What's new

Intelectual property rights are UNamerican

so why is it illegal to download mp3s and movies.
the whole intellectual property rights seem unamerican at least according to Thomas Jefferson
 
Actually, the constitution of the USA vouchsafed proprietary rights to inventors. It was a very American idea. It was deliberate, and intended to promote American inventions, and was over the history of our country an incentive for inovation. Largely speaking, it is the very reason we became a technology leader and industrial power.
 
intellectual property rights hurt more people than any origination. with patents on medicine and hospital technology.

thomas jefferson said
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." — Thomas Jefferson

i jsut think this intelectual proiprty discussion is ********. if you want to keep your idea to yourself.
 
i jsut think this intelectual proiprty discussion is ********. if you want to keep your idea to yourself.

This is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read. It is the power of making money that drives most people to release their intellectual ideas/inventions/discoveries. Without this incentive we'd be years if not decades behind where we are currently at.

Also, you do realize that most pharmaceuticals have only a few years in which they can be monopolized by the discoverer which upon expiration they can be manufactured and sold by other companies. That's why you see some drugs only available via physician prescription and then all of the sudden you can buy them at Sam's Club for a fraction the cost. It is those few years of exclusivity that drives big pharma to research and create new drugs. Without the period of exclusivity to recoup their research monies there is no reason to spend millions on drugs that they will never get back.

Regarding movies, why would anyone make a movie costing hundreds of millions of dollars if they couldn't make that money back? We'd still be watching silent films in grainy black and white if everyone believed as you do. Movies like Batman The Dark Knight would never be made. There is no sense in spending 300 million on a movie and then putting it on the internet so you can download it for free.

Lastly, Jefferson never says that one can't make money off of intellectual property. Just that once you release said idea it becomes available to everyone... at a cost. Quit being a whinny tight-*** and pay for what you use.
 
Just keep your recipe a secret. works for coca cola :D.

I've been in some situations where patent law was important. In the case of coca cola I could within a few days work in a well-equipped lab determine the exact formula used in making coca cola. With a bottling plant available I could start production of it within weeks. So why won't I do it? I mean besides my real or imagined moral scruples? Because Coca Cola corporation has maybe fifty lawyers that are set to defend their brand name and proprietary interests. And in most commercial situations that lawyer staff just being there is a deterrent. It can be used to bully anybody who treds too close to anybody's business.

I've seen multinational corporates from different countries file patents each in both countries, each with large lawyer staffing, with patents that I could recognize as essentially identical, and just stare each other in the eye while they each carved out their own areas of marketing where they had reason to believe courts would prove favorable. It was a corporate cold war of sorts that never went hot just because they both calculated their risks and benefits carefully, and did all the footwork to cultivate local governance partisans for their interests. . . .
 
Funny this thread should pop up. I just read a story the other day about an Apple store in China that was completely faked. The said even the employees didn't know that they weren't working for the real Apple.
 
Were they selling real apple products?
 
so why is it illegal to download mp3s and movies.
the whole intellectual property rights seem unamerican at least according to Thomas Jefferson

Nothing like a foreigner to tell us what's American.

Just keep your recipe a secret. works for coca cola :D.

An example that is utterly untenable when applied to movies or music which depend on public commercial release for their viability.

If no one pays for the products/services (it's a mixed good) then they will cease to exist. Congrats, you are personally contributing to the death of art in a world where it's one of the only things worth preserving.

I've been in some situations where patent law was important. In the case of coca cola I could within a few days work in a well-equipped lab determine the exact formula used in making coca cola.

Many have tried. The trick is in preparation, not ingredients.

With a bottling plant available I could start production of it within weeks. So why won't I do it? I mean besides my real or imagined moral scruples? Because Coca Cola corporation has maybe fifty lawyers that are set to defend their brand name and proprietary interests. And in most commercial situations that lawyer staff just being there is a deterrent. It can be used to bully anybody who treds too close to anybody's business.

Actually this is a TRULY classic example (I mean this is seriously THE example used in law school casebooks and classes that is universally taught) of a way to legally produce another person's product. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act does not prohibit reverse-engineering another person's product. Coca Cola's formula is the quintessential example of a trade secret. Pretty much everyone who's been to law school knows this. That makes it an exceptionally difficult subject to bully smaller actors on because it's probably winnable quickly and cheaply at the MTD phase.


Were they selling real apple products?

Different reports have varied on that point. There's virtually no reason to believe them when they claim they are selling real apple products given that they are shamelessly stealing every other aspect of the brand. Here's a link to one report:

https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry_id=93586
 
So.....if Apple has no real presence in China (just hypothetically, in fact they have 4 stores there) yet a Chinese company masquerading as Apple is selling real Apple products, doesn't Apple still profit? Isn't the point of an Apple store to, well, sell Apple products?



I understand the legal aspects and am not arguing against their rights, but it is interesting. It is reminiscent of the Metallica and Napster battle.
 
So.....if Apple has no real presence in China (just hypothetically, in fact they have 4 stores there) yet a Chinese company masquerading as Apple is selling real Apple products, doesn't Apple still profit? Isn't the point of an Apple store to, well, sell Apple products?

Maybe. But what if the employees there hurt the Apple brand by giving consumers a bad experience? What if they refuse to honor Apple warranties because they're not Apple?

I mean, there's a lot of ways this can go bad for Apple that may do more damage in the long-run that any short-term wholesale gain they would get from selling to the "Apple Store" proprietors. It would totally suck to find your brand name trashed in the Chinese marketplace because of some other people's efforts to sell your products.
 
I can see both sides of this argument.

On the one hand, I can see why we need patents and such, for all the reasons Marcus listed.

