[Bobboau]

so, is that a yes or a no, I make a car that is physically identical to an existing one, am I a pirate?

funny how you doge the argument right after berating someone for 'taking their ball and leaving'.

[Blue Lion]

so, is that a yes or a no, I make a car that is physically identical to an existing one, am I a pirate?

funny how you doge the argument right after berating someone for 'taking their ball and leaving'.

You haven't clarified anything. Does whoever you're taking it from have the rights to that plan?

Is it a freely distributed plan, designed for people to make their own?

[Bobboau]

it is a Ford Christer Labaron, the person who owns it bought it from a dealership. I am a survivalist so I just happen to own my own smelting facility in my back yard and am able to synthesize the plastics used using my phd in organic chemistry and a petroleum refinery I built out of old steal drums.
no plans are involved I am taking the finished product and item by item duplicating it's physical properties and form.

[Blue Lion]

it is a Ford Christer Labaron, the person who owns it bought it from a dealership. I am a survivalist so I just happen to own my own smelting facility in my back yard and am able to synthesize the plastics used using my phd in organic chemistry and a petroleum refinery I built out of old steal drums.
no plans are involved I am taking the finished product and item by item duplicating it's physical properties and form.

Then yes, you would be stealing that design from Ford.

I'm kinda guessing this is the same reason car companies don't produce another companies car.

"Why are you making our car?"

"It's not yours. It's mine. I made it."

"Yea, but that's our car. We make that."

"Oh no, I just took the plans. I took the work you did to design and plan it. I'm not going to actually PAY you, I'm just going to benefit from your work."

I can't possibly see what someone would have against that.

It's the new 2010 Toyota Thunderbird!

[kode]

Seeing as you missed my edit;

Is it really right that archaic interest organizations that since long do not work in the best interest of those they claim to represent should be able to sustain themselves even after they've played out their role? It is not that the music industry is doing bad, it's that the interest groups representing the industry is going bad that has been the main issue for them. The de facto monopolistic chain of cinematic theatres over here said that last year was their most profitable one ever. This including back in the '70s when people went to the movies every ****ing day of the week. I'm sure that's a market in crisis right there. The CEO wants to ban the internet. He's said so in interviews.

Ban. The. Internet.

[Bobboau]

OK then, lets say my friend has a problem with his car, the alternator has gone out, he knows I can build just about anything, so he has it toed to my house, and I make a new alternator by looking at the broken one and figuring out what the original one looked like. the only other option is buying a new alternator from Ford.

is this piracy?

[Blue Lion]

Seeing as you missed my edit;

Is it really right that archaic interest organizations that since long do not work in the best interest of those they claim to represent should be able to sustain themselves even after they've played out their role?

I've never had a problem buying a CD, movie, video game or program. Not only do they exist in physical copies I can purchase at a store, but they also exist quite a few times in digital copies online.

What best interest are they not working towards? Why do you get to to determine what someone does with their property?

They own the songs, movies, games, whatever. They can lock them up like the Shroud of Turin for all I care. Poor business model? Absolutely.

The best way to tell them how to distribute their product is through your wallet, by not buying it. Instead you're telling them their product is highly desired by you. So much so you're willing to break the law to get it.

It is not that the music industry is doing bad, it's that the interest groups representing the industry is going bad that has been the main issue for them. The de facto monopolistic chain of cinematic theatres over here said that last year was their most profitable one ever. This including back in the '70s when people went to the movies every ****ing day of the week. I'm sure that's a market in crisis right there. The CEO wants to ban the internet. He's said so in interviews.

Of course they're monopolistic. Where else are you going to see a movie in a theater... other than a theater? Are you really telling me movie theaters have a monopoly on places to see a movie... in a theater?

But to the point I think you're trying to make (I hope so) I haven't been to the movies in forever. I buy DVDs when I feel like it (which is rare) or I watch it on TV.

Movies, DVD, TV... how many more ways of access to these things do you want?

I don't understand what the argument here is... that you have to go through the person who owns the rights to the movies to see it?

I don't get the solution, are you just mad they're expensive?

A company makes a movie, song, whatever. How do you propose they distribute this other than how they've done so and still turn a profit. What other method exists than showing it to you, giving you a disk of it or sending you a file?

[Rhymes]

Ban. The. Internet.

What. The. ****.   

[Inquisitor]

OK then, lets say my friend has a problem with his car, the alternator has gone out, he knows I can build just about anything, so he has it toed to my house, and I make a new alternator by looking at the broken one and figuring out what the original one looked like. the only other option is buying a new alternator from Ford.

is this piracy?

I am not a lawyer, but, apart from the fact that you are constructing a straw man, the legal answer is "maybe."

