Does intellectual property exist?

[someperson555]

so recently ive been thinking about the morality of copyright laws. i saw certain threads on this forum addressing this issue, and some people even went as far as to say that wacthing a movie uploaded to youtube is considered stealing. but if an individual purchases a movie or song with his own money, then that movie or song is now his, and since its his property now, he should be able to do as he pleases with that property. meaning if he wants to share it with others, isnt that his right?
if you accept the platonic realist perspective of the world, then that further disproves the notion of “intellectual property”. just like in the material world, nothing can truly rightfully belong to someone since it was already there, he didnt create it, he just discovered it. but that is hardly any justification to then lay claim to that land (or any other kind of material).
its the same thing if you accept the realist world view. a person cannot own an idea since he didnt create it, he simply discovered what was already in existence.
another thing to consider, is when someone makes a copy of something the original is unharmed and it doesnt affect the owner in any way. a poster on this forum gave a good example in a previous thread, she said “if someone makes a copy of my car, the car will still be there in my driveway the next morning”.

 

[edwest2]

so recently ive been thinking about the morality of copyright laws. i saw certain threads on this forum addressing this issue, and some people even went as far as to say that wacthing a movie uploaded to youtube is considered stealing. but if an individual purchases a movie or song with his own money, then that movie or song is now his, and since its his property now, he should be able to do as he pleases with that property. meaning if he wants to share it with others, isnt that his right?
if you accept the platonic realist perspective of the world, then that further disproves the notion of “intellectual property”. just like in the material world, nothing can truly rightfully belong to someone since it was already there, he didnt create it, he just discovered it. but that is hardly any justification to then lay claim to that land (or any other kind of material).
its the same thing if you accept the realist world view. a person cannot own an idea since he didnt create it, he simply discovered what was already in existence.
another thing to consider, is when someone makes a copy of something the original is unharmed and it doesnt affect the owner in any way. a poster on this forum gave a good example in a previous thread, she said “if someone makes a copy of my car, the car will still be there in my driveway the next morning”.

Yes, intellectual property exists, and the owner of the intellectual property can do whatever he wants with it. He can choose how it is distributed and he can set it up so that it only goes to one device. It costs billions of dollars every year. That’s how it affects intellectual property owners.

fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr/ipr

fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/september/theft-of-creativity

The US Department of Justice is also concerned about the of intellectual property:

justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/

The US Copyright Office is another agency helping to protect the rights of copyright holders.

copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-infringement.html

This effort is global:

theglobalipcenter.com/

Recently, a businessman who knows me showed me five fake $5 bills. He let me handle each one. Three were pretty easy to spot, the fourth looked better but the paper was too thick, while the fifth was very close but could not reproduce the subtle yellows on a real 5.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

so recently ive been thinking about the morality of copyright laws. i saw certain threads on this forum addressing this issue, and some people even went as far as to say that wacthing a movie uploaded to youtube is considered stealing. but if an individual purchases a movie or song with his own money, then that movie or song is now his, and since its his property now, he should be able to do as he pleases with that property. meaning if he wants to share it with others, isnt that his right?

No! Just because you purchased the movie or song does not mean you own that movie or song, just the disc that contains that information. The only way that you can legally distribute the movie or song is if you buy the rights to it (something, usually, on the order of thousands to millions of dollars).

if you accept the platonic realist perspective of the world, then that further disproves the notion of “intellectual property”. just like in the material world, nothing can truly rightfully belong to someone since it was already there, he didnt create it, he just discovered it. but that is hardly any justification to then lay claim to that land (or any other kind of material).
its the same thing if you accept the realist world view. a person cannot own an idea since he didnt create it, he simply discovered what was already in existence.

I would like to know how Tolkien discovered the already-existing Hobbit. Or how Da Vinci discovered the already-existing Mona Lisa portrait.

another thing to consider, is when someone makes a copy of something the original is unharmed and it doesnt affect the owner in any way. a poster on this forum gave a good example in a previous thread, she said “if someone makes a copy of my car, the car will still be there in my driveway the next morning”.

This other person, and yourself, fail to understand the use of ‘piracy’ when it comes to songs and movies. It is not the copying of the material that is illegal, it is the distribution (for monetary gain or not) due to the copyright law. If you copy your friend’s car, your friend may still have his car, but Ford (or whatever manufacturer you want to pretend he owns) did not receive the monies from the construction of their car.

