Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » US seizes domain names of websites broadcasting live television (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: US seizes domain names of websites broadcasting live television
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So the department of homeland security has decided that people watching cable on the internet is a threat to national security or some such. Several domain names were seized and those sites have had to reregister with overseas domain names.

I did not know that some of the sites were foreign, and had been ruled legal in the countries they were hosted in. Interesting that the US believes that it can enforce its laws in other countries.

torrentfreak.com

quote:
Rojadirecta is known as one of the world’s major Internet sports broadcast indexes. The site links to broadcasts of many popular soccer matches plus other sporting events including NBA, MLB, NFL, NPB, IPL.

The site has well over a million visitors a day, and is listed among the 100 most popular sites in Spain in terms of traffic. This morning, however, visitors were surprised by a warning from US authorities. Continuing the previous “Operation in Our Sites” actions, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had seized Rojadirecta’s .org domain.

Rojadirecta is an unusual target for several reasons, not least because the site has been declared legal twice by Spanish courts. The site’s owners have previously fought a three year legal battle in Spain, which they won, but a single seizure warrant from US authorities has made this victory pointless.

quote:
The site is owned by a Spanish company that pays its taxes and has been declared to operate legally in Spain. In addition, the site is not hosted in the US either. The only connection to the US is that the .org domain is maintained by a US company.

This indirect connection to the US makes the seizure a dubious action, according to Rojadirecta’s owner. “In our opinion the US authorities are completely despising the Spanish justice system and sovereignty,” Seoane told TorrentFreak.

quote:
The seizure of Rojadirecta shows that commercial interests are high on the agenda of the US Government. Seizing a domain that has been specifically declared to operate legally in other countries does not appear to be an obstacle. In this light, one has to wonder if generic domain names should be controlled exclusively by US companies.

Posts: 3392 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tonylovern
Member
Member # 2580

 - posted      Profile for tonylovern   Email tonylovern   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
if someone steals U.S. Products and makes money off of distributing them abroad, shouldn't the U.S government do something about it?

If the U.S. government has the tools to stop said theft, shouldn't they use them?

I know the NFL in particular is very jealous of thier distribution rights. a single 30 second commercial during the superbowl can run up to 3 million dollars. I dont know how much fox paid to broadcast the superbowl, but i assume its many millions of dollars. why should a foreign entity be allowed to broadcast it for free and make money off of advertising at the same time?

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The USA is an imperialist country, nothing new here. Same as feudal imperialism was about grabbing new land and handing it over to your vassal lords, and colonial imperialism was about imposing dependent governments on savage races, capitalist imperialism is all about preserving the bottom line of your corporations.

quote:
if someone steals U.S. Products and makes money off of distributing them abroad, shouldn't the U.S government do something about it?
Sure, when American citizens are actually deprived of some product. Not actually happening in these cases, is it though. In fact it wouldn't be recognizable as theft at all, except that corporations have an interest in having you call it "theft".

quote:
why should a foreign entity be allowed to broadcast it for free and make money off of advertising at the same time?
Because it's in a foreign country, and your laws don't apply in foreign countries, bucko, no matter how much your corporations would love it if they did.
Posts: 3022 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tonylovern
Member
Member # 2580

 - posted      Profile for tonylovern   Email tonylovern   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
as far as i'm aware the U.S. hasnt done anything on foreign soil.

Are you seriously arguing that theft of intellectual property is not theft?

Insult america all you like, it doesnt change the fact that this imperialistic country is at the forefront of contemporary culture and people in other countries are trying to make money off of our culture without so much as an attempt to compensate the people generating the content.

it's easy to be dismissive when its not your culture being stolen.

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The most bizarre thing is that only one of the three domain names registered with the same US company was seized. Were they (homeland security) too stupid to realize that the other two names went to the same place? If that is so, don't they need to be fired for incompetence? Did they not care? That is even scarier, if that is the case then this is a publicity stunt. Who is directing their actions, some part of the government, or private business? If some part of the government is playing games, to what end? If private business, what are they doing directing government agencies?
Posts: 3392 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tonylovern:
as far as i'm aware the U.S. hasnt done anything on foreign soil.

Are you seriously arguing that theft of intellectual property is not theft?

