Intellectual Property

hikky said:
There is no such thing as intellectual property (your vote)


I'd take it one step further and say there is no such thing as property. You can't own something, you can only use some method of force to hold it.

But if we're saying you can own things, I'd say that once you sell media in any form, it is no longer yours. Selling means transferring ownership. If I can't share my new CD or movie with anyone I want, I don't actually own it, and that's bullshit.

The problem is that intellectual property doesn't have any actual tangible usefulness and thus its value is subjective. You can copy it over and over again out of thin air, the only charge is the media it's copied onto.

It's not that I don't have sympathy for someone who's struggling to make a living on a job involved with media, but I don't think that just creating something entertaining entitles you to make a living off it.

Razma said:
ok ok ok....bottom line though..what was your answer? I dont care about the filler explanation

Razma said:
*facepalm* we will get no where with this, lets just agree that you fell under my blanket response

Razma said:
*facepalm* we will get no where with this, lets just agree that you fell under my blanket response

tr1ggers4d said:
True, there is no such thing as property. It is an idea that came about with agriculture. But I for one, am quite fond of it in our society. Materialistic? Probably. But materialism and ownership certainly has its benefits.

And in reply with to your last argument; then couldn't it also be said that nothing, or at least not services, deserve pay? By requiring tangibility and using that as the main determining factor, you ignore time and effort, perhaps two equal if not more important factors.

georgi said:


Instead of saying that there is no right of property (I for one like to think that there is a point in buying something; if I couldn't have property, I wouldn't be able to protest if I was to be robbed) you should perhaps consider that right to intellectual property is a secondary, hence less of an important right.

Can you think of a right that would be more important than the right to intellectual property?

Kaiserpingvin said:


It can hardly be my fault you do not comprehend a nuanced position on the matter can it?



I stand to say the least critical to the statement that it has benefits, but that's a bit OT. I'd also say that nothing deserves pay, because money is a sham. We should all have what we need to live happily and all contribute what we can, nothing more, nothing less. But that's also OT, I guess.

So urr. Yeah.

Kaiserpingvin said:


It can hardly be my fault you do not comprehend a nuanced position on the matter can it?



I stand to say the least critical to the statement that it has benefits, but that's a bit OT. I'd also say that nothing deserves pay, because money is a sham. We should all have what we need to live happily and all contribute what we can, nothing more, nothing less. But that's also OT, I guess.

So urr. Yeah.

georgi said:
Are there any other people besides myself that don't think downloading infringes intellectual property rights?

I don't think it is an infringement to download. It would be an infringement if I were to claim what I downloaded as my own. Also, can it be said that fansubbers have intellectual property over their translations, since it was them that did the actual work? How is their work any different from what a corporation licensing a DVD in the US would do, besides the corporation being legally allowed to do so?

ukonkivi said:
Isn't this all just an extension of my piracy thread?
Lol.

ZinnKid said:
Don't we already have several "copyright" debates on MAL?

brazan90 said:
also called communism, yes. we have seen it isnt working out to good.. yet.

georgi said:
True, but wouldn't you agree that the right of property is something that originates from our right to life.

Let me elaborate; if we agree that we as humans have a right to live, and an obligation to respect other's right to live, then we should also, for example, acknowledge their right to posses certain material things that would allow them to survive. Not acknowledging their right to property in such a situation implies not acknowledging their right to life.

georgi said:
True, but wouldn't you agree that the right of property is something that originates from our right to life.

Let me elaborate; if we agree that we as humans have a right to live, and an obligation to respect other's right to live, then we should also, for example, acknowledge their right to posses certain material things that would allow them to survive. Not acknowledging their right to property in such a situation implies not acknowledging their right to life.

Kaiserpingvin said:


You do not need to own anything to survive - you only need to have access to certain things. Food, air, shelter, those things.

georgi said:
True, but denying someone his right to property, which would in turn deny him access to food, shelter, clothing, etc. would endanger his right to life, don't you think?

hikky said:


Since when is there a right to life either? Rights don't exist. If people could stay alive just because they had a right to life, we wouldn't have to hear about all these murderers on the news, would we? It's just a game of trust, once again.

georgi said:


Well, now, I am not saying there is an absolute right to life; also, don't confuse this with reality. Murders happen. Because we acknowledge the right to life of the victim, we are obliged to take measures to help protect the life of future victims, by tracking down the murderer, punishing him, or coming up with ways to prevent murder from occurring.

Also, if you deny the existence of rights, I see no way for me to convinve you otherwise. You are free to believe so, but for all intents and purposes, rights do exist, even if not (totally) objectively.

georgi said:
Back to the topic.

Let me add some more sub-questions.
Do any of you think it would be any better if the government subsidized creators whose work is subject to piracy? I mean, would you agree to, let's say, 0.2 % of the country's budget being allocated for such funding? Or maybe add an additional tax to Internet providers, or maybe even a tax when you buy your recordable DVD's.

georgi said:
Well, the subsidy would be accorded before the actual production, and would require through justification of all the expenses. Just like now, the government subsidizes industries; that does not mean you can just easily start some industry, get all the money and close down. Point taken though, there would definitely be abuses.