 

[someperson555]

No! Just because you purchased the movie or song does not mean you own that movie or song, just the disc that contains that information. The only way that you can legally distribute the movie or song is if you buy the rights to it (something, usually, on the order of thousands to millions of dollars).

I would like to know how Tolkien discovered the already-existing Hobbit. Or how Da Vinci discovered the already-existing Mona Lisa portrait.

he simply re-assembled already existing concepts. when someone writes a new song, should he pay royalties to the person who invented the guitar and paper?

This other person, and yourself, fail to understand the use of ‘piracy’ when it comes to songs and movies. It is not the copying of the material that is illegal, it is the distribution (for monetary gain or not) due to the copyright law. If you copy your friend’s car, your friend may still have his car, but Ford (or whatever manufacturer you want to pretend he owns) did not receive the monies from the construction of their car.

i will admit, you make good points, but then what about taking movies or books out of the library? by your logic that is also stealing.
and how can anyone “own” information? if i were to buy the word “the”, then you would have to pay me royalties everytime you use it. is that moral?

 

[edwest2]

he simply re-assembled already existing concepts. when someone writes a new song, should he pay royalties to the person who invented the guitar and paper?

i will admit, you make good points, but then what about taking movies or books out of the library? by your logic that is also stealing.
and how can anyone “own” information? if i were to buy the word “the”, then you would have to pay me royalties everytime you use it. is that moral?

I work for a book publishing company and libraries buy books from publishers for money that they then loan out for a specified time period, and must be returned or the borrower faces fines.

You confuse morality with silly examples. There is a cracker called Club. It is not just Trademarked, it is a Registered Trademark. So, it’s simple, if you put out a cracker and name it Club, two things will automatically happen, (1) The US Patentent and Trademark Office will automatically deny your request for the word Club for your cracker, and (2) if you decide to sell it in stores, you will be in very big trouble. You will be sued the moment the Registered Trademark owner finds out and you will be subject to some penalties, and you will be ordered to change the name.

There is also something called licensing of Intellectual Property. In the 1990’s, PepsiCo paid LucasFilms 2 billion dollars for the right to put Star Wars images on some of its products.

Peace,
Ed

 

[lifeandhope]

You may be right in principle, but not in the current legal reality of our world. In graduate school, and probably undergraduate schools now as well, the idea of intellectual property includes your own work. If I wrote a paper, I could not use that paper, in whole or in part, in any other paper I wrote, because of self-plagarism. If I wanted to use a part of something I previously wrote, I had to quote it as a source, just like any other source. A girl I knew in graduate school used a paragraph in a recent paper that she had used in another class, and the professor caught it (all assignments are submitted electronically now) and this girl almost got expelled–this was her last class so that would have been pretty bad for her! I thought the notion of my own intellectual property was rather silly, and when I was in school for my BSc this regulation was not in place, so it was a change for me (not that there is that much crossover in classes, but there is some, especially in graduate school).

I understand where you are coming from and can follow your logic; but remember we are in a society where everyone needs to make their profits off of their own work–people do not create beauty and art anymore for its own sake as much as the profitability of the work. There are exceptions, but most writers, songwriters, artists, and such want their royalties off of their work, regardless if the innate beauty and blessing that work is to others in and of itself.

 

[april32010]

You may be right in principle

no she isn’t,not even close.this thread goes to show that some are educated beyond their abilities.

 

[St_Francis]

There are people who make th arguments someperson’s friends are making, but I believe they are wrong. The Bible says a worker is worthy of his hire.

What this means is that if I photocopy a copy of a book someone else owns, then there are two copies, only one of which did the author and others who put work into it have been paid for.

I too have worked in publishing. I got paid. My boss got paid. The writer worked really hard to write the piece and also deserves to be paid. If only one person were to buy the book but he then put it on the internet so everyone who wanted a copy could have it for free, then the writer would get less than $10 for what is frequently a year or more of work, and I would lose my job because it wouldn’t make sense to keep publishing if this was going to keep happening.

Now, do I think that there are abuses in the system? Yes. I am against the lengthening of the copyright period, and I’m not too thrilled with the textbook industry, who seem to be trying break our backs in more than one way! But it’s better than no system at all, which would lead to the desctruction of every industry involved.