According to the legal system in Spain, what they are doing, in Spain, is legal. If it is not legal in the US, why did it get done by homeland security and not the department of commerce? Why was there no due process?
Posts: 3392 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tonylovern
Member
Member # 2580

 - posted      Profile for tonylovern   Email tonylovern   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
due process is only required for prosecution of a crime. prevention of a crime is something completely different. anyone can prevent a crime in progress from happening.
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tonylovern
Member
Member # 2580

 - posted      Profile for tonylovern   Email tonylovern   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
and yes, based on my experience with being investigated by a federal agency, they are that stupid. as much as we like to pretend that the government is omniscient, the big show is run by regular people with regular blind spots.
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you seriously arguing that theft of intellectual property is not theft?
Yes, I'm extremely seriously arguing that. "theft" means depriving someone of their rightful property, it doesn't mean increasing the total wealth of mankind by using your own effort to duplicate said property and keeping a copy for your own use.

"Theft of intellectual property" isn't only NOT a moral crime, it's a moral good.

Posts: 3022 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"it's easy to be dismissive when its not your culture being stolen."
You're funny! If you've seen "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" you'd know there's no people like the Greeks to believe their culture is being constantly stolen by others, and I'm at least as dismissive towards *them*.

Or towards Greeks that whine that the republic of Macedonia is attempting to steal their identity.

Or, hey, perhaps we should fine America for using Greek-style architecture in so many of its DC buildings. What, do you think only films and music can be stolen, but architecture cannot? How convenient... as America is a producer of unique films and music, but not unique architectural styles.

Just recently I got forwarded an email about how the Statue of Liberty is America (or France, depending who you blame) stealing intellectual property from Greece: because that's actually Apollo.

[ February 07, 2011, 04:25 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3022 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tonylovern:
due process is only required for prosecution of a crime. prevention of a crime is something completely different. anyone can prevent a crime in progress from happening.

So if the police think that someone is driving to the bank to rob it, they can impound their car, and they don't have to actually charge them with anything?
Posts: 3392 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
Are you seriously arguing that theft of intellectual property is not theft?
Yes, I'm extremely seriously arguing that. "theft" means depriving someone of their rightful property, it doesn't mean increasing the total wealth of mankind by using your own effort to duplicate said property and keeping a copy for your own use.

"Theft of intellectual property" isn't only NOT a moral crime, it's a moral good.

QFT. If you claim it for your own, that's theft. That's plagiarism. But if you merely distribute copies... scribes had hissy-fits when the printing press was invented. Buggy whip manufacturers screeched when cars came around. People are always going to try and preserve a way of life that doesn't work any more and declare it a matter of "law".

Link

Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tonylovern
Member
Member # 2580

 - posted      Profile for tonylovern   Email tonylovern   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Or, hey, perhaps we should fine America for using Greek-style architecture in so many of its DC buildings.
If someone wants to make an american style tv show, theres nothing stopping them. the people that designed those buildings were paid for thier efforts, the people that built those buildings were paid for thier efforts. if there is a single building in D.C. that was designed in, built in and then stolen from Greece, your argument might hold some water.

quote:
Yes, I'm extremely seriously arguing that. "theft" means depriving someone of their rightful property,
And you dont think that the money from ad revenue is rightful property? You dont think that the money networks pay to developers for rights to broadcast is rightful property?

quote:
Just recently I got forwarded an email about how the Statue of Liberty is America (or France, depending who you blame) stealing intellectual property from Greece: because that's actually Apollo.


Ludicrous. Apollo wasn't female, didnt wear a dress, has no ties to holding a book and if i recall correctly the statue itself was designed after the mother of the guy that designed her. you're grasping at straws here.

quote:
So if the police think that someone is driving to the bank to rob it, they can impound their car, and they don't have to actually charge them with anything?
More correctly, if a wildlife officer witnesses someone, who is a known bank robber, robbing a bank, he is allowed to stop them. If a non deputized citizen witnesses someone mugging an old woman, he is allowed to stop them, regardless of whether prosecution of the crime actually happens.

quote:
But if you merely distribute copies... scribes had hissy-fits when the printing press was invented. Buggy whip manufacturers screeched when cars came around. People are always going to try and preserve a way of life that doesn't work any more and declare it a matter of "law".


Except that no one has made the current model of making tv shows obsolete and free. Intellectual property rights are one of the few rights that will be preserved well into the future, otherwise people will stop producing intellectual property. if you can't make a living doing it, its a hobby. Most people simple could not afford to spend the amount of time and resources required to make quality programming, as a hobby.
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, I'm extremely seriously arguing that. "theft" means depriving someone of their rightful property, it doesn't mean increasing the total wealth of mankind by using your own effort to duplicate said property and keeping a copy for your own use.

