Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
And why only "for profit"?
That's not much protection at all. People who pirate and upload all over the place most often don't have any profit involved.
(Preserving your ability to get free stuff, I suppose.)
Not really.
The general qualifications are pretty simple and much more logical than current IP law.
It actually does.
One can acquire the property of another, if they don't maintain said property.
The same should be true for IP, except "another" should be "the public."
That's one of the libraries of orphan works.
Finding all the owners of each individual IP, would be dauntingly expensive, more so than what it's worth.
If someone is not trying to derive a profit from your work or some other commercial purpose, you aren't necessarily harmed.
Why do you guys keep assuming I want free stuff?
Yeah, like you had any idea before reading Wikipedia tonight.
Adverse possession is hard, and any of a dozen things can derail it along the way. And it's purposely so, because property is property.
Oh, well, then I misspoke; you simply have no idea what I said.
No, that's not what I asked you for.
Too bad, so sad. Guess they're just not going to be used.
But hatuey's likely right; you don't even actually care about this anyway . . .
The hell you're not.
Should be obvious that if everyone's sharing your work for free, you aren't getting paid for it. You're being purposely obtuse because you don't want to come out and admit that.
Probably because you've said so on more than one occasion.
Oh, sure; you might be willing to pay if you like it after you get it (how magnanimous). But if not, you won't.
More character assassination, why?
Can you not debate me without deceptively insulting me?
Makes your position look very weak.
People can acquire the property of another, without having to hunt down the owner, through both abandonment and adverse possession.
It addresses the point you made.
IP for some moronic reason, is excluded.
You asked for something very specific, which I'm not going to bother to find.
Primarily because it requires more work than I want to do and I still wouldn't advance my position with you, if I did find it.
You don't care and aren't willing to moderate your position.
Prove that those people will pay for it, if the "free" weren't available
I've downloaded things I've wanted to try, before I buy and the producer lost, not one cent.
What your saying is that you want an unbalanced market to benefit you, at the expense of an ignorant consumer?
Is that right?
Also, I did not download Skyrim, before I purchased it.
It's because you're taking on the air of expertise in subjects in which it's apparent you don't have it -- and you're being smug about it.
Really? Show me that point.
Harshaw said:This argument is similar to those who insist that if it's hard to find the owner of land to ask permission to be on that land, then it isn't really trespassing -- or shouldn't be.
Umm, it doesn't apply to most any other kind of property, either. Not even all real property.
Well, you said it exist in multiple numbers, so . . .
Which position is that, specifically?
Yes. This. Very much. All the "high-minded" talk is just smokescreen.
You're making the claim they wouldn't be harmed, so you prove all of them wouldn't.
And please -- you really think most people who buy stuff today wouldn't take it for free if it was legal to do so? You can't possibly.
You're definitely being purposely obtuse.
No, I'm saying that copyright holders have the right to make you pay if you want a copy, your personal preference for a free trial notwithstanding.
You want free stuff. You think you're entitled to it. There, you said it.
Oh, well, aren't you a saint for obeying the law once.
So you say, yet I've addressed the argument of litigation.
You were partially wrong, a work is copy protected after it is affixed to a medium, registration can takes place after infringement and legal proceedings can take place.
So you aren't exactly the "creme de la creme" of rightness on this subject either.
It isn't trespassing after the person meets the qualifications of adverse possession.
Real property in many places, eventually, becomes forfeit to the state, after a period of time.
Although not all states do this.
Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes there are multiple instances of orphan works.
They can be as common as an unknown families pictures, all the way to novels and movies.
Your position on IP.
You think legality prevents people from violating copy protection?
Why aren't all the media businesses, out of business now?
I'm not being obtuse.
I am saying, that just because something is free doesn't necessary mean people won't pay for a more legitimized product.
No I don't.
I think I should be able to test the product and if unhappy, get a return for the product.
I've done it more than once.
Why, because you say so? :roll:
The high minded talk is, well, high minded talk - the stuff I am quoting is an attempt to avoid debate.
I never said anything with conflicts with any of this.
If the work is "orphaned" there's no worry.
I haven't been wrong yet. You've apparently not understood what I've written if you think I have.
So what? Never said it did. Why are you making things up?
I guess you entirely missed the point of what I posted if you think "adverse possession" applies in any way.
And what did I say that this has anything to do with?
Umm, it doesn't apply to most any other kind of property, either. Not even all real property.
Yippee. Didn't ask for that. Keep up with the strawmen if you wish, though.
Of works where the copyright was transferred with no record, the author is dead, and no heirs can be found? Where are these?
Which is what?
This doesn't make any sense as a response to me.
You didn't say anything remotely approaching that.
Yes, you do. You say it again -- you should be able to get a copy for free and then pay for it if you decide you want to.
Well, send us pictures from the medal ceremony.
You said this.
That is incorrect.
Litigation can happen, if an orphaned work is infringed upon.
But you have, as I quoted above.
You can trespass and then acquire a piece of property through adverse possession.
Physical property can be acquire through abandonment and adverse possession.
Lost, mislaid and abandoned property has to be found by the owner, for the owner to continue to keep it.
With orphan works, the opposite is true.
The person intent on using the property has to identify the true owner, else they may be infringing on the property rights of said owner.
It's a contradiction of the law.
You were wrong.
I gave you a link to orphan works.
You're general attitude towards those who want changes to IP law, like me.
