sell it with no restrictions except maybe to whom I can sell it depending on the subject matter.

However, if I draw a picture of a character created by someone else and I do not have a license to draw and sell images of that character then I cannot sell images of that character unless the subject matter falls under fair use. However, I can give away such drawings, or perhaps draw them on a wall where the owner of said wall has given permission to do so.

Like, say, Shaggy:

Do you think it is immoral for me to sell such images as an amateur who has no license for Shaggy?

The difference is.... the moment you tell somebody your $100 bill is counterfeit it loses all value.

Not necessarily. If it is a drawing then it may yet retain some value as a piece of art, especially if it is exceptional in some way.

Yet telling someone that you have made a copy of a song or a book doesn't lose all value. People can still listen to the copy of the song (in exact digital detail), and they can still read the copy of the book. In other words... they are getting the full value of the product from you even though it cost you nothing to produce and you have little to no investment in it's creation.

This is correct. I don't understand why they don't see this.

One of my sources of income is digital clip art. Myself, My brother, and My father (God rest his soul), invested years of our lives drawing the images and converting them to digital clip art files to sell on the internet.

I have found people that take my files and resell them on eBay and Craigslist. This is obviously devastating to my income because it robs me of potential sales. You would side with the thief who is stealing from me and my family. That kinda offends me.

Excellent point!:thumb:

 

[Christian Liberty]

Do you think it is immoral for me to sell such images as an amateur who has no license for Shaggy?

I guess that's the fundamental question. I honestly see no good reason why it would be.

 

[Lighthouse]

No one has yet to answer my initial question, regarding the ethics and morality of borrowing someone else's legitimate copy of something you used to own, but had stolen, in order to make a new copy. And I want answers from those who agree with me that it is stealing to make a copy of something you never owned or to make a copy of something for someone else of something they never owned.

I guess that's the fundamental question. I honestly see no good reason why it would be.

So the creators of Scooby-Doo don't deserve some compensation from the usage and sale of their creation, their product?

 

[Christian Liberty]

So the creators of Scooby-Doo don't deserve some compensation from the usage and sale of their creation, their product?

I'm not really sure why they should, in this case. I can certainly understand why they'd want such, but I'm not sure why, logically, there would be any property rights here.

And: should those exist forever? In 500 years, should we still face prosecution if we decide to draw pictures of Shaggy? Or should there be a limit? If there should be a limit, we aren't talking about "property" as such, but something else, and so we're talking about something else, such as piracy or copyright violation, or whatever, but not "Theft."

I know I'm arguing both sides of this one, since I honestly don't know. Its not an issue that keeps me up at night, but at the same time, I don't think Pastor Enyart realizes that the issue is complicated, seeing as there's a TON of legal positivism involved with the issue. Its easy to defend real property rights without resorting to the law at all. Its nearly impossible to do so for IP.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm not really sure why they should, in this case. I can certainly understand why they'd want such, but I'm not sure why, logically, there would be any property rights here.

And: should those exist forever? In 500 years, should we still face prosecution if we decide to draw pictures of Shaggy? Or should there be a limit? If there should be a limit, we aren't talking about "property" as such, but something else, and so we're talking about something else, such as piracy or copyright violation, or whatever, but not "Theft."

In the future it depends upon who owns the property, whether the rights were sold or if they have been passed down to the descendants.

Whoever owns the rights are who should receive compensation whenever someone makes money off their product.

Of course, this does not mean the artist [in such a case] should not get to keep some of the money off the sale. But that is why licenses exist.

I don't understand how this isn't property, except in the sense that the owner didn't buy it [in the original case anyway].

I know I'm arguing both sides of this one, since I honestly don't know. Its not an issue that keeps me up at night, but at the same time, I don't think Pastor Enyart realizes that the issue is complicated, seeing as there's a TON of legal positivism involved with the issue. Its easy to defend real property rights without resorting to the law at all. Its nearly impossible to do so for IP.

If I created something why should anyone else be free to make money from it, or to share it without me making any money from it, without my permission?

I do agree that the law is complicated, though, because afaik I can freely post that picture online, as I did, or give it away to anyone I choose, or even draw them a fresh one just for them, and I have broken no law.

 

[Christian Liberty]

In the future it depends upon who owns the property, whether the rights were sold or if they have been passed down to the descendants.

Whoever owns the rights are who should receive compensation whenever someone makes money off their product.

Of course, this does not mean the artist [in such a case] should not get to keep some of the money off the sale. But that is why licenses exist.

I don't understand how this isn't property, except in the sense that the owner didn't buy it [in the original case anyway].


If I created something why should anyone else be free to make money from it, or to share it without me making any money from it, without my permission?

I do agree that the law is complicated, though, because afaik I can freely post that picture online, as I did, or give it away to anyone I choose, or even draw them a fresh one just for them, and I have broken no law.

