[OT] - does IP exist?

[bobef]

Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

> I'll make this one post with my opinion, respond if you wish, I won't 
> answer.  But nobody's really brought this point up.
> 
> Violating copyright law is illegal.  Whether you think you are in the right 
> or not, it doesn't matter.  I happen to think that the copyright law is 
> pretty fair, except for the DMCA, and the ability to hold a copyright pretty 
> much indefinitely.  The whole point of copyright law is to allow people to 
> share media without losing your ability to make money from it.  Not ideas, 
> but the actual media, whether it be written, audio, video, etc.  The point 
> is that it costs a lot of money to make this media, and if there is not some 
> protection from copying, people will not want to share it or make it, and 
> that has a chilling effect on society.
> 

What if law in my country is different from the law in your country? I doubt some countries even have copyright laws. What if tomorrow some revolution creates a new country with open minded people and they say in their country everyone should do what is called pirating in other countries? Then which law is the right one? Laws are not defaults. They are mental constructs. As long as the majority is fooled that the law is something good it works.

> 
> I can't say the same for DMCA, because I think it violates free speech.  I 
> think eventually, this law will be overturned if someone pushes it hard 
> enough.
> 

I don't know what DMCA is but it does violates free speech in the same way that copyright laws violates some other free thing (i.e. the right to copy what is copyable). This proves my point (including that I don't know what DMCA is because there is no such thing where I live). Maybe laws are necessary to some degree (once again because most people are dishonest or call it as you wish), but such laws as copyright are purely artificial. Big corporations will push whatever laws they need to force you too pay. Actually you said it in your post. These laws are for the authors to make money, not for freedom.

Bottom line: laws are not arguments in a logical dispute. (but you may have point if you live in say US and someone sues you you are screwed. parents need to teach their children how to be more careful when downloading music lol)

Btw it is interesting how the opinion of many people living in US/Canada and maybe some western Europe differs from the rest of the world :) Too bad this is probably going to change :)

Here is something to think about. Say I pay you for a copy of your software (music etc). What you give me is it the same piece of work that you produced or is it a different one (or both or neither :). If it is the same one and you give it to me you don't have it any more. This is not the case. If it is a different one why should I pay you if you are not giving me your work? Can't be the same and different in the same time. And if it is neither same nor different why should I pay anyway?

Bottom line 2: as Yigal Chripun said we need to pay for the service not for physical thing because this is not physical thing.

Instead of this pointless discussions why don't we discuss a better business model that could benefit us as developers? Any ideas? :)