Quote: Original post by CrystalParadigm

On the contrary, if developers get paid regardless of whether their works are sold or only pirated, there is no incentive to do better than what already exists.

i would agree with that.

this is why the system I advocate exploring rewards developers based on most popular download.

Right now today we could do some national survey see how much is spent on music.

And so create a tax pool of equivilent value.

The competition is for a share of the pool.

possibly just number of downloads is enough to get an accurate reward - but possibly to combat bland downloading making the reward lack the bias required - to have a vote system too. You might download 50 music tracks in a week and be asked what you thought of a random selection of 5 of them before you can download somemore.

edit
oh and during transition: the tax pool would be less than the survey suggests.

I believe after transition by cutting out the middleman - the same quality of entertainment can be maintain for less expenditure - when based on a net spend current.

The flaw is that the government would change the size of the pool to meet it's whims. It may very well go down (like my supposed "cost of living" increases) from the real value.

Another question is how is this done in an international setting?

Quote: Original post by thedevdan
Never mind what Europes decaying economy has taught us.

Exactly what are you trying to imply? Swedens economy is doing better than US and most other contries in EU. Oh, and it is a socialist country *hides quickly* ;).

Quote:
OK, where in history has socialism showed itself to be better than capitalism? Keep in mind the US, Europe, and China.

Sweden. *hides quickly again* ;)

Quote: Original post by CrystalParadigm
Mayrel, OMG are you that dense?

Thank you.

Quote:
Punishable Under Section 2319 of Title 18

Don't mean to be picky, but that particular second doesn't have anything to do with what rights the copyright holder has. Indeed, it is usual, when referring to copyright law, to refer to Title 17, the actual title that defines copyright law.

Quote:
The copyright holder has the EXCLUSIVE right to reproduce their own work.

No. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce their own work as limited by the limitations and restrictions upon the exclusive rights as defined in sections 107 to 122.

Quote:
Fair use only applies to items that are susceptible to fair use. There is no such thing as fair use for software. You can't copy only a page of a piece of software. You can't copy only 15 lines of code and expect it to work.

Explain yourself. The law concerning fair use does not place specific limits on the amount or nature of the work used under the justification fair use. Even if it did, you can copy only a page of a piece of software, and, providing you select the 15 lines of code correctly, you can copy only 15 lines of code and expect it to work.

Quote:
Screenshots are not considered fair use if they contain registrable elements, and copying screenshots is not piracy anyway. The rights to copy a piece of software are owned by the copyright holder. That means, get this, they own those rights. If you copy a piece of copyrighted software, you are stealing the copyright owner's right to exclusively copy their own work, and to benefit from those copies by sale.

Nonsense, on two points.

Firstly, if you claim that copying a piece of software without authorisation is 'stealing the right to copy the software', then it follows that having done so, I have the right to copy the software, and can do so at will without comitting any additional crime. The law, however, makes it clear that each act of copyright violation is illegal. How can it be illegal for me to copy the software if, as you maintain, I have obtained (although illegally) the right to do so.

Secondly, if you claim that copying a piece of software without authorisation is 'stealing the right to copy the software', then it must follow that the previous copyright holder no longer possesses the right to copy the software since, legally, theft occurs when the thing stolen is no longer available to the party from which it was stolen.

In summary, if your claim is correct, then I can make an unlawful copy of my Windows XP CD. I then have the right to make as many copies as I want. Further more, I can bring a civil action against any party who makes copies of Windows XP without my consent (such as, for example, Microsoft), since they no longer have the right to do so.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Quote:
It's that simple. Yes, it is. I have provided the copyright laws and punishments already in this thread.

And the law directly contradicts your claim.

Quote:
If you continue to maintain that copyright infringement is not equivalent to theft, then you do so at your own risk.

I do not maintain that. The law maintains that. If copyright infringement was equivalent to theft, there would be no Title 17, because no copyright would be necessary.

Quote:
As for the original argument in this thread. If a society has no contingency for Intellectual Property, nobody will want to create works.

Prove this.

Quote:
The fact is, people don't make games to make games. People make games to make money.

The fact is you're wrong.

Quote:
Dean R. Koontz also said that Writers do not write for the art, they write to make money.

Appeal to authority.

Quote:
If everything that is created just goes into public domain with little or no compensation for the creator, there will be no incentive to contribute to that public domain.

Let's examine that argument.

1. There is no copyright.
2. Creators recieve little or no compensation for their work.
3. Therefore, creators will not wish to create.

There are two flaws in this argument.

The first is premise 1. It takes part in a non sequitur, since whether or not there was copyright, if creators did not recieve reasonable compensation for their work, they would not wish to create. Ergo, premise 1 is unrelated to the argument.

The second is premise 2. It does not follow from any stated premise, and is in contradiction of the premise, stated in previous posts, that creators will recieve reasonable compensation for their work. Therefore, unless you can present additional argument that supports premise 2, it is to be stricken from the record.

Since premise 1 isn't related to the argument, and since premise 2 is false, there is nothing to support the conclusion. Therefore, your argument is flawed.