"Theft of intellectual property" isn't only NOT a moral crime, it's a moral good.

Wow, you're an idiot.
Posts: 7164 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tonylovern
Member
Member # 2580

 - posted      Profile for tonylovern   Email tonylovern   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And no, I havent seen "My big fat greek wedding" nor do i have any interest in doing so. Thats not a slight on the greeks, I have no interest in seeing "the american" either.
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But in any event, the copyright anarchists like Aris, while shielded from barbaric U.S. laws in their own jurisdictions, don't have much of a leg to stand on in terms of what the U.S. government chooses to do on its own soil.

Don't like it? Tough.

Posts: 7164 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tonylovern
Member
Member # 2580

 - posted      Profile for tonylovern   Email tonylovern   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jasonr,

To be fair, i think there might be a poorly executed valid point in there somewhere about raising cultural awareness through dissemination of mass media to less fortunate cultures.

Of course the people producing that mass media still deserve compensation for thier efforts.

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
Yes, I'm extremely seriously arguing that. "theft" means depriving someone of their rightful property, it doesn't mean increasing the total wealth of mankind by using your own effort to duplicate said property and keeping a copy for your own use.

"Theft of intellectual property" isn't only NOT a moral crime, it's a moral good.

Wow, you're an idiot.
Gee. Now there's a convincing argument.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
About a dozen years ago, I found out that someone had taken an article from my website and posted it on his own. He didn't claim to have written it. It gave correct attribution to me. But his website was foul. And I didn't want to be associated with it in any way. So I threatened him with copyright violation blah blah. And he laughed.

I've learned a bit since then. I've learned that while it was distasteful to me for him to post my article, and while it might technically have been illegal, I didn't actually have any moral right to demand that he remove it so long as he didn't try and claim it as his own. As much as that irked me.

Check out the interminable mostafa thread. Being offended, or wanting people to stop something, doesn't justify making it illegal and stopping them by force.

Do I own what I write and publish? Hell yes. Does that ownership confer upon me the right to control what happens to it forever more? It really doesn't. Particularly if I sell it. I mean, if I buy a CD with music on it (for example), I can make a copy for friends. I can make copies for all of my friends if I want. Sure, the government can make it illegal, but there's no sense to such a law. It's simply muscle, fueled by entrenched interests. Once I buy it, I own it. And I can do what I want with it, so long as I don't commit fraud by claiming that I made it.

Does that mean that people don't make as much money? Maybe. But it isn't money that they're innately entitled to. It's just money that they're used to.

Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tonylovern:
quote:
So if the police think that someone is driving to the bank to rob it, they can impound their car, and they don't have to actually charge them with anything?
More correctly, if a wildlife officer witnesses someone, who is a known bank robber, robbing a bank, he is allowed to stop them. If a non deputized citizen witnesses someone mugging an old woman, he is allowed to stop them, regardless of whether prosecution of the crime actually happens.

That would be a good analogy if the department of homeland security had actually stopped anyone from doing anything. All they did was say you can't use this domain name anymore. And they didn't even do a good job of that. Three domain names for the same site with the same domain registrar, and they only shut down one of them.

A more correct analogy would be the security guard at the bank next door seeing someone head into the grocery store with wicked intent and saying hey, you can't use that door, and then standing idly by as they use the next door over.

Posts: 3392 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
Yes, I'm extremely seriously arguing that. "theft" means depriving someone of their rightful property,
And you dont think that the money from ad revenue is rightful property?
Of course, it does. From the actual revenue, not the desired revenue.

quote:
You don't think that the money networks pay to developers for rights to broadcast is rightful property?
Of course it is. The money I pay for my broadband access so that I can download tv shows at high speed is also the rightful property of my ISP provider.

quote:
Except that no one has made the current model of making tv shows obsolete and free.
The model of distribution has changed.

quote:
Intellectual property rights are one of the few rights that will be preserved well into the future, otherwise people will stop producing intellectual property.
No, they won't. People were producing works of intellect long before there were intellectual property rights, and people will keep producing it if they go away.

quote:
But in any event, the copyright anarchists like Aris, while shielded from barbaric U.S. laws in their own jurisdictions, don't have much of a leg to stand on in terms of what the U.S. government chooses to do on its own soil.
Of course, I'm not an imperialist either. So within your own soil feel free to protect as much you like your original works of intellect, e.g. things like comics with Wonder Woman and the Amazons, or the tv series about Hercules or Sinbad or Robin Hood, or Stargate and the Egyptian gods, or those Disney movies about Cinderella and Snowwhite and the Little Mermaid, or all the stories about vampires and werewolves, and so on and so on.