Your last paragraph demonstrates the logical problem, and shows why ideas being true property doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

As for another reason why, Kinsella would argue that only scarce resources can actually be property, to make ideas (A non-scarce resource) property would be to artificially make a non-scarce resource scarce, which is not the purpose of property at all.

That said, I'm not 100% sure I agree with him. you make valid points as well.

 

[Lighthouse]

Your last paragraph demonstrates the logical problem, and shows why ideas being true property doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It falls under fair use as it is fan art, and I make no claims I didn't draw it, or that I own any rights or licenses to the character.

Now, if I wanted to do a re-imagined version of the character that had enough similarities to know it was a representation of said character but different enough I could call it my own it would fall under fair use as a parody. And I could make money from a parody without any compensation to the owner.

As for another reason why, Kinsella would argue that only scarce resources can actually be property, to make ideas (A non-scarce resource) property would be to artificially make a non-scarce resource scarce, which is not the purpose of property at all.

Yeah, that's a fallacy. There is no reason only scarce resources can be property.

That said, I'm not 100% sure I agree with him. you make valid points as well.

It's what I do.

I want to be open here as well, I have had my intellectual property stolen from me. I wrote a lyric for a friend and told them they could use it in concert if they wanted to. They would just need to write the music. They instead sold it without my permission and I never saw a dime.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It falls under fair use as it is fan art, and I make no claims I didn't draw it, or that I own any rights or licenses to the character.

Now, if I wanted to do a re-imagined version of the character that had enough similarities to know it was a representation of said character but different enough I could call it my own it would fall under fair use as a parody. And I could make money from a parody without any compensation to the owner.


Yeah, that's a fallacy. There is no reason only scarce resources can be property.


It's what I do.

I want to be open here as well, I have had my intellectual property stolen from me. I wrote a lyric for a friend and told them they could use it in concert if they wanted to. They would just need to write the music. They instead sold it without my permission and I never saw a dime.

I'm a prospective writer, which makes me have a problem with Kinsella's position as well

That said, Kinsella's reasoning does make sense. His point is that property is a means of allocating scarce resources, and to artificially make non-scarce resources scarce is stupid.

I can understand the logic involved, but again, I'm not settled.

I definitely believe in homesteading as a defining factor of property rights in general, and I'm not sure how that would work with IP.

In your case, it seems like you could have had her sign a contract saying she wouldn't use it for anything else, that should have worked even in a purely IP-free society.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm a prospective writer, which makes me have a problem with Kinsella's position as well

That said, Kinsella's reasoning does make sense. His point is that property is a means of allocating scarce resources, and to artificially make non-scarce resources scarce is stupid.

I can understand the logic involved, but again, I'm not settled.

He's logically right that you can't take something that isn't scarce and artificially make it scarce.

I definitely believe in homesteading as a defining factor of property rights in general, and I'm not sure how that would work with IP.

It wouldn't.

In your case, it seems like you could have had her sign a contract saying she wouldn't use it for anything else, that should have worked even in a purely IP-free society.

If IP laws didn't exist I very well may have had her do so. But I can also say that I'm not going after her for it. Then again, I couldn't afford to anyway. And I have yet to hear my song on the radio. Of course, she says she told them she didn't write it, so who knows what they would want to do in that situation. I think the main thing is that I should have retained a copy.

 

[The Barbarian]

I know I'm arguing both sides of this one, since I honestly don't know. Its not an issue that keeps me up at night, but at the same time, I don't think Pastor Enyart realizes that the issue is complicated, seeing as there's a TON of legal positivism involved with the issue. Its easy to defend real property rights without resorting to the law at all. Its nearly impossible to do so for IP.

Copyright laws are fairly new; it wasn't until the last few hundred years that people thought it was unfair to copy intellectual works like books without paying for it.

Like so many things we've done legally to "help", it's now backfired. Originally, copyrights and patents were done to encourage innovation; if you've been watching the Apple/Samsung battles, they are now being used to stifle innovation.

Time to re-think the process.

 

[Nick M]

Do you believe you have the right to copy a $100 bill in your wallet and spend it as if it were real?

Of course. You just can't call it a $100 bill. You have to call it a copy of a $100 bill. If somebody want's to trade for it, then fine. Money has value because consumers say it has value.

The difference is.... the moment you tell somebody your $100 bill is counterfeit it loses all value.

Not so. You can buy exact copies of products outside of the beast's globalism control and they easily outsell the original product, as the Chinese copier does not charge nearly as much for the identical product.

If I buy a book, the book is then mine to do with as I please. I am not renting the content inside. I own it. If I buy a car, I can drive other people around in it for financial gain. To say I have to pay Ford, GM, or Toyota to drive people around is wrong, and those that say other wise know they are wrong.