Quote:
There are exceptions to this (kudos to all the freeware makers who are independently wealthy), by my point is that they are the exception, rather than the rule. The entertainment industry would dissolve if theft of Intellectual Property Rights was not recognized.

But since theft of IP rights is a logical impossibility, that isn't a problem.

Quote: Original post by cbenoi1
> No man is smart enough to predict
> how an economy will behave.

Well, there is that strange case where such a man existed and he was able to predict a whopping 200 years of the world's economic cycle! Check this out:

http://pages.infinit.net/cbenoi1/images/cycle.tif

That page was given to me by my father 15 years ago. It is a photocopy of Montreal's main paper 'La Presse' dating 1959 which describes the case of this graph being discovered in an old drawer back in 1902. The sheet of paper was likely to be much older than this (40 years according to the original article).

-cb

I am no expert, but 'predicting' usually involves future events, rather than past events. Therefore, the years from 1800 to 1862 should not really be considered predictions. It would also appear that the prediction isn't particularly 'fine grained'. I feel you wouldn't win big on the stock market with this, nor would you be able to plan a country's economy with any major degree of accuracy.

Mayrel, you manipulate logic to make points that are clearly untrue. Intellectual property, albeit not tangible, is property, and as such is susceptible to theft. The act of stealing something does not give you the right to use it, as you claim, nor does it deprive the original owner of his ownership rights, also as you have claimed. There are no limitations on the exclusive right of the copyright owner to copy their own work or to prohibit others from copying that work. And, fair use does not apply to the content of software, which also has legal precedents that I will not link to either because they also will not be read. I will not argue this further except to point out that if you do infringe on somebody's copyright, expect to get prosecuted, sentenced to jail time, and sued for damages.

James R. DiGiovanna (dba Crystal Paradigm)

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=theft

Quote:
1. larceny, theft, thievery, thieving, stealing -- (the act of taking something from someone unlawfully; "the thieving is awful at Kennedy International")

http://www.federated.ca/gloss/t.htm

Quote:
Theft
The wrongful taking of the property of another. It is a broad term and includes larceny, pilfering, hold-up, robbery and pick-pocketing.

http://www.aon.ca/english/plines_include/glossarytu.htm

Quote:
The wrongful taking of the property of another. Any act of stealing, including larceny, pilfering, robbery or burglary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theft

Quote:
theft

\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.

Note every single definition makes a distinction about theft. The item, service, or "property" must be taken. It must transfer possession.

Copyright infringement is not theft. In no way does the original holder of copyright suddenly not have possession of the intellectual property. They do not have any less rights.

Infringe on somebody's copyright, then argue that in a court of law.

James R. DiGiovanna (dba Crystal Paradigm)

I won't have to. Because I won't be prosecuted for theft, but for copyright infringement. [Assuming I met the requirements for criminal copyright infrinngement of course]

[edit: unless the prosecutor gets creative of course, in which case I'd be glad to argue that copyright infringement isn't theft]

Quote: Original post by CrystalParadigm
Mayrel, you manipulate logic to make points that are clearly untrue.

CrystalParadigm, you are the one who does that. You also insult me, which I find somewhat unwelcome.

Quote:
Intellectual property, albeit not tangible, is property, and as such is susceptible to theft.

It simply isn't property.

Quote:
The act of stealing something does not give you the right to use it, as you claim, nor does it deprive the original owner of his ownership rights, also as you have claimed.

No, you have claimed that. You have claimed that making an unlawful copy of a program is stealing the right to copy the program. You appear to have now made the claim that that is not the case.

So exactly what is stolen when copyright is violated? Not the right to copy it, because the thief doesn't get the right, and the owner doesn't lose it. Not the program itself, because the owner still has the program, and so does everyone else that obtain a lawfully made copy.

One can try and be smart and say that the thief 'stole' the profits that the program would have made. But those profits do not exist. It would be like me stealing a piece of paper from you, and you claiming that I had stolen an artistic masterpiece that you were going to draw the next day. You can not prove that you would have drawn the masterpiece (sold the software), nor do I have possession of the masterpiece (have possession of the profit you suppose you would have obtained).

Quote:
There are no limitations on the exclusive right of the copyright owner to copy their own work or to prohibit others from copying that work.

That is entirely untrue in every important respect. The law grants non-copyright-holders rights on the basis of fair use, being a library, selling a lawfully possessed copy of a work, performing an educational or religious work under suitable circumstances, or performing a work for the purpose of promoting that work, retransmitting a broadcast signal for the general public, or copying and/or modifying a computer program as is necessary to use it.

Quote:
And, fair use does not apply to the content of software, which also has legal precedents that I will not link to either because they also will not be read. I will not argue this further except to point out that if you do infringe on somebody's copyright, expect to get prosecuted, sentenced to jail time, and sued for damages.

Once again, this is unrelated to anything. It neither shows that copyright infringement is theft, nor that it should not be made legal to copy a game without the direct authorisation of the creator.