You think this “great culture”, college boy? What a hoot you are.

Anyhoo, those who START with large clearly attributable amounts of the works of others are at best second-handers leveraging the prior. Who the hell cares? Nothing lost here. In fact, this is a GOOD use of copyright, prevents clowns from ruining whatever value the original had — especially if mixing it in with the dross of dull lives: who the heck wants their ideal fantasies soiled by every execrable half-wit hack?

Where Mike daily proves the value of an economics degree.

05:34:39[g-157-3]

In almost all common uses “censorship” refers to speech that is quashed for going against what those in power want to represent on either a factual or editorial basis. While technically this is censorship in that it is preventing speech, it does not fall under the common usage and thus weakens it. This is a dangerous, dangerous position to take, particularly when there ARE several cases where copyright law is the hammer used to censor actual criticism (such as taking down transcripts of political speeches, or Donna Barstow claiming copyright on her signature to take down articles critical of her abysmal cartooning). This case stands in stark contrast to that because it’s a ‘standard’ copyright claim and has nothing to do with quashing criticism.

I agree. Censorship is when an idea is suppressed because the censor doesn’t like that idea. Enforcing property rights isn’t censorship just because those property rights happen to involve speech. Part of the bargain of copyright is that the copyright holder has certain exclusive rights over his protected speech. That control isn’t “censorship” when exercised.

Just to be crystal clear, you have just stated that giving authors the right to exclude others from misappropriating the protected elements of their works inspires creativity. This is about the most braindead thing I’ve ever read, and proves beyond doubt that you don’t have a creative bone in your body and have never created anything of worth.

I don’t see the need for personal attacks. What I said is the classic presentation of the copyright bargain. The exclusive rights are the incentive that get people to create original works in the first place.

What if someone exercises their rights to silence someone who uses that ?protected speech? as part of a larger commentary on culture and life?

Does that truly not count as censorship?

In my opinion, no, it’s not. Imagine if I own a plot of land, and there’s a certain spot where people congregate to listen to other people make speeches. I can run the people off of my land if I don’t like their speeches, and I can permit people whose speeches I do like to remain on my land. I’m not censoring those people I run off even though I’m doing it because I don’t like what they’re saying. I’m simply enforcing my property rights. The problem only arises because the speakers decided to use my property without permission in making their speeches in the first place. It’s not censorship since they are free to spread their ideas without using my property in the process. The same holds true for intellectual property, like copyrights. The law privileges some uses of other people’s copyrighted works without permission just as it permits some uses of other people’s land without permission. But the person who uses other people’s works or land runs the risk that the property owner won’t agree that it’s privileged, in which case he may assert his rights. Trying to frame it as “culture” doesn’t mean much legally.

“Theft of services” is not considered theft in the same line as petty theft/grand theft. It is more akin to defrauding an innkeeper (which most states equate it to.) Much like copyright infringement, it is considered different under the law than theft. However, unlike copyright infringement, defrauding an innkeeper does result in real loss, since the innkeeper has a limited amount of supply and the theft prevents them from selling that supply to another person.

But I think you miss the key point of the example of theft of services. Sneaking in to the theater without paying is theft, even if it didn’t cost the theater anything as they were playing the movie anyway, because the person sneaking in ACQUIRES something without paying for it. Obviously, not everything we acquire without paying is theft. But certain intangibles, such as theater service, or copyright rights, are capable of being stolen nonetheless.

Copyright infringement potentially results in loss of profit, but when there is an infinite supply of product, it is hard to say that the result prevents someone from selling the supply to another person.

A loss of profits can certainly be a part of what makes it theft. But it’s theft even if it’s not a lost sale for the reasons just mentioned. The infringer acquires something of value without paying the part who has the right to exclude from acquiring that thing without paying for it.

Also, please learn to internet. When you respond to someone, press “reply to this.” It helps keep things in order and makes following the thread easier.

I apologize for the replies not showing up correctly. That is beyond my control. I am clicking “reply” in the normal fashion. If you view it in “Flattened” view, it’s easier.

You can’t really say that copyright incentivized their creation because everything created is automatically copyrighted as soon as it is put onto a fixed medium.

But those people put it into a fixed medium in the first place because they knew they’d get the copyright. Do you not see how, say, Warner Bros. knows they’re going to get the copyright, and so, based on that knowledge, invests time and money into their next movie?

Loved the show. Had it on my wish list. Hate this kind of crap. Just removed it from Wish list.