Goodbye, Copyrights. Defcad search is born.

[lukep]

Here's a far better example. AstraZeneca spent $60bil in R&D last year developing new types of drugs. In total they spend appx. $11bil per approved drug.

Oh dear lord... You're using big pharma and one of it's mind-altering profit centers as an example I'm supposed to DEFEND? </facepalm>

Ok, I'll try to play along, but this is hard for me. I'm pretty contemptuous of anything AstraZeneca could produce, and would never put it in my body.

Let's say that they used that money to make a legit drug that cures the measles or something un-evil.

Spending $11billion to do it is the price they'd pay in THIS market to make that outcome. I'm quite sure a large percentage of this is spent on lawyers, compliance, and other paperwork and staffing that result from a system that forces them to concentrate on the patent.

In the theoretical market that they have never heard of IP at all, then they'd have no need for lawyers or any of that stuff because they know that someone is going to rip off their work, and that's just part of the game they are playing.

They would still likely make the drug though, because they have the unique know-how to do it, and he who first brings the drug to market makes the MOST money on it, having earned the best reputation.

Remember the Amazon review system? The world would be full of reputation systems like amazon reviews and consumer reports magazine... These would very naturally be used more as consumers want to know WHO MADE THE BEST PRODUCT.

In that world, AstraZeneca would make their measels cure without profiting billions on it, because everyone would know that the market would reward them MORE than those who copy; just not so insanely as much as we do in this world.

Meanwhile, EVIL drugs like the ones flooding the markets today don't get made at all, because the market doesn't need this shit like it needs a measles cure.

Win/win.

 

[cardine]

Spending $11billion to do it is the price they'd pay in THIS market to make that outcome. I'm quite sure a large percentage of this is spent on lawyers, compliance, and other paperwork and staffing that result from a system that forces them to concentrate on the patent.

The number I quoted was R&D. Not anything else you mentioned. It would be even higher if I included those figures.

Remember the Amazon review system? The world would be full of reputation systems like amazon reviews and consumer reports magazine... These would very naturally be used more as consumers want to know WHO MADE THE BEST PRODUCT.

In that world, AstraZeneca would make their measels cure without profiting billions on it, because everyone would know that the market would reward them MORE than those who copy; just not so insanely as much as we do in this world.

Let's say that it took AstraZeneca $11billion to make such a pill. That means if they were to sell 100,000,000 of these pills they would need to make $110 profit per pill to cover their R&D.

Now lets say, including everything else, it costs $20 to manufacture this pill. Now a generic can come in and sell this pill for $30 and make a tidy profit. AstraZeneca on the other hand would need to sell it for $140 to make the same amount of profit, and their margins would be much slimmer.

Do you really think that those consumers will all pay $140 when they could pay $30? If so then lol.

Now AstraZeneca and other similar companies all stop innovating, because there is no longer a profit incentive for them to do so.

In that world, AstraZeneca would make their measels cure without profiting billions on it, because everyone would know that the market would reward them MORE than those who copy; just not so insanely as much as we do in this world.

Why shouldn't they profit billions? They spent billions on R&D and took a significant risk doing so.

 

[hellblazer]

The world that you choose to live in throws people in Jail for COPYING (certainly not stealing) digital files without permission...

Copying without compensating is quite clearly theft.

You do understand that there is literally zero difference between someone who has downloaded Blade off of TPB and someone who has stolen a Blade DVD from their local Walmart?

Until you understand that those are the exact same thing, it's kind of pointless talking any further.

In your delusional world, property rights are sacrosanct unless it is a digital property.

If it's digital property, you suddenly become an enthusiastic supporter of the theft of that property.

You don't even seem to be aware of what the alternative would be without this system.

The alternative is pretty simple. Compensate the creator for his product.

 

[lukep]

The number I quoted was R&D. Not anything else you mentioned. It would be even higher if I included those figures.

It matters not, I'm making a relative example.

Even still, do you really think it takes 11 billion dollars to develop a pill?

