You can not make this shit up...

[stefan]

just an FYI, plagiarism does not mean "copying information" and cult doesn't mean "evil religion." Misusing those words is bad and you should feel bad.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Like I said, this would all be more arguable if there wasn't money involved. Unfortunately for them, their stance is pretty much "fuck the industries providing the world with data, I WANT FREE STUFF!"

Actually their stance is "Copyright hampers productivity and hinders development of society, especially as it is more profitable to not produce than it is to produce". Nice strawman though.

I wish I had copyrights on my research, I would charge everything living creature for unauthorised use of evolutionary reacitons. And everytime someoe wanted to reference my work they would have to pay me a thousand dollars. We would probably enter a dark age pretty quickly but I'd have massive stacks of capital by then so it'd be alright.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Actually their stance is "Copyright hampers productivity and hinders development of society, especially as it is more profitable to not produce than it is to produce". Nice strawman though.

That would be all well and good if they weren't also intent on removing the nuts and bolts from a large industry. Open source projects are a good thing, yes, but in other cases for-profit companies are also a good thing in that they're able to more easily create a cohesive vision for a project and implement it. For example, the AAA games industry will probably never be replaced by open-source developers, nor will developers of specific business applications.

I'm not saying copyright law isn't fucked up, because we all know it is, but these guys are incredibly extreme in what they're asking for.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

So given the option of
A) Continue to work under suboptimal conditions conducive to gigantic waste of resources and lack of innovation but keep a few rich men/companies who have maintained power not by talent but by a ridiculous legal system/haivng lots of lawyers
or
B) Rework the system so that it rewards developers instead of punishing them with admittedly job losses initially but over time a better industry

You would choose A?

[stefan]

You know the funny thing about copyright law is, I agree it needs to be changed significantly so that people like textbook companies and parmaceutical companies and the like can't just fuck over everyone they want. However, so many of the people arguing for the removal of copyright law are, put bluntly, gigantic self-entitled douchebags who could care less about textbook scams and only want to get rid of copyright so they can pirate vidyagaems for free and not get penalized, and seem hell-bent on arguing that creative people do not deserve any sort of compensation for time and resources spent (cf. that one guy linked who was basically arguing how dare you feel like you deserve to be paid for taking time out of your life to create something)

so, I kind of get left in the position where I don't at all agree with copyright law as it is now, but reading arguments against it make me want to support it more because the people on "my side" seem so utterly deserving of a punch in the dick.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

So given the option of
A) Continue to work under suboptimal conditions conducive to gigantic waste of resources and lack of innovation but keep a few rich men/companies who have maintained power not by talent but by a ridiculous legal system/haivng lots of lawyers
or
B) Rework the system so that it rewards developers instead of punishing them with admittedly job losses initially but over time a better industry

You would choose A?

That's a false dichotomy and you know it.

I pick option 243, where copyright law gets reformed, open source gets to stay as it is, and companies get to keep making money and supporting millions of workers.

Say what you will, but data sharing is depriving industries of money that they should be earning as compensation for work performed.


Edit:

Originally Posted by stefan

You know the funny thing about copyright law is, I agree it needs to be changed significantly so that people like textbook companies and parmaceutical companies and the like can't just fuck over everyone they want. However, so many of the people arguing for the removal of copyright law are, put bluntly, gigantic self-entitled douchebags who could care less about textbook scams and only want to get rid of copyright so they can pirate vidyagaems for free and not get penalized, and seem hell-bent on arguing that creative people do not deserve any sort of compensation for time and resources spent (cf. that one guy linked who was basically arguing how dare you feel like you deserve to be paid for taking time out of your life to create something)

so, I kind of get left in the position where I don't at all agree with copyright law as it is now, but reading arguments against it make me want to support it more because the people on "my side" seem so utterly deserving of a punch in the dick.

Pretty much where I stand right here.

[Kim]

Blues: "I disagree with their beliefs, therefore they aren't a religion."