Feel free to hypocritically oppress your own people as much as you like.

[ February 07, 2011, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3022 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
Do I own what I write and publish? Hell yes. Does that ownership confer upon me the right to control what happens to it forever more? It really doesn't. Particularly if I sell it. I mean, if I buy a CD with music on it (for example), I can make a copy for friends. I can make copies for all of my friends if I want. Sure, the government can make it illegal, but there's no sense to such a law.

So, you've got no problem with counterfeiters then? I'm sure you do, when you think about it in those terms. If everybody can make a copy of money then the original becomes worthless. Society would be much poorer is we all had to trade heavy metals for basic commerce.

If everybody can and does steal intellectual property it becomes worth much less. And soon there after people stop producing it in the quantity they do now. It will in effect make the world a much poorer place.

Why should Apple produce a new shiny iPhone if a Chinese company can immediately start cloning copies without paying any R&D? Why would GE design a newer, better Ultra-sound machine if another corporation can produce a knock-off version? Why would any of your favorite authors keep producing books? Why would game makers, musicians, photographers or anyone else keep making what they are making? How much science and research would stop being produced if businesses can't make the same return they can now? We'd certainly still get some IP property, but it would be carefully guarded and the quantities would go down and the cost would go up.

If you really don't believe in copyrights, then stop using them and start producing your own version. That's what the creators of Linux did and I'd admire them. But I still pay for the much better version of their competitors product.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"If everybody can and does steal intellectual property it becomes worth much less."
No, if everyone can and does copy works of the intellect, they're worth just the same to the consumers, and they just cost much less.

quote:
Why would any of your favorite authors keep producing books?
Why do my favorite webcomic artists keep producing webcomics?

And why have I donated money to them, though I wasn't legally required to?

quote:
Why would game makers, musicians, photographers or anyone else keep making what they are making?
Why did AGD produce a freely downloadable version of King's Quest II that was tons superior to the original?

People are creators. People seek to create.

There are thousands of freeware games out there. SMBC Theaters produces comedy sketches. There's been created a movie-long fan-created prequel to Lords of the Rings.

The profit motive isn't required. The people making a profit out of works of intellect were always a tiny tiny minority compared to the people that created for creation's own sake instead.

Posts: 3022 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Why should Apple produce a new shiny iPhone if a Chinese company can immediately start cloning copies without paying any R&D?

Chinese companies do immediately start cloning iPhones and iPods. Yet Apple keeps making them and keeps making money selling them.
Posts: 3392 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why did AGD produce a freely downloadable version of King's Quest II that was tons superior to the original?

People are creators. People seek to create.

There are thousands of freeware games out there. SMBC Theaters produces comedy sketches. There's been created a movie-long fan-created prequel to Lords of the Rings.

The profit motive isn't required. The people making a profit out of works of intellect were always a tiny tiny minority compared to the people that created for creation's own sake instead.

Excellent point. There is plenty of free artistic expression out there for everyone to enjoy. One would think that copyright law would be irrelevant. Who cares if Peter Jackson and his corporate masters insist on enforcing their copyrights? You can just download some fanfiction or enjoy some other publicly available art.

This begs the question: why do you even care if the copyright law says one thing or another? If the free publicly available product is as good or better than the not-free copy-protected product, there shouldn't be an issue, should there?

[ February 07, 2011, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7164 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Chinese companies do immediately start cloning iPhones and iPods. Yet Apple keeps making them and keeps making money selling them.
This is like saying: well shoplifters keep stealing Gilette Razor blades from the stores, but Gilette keeps making razors and turning a profit, so I guess shoplifting isn't a problem.
Posts: 7164 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
Chinese companies do immediately start cloning iPhones and iPods. Yet Apple keeps making them and keeps making money selling them.
This is like saying: well shoplifters keep stealing Gilette Razor blades from the stores, but Gilette keeps making razors and turning a profit, so I guess shoplifting isn't a problem.
No, it is like someone implying that if Chinese companies were to clone iPhones then Apple wouldn't keep making them, and someone else pointing out that Chinese companies do clone iPhones, and Apple does keep making them.
Posts: 3392 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So, you've got no problem with counterfeiters then?
Counterfeiting money is a type of fraud. Coins and paper money represent value, they aren't value by themselves (unlike e.g. digital copies of tv shows)

[ February 07, 2011, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3022 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, it is like someone implying that if Chinese companies were to clone iPhones then Apple wouldn't keep making them, and someone else pointing out that Chinese companies do clone iPhones, and Apple does keep making them.
Your statement is a straw man. Nobody argues that just because some Chinese company clones the IPhone Apple will stop making Iphones. What is argued is that if a Chinese company clones the Iphone, this takes away some of Apple's incentive to design products like the Iphone, because doing so becomes less profitable.