Clearly there are some tax-created shenanigans going on there, and we can't even guess how much it actually costs to develop that thing.

Now lets say, including everything else, it costs $20 to manufacture this pill. Now a generic can come in and sell this pill for $30 and make a tidy profit. AstraZeneca on the other hand would need to sell it for $140 to make the same amount of profit, and their margins would be much slimmer.

I understand. I've heard this argument over and over; R&D costs money, I get it... But IP protection comes at the cost of other types of innovation.

IP destroys the free market in the industry it is in. It gives government-backed force to use against the competitors of one corp who got there first.

This is no inconsequential trade-off for IP protection; it's promoting one corporation at the expense of all others in that niche...

Ironically, you seem to care about innovation in your example, but IP itself is the most literal way to STOP innovation that mankind could conceive.

Adam says it awesomely here in the beginning of this rant:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6_ZqPcNemI]Case Against Intellectual Property - YouTube[/ame]

Now AstraZeneca and other similar companies all stop innovating, because there is no longer a profit incentive for them to do so.

It would still exist but be far smaller... Just like it had been for thousands of years before a fledgling government decided to give corporations more power than humans ever had.

You aren't arguing that nothing ever got created before the constitution, are you? Even pharmaceuticals, right? Then this is no different. We are just talking about 2 different reward models for industry.

Why shouldn't they profit billions? They spent billions on R&D and took a significant risk doing so.

I don't give a crap how much the are rewarded; I don't want to penalize them either way... But I also don't want to penalize everyone else in their industry.

 

[everina]

Copying without compensating is quite clearly theft.

You do understand that there is literally zero difference between someone who has downloaded Blade off of TPB and someone who has stolen a Blade DVD from their local Walmart?

Your analogy may be criminal behaviour but it's not theft. Theft is the subtraction of property that deprives its owner from its use.

 

[lukep]

Copying without compensating is quite clearly theft.

I guess we'll just have to disagree, but if you look over what I said, especially the part about how you already know the REAL definition of theft and that ain't it, then you'll eventually realize what a tool you are being.

You do understand that there is literally zero difference between someone who has downloaded Blade off of TPB and someone who has stolen a Blade DVD from their local Walmart?

There is all the difference in the world! One is theft, the other is not.

If 3D printing grows to the point where I can take a cellphone-sized scanner/printer into walmart, point it at Blade on the shelf, and it makes me a copy of the movie out of my own materials and energy, then I would not call that theft either. That's copying. When I walk out of that store, walmart still has the original on it's shelf to sell.

Until you understand that those are the exact same thing, it's kind of pointless talking any further.

Agreed. Not until you understand that you're delusional, and the word theft has nothing in it that allows for leaving the original behind.

In your delusional world, property rights are sacrosanct unless it is a digital property.

Not true. Digital property should not be stolen either.

'Copied' is very different than 'stolen.'

The alternative is pretty simple. Compensate the creator for his product.

It only seems simple to you because you can't see that far ahead.

Throughout all of history up until the last 200-300 years, this is what mankind did. We compensated the shoemaker for his shoes, and if someone came into town and made better shoes, a free market allowed the 1st shoemaker to lower his prices and still compete.

The complication didn't come in with the invention of the computer... It came in waaaay back with the US Constitution granting Intellectual Property rights. (And I believe the brits had a lesser form of IP before in the magna carter or something.)

Now THAT was a complication. It totally destroys the free market in these lands.

In my shoe example above, the 1st shoemaker suddenly gained the power to "patent" (totally new word pulled out of a politician's arse) the tounge of the shoe and the heel of the shoe and anything he was able to claim first.

The result? The Better shoemaker was either forced out of business or forced into a cage.

IP KILLS INNOVATION, and like communism, everyone gets stuck with shittier products than we'd have otherwise.

Stop helping spread communism, Hellboy. :bootyshake:

 

[MentalyDisturbd]

When I walk out of that store, walmart still has the original on it's shelf to sell.

