Absurd Minds

I should probably be used to this by now, but my goodness some people are dumb. This is a conversation I had today with some dude on this site reddit. I'm ghostofmybrain, attempting to have what should be about a 9th grade level conversation with a guy about property rights. The guy's initial comment was this:
I responded by saying that "take" was not the issue, but "property" was. This is the conversation that ensued.

I especially liked that part where he didn't even understand I wasn't making a point or arguing with him. I was simply reframing the question in more accurate terms. He apparently took so much offense to it he actually started ridiculing me.


(I think I may try to post more of these as they happen... Sometimes all you can do is take a step back and just laugh and shake your head.)

IMHO:

Sharing of music and videos should not be considered piracy. If I buy a DVD or Blu-Ray and then I lend it to you to watch, is that illegal? If not, then why is it illegal if I put it on a website to allow other people to watch it. Piracy is a big grey area that the government wants to be black and white. You don't download shit or you go to jail.

I agree entirely with you Exodus. I think it's not only absurd to say people can "own" an idea, but also harmful to innovation and entrepreneurship (and there are plenty of studies that prove those points). The part I found most entertaining about my discussion with that guy, though, was I wasn't even stating a position. I simply verbalized the question.

By the way my views on this are much more elaborate and detailed but I have no need to argue them on forums where I'm sure my teammates agree with me.

But in reply to your last post:
I agree with "owning" an idea otherwise our streets will be flooded with large corporations. If any joe-shmoe can come up with a brilliant idea and then, say, Wal-Mart mass produces the same item based on the fact that in this scenario you can't "own" an idea, then there would ONLY be massive, chain corporations around and no small businesses. I also believe that there should remain intellectual property, which I noticed in your reddit post, that you do not agree with.

In the current system, yes, that's very probable. The idea that a group of people can suddenly become a "corporation" that has more rights than all the people have put together is the problem. The problem is that the government has given "corporations" more rights than small businesses (which are just groups of individuals). And you don't fix a problem caused by government regulation with more government regulation.

I don't mean to tear apart what you said but a corporation isn't actually a group of individuals, it's a completely separate legal entity that basically removes liability from its owners, the owners being the shareholders of the company.

Business work as such:

Sole Proprietorship: is a single person owning a business. The business becomes an asset to the owner and can also become a liability. A single owner can lose EVERYTHING they own if their business crashes.
Partnership: requires more than one person to be in a partnership. A partnership works so that each person invests a certain amount into the company but all partners will split the liability as agreed upon in their contract. This can allow creditors to go after personal possessions, similar to a sole proprietorship.
Corporation: Businesses that are incorporated limits the business' liabilities to the assets of the corporation; creditors cannot remove personal possessions.

Although those brief definitions were completely unnecessary now that I read what I've written, a sole proprietorship is similar to a partnership, however, neither are similar to a corporation except for the fact that theyre all businesses

That's actually exactly what I just said. A corporation is, fundamentally, a group of individuals. Yet it is also a legal entity that has almost no liability for its actions. That's a huge problem.

Add to that the fact that it's actually easier for a corporation to obtain a patent than an individual (partly because its given a mysterious legal status that individuals and small businesses don't have), and easier for it to maintain that patent through legal pathways. Intellectual property laws actually work in favor of corporations and against small businesses. (And remember, the only difference between a corporation and a small business - since both are just groups of people - is the mysterious legal designation as a "corporation" and the enormous legal benefits that come from that designation.)

The problem isnt that. The problem with a movie being online is there is a plethra of ways that somebody can steal the content, and then keep it for themselves. There ya go. Piracy. Thats why many youtube videos get taken down. Somebody goes and downloads a piece of software that turns youtube videos into .avi ,and presto! its theirs. Piracy. Not that I mind. I pirate everything so w.e. But if there were a way to insure that it wasnt possible to somehow get a movie just by hosting it on a website, then people wouldnt be bitching. But they do.

Or if your friend were to go home, use their TiVo to record the movie you sent them, or just use a vhs for that matter, and they record it and save it to a disk, then its also piracy. So there ya go. Thats why we buy like $3 movies on demand, and then just record them and put them on a D.V.D. Saves money, but hey, it was technically illegal because well yea.


BTW: Thats why youtube has a "movies" section now. Not just to make money, but you notice if you try and search for some of the newer movies than you will get something like "this video was removed because it violates copyright" or something, is because I guess copyright now protects from things being feature on youtube, or at least thats what i think i read while googling things.

the problem also comes down to this. 10 years ago you waited nearly 6 months to a year for a movie to come out on dvd, this was the only way to own it. you waited. well no I can stream it or even "rent" it online. if you are gonna charge me the same fucking price to OWN it as to stream it then you can fuck yourself with your piracy bullshit. I will continue to keep my money that doesn't go to the actor, or the director, or the writers ANYWAY, and I will get the same if not better enjoyment out of watching the movie at my leisure on MY tv. If they want to price things correctly, or want to give me a digital copy of the movie for slightly less then fine. they choose to ass rape the customer who only wants to give money towards the people making the movie so they will make more movies.

When I buy a cd a small fraction goes to the artist. so even buying the cd legitimately I am not helping the artist out. The entire argument AGAINST piracy is actually a big lie. its made up so people will think they are harming the artists or the person that created said content. by downloading this movie and realizing I love it I have helped the people behind the movie more than buying it, because I will tell 5 friends that will actually go out and buy it. I am not paid for my review so my friends will trust my judgement. they will purchase it with full knowledge they will enjoy this movie. So the point against piracy is invalid. This has been proved time and time again. Plus once you have put something on the internet its no longer yours in my opinion.

But what if "they" dont put it on the internet, just some random consumer does...its now free to all who want it? Or does buying somebody's product give you the right to upload it somewhere for all to have?

if you are making money off of ME by using exactly my creation, then I would consider that illegal. if you have changed what I did and use it as your own then thats fine. if you distribute what I made freely then so be it. I would hope you wouldn't but I don't see that as a reason to arrest you. if you place something of yours on the internet and expect it to stay where you placed it and no where else then you are hoping for too much.