I enjoy hanging out at Digg to hear the stories. I've just got active again after a year of absence. The site has really gone down in quality. It seems to be over run with Barak Obama and environmental propaganda.

There has been a lot of action internationally with government with regards to beefing up intellectual property rights. The main two on Digg are from Canada and France.

You'd think they'd be digging(voting) for these stories because it protects intellectual property from people that steal. Well, that isn't the case. Everyone there feels entitled to steal music, movies, software and whatever else they can get their hands on. When did this become right? These people feel so entitled to these things. Software, music and movies cost a lot of money to build. Taking it and benefiting it without compensating the owner is stealing. There is no other way around it.

Of course all my comment get buried(Voted down) because I express these views. I hear these common rebuttals and I thought I'd take the time to address them.

It isn't stealing

These people hold up the idea that it isn't stealing if nothing tangible is taken. The idea is that you must deprive another. That is just a poor view. Stealing, is benefiting from another's property or work without permission or compensation.

Just imagine this example: You work two weeks at your job, your boss walks in and says, "I'm not going to pay you. I feel entitled to take your hard work (which isn't tangible) and use it to benefit myself without compensating you."

Just shows you that these people feel entitled to rationalize like that.

Fair Use

Looks like these people caught a term from trademark law. I mentioned Digg on this site. That is fair use. They own it, but I'm using it without their permission. It's a little different than STEALING movies, software and music. You don't have fair use to BENEFIT from it.

My rights are being violated

These people are usually complaining that their rights are being violated by these laws. Well, they're not. For most file sharing, they can figure out who is downloading them based on the fact that they can directly connect to you. As for other smaller forms of digital theft, like newsgroups, they can get warrants for the ISP to remove them.

I think these people get caught up with the idea of "rights". You have rights, but not the right to steal.

-----------------

Just stop downloading pirated intellectual property. It's just not right. People work hard, they invest time and money into these things and they're not looking for some people just to steal it.

----

Posted by Christopher | 4:00 PM | | 6 comments »


6 comments

  1. Anonymous // July 19, 2008 at 9:07 AM  

    In a real free market there would be no government copy protection or patents.

  2. Christopher // July 19, 2008 at 12:38 PM  

    Actually, it has nothing to do with free markets, it has to do with your definition of property.

    Contrary to what you think, the world disagrees, the founding fathers disagree and the US constitution disagrees.

    You can rationalize stealing the hard work of someone else, even though it is not tangible.

    It's no different than a boss refusing to pay their employees for their work.

  3. Anonymous // January 28, 2009 at 7:28 PM  

    I'd just like to say, that I dream of a future in which information in any form is viewed far differently then the way it is now. With that said, piracy is stealing. I will not argue that point. However, many people talk about their rights being infringed because they are being infringed. For example, copyrights keep getting extended more and more so that owners can gain more profits. With laws such as the DMCA, breaking the encryption on a dvd in order to exercise your fair use rights is now illegal. A legit backup of a movie in case someone steals your dvd collection or if you want to put said movie on your ipod is no longer convered by fair use. The RIAA has even gone on to argue that you don't actually own the music you purchase on cd, but own a license to it. That license allows you to listen to it through a cd player, but does not grant you the license to copy the music to your computer and put it on your ipod or archive it or burn a mix cd or anything else. The RIAA & MPAA and other groups keep chiseling away at consumers rights in order to better control their market instead of embracing technology and attempting to modify their business model accordingly.

  4. Anonymous // January 28, 2009 at 9:09 PM  

    Well, maybe if the "producers" of the content offered it via easily accessible and affordable methods, the problem can be stemmed. Obviously such would not stop the "hardcore" users who torrent and download for the sake of doing so, but for the typical user who is faced with the choice of downloading something from an easy to use protocol versus going to a movie theater and paying a ridiculous fee of $10 only to be hit by food charges in excess of another 10-15 dollars (because movie theaters are nazi's when it comes to food), the choice is clear.

  5. Christopher // February 7, 2009 at 10:04 AM  

    "Well, maybe if the "producers" of the content offered it via easily accessible and affordable methods, the problem can be stemmed."

    The problem with this type of thinking is that the "producers" actually owe you something. They don't. If you don't like how much something costs, don't buy it.

    You're acting like a victim. Would you steal something from the store and say "if they didn't sell it for so much, this type of stuff wouldn't happen"?

  6. Christopher // February 7, 2009 at 10:18 AM  

    "However, many people talk about their rights being infringed because they are being infringed. For example, copyrights keep getting extended more and more so that owners can gain more profits. With laws such as the DMCA"

    I thank you for your constructive response. I think the DMCA is definitely a problem, not due to how strict it is, but the fact that it is lobbied by a specific group.

    The DMCA dictates rules on another person's intellectual property rights when they may or may not agree with it. Obviously the owner has the right to dictate the rules.

    With that said, if I own the intellectual property of something and create a DVD with encryption on it because I don't want you copying it, than that's my choice.

    When you buy a DVD of a movie, you bought a DVD of a movie. You didn't buy a digital version for your computer, nor did you buy a backup.

    It is a pain because I know my DVDs get scratched and can become unwatchable. But those are the dictated rules by the intellectual property owners and I have to respect it.

    It probably wouldn't of got this far if the rights of intellectual property owners would be defended. People say it can't be stopped and I would argue against that sort of thinking. All you have to do is start banning people from using the internet in a three strikes and you're out policy.

    And there's no such thing as "consumer rights". There is only individual rights. If you were defrauded, than you can fight back, but if you buy a DVD with encryption because you're not allowed to copy it, than you're not a victim.

    "in order to better control their market instead of embracing technology and attempting to modify their business model accordingly."

    I don't like statements like this because you're telling them how they must run their business. It's their choice how they run it and they don't owe you anything.

    I don't see how this "technology" is a better business model. I don't see people running to the stores sending money to these people after they pirate something. People have thousands of dollars of intellectual property on their computer and they never handed over a dime to the millions of dollars and millions of man hours that were pored into it.