There are some people involved in sharing intellectual property for free, but once a person has a family to support, they need to focus on getting paid.

 

[thebookofesther]

Even if it didn’t violate morality which it does, we still have a moral obligation to follow the law as long as it is not immoral to do so.

 

[thebookofesther]

Plus, putting your life’s work into something only for one person to buy it and spread it amongst everyone else for free and you’re not rewarded for the fruits of your labor, c’mon this is wrong.

 

[april32010]

he simply re-assembled already existing concepts

yea,and if you put a hundred monkeys in room with a hundred typewriters,they would write all of Shakespeare’s plays given enough time.'cause like obama said “you didn’t build it”.how old are you?have you ever done anything?built anything?created anything?

 

[someperson555]

I work for a book publishing company and libraries buy books from publishers for money that they then loan out for a specified time period, and must be returned or the borrower faces fines.

You confuse morality with silly examples. There is a cracker called Club. It is not just Trademarked, it is a Registered Trademark. So, it’s simple, if you put out a cracker and name it Club, two things will automatically happen, (1) The US Patentent and Trademark Office will automatically deny your request for the word Club for your cracker, and (2) if you decide to sell it in stores, you will be in very big trouble. You will be sued the moment the Registered Trademark owner finds out and you will be subject to some penalties, and you will be ordered to change the name.

There is also something called licensing of Intellectual Property. In the 1990’s, PepsiCo paid LucasFilms 2 billion dollars for the right to put Star Wars images on some of its products.

Peace,
Ed

just like individuals buy movies and songs with their own money which they decide to share by posting to youtube.
as long as they themselves dont make any money off of it, i dont see how that is stealing. you bought the movie, its yours now, if you arent allowed to do what you please with it, then you are being defrauded.
i agree that using someone elses idea or work toi make a profit for yourself is stealing. but simply sharing it with other people? is that the same as stealing?
by the way im not debating the laws our government wrote, just because something is a law doesnt automatically make it moral. im trying to figure out if the law itself is justified.

 

[Taestron]

No! Just because you purchased the movie or song does not mean you own that movie or song, just the disc that contains that information. The only way that you can legally distribute the movie or song is if you buy the rights to it (something, usually, on the order of thousands to millions of dollars).

I for one think that this distinction is silly. It may be the only feasible way to make the distinction in the real world, but separating the disc from its contents is ridiculous. If this were really the case, then no one could legally be allowed to make back-up copies or redownload previously bought songs in the event of a computer crash. It is more intellectually honest to say we buy some sort of right to the intellectual property even if it become thornier with the issue of piracy.

 

[someperson555]

There are people who make th arguments someperson’s friends are making, but I believe they are wrong. The Bible says a worker is worthy of his hire.

What this means is that if I photocopy a copy of a book someone else owns, then there are two copies, only one of which did the author and others who put work into it have been paid for.

true, but this is partly where the problem lies, people are only creating art for profit and not for the sake of beauty. this is why we should have a new system where copyright laws are abolished. i think copyrights do more harm than good, they actually restrict innovation and progress. planned obsolescence would be a thing of the past. and people would pay more attention to the more important aspects of things rather than just their profitability. thats not to say inventors shouldnt profit from their ideas, but they shouldnt have a right to monopolize them.

I

too have worked in publishing. I got paid. My boss got paid. The writer worked really hard to write the piece and also deserves to be paid. If only one person were to buy the book but he then put it on the internet so everyone who wanted a copy could have it for free, then the writer would get less than $10 for what is frequently a year or more of work, and I would lose my job because it wouldn’t make sense to keep publishing if this was going to keep happening.

i think this is an example of technology catching up. thats just how technology is, when there was progress in the telephone industry it put thousands of operators out of work, but in the long run wasnt that leap in technology a good thing?

Now, do I think that there are abuses in the system? Yes. I am against the lengthening of the copyright period, and I’m not too thrilled with the textbook industry, who seem to be trying break our backs in more than one way! But it’s better than no system at all, which would lead to the desctruction of every industry involved.

There are some people involved in sharing intellectual property for free, but once a person has a family to support, they need to focus on getting paid.

well, no system at all could actually be a positive thing since people would focus on what really matters and not just how to maximize profit.

