Scared of copyright

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Vaschak, May 25, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SolonWise

    SolonWise The Lonely Maker Veteran

    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    373
    Location:
    Brazil
    First Language:
    Portuguese
    Primarily Uses:
    RMMV
    I agree. That's a big problem, but these things happens today, with all the copyrights laws in action. Maybe with the free market around ideas, new and simplier ways to PROVE that the right person is the original author of the idea would be born, and that will going to solve a big part of the problem.

    I honestly do not have a definitive solution, but I do know that copyright laws make no ethical sense.
     
    #41
  2. MushroomCake28

    MushroomCake28 KAMO Studio Veteran

    Messages:
    1,614
    Likes Received:
    2,857
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMMV
    Well this is a complicated question that is the subject to a complete graduate law class lol. Still, here's the state of the law currently (about the same in most countries because of the numerous international treaties):

    To be copyright-able, there's 3 conditions:
    1) The work must be either a literary, dramatic, musical and/or artistic work. (interpreted very liberally).
    2) It must be original. (basically means that you created it and did not copy it).
    3) It has to have at least a minimal of creativity (for Canadian jurisprudence, see Télé-Direct (Publications) Inc. c. American Business Information Inc., [1998] 2 C.F. 22). (note that this is still debatable in some jurisdictions).

    Since intellectual property is mostly a passive right, meaning you have to claim and prove it you have it (sometimes you can register it in a national registry, but not always), to truly know if you possess it, you either have to register it, or go to court. There's no real precise line between what is copyright-able and what isn't. A judge will have to examine your case based on the 3 criteria above and will determine if it's copyright-able. To give you an idea, the yellow book with everyone's phone number was deemed not copyright-able since it was not creative enough.

    Copyright is a lot easier to have than other form of intellectual properties, such as patents (they require to prove an innovative aspect aswell as a practical utility to the process to be patent-able). As for simple ideas and common words, they often do not pass the originality or the the creativity test, but incomplete ideas can still be protected by copyright (see for example Robinson c. Films Cinar Inc. for canadian jurisprudence). That's unique to copyright though, since patents and trademark need something complete and not just an incomplete work still in progress.

    @SolonWise As for the utility of the law regarding intellectual property, I can't speak as a (future) lawyer since it's more of a political debate than a legal debate. But yes, intellectual property has a purpose: encourage innovation and creativity. Most of our inventions and progress came during and after the 18th century, which is the century where copyright and other intellectual property first appeared in most western civilizations.

    Let's not hide it: people are motivated to work mostly for personal gain. There's a reason why capitalism is the most successful economical system that we ever created (I don't care about theoretical counter arguments, the fact is that all the wealthiest/happiest/successful/developed countries in the world are capitalist, and yes China is economically capitalist). People work harder and better when they gain personally from their work. With that in mind, intellectual property becomes essential and central to our economy: for example, why would someone spend billions of dollars creating a new CPU architecture if their competitors are just going to steal the architecture, save billions, and still make as much money off of it than the creator of the architecture? That would make no sense.

    Also, people forget that intellectual property isn't a right that lasts forever, unlike the standard property right. Intellectual property is the result of an agreement between people in society: creators and innovators will be granted an exclusive right of exploitation of their invention for a period a time as a reward for creating something; in exchange, after that period of time, their work will enter the public domain and everyone will be able to use it. It's an incredibly good combination: people are motivated to work because they can make money from their work, and after some time, the entire society will benefit from their work directly.
     
    #42
    Marquise*, Sharm and Kupotepo like this.
  3. SolonWise

    SolonWise The Lonely Maker Veteran

    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    373
    Location:
    Brazil
    First Language:
    Portuguese
    Primarily Uses:
    RMMV
    @MushroomCake28

    I can argue this by saying that most of our invention and progress came during and after 18th century simply because the industrial revolution, and this had nothing to do with copyright law. I don't know if it's right, but we can make an statment saying that without these laws, the world would still be using whale oil, simply because we can't isolate the variables.

    I can't agree more. Socialism is a bad joke, that's why I think a law imposed by force by the state is bad for us.

    You forget that in most cases, simply by knowing what to do is not enough to copy what the rival have done. Take a medication, for instance. If a pharmaceutical company develops a new medicine, and the rival company wants to copy, it will take a long time until they can discovery how the original developter came with that pill. The making process may be really hard.

    Another point I would like to add in the discussion: Today, nobody needs to buy books or musical CDs anymore, since we can find it all for free in the internet. Why do you think the composers and writers are still woking on they projects? Did they find another way to make money or they simply don't need money? Maybe the free market evolves faster than most of us can notice, and the "life finds a way". :)
     
    #43
  4. MushroomCake28

    MushroomCake28 KAMO Studio Veteran

    Messages:
    1,614
    Likes Received:
    2,857
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMMV
    I numbered your points so it's easier to discuss.

    #1
    My point was that copyright law was one of the factors that led and fueled the industrial revolution.

    #2
    I'm also a libertarian, so I agree that the best thing is the most freedom POSSIBLE. This doesn't mean anarchy. There needs to be a central authority for certain things. For example: the justice and criminal system (we can't have private entities doing their own thing). Another example: education (although having private school and all is fine, there still need to be basic common courses between schools. I'm talking more about elementary and high school, not higher education. We need to have some common knowledge). Another example is economy policies: what must we forbid (inside trading for example), fiscality (mandatory if there's a central government, how ever little it is), currency, international trades, etc. You get my points: some things are impossible to privatize. Outside of those things, I agree that we should have the most freedom we can.

    #3
    Lol knowing how to copy doesn't mean that you're allowed to. Your opponent could just sue you, claim your revenues, and shut your operations, and even get punitive damages.

    And you don't understand how the pharmaceutical industry works. Once a company creates a new drug, it's fairly easy to know how to reproduce it, but it is illegal to do so. The reason why other companies come up with the same drug years later is because the original patent for the drug expired and that it is now public domain.

    #4
    No you can't find everything for free on internet legally. You can find almost everything illegally, but not legally. And if your point is "if I can do it, I don't care if it's illegal", then you should think more about it because that is anarchy. It's illegal to murder someone, but I don't care because I can easily buy a gun and shoot a random person. And as a libertarian, I would like people to be more moral, that way we can cut spending in the justice and criminal system, so we can pay less taxes.
     
    #44
    Marquise* likes this.
  5. Sharm

    Sharm Pixel Tile Artist Veteran

    Messages:
    12,619
    Likes Received:
    10,301
    Location:
    USA
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    N/A

    Since the original questions have been answered and this has drifted into discussing politics, I'm going to lock this thread.

     
    #45
    MushroomCake28 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page