On the other hand, I see Apple suing everybody for patent violations. And in Apple's case, they are merely trying to stifle competition with litigation, instead of with innovation.

Apple holds a bunch of vague patents that were mostly granted after others had already "invented" and been using. Apple decided to patent these things, which were mostly not patented yet (though some were) and is now suing everyone who uses these technologies.

For example, HTC was making smartphones, touch screen and all, for many years before the first iPhone. Yet Apple is suing HTC for violating several patents, which were mostly granted to Apple only a few years ago (long after HTC had already been selling phones using this technology, and even longer after companies like Palm invented it).

And Apple has several similar lawsuits against other companies as well.

It's almost like securing a patent is more valuable than actually innovating anymore.

And don't even get me started on the DMCA and how it goes way overboard.

Patents are good, for the most part. But the system we use for patents is totally broken.
 
sirkickyass your a laywer right.
the problem i have with ip rights is more how it relates to the music andfilm industry. i know brandnames are there to protect customers actually or atleast wa slike that before.

but for example lets say i bought a vhs of for easyness "snow white and the seven dwarfs" back in the 80's so i have the right to privatly watch swa7d anytime i damn please.
so in the 90's the dvd player comes along. so my vhs breaks down i still have the vhs for swa7d. but i cant watch it anymore. so now i have to buy the dvd.
in 2005 comes hddvd along so now i make the stupid decission of going for hdvd instead of bluray so now hdvd lost the hd war now i have a bluray player so now again i have to buy swa7d again.
now i buy a streaming mediaplayer and i can't fit my bluray into a mediaplayer.
so now i have to buy swa7d digitally.
so unfortunatly how many times did i buy swa7d 5 times.
so whats that all about now consider people(i know of one who has a collection about 400 vhs tapes). his vhs player finnally broke down couple of months ago and he cant really find a new one so he is buying a bluray player. so doesnt he have the rigth to still watch his collection of 400 vhs tapes?
or not
i mean they could ask owners of the vhs to pay a small fee for the snow white dvd(fee covering the material and producition cost of the physical dvd/bluray etc)
why does that person now has to pay the FULL price every time a new format comes out.


okay now ggonna talk about the download rights here. say for example i bought swa7d on whatever format (laserdisc vhs dvd bluray) according to the durch law i have a right to make a copy of that disc for private use(note not give it to others family friends neighbours)
now with the internet i could just download the movie i already own and its not punishable by law no matter what warner bross or other companys say.
cus I bought the rights for to privately watch the movie anytime a please. not the physical material(vhstape disc). and because of this downloading is not illegal. actually it is cus if i download movie a when i dont own it on any media i am wrong but to actively check every single download is impossible.


also the way certain online movie stores work really suck if you buy a mp3 you could only play it on 2-3 players. so if you want to play it in the car you gotta buy it again. sometimes it only plays on 1 player.
i mean you buy the rights to listen to the song when you damm pelase where you damm please on what player you damm please.

also in belgium there is this ridiculous law would took efefct couple of months ago
say for example you buy a song on iTunes put it on a ipod and listen to it at work your company has to pay rights. because they say it isn't listened to private

just syaing these ipr are going whack. and becoming ridculous.
 
sirkickyass your a laywer right.
the problem i have with ip rights is more how it relates to the music andfilm industry. i know brandnames are there to protect customers actually or atleast wa slike that before.

but for example lets say i bought a vhs of for easyness "snow white and the seven dwarfs" back in the 80's so i have the right to privatly watch swa7d anytime i damn please.
so in the 90's the dvd player comes along. so my vhs breaks down i still have the vhs for swa7d. but i cant watch it anymore. so now i have to buy the dvd.
in 2005 comes hddvd along so now i make the stupid decission of going for hdvd instead of bluray so now hdvd lost the hd war now i have a bluray player so now again i have to buy swa7d again.
now i buy a streaming mediaplayer and i can't fit my bluray into a mediaplayer.
so now i have to buy swa7d digitally.
so unfortunatly how many times did i buy swa7d 5 times.
so whats that all about now consider people(i know of one who has a collection about 400 vhs tapes). his vhs player finnally broke down couple of months ago and he cant really find a new one so he is buying a bluray player. so doesnt he have the rigth to still watch his collection of 400 vhs tapes?
or not
i mean they could ask owners of the vhs to pay a small fee for the snow white dvd(fee covering the material and producition cost of the physical dvd/bluray etc)
why does that person now has to pay the FULL price every time a new format comes out.


okay now ggonna talk about the download rights here. say for example i bought swa7d on whatever format (laserdisc vhs dvd bluray) according to the durch law i have a right to make a copy of that disc for private use(note not give it to others family friends neighbours)
now with the internet i could just download the movie i already own and its not punishable by law no matter what warner bross or other companys say.
cus I bought the rights for to privately watch the movie anytime a please. not the physical material(vhstape disc). and because of this downloading is not illegal. actually it is cus if i download movie a when i dont own it on any media i am wrong but to actively check every single download is impossible.


also the way certain online movie stores work really suck if you buy a mp3 you could only play it on 2-3 players. so if you want to play it in the car you gotta buy it again. sometimes it only plays on 1 player.
i mean you buy the rights to listen to the song when you damm pelase where you damm please on what player you damm please.

also in belgium there is this ridiculous law would took efefct couple of months ago
say for example you buy a song on iTunes put it on a ipod and listen to it at work your company has to pay rights. because they say it isn't listened to private

just syaing these ipr are going whack. and becoming ridculous.


You automatically lose this argument by trying to "4chan-abbreviate" Snow White and the Seven Dwarves...


what a moron... I hope all of Europe isn't as dumb as you.
 
Your buddy still has every "right" to play his Snow White VHS tapes. His ability to play them is up to him.
 
Back
Top