 |
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:22
|
|
Yeah and to you Ferrari is just a car. You don't know about cars, do you, especially about Ferraris? It's not just a car. It's work of art, just the same. It's a product, just like a movie is. You sell it. If someone takes your product and copies it without touching it, and you don't sell, it's the same situation.
And for the record, WORKMANSHIP goes into Ferraris as well. Or how about Lambos, where they make most of the stuff by hand? It has artistic value to it, designers, and they sell a dream and fantasy along with the physical product.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Colon
|
 |
Antwerp, Colon's Chocolate Canard Country
Jan 1970 time: 06:22
|
|
The analogy is completely beside the point. Firstly, property rights aren't absolute and there are limits, such as expropriation. Secondly, intellectual property rights were created to guarantee that inventors and artists could enjoy an income out of their creations, thereby also to stimulating them to create further. Such rights are even less absolute since most forms expire after a period.
This is because if the fundamentally different nature of intellectual property rights. As Pekka already pointed out, if you take away a car from someone that person will suffer from it, but if you copy a song or a paper, the owner of the original piece will not suffer from it. Society is served with a maximal spread of information, and without it you'd have to reinvent the wheel with every living person born on this planet.
Hence, Intellectual property rights are a difficult and always imperfect balancing act between the interests of the authors, and the interests of the wider public. It is from such point of view you have to consider the copying/piracy debate: and painting things into moralistic good/wrong terms serves no one.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Colon
The analogy is completely beside the point. Firstly, property rights aren't absolute and there are limits, such as expropriation. |
Never said anything about property being absolute.
quote:
Secondly, intellectual property rights were created to guarantee that inventors and artists could enjoy an income out of their creations, thereby also to stimulating them to create further. Such rights are even less absolute since most forms expire after a period.
|
Don't see how this is relevant, as obviously we are talking about non-expired property rights.
quote:
This is because if the fundamentally different nature of intellectual property rights. As Pekka already pointed out, if you take away a car from someone that person will suffer from it, but if you copy a song or a paper, the owner of the original piece will not suffer from it. |
That's a silly statement, unless you think that people don't suffer from not being able to release, administer and sell their work-hours as they see fit (this includes but is not limited to revenue).
quote:
Society is served with a maximal spread of information, and without it you'd have to reinvent the wheel with every living person born on this planet.
Hence, Intellectual property rights are a difficult and always imperfect balancing act between the interests of the authors, and the interests of the wider public. It is from such point of view you have to consider the copying/piracy debate: and painting things into moralistic good/wrong terms serves no one. |
To say the truth I agree with you. Heck, I never said that "theft" was wrong, I was only saying that claiming it isn't theft is completely wrong.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|