'Copied' is very different than 'stolen.'

Why does it have to be left on the shelf for walmart to sell for it to not be considered stolen (vs. copying)? What's the difference? Because of the physical CD/DVD, the case, the artwork? When you copy something instead of buying it, that's money you're taking from the artist, the producers, record labels etc. should they not get paid for their investment, equipment, time, creativity, etc. ? So, how are you not stealing if you take their work for free (copying)? If you don't think that's considered stealing, then neither is walking into walmart and taking a CD, just because it's physically sitting there doesn't make any difference. Walmart paid for that CD/DVD but, the artists, producers, record labels also paid for what you copied, with their investment, time, etc. there's no difference you're taking money from them either way.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Not true. Digital property should not be stolen either.

'Copied' is very different than 'stolen.'

I never knew you were Chinese.

 

[hellblazer]

Your analogy may be criminal behaviour but it's not theft. Theft is the subtraction of property that deprives its owner from its use.

Luke, is that you? A little sock-puppet account to stand by your side during this raping?

Theft is the acquisition of a product without compensating its' creator/owner.

A film, mp3, or program is no different from a house, bicycle, or pair of shoes.

All of those are products that would not exist were it not for their creator.

Their creator is owed compensation for his sweat equity.

The digital age has redefined the definition of theft because certain products can now be perfectly duplicated.

There is all the difference in the world! One is theft, the other is not.

If 3D printing grows to the point where I can take a cellphone-sized scanner/printer into walmart, point it at Blade on the shelf, and it makes me a copy of the movie out of my own materials and energy, then I would not call that theft either. That's copying. When I walk out of that store, walmart still has the original on it's shelf to sell.

Not true. Digital property should not be stolen either.

You can't pinpoint the distinction between copying and stealing because there is no material difference.

You are essentially declaring here on WF a new right; the right to duplicate any product that exists and will exist in the future without fear of criminal prosecution.

And how should your right be defended?

When that Blade-owner decides to put a special glass case around his product to prevent your scanner from working, should the police be called because he is infringing upon your right to copy his product?

Should they have the legal authority to smash that glass encasing so your grubby hands can scan it with your cellphone?

After all, according to you, it is not only legal for you to duplicate the product that he poured money and sweat into, it is your right!

You owe him NOTHING! How dare he meekly ask for some small compensation!

IP KILLS INNOVATION...

It's the exact opposite. In your world, people would stop making products entirely because everyone would be able to duplicate them.

They would literally make one sale and everyone else would get free copies online.

Innovation would completely implode.

 

[Flash4Ever]

lukep should be hired by Yahoo News, with his post titles style he could write all the headlines there

 

[mattseh]

Ooh, I remember this game.

Let's DEFINE theft!

 

[everina]

Theft is the acquisition of a product without compensating its' creator/owner.

A film, mp3, or program is no different from a house, bicycle, or pair of shoes.

All of those are products that would not exist were it not for their creator.

Their creator is owed compensation for his sweat equity.

The digital age has redefined the definition of theft because certain products can now be perfectly duplicated.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Copying is not theft, it's copyright infringement. Your definition of theft is nothing more than force-fed propaganda from the media.

 

[lukep]

Luckily, we don't have to agree on crap here. The future is going to happen one way or another, and whatever happens with DEFCAD and bittorrent in the future, future civilizations will decide if they copied or if they stole...

...As they all listen to their copied music, through their printed (for free) MP3 players.

 

[hehejo]

Theft is the acquisition of a product without compensating its' creator/owner.

Wrong. Otherwise I could steal your car, give you a dollar and it would not be theft.

Here is a real dictionary definition: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

A film, mp3, or program is no different from a house, bicycle, or pair of shoes.

What is your point? If you mean concerning "stealing". You "steal" a film, the owner still has his original. You steal a bicycle, the owner does not have his original anymore.

All of those are products that would not exist were it not for their creator.

If I create a copy of something that wasn't there before, I am the creator because I created that particular object.