Edit: I'm not talking some huge tax. Right now, I can buy 100 DVD's for around 30$. Would it make that much of a difference if I had to pay 35$ instead? Wouldn't stop me from buying DVD's. For the Internet service providers, you would pay for the possibility/right to, download anime, let's say. That is an optional right; just like education, you pay taxes that help fund learning institutions, that does not mean you have to go to school to pay. Your argument strikes me as pretty selfish, and most people really are like that, so it would be difficult to reinforce. My question is, once reinforced, would it be a good alternative, since it would help creators with their work.

Razma said:
^ I saw this like 2 pages ago...amiright?

ukonkivi said:
You need some beano.

Baby_Naruto said:


This is actually my first post in this thread, believe it or not.



Bean-O? Where can I download this for free? xDD

georgi said:
Back to the topic.

Let me add some more sub-questions.
Do any of you think it would be any better if the government subsidized creators whose work is subject to piracy? I mean, would you agree to, let's say, 0.2 % of the country's budget being allocated for such funding? Or maybe add an additional tax to Internet providers, or maybe even a tax when you buy your recordable DVD's.

hikky said:


What!? Are you kidding!?!? Subsidize entertainment?! No, that's absolutely ridiculous.

Firstly, downloading a copy of a movie does not actually cost the makers of the movie anything. It's a copy. You can't hand them money just on the assumption that someone would pay for the movie if they hadn't downloaded it (they probably wouldn't have. Most pirated media is pirated by people looking for something to do to alleviate boredom, not as an alternative to buying the media that they really desired to see).

Secondly, you can't just spend peoples' tax dollars on things like that. The average Joe should not have to pay for losses sustained due to piracy. That's absurd.

Lastly, who are you going to give the money to? The millionaires who create the media in the first place? They're doing just fine already.

Entertainment is not something you subsidize. Entertainment is a luxury, not a commodity.

ZinnKid said:
Don't we already have several "copyright" debates on MAL?

brazan90 said:


what he said

georgi said:


You assume that the artists making it are millionaires. I agree with you. I was merely making a suggestion that would answer to the counter argument that by downloading you infringe the creator's rights, since you take away from their potential profit.

I, however, also believe that I have a right to entertainment, to free access to the Internet and to whatever else it has to offer. I believe this right to be more important than the right of intellectual property, and also believe that downloading does not even infringe that right in the first place. In Canada, people are recognized to have the right to free health care, and thus the government takes tax money and redistributes it accordingly. I see no reason, if most people agree with me that entertainment is an important part of their life, perhaps not as important as health care, but necessary nonetheless, for the government not to redistribute money accordingly, to allow Canadian citizens access to free entertainment, including downloading and watching anime.

Razma said:
no I will call bs on "first post" I so saw that IDENTICAL post, mayb it was on a different thread...but I am sure it was there and you are trying to trick me O_o

georgi said:
Point taken.

Could you offer another suggestion that would make downloading material subject to intellectual property rights morally permissible? Or are you stipulating that it is always wrong to download?

Baby_Naruto said:


No, this is my first post on this matter.....*rolls eyes at razma*

hikky said:


But again, it's just a discussion of what intellectual property rights even are or should be...

georgi said:


Wrong. The major topic at hand is that if there is whether downloading violates this right from a moral standpoint.

Some answered yes, by alluding to cost, effort, but also to legal considerations. Although yes may indeed be the correct answer, I don't think the purpose of this discussion is to state the obvious, which is that downloading copyrighted material is illegal in most countries.

Others denied the existence of intellectual property, or even of rights in general. This is all fine, but I don't really think it solves the problem. It just cheats its way out of it.
The suggestion of subsidy from the government was rejected, due to concerns about possible abuses, and because entertainment would not be important enough to justify taxing everybody.

Let me give another library example. I am not a heavy reader, but it's safe to say that I have read at least 25 books in my lifetime. I haven't purchased any of them. I have taken them from the library, which is (at least the one I am using) a government subsidized institution whose purpose is to preserve literary and other material subject to intellectual property rights, as well as to answer to the needs of the population of knowledge and entertainment. I do not believe that, although the books I've read are subject to intellectual property rights, I have violated them in any way by reading the books for free.
If you were to apply the same to downloading, would it not be possible to conclude that watching anime for free does not violate the rights of the creator?

hikky said:



The library is a different discussion. It exists as a place of reference and study as well as a place of entertainment. Libraries are tightly tied to the school system as well, and so you really need them to some degree, but at any rate, they have a more universal appeal.

I don't know if you remember, but I was the one denying the existence of rights, and I don't know how that "cheats its way out of it".

In reality, the question of whether it's moral or amoral to download copyrighted material is irrelevant. (Although I do think it's absurd to say I'm infringing on someone's rights by watching a movie or TV show.) If people can do it and it's easy, they will do it, whether you judge it to be moral or not, but for the sake of discussion, again, I don't see a reasonable argument for it being wrong or amoral. You shouldn't be able to sell something to someone and then still have jurisdiction over how they use it, especially if they're not even profiting off of it. There is no "going rate" for entertainment.. that is, just because I watched a movie for 2 hours, doesn't mean I should owe someone money. If torrenting wasn't around, people would just watch less media.. they wouldn't make up for it by buying all the same media with their own money.