If enough companies clone the Iphone and the profit involved in innovating new designs is cut into enough, then at that point Apple might stop producing products like the Iphone.

You keep suggesting that it's an all or nothing proposition. No one argues that it is.

Posts: 7164 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts asked "Why should Apple produce a new shiny iPhone if a Chinese company can immediately start cloning copies without paying any R&D?" I pointed out that Chinese companies currently do this. I don't know exactly what the answer is to the question, but Apple seems to, and their actions indicate that it includes them continuing to produce iPhones and develop new products.
Posts: 3392 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
So, you've got no problem with counterfeiters then?
Counterfeiting money is a type of fraud. Coins and paper money represent value, they aren't value by themselves (unlike e.g. digital copies of tv shows)
So you admit that digital IP has inherent value. But you argue that it should be allowed to be devalued. Why?

What gives you the right to assess the value (to pretty much zero) and take that right away from the creator? And if you feel the creator charges more than you are willing to pay, why don't you just not use it?

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I pointed out that Chinese companies currently do this. I don't know exactly what the answer is to the question, but Apple seems to, and their actions indicate that it includes them continuing to produce iPhones and develop new products.
[Roll Eyes]
Posts: 7164 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What gives you the right to assess the value (to pretty much zero) and take that right away from the creator? And if you feel the creator charges more than you are willing to pay, why don't you just not use it?
That's the hypocrisy in the position of many people who think like Aris. When you say that failing to enforce copyright law will create a disincentive to creative enterprise, you get the standard response that people will be creative no matter what, even if no profit is involved. After all, poetry and music existed before copyright laws, they say.

This is true of course. What's also true is that profit is the driving force behind forms of expression that are expensive to produce and market, things like big holywood blockbusters, for example, or Hanna Montana. Things that are driven by big budgets and big marketing.

Then the typical counter-response is going to be that big mainstream music and movies are crappy anyway and the big corporations are greedy, outmoded, etc...

Yet the very fact that we're having the discussion in the first place proves that the product can't be all that crappy if people are willing to copy it en masse. And that's the contradiction. People like Aris claim that free non-copyrighted material is abundant and available and would be just as abundant and available if we had no copyright laws, yet people continue to gravitate towards the material that is not free all the same. If there's this cornucopia of free fruit just piled up in front of us begging to be eaten at no cost, why are people clamoring to consume the fruit with the price tag on it?

What most of these hypocrites want is free access to the product that admittedly costs (in some cases) millions or hundreds of millions of dollars to produce. They can't be stupid enough to think that a big studio is going to spend $300,000,000 producing the next Avatar or Lord of the Rings, only to give the product away for free on the internet, so what they're really saying is they want the fruits of that real labour for nothing.

If it's not stealing, it's so indistinguishable from stealing for all practical purposes that there's really no difference.

Posts: 7164 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Property ownership is a useful fiction for the running of our society. It is not, however, some kind of immutable moral right.

The challenge comes from identifying a consistent set of property ownership rules (because the law and humans both desire consistency) that works best with our society. Humans also have this innate emotional response to 'unfairness' that needs to be taken into account; what people consider fair (as opposed to their reaction to perceived unfairness) is mutable and context specific, however.

There is nothing sacrosanct about copyright: it is a tool we as a society use to promote innovation and creation. If we as a society feel it worth our while to define digital file sharing as piracy, with all the resulting costs and benefits and taking into account the effectiveness of such policies, then that's what we'll do.

Similarly for the copyright or even the theft of physical property: in each case, we have defined what we as a group of people value. Or at least we should have. And these things can change.

Posts: 10236 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
I pointed out that Chinese companies currently do this. I don't know exactly what the answer is to the question, but Apple seems to, and their actions indicate that it includes them continuing to produce iPhones and develop new products.
[Roll Eyes]
Apparently I'm not communicating very well, could someone else step in and rephrase what jason is trying to say and where I am going wrong in interpreting it and replying to it?
Posts: 3392 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
I mean, if I buy a CD with music on it (for example), I can make a copy for friends. I can make copies for all of my friends if I want. Sure, the government can make it illegal, but there's no sense to such a law. It's simply muscle, fueled by entrenched interests. Once I buy it, I own it. And I can do what I want with it, so long as I don't commit fraud by claiming that I made it.