 

[someperson555]

yea,and if you put a hundred monkeys in room with a hundred typewriters,they would write all of Shakespeare’s plays given enough time.'cause like obama said “you didn’t build it”.how old are you?have you ever done anything?built anything?created anything?

first of all, im a guy.
second how does obama come into this whole thing?
third, ive created certain things, i like to draw so i guess if that counts then yes. im all for people profiting from their ideas but is it moral to monopolize these ideas? what is it that makes it especially yours? if i go out into yellowstone park and fence off a piece of land and build a house on it, does that make it mine? i think the issue of property rights in general is a complex one.
although i really wish the church would adress the issue of copyrights. it would definitely clear up any misunderstandings.

 

[edwest2]

true, but this is partly where the problem lies, people are only creating art for profit and not for the sake of beauty. this is why we should have a new system where copyright laws are abolished. i think copyrights do more harm than good, they actually restrict innovation and progress. planned obsolescence would be a thing of the past. and people would pay more attention to the more important aspects of things rather than just their profitability. thats not to say inventors shouldnt profit from their ideas, but they shouldnt have a right to monopolize them.

I
i think this is an example of technology catching up. thats just how technology is, when there was progress in the telephone industry it put thousands of operators out of work, but in the long run wasnt that leap in technology a good thing?

well, no system at all could actually be a positive thing since people would focus on what really matters and not just how to maximize profit.

Are you telling all the creative people you know who have spent years learning to sing or play an instrument or paint to put all their work up for free? Why not? Should they just close all the art schools?

According to your thinking, things just get discovered.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

There are people who make th arguments someperson’s friends are making, but I believe they are wrong. The Bible says a worker is worthy of his hire.

What this means is that if I photocopy a copy of a book someone else owns, then there are two copies, only one of which did the author and others who put work into it have been paid for.

I too have worked in publishing. I got paid. My boss got paid. The writer worked really hard to write the piece and also deserves to be paid. If only one person were to buy the book but he then put it on the internet so everyone who wanted a copy could have it for free, then the writer would get less than $10 for what is frequently a year or more of work, and I would lose my job because it wouldn’t make sense to keep publishing if this was going to keep happening.

Now, do I think that there are abuses in the system? Yes. I am against the lengthening of the copyright period, and I’m not too thrilled with the textbook industry, who seem to be trying break our backs in more than one way! But it’s better than no system at all, which would lead to the desctruction of every industry involved.

There are some people involved in sharing intellectual property for free, but once a person has a family to support, they need to focus on getting paid.

Do you understand the concept of showing harm? If you can’t do it. No one is being harmed. What’s wrong with lengthening the time of the copyright period? Please be specific.

And what’s wrong with the textbook industry? Again, please be specific.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

he simply re-assembled already existing concepts.

That is just absurd.

when someone writes a new song, should he pay royalties to the person who invented the guitar and paper?

The person who wrote the song does not need to pay royalties to the inventors of the guitar and paper, as he is not copying the guitar or paper and likely paid for those items’ use through a fair monetary exchange.

i will admit, you make good points, but then what about taking movies or books out of the library? by your logic that is also stealing.

It is not stealing, as the library has a contract with publishers to allow the lending of books for a certain, established period of time, after which monetary penalties begin accruing.

and how can anyone “own” information? if i were to buy the word “the”, then you would have to pay me royalties everytime you use it. is that moral?

You cannot buy words. You can trademark phrases, as is done on a regular basis, but the people processing the trademark would be sure to avoid licensing commonplace words like ‘the,’ ‘an,’ etc.
I am the author of several (Fortran) codes, I own the information contained in them. I am fairly certain you can own information.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I for one think that this distinction is silly. It may be the only feasible way to make the distinction in the real world, but separating the disc from its contents is ridiculous. If this were really the case, then no one could legally be allowed to make back-up copies or redownload previously bought songs in the event of a computer crash. It is more intellectually honest to say we buy some sort of right to the intellectual property even if it become thornier with the issue of piracy.

To people who believe that owning the disc is owning the music, it is an easy distinction to be made, even if slightly erroneous.

 

[lifeandhope]

no she isn’t,not even close.this thread goes to show that some are educated beyond their abilities.

Excuse me, but are you really accusing me of being “educated beyond [my] abilities”? And how do you conclude that? What a presumptuous and erroneous remark. Good grief. I happen to have the ability to see things from another’s perspective, even if I do not believe the similarly, and recognize that there is validity to the principle (if not in fact) of what a person is saying.