Their creator is owed compensation for his sweat equity.

If he sells his copy and someone chooses to buy it, then yes. Otherwise no.

The digital age has redefined the definition of theft because certain products can now be perfectly duplicated.

No, YOU have tried to redefine theft (and failed miserably).

You can't pinpoint the distinction between copying and stealing because there is no material difference.

Wrong again, see above. Original still there vs gone.

You are essentially declaring here on WF a new right; the right to duplicate any product that exists and will exist in the future without fear of criminal prosecution.

And this is how it should be. Do you live inside a building? Do you think you should have to pay whoever came up with the idea of a building (and all the people who came up with the single parts)? That would ruin productivity. Same things we see in areas where the stupid idea of copyright is applied.

And how should your right be defended?

When that Blade-owner decides to put a special glass case around his product to prevent your scanner from working, should the police be called because he is infringing upon your right to copy his product?

Should they have the legal authority to smash that glass encasing so your grubby hands can scan it with your cellphone?

After all, according to you, it is not only legal for you to duplicate the product that he poured money and sweat into, it is your right!

You owe him NOTHING! How dare he meekly ask for some small compensation!



It's the exact opposite. In your world, people would stop making products entirely because everyone would be able to duplicate them.

They would literally make one sale and everyone else would get free copies online.

Innovation would completely implode.

Can't make logical sense of the rest of it. People would make even better products because now everyone can add to it and make it better. See open source code.

Aaand out.

 

[-joe-]

Got to admit, I'm totally undecided on the issue. As a result, I'm just gonna step in, say something, step out.

If on a piece of paper, you draw a tick. Is that theft?
How about if it's a slanted tick?

How about if that tick resembles this?

Also, how about if you repeat to yourself something that someone says - is that theft?

You hear someone singing a song they wrote, you go home, and sing it yourself. Is that theft?

 

[hellblazer]

Wrong. Otherwise I could steal your car, give you a dollar and it would not be theft.

It's kind of assumed that the transaction is consensual between both parties.

If I create a copy of something that wasn't there before, I am the creator because I created that particular object.

No, because it's not unique. It's a literal 100% clone of the original. You didn't create anything.

No, YOU have tried to redefine theft (and failed miserably).

The digital age has and will continue to redefine theft. The very fact that TPB was taken to court and it was argued in court proves that the meaning of theft is being redefined before our very eyes.

And this is how it should be. Do you live inside a building? Do you think you should have to pay whoever came up with the idea of a building (and all the people who came up with the single parts)?

You're confusing generic conceptual structures with unique conceptual creations WITHIN generic conceptual structures.

Why is TPB sued for stealing a Kanye West song, while Kanye isn't sued for using a generic song structure as the foundation for his creation? Because one is unique and the other is generic.

People would make even better products because now everyone can add to it and make it better. See open source code.

Open source code is intentionally created for free as a collaborative. You can't even compare it to commercial products designed to make a profit.

 

[MentalyDisturbd]

What is your point? If you mean concerning "stealing". You "steal" a film, the owner still has his original. You steal a bicycle, the owner does not have his original anymore.

So, if somebody gets into your PC and makes a copy of your hard drive, you wouldn't consider that stealing?

 

[hehejo]

So, if somebody gets into your PC and makes a copy of your hard drive, you wouldn't consider that stealing?

No, he is making a copy. The breaking into the PC is another issue.

 

[ShadowCaster]

So, if somebody gets into your PC and makes a copy of your hard drive, you wouldn't consider that stealing?

Who would want a terabyte of transsexual midget gangbang porn?

 

[hehejo]

No, because it's not unique. It's a literal 100% clone of the original. You didn't create anything.

Wrong. The act of creation doesn't care about originality. If I bake a cake, I created that cake, not the person who came up with that recipe.

Not going to answer the rest as you just cherrypicked my arguments and answered the ones where you thought you can answer. Not going to argue on such a loe level so I'm out of here.