When you buy a CD, you don't buy the music. What you bought is a license to the music under copyright and that license has a number of restrictions on it. One of them is you can't distribute it without the consent of the copyright holder.

You don't own the music and you can't do whatever you want with it by simply not taking credit for it. Now, making a copy for a friend is probably not big enough to attract attention of a large label but it is still a violation of copyright laws - you're just probably going to get away with it. Make a copy and upload it so 1,000,000 people get it? Now you're going to get some attention you'd probably prefer to avoid.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
I pointed out that Chinese companies currently do this. I don't know exactly what the answer is to the question, but Apple seems to, and their actions indicate that it includes them continuing to produce iPhones and develop new products.
[Roll Eyes]
Apparently I'm not communicating very well, could someone else step in and rephrase what jason is trying to say and where I am going wrong in interpreting it and replying to it?
In a nutshell, Apple is producing iPhones and those devices are bing pirated by one or two Chinese companies. Apple continues to produce iPhones because the piracy is limited enough to still make producing them sufficiently profitable to do so. However, if 100 companies began flooding the market with cheap iPhones it's almost certain that would try to protect their creation and the profits due them from years of R&D, testing and marketing through legal means. If those means failed, Apple would quit producing them because the profit motive for them ha vanished.

Would any company want to risk millions in product development if it could just be taken by anyone and cloned once it proved successful? That would give s significant disincentive to any further R&D.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Property ownership is a useful fiction for the running of our society. It is not, however, some kind of immutable moral right.

It may not be an immutable moral right, but it's certainly a very important right. And it's most clearly not a "useful fiction".

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
The challenge comes from identifying a consistent set of property ownership rules (because the law and humans both desire consistency) that works best with our society.
Humans also have this innate emotional response to 'unfairness' that needs to be taken into account; what people consider fair (as opposed to their reaction to perceived unfairness) is mutable and context specific, however.

I would agree with all of this.

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
There is nothing sacrosanct about copyright: it is a tool we as a society use to promote innovation and creation. If we as a society feel it worth our while to define digital file sharing as piracy, with all the resulting costs and benefits and taking into account the effectiveness of such policies, then that's what we'll do.

Similarly for the copyright or even the theft of physical property: in each case, we have defined what we as a group of people value. Or at least we should have. And these things can change.

I agree and as a society we have come to a conclusion that intellectual property is "property" and that copying it without the owners permission is theft. The people that do so are criminals. Until "these things change" that will be the case.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So you admit that digital IP has inherent value. But you argue that it should be allowed to be devalued. Why?
The value is not decreased. If I take a copy and give it to friends of mine, and then we both discuss the new series together, then the value of the episodes are *increased* for each of us.

Do you really believe that free things are without value? You don't understand post-scarcity economies.

quote:
What gives you the right to assess the value (to pretty much zero) and take that right away from the creator?
Simple: I don't use his distribution network, so I don't feel the need to *pay* his distribution network.

The distribution network I use is the Internet and bittorrent, and I both pay my ISP fees and I'm always very ethical in uploading more than I download.


quote:
When you buy a CD, you don't buy the music. What you bought is a license to the music under copyright and that license has a number of restrictions on it. One of them is you can't distribute it without the consent of the copyright holder.
In short, for you to defend the concept of intellectual property, you must tear to shreds the concept of physical property.

quote:
If it's not stealing, it's so indistinguishable from stealing for all practical purposes that there's really no difference.
Pfft. You still don't get it.
Imagine an invisible goblin that came along and took away your stuff. How are you harmed by him? Simple: Your stuff goes missing! A zero-sum game where you lose.

Now imagine a second invisible goblin that came along, and meticulously used his own labour to see how your stuff are made so as to duplicate them for the benefit of his family. You aren't harmed by him or his existence at all. You don't even know he exists. All that happens is that some people (the family of goblins) gets enriched, but *you* aren't impoverished. That's a positive-sum transaction, and a pure creation of wealth.

The first goblin is a thief, the second is a creator of wealth.

Via subtitling, and introducing friends to new series, I've done more for creation of wealth than if I'd waited four or five years for some distribution network to bring these series to Greece and paid money for them.

Posts: 3022 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And in all that time, no one received a copy of something that they would otherwise have bought?
Posts: 20828 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1