Sweet!

Now I getta go give every religion ever the finger!

[Osterbaum]

Originally Posted by SMB

I'm not sure whether you want to hear why the "right to taxation" is good/bad, why it is/is not a "right". Also not really a right as much as a responsibility? That statement just bamboozled me.

Well since the church gets to tax people and gets to keep that money, something no other organizations besides the goverment get to do, I'd call it quite a right.

Originally Posted by stefan

However, so many of the people arguing for the removal of copyright law are, put bluntly, gigantic self-entitled douchebags who could care less about textbook scams and only want to get rid of copyright so they can pirate vidyagaems for free and not get penalized[...]

Ok, considering that's a pretty big strawman I have to wonder where you got this idea.

e: Not saying these people don't exist at all.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

That's a false dichotomy and you know it.

I pick option 243, where copyright law gets reformed, open source gets to stay as it is, and companies get to keep making money and supporting millions of workers.

Say what you will, but data sharing is depriving industries of money that they should be earning as compensation for work performed.


Edit:


Pretty much where I stand right here.

But you are completely, consistently ignoring the faact that copyright promotes waste of resources, stifiles innovation and results in decreased productivity. Your claim that companies should be rewarded for their work is mitigated by the fact that their work is predicated on not being efficient, on being wasteful with resources and I don't why that should be rewarded- surely it should be at least punished.
Your talk about "jobs" is nonsense because we can create more laws once we get rid of the rackets.
What you are promoting is rampant monopolism and inefficient ones with that.

Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't be rewarded for their endeavours, those are ridiculous strawmen and you need to stop using them. Opponents to copyright law believe it harms artists and creators in favours of a few small companies and lawyers. reform of copyright laws will help artists, not harm them and statements contrary to this are misfounded.
Like there may be some people out there who genuinely want copyright laws gone just so they can pirate legally but to focus on those arguments when they are plenty of legitimate arguments for the removal of copyright laws is ridiculous. It's like if I was to argue against religious belief solely by taking the most fundamental terrorists I can find and treating them as representative.

There are no benefits to copyright laws as they are at the moment if you are an artist or a creator, there are only benefits if you are a lawyer or a stockholder in various companies.

Originally Posted by Osterbaum

Well since the church gets to tax people and gets to keep that money, something no other organizations besides the goverment get to do, I'd call it quite a right.

Oh that one is easy- they spend it on preventing/speeding up the apocalypse.

[Gregness]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

But you are completely, consistently ignoring the faact that copyright promotes waste of resources, stifiles innovation and results in decreased productivity. Your claim that companies should be rewarded for their work is mitigated by the fact that their work is predicated on not being efficient, on being wasteful with resources and I don't why that should be rewarded- surely it should be at least punished.
Your talk about "jobs" is nonsense because we can create more laws once we get rid of the rackets.
What you are promoting is rampant monopolism and inefficient ones with that.

Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't be rewarded for their endeavours, those are ridiculous strawmen and you need to stop using them. Opponents to copyright law believe it harms artists and creators in favours of a few small companies and lawyers. reform of copyright laws will help artists, not harm them and statements contrary to this are misfounded.
Like there may be some people out there who genuinely want copyright laws gone just so they can pirate legally but to focus on those arguments when they are plenty of legitimate arguments for the removal of copyright laws is ridiculous. It's like if I was to argue against religious belief solely by taking the most fundamental terrorists I can find and treating them as representative.

There are no benefits to copyright laws as they are at the moment if you are an artist or a creator, there are only benefits if you are a lawyer or a stockholder in various companies.




Oh that one is easy- they spend it on preventing/speeding up the apocalypse.

Okay, humor me on this: How is it that copyright law stifles innovation? The idea is that more people will be incentivised to develop new technologies/properties if they're ensured that they will be compensated for it. I get that a lot of times artists get wrangled into exploitative contracts with distributers, but I'm not seeing how that's a problem with the copyright law itself.