Lisa 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (81) comment rss

  • On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?

    Lisa ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2009 @ 05:08pm

    Re: Replies to various stuff

    "Logically then, one cannot ascribe the deprivation of use to theft."

    We're not talking about mere deprivation of use, it's deprivation of use against the will of the current owner. Big difference there.

  • On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?

    Lisa ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2009 @ 01:53pm

    Re:

    "Do I lose my identity if I become an identity theft victim? Am I now longer me? Who am I then?"

    Identity theft is theft accomplished through posing as you. For example, using your bank account info to suck the account dry. Just having someone else's info(like finding it on the ground) is not id theft. Your point is what exactly?

  • On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?

    Lisa ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2009 @ 04:57pm

    Re:

    "How to justify circumventing the will of the artist without being the bad guy"

    But why should the artist have any say after the work has changed hands? If I buy a house, do I have to care about the will of the construction crew?

  • On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?

    Lisa ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2009 @ 03:16pm

    Re: re:

    'There is no moral divide between appropriating the physical fruits of someone's labor against their will and appropriating the intangible fruits of someone's labor against their will."

    There is however, the flaw in IP that treats every instance of a concept as a single object. There have been cases where different inventors have reached the same idea in isolation from each other. Why should they not be able to use the fruits of their labor just because they were late to the party?


    "That is a widely established axiom supported by many of the greatest thinkers throughout history, including, quite obviously, the founding fathers"

    But they did not view ideas as property. Hence why the justification for copyright is 'to promote the progress of science and the useful arts'.

  • On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?

    Lisa ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2009 @ 12:20pm

    "Why are you arguing about the morality of stealing copy written material?"

    We're not. Stealing is when you take a music CD without paying, the person/store you took it from is now deprived of that copy. With infringement, you're creating a new copy.

  • On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?

    Lisa ( profile ), 17 Oct, 2009 @ 10:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big business has abused the system and the Internet generation is right!

    "Believe it or not, but it actually was, sort of. It was created for the best of society as a whole, taking into consideration the need of the content creator right to have a chance to be able to support one self financially if he, or she, so wanted."


    Taking creators needs into account when creating copyright is not the same as copyright being created for creators. Relative to copyright supporting the artist is merely a means to an end, not an end in itself.

  • On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?

    Lisa ( profile ), 17 Oct, 2009 @ 09:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: big business has abused the system and the Internet generation is right!

    No, hubby.

  • On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?

    Lisa ( profile ), 17 Oct, 2009 @ 04:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: big business has abused the system and the Internet generation is right!

    The other part was left in by mistake. I didn't bother correcting myself because someone else wanted on the computer.

  • On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?

    Lisa ( profile ), 17 Oct, 2009 @ 04:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: big business has abused the system and the Internet generation is right!

    "What is so hard to understand about big business' abusing the copyright legislation for their own financial gain?"

    I'm not arguing that point at all. It's this part I take issue with:

    "the copyright system that was intended for CREATORS"

    The quote from the clause in the constitution justifying copyright and the quote from the Fox Film v. Doyal case prove that this statement is false.

  • On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?

    Lisa ( profile ), 17 Oct, 2009 @ 02:09pm

    Re: Re: lisa

    Or more accurately, it says nothing about creator's rights in the way you are implying.

  • On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?

    Lisa ( profile ), 17 Oct, 2009 @ 01:59pm

    Re: lisa

    "and causing confusion upon the Constitution's real intentions, CREATOR'S RIGHTS."

    "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" is not the same thing as "to protect the rights of the creator"

    The constitution says nothing about creator's rights.

  • On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?

    Lisa ( profile ), 17 Oct, 2009 @ 12:55pm

    Re: big business has abused the system and the Internet generation is right!

    "The Internet generation is right...big business HAS abused the copyright system that was intended for CREATORS."


    This is false: Copyright's purpose is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" accomplished "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."


    Supreme court on Fox Film v. Doyal:

    "The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors."

  • On the post: Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?

    Lisa ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2009 @ 09:27pm

    "Where Mike is going is down the "weepy morality play" road, which he also did about 2 weeks ago. It's crap, it's the admission of no true valid arguments against the system."

    Moral discussion is valid, seeing as the pro-copyright lobby has brought morality into play many times during the long IP debate.

  • On the post: Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?

    Lisa ( profile ), 13 Oct, 2009 @ 11:38am

    Re:

    "I don't think only rich people like Lisa should have large ships made out of steel. In a truly competitive market, I would be allowed to take Lisa's ship and melt a piece of it into a chair for myself."

    The comparison isn't valid, the ownership of creative works can only lay in individual copies on and not the idea itself. It would be more correct to say you saw my ship, and bought yourself some steel so you could create your own.

    "Atoms want to be free"

    Unlike ideas, atoms are controllable, so they can be property. I already said that copies resulting from an idea can be owned, so they wouldn't be free in the way you're describing.(for example, if you have the only copies of a work you may completely control what is done with them)



    "Lisa. I am entitled to take any collection of atoms (such as a large steel ship)"

    Again, not comparable since atom are both ownable and scarce. Ideas are not controllable in a way suitable for ownership.

  • On the post: Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?

    Lisa ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2009 @ 10:19pm

    Or put in better terms

    Say I own a large ship made of steel. I could easily have it melted down into a bunch of chairs, therefor what I own is ultimately the steel.

    So I own the ship because the steel IS the ship.

  • On the post: Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?

    Lisa ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2009 @ 09:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Creative works have no physical reality.

    No, you own the computer because you own the sand and rocks.

    Nice try troll.

  • On the post: Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?

    Lisa ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2009 @ 03:26pm

    Re: Creative works have no physical reality.

    The physical reality lies in the media a work is stored on.

    It is through this that you may own individual copies of a work, in the same way a bowl can be owned.(not because you created the bowl, but because you own the glass/plastic that the bowl is made of)

  • On the post: Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?

    Lisa ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2009 @ 08:28pm

    Re: Copyright

    The real problem with patents is all the people applying just so they can sue later. Patent trolls are by far the worst threat to innovation.

  • On the post: Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?

    Lisa ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2009 @ 05:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: re: re: heh

    "Again, pure socialism says that everyone work is owned by the whole, nobody owns anything."

    Then I'm not a socialist. I believe You do have the right to receive payment for say, coding work under an employer and control (ownership) over any copies in your possession. My stance is that you must transfer ownership for any copies of the work you convey onto the recipient.


    "Oh Noes! ownership is only an idea, and ideas aren't real! On Noes! I guess that means that your physical item ownership doesn't exist, because the idea of ownership can't exist."

    Ideas are real things, just not ownable things. Morals and property may just be invented concepts, but they are ones which must be defined for society to function.

  • On the post: Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?

    Lisa ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2009 @ 04:05pm

    Re: Re: re: re: heh

    'Lisa, all property rights are "phony" under that concept, which is what makes it entirely socialist of an idea.'

    My standard is one of 'physical equivalent control'

    IP is false because ideas can't be controlled in the way traditional physical property can.
    for instance, there is always the possibility that two people can have the same idea independent from each other.(actually, this has already happened many times in the past)

    You can own a copy of a work but not idea behind it because only the former is bound by the same circumstances that Real Estate, cars or food are.

Next >>