Gives me the idea that you aren't exactly concerned with the problems within the IP set of laws.
You've dismissed the problems associated with orphan works.
I could be wrong, but again, I don't believe you really care what I have to say.
Legality doesn't matter, people still download these things for free, regardless.
The media business is still profitable.
I'm allowed to clarify, am I not?
No, I said I did.
My actions were done, based on the choices, I had available to me.
If there wasn't a demo version or an option of full refund, I try before I buy.
I do not believe I'm entitled to get something for free, but I like to have the option of wanting to try something before I decide to pay for it.
There is a difference.
If it does, then it isn't actually orphaned.
Sorry, but no.
So you keep repeating, and it still has nothing to do with what I said. Wow.
That's not "adverse possession." Crikey, even your Wikipedia article should have told you that.
Another thing you keep repeating for reasons which are far from clear, other than for some reason you think it some bearing on what I said. This is your own strawman red herring, dude.
Here's a hint -- just because you've repeated this so many times you don't even remember what you were responding to, it doesn't mean that I'm confused. I still know that this is your own bizarre tangent that doesn't address any point I made.
You have no idea what I even said anymore. You aren't even responding to any of my actual points; you're just going on about the things you've decided you want to go on about.
Which I didn't ask for. Good grief; you quoted me; can you not read simple plain words? You also went back to the post it was in; can you not see anything like, I dunno, context? I didn't ask the question out of the blue.
I asked you what my position on IP is. This doesn't answer that question.
Should be obvious -- you don't even know.
Yeah, because enough people still respect the law. Make it legal, and that'll change; media business will collapse. Obtuseness lies in denying this.
But it has already been harmed substantially by the growing number who don't respect the law.
Well, that's an illegal choice, whether or not it's "available."
Obviously you want this, so I don't know why you keep denying you want free stuff.
Self-contradiction. Or, at the very least, you simply admit you do things you know you're not entitled to. So again, I don't know why you keep denying it.
Sure, a free demo from the publisher isn't stealing; downloading a pirated copy is. A stark difference, indeed.
Can a work have an unknown author, be infringed upon and then litigation ensue?
It can be orphaned if the author can't be found.
It appears you don't have any idea of what you're talking about.
And I told you I'm not going to find each individual set of orphaned works that you want.
It's not gonna happen.
I gave you a link to a library of orphaned works that may have many of the factors you want.
Like wow.
Lost, mislaid and abandoned property is not adverse possession.
I am aware of that.
I identified two different ways one can acquire physical property without having to consult with the owner, which you said, "Umm, it doesn't apply to most any other kind of property, either. Not even all real property."
You were wrong and you're trying to deflect.
Wow.
Well it does, because the law is in contradiction and puts a higher burden on those seeking to use orphaned IP.
It serves a purpose to point out contradictions in comparable law.
It's a tangent related to law, in which the terms of one are not the same as the terms of another, I want to correct the law.
You say I want to, "get free stuff."
I guess I'm pointing out that my interest is more than getting "free stuff."
I do.
You were wrong, in relation to this quote, "Umm, it doesn't apply to most any other kind of property, either. Not even all real property."
And I already told you that I'm not going to find all these individual things you asked for.
Can you not read simple plain words?
I gave you a link to a library full of orphan works, that are orphaned for various reasons, some of which I'm sure satisfy your needs for proof.
I don't.
Please tell me.
People buy it, because enough people want to pay for it.
Just because something is illegal, doesn't make it wrong.
If I pay for something, then it isn't free.
Your accusations contradict reality.
So if I try it and don't want it, then delete it because I derived no benefit, emotional or otherwise, then I'm not getting something for free.
I've actually lost time.
Sure, but if the publisher gets my money, after I try the pirated copy, have they lost anything to me?
Oh, dude. You type words, but you seem to have no idea what they actually mean.
I don't even know how to respond to this, because I can't actually believe you wrote it. There's simply no response to such bald-faced obliviousness.
Maybe it'll dawn on you later. Maybe not. I dunno. It's late; I don't really care anymore.
Sweet jeebus, I'm not going around in this circle for, what? The third time? Fourth time?
But it's astounding that you can call me "wrong" for saying adverse possession doesn't apply to other types of property when you yourself say it doesn't. It really is. Which is why I think you have no clue whatsoever what you type from post to post. You're just flailing around to try to keep your head above water.
Now, hold it -- I thought I was being "inflexible" in my concept of IP, and now you say you don't even know what it is?
Then how do you know I'm "inflexible"?
This is the problem we've been having throughout this entire exchange. You're proceeding from an awful lot of things I never said; my position on IP being one of them.
Get it now?
River in Egypt, my friend. River in Egypt.
The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
That is the legal basis for copyright in the U.S. No copyright law should be valid unless it can demonstrate that it "promotes science and useful arts". I love to see anyone justify how 120 year long copyrights promotes the creation of new works. Its reasonable to disagree exactly what the optimum time period should be, its completely unreasonable to ignore the public benefit and simply try and legislate maximum profit. Even if I think that Korimir's 25 year length for books is probably too long given the amount of time the average book actually stays in print, I'll give him credit for a good faith argument. By contrast, Hatuey's entitlement mentality is utterly lacking merit.
. I think the overwhelming majority people who are opposed to IP laws in their present form are simply trying to get **** for free and have ZERO interest in using IP to create their own original works.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?