Depends on how close the end product is, and I am not sure that things like the DMCA applies to alternators.

Physical things that are more often governed by patent law, and violations of patent usually seem to require that you then sell said item.

The body of the car in your earlier example would be probably a violation a combination of patent and trademark laws. It certainly would be if Toyota built a Tbird.

Small scale fabrication usually doesn't seem to trigger violation of law. It may be technically illegal. You've not deprived Ford of a sale for the alternator because you swiped one from the shop. You've built a one off, and you probably would be protected by the same things that protect the aftermarket accessory industry. Chances are good you won't manufacture an identical copy, and better that you won't then mass produce it.

[Blue Lion]

OK then, lets say my friend has a problem with his car, the alternator has gone out, he knows I can build just about anything, so he has it toed to my house, and I make a new alternator by looking at the broken one and figuring out what the original one looked like. the only other option is buying a new alternator from Ford.

is this piracy?

Is it an exact copy of the alternator? Does Ford sell them? (I don't think Ford makes those, but ok)

I'll give you my own example. You design your own car. It's frikkin sweet. Some guy from Toyota walks by and says "Sweet car. We're gonna make it and sell it and make millions. You? Oh we just took the plan, not your actual car."

Before you jump in and say "But they're making a profit!" so are you.

You're saving money by not paying them. You're getting something of value but aren't paying for the work.

I am going on the assumption these are exact copies, as stated in the first example.

[kode]

Of course they're monopolistic. Where else are you going to see a movie in a theater... other than a theater? Are you really telling me movie theaters have a monopoly on places to see a movie... in a theater?

Yeah, sure, but how about having more than one chain of competing cinemas, perhaps?

[Blue Lion]

Of course they're monopolistic. Where else are you going to see a movie in a theater... other than a theater? Are you really telling me movie theaters have a monopoly on places to see a movie... in a theater?

Yeah, sure, but how about having more than one chain of competing cinemas, perhaps?

Ok maybe I don't know enough about cinemas as everyone else (entirely possible, I'm not a genius) but I see different movie theaters all the time. Are you saying all movie theaters are owned by one company? Why doesn't someone just make competing theaters?

[Bobboau]

yes, exact copies, I'm really really good at makeing stuff.

im my example, I am not makeing a profit, in fact I'm probably losing money because I never said my friend was going to repay me for materials. if I sell the car then you might have a point, but at this point it is only personal usage.

[kode]

I don't get the solution, are you just mad they're expensive?

What? I'm arguing that it's not competing with free with an equal product. I'm arguing that they're trying to compete with in many cases a product that is far inferior in many ways. Most people I know, myself included, has no problem with paying for other peoples works. We all love artists, film makers and authors here.

I do however, and I've tried to make you see this point several times now, object to the artists, film makers, authors and other culture workers being misrepresented by their interest organizations. The main problem isn't really finding buyers, nor is it really piracy that is the problem (outside of the somalian coast and so on), it's refusing to see the possibilites of new technology and instead seeing the customers as thieves.

Were I interested in justifying copyright infringement, I'd've used completely different rhetorics. Indignance over how it's theft really doesn't work, because it's not about stealing or infringing copyright. It's about how the cultural sector fails time again to adapt.

Stone platters are killing live musicians, radio is killing records, cassette tapes are killing records and radio, video killed the radio star, youtube kills music channels, libraries kills story tellers, vhs kills the movies (plus vhs lets more than one person watch at the same time while only paying once, this argument was even used against a prototype video cassette that could only be watched once).

Funnily enough, film industry doesn't seem to have had a problem with reselling us the same stuff over and over when changing formats from vhs->dvd and dvd->bluray. This is however a cause for decline for the music industry, as people are unlikely to buy a digital copy from them if they already have it on cd and can rip it to their hard drives instead.

And as I said before, there are some initiatives I applaud. Like spotify. It's hella ****ing awesome in many ways. In others, it's unfortunate that the record companies are being dicks and demanding geographical restrictions management on it (like there are even some albums where I can listen to half of the tracks but the others are redded out. wtfisthataboutreally?).

[Blue Lion]

What? I'm arguing that it's not competing with free with an equal product. I'm arguing that they're trying to compete with in many cases a product that is far inferior in many ways. Most people I know, myself included, has no problem with paying for other peoples works. We all love artists, film makers and authors here.

I do however, and I've tried to make you see this point several times now, object to the artists, film makers, authors and other culture workers being misrepresented by their interest organizations. The main problem isn't really finding buyers, nor is it really piracy that is the problem (outside of the somalian coast and so on), it's refusing to see the possibilites of new technology and instead seeing the customers as thieves.

Were I interested in justifying copyright infringement, I'd've used completely different rhetorics. Indignance over how it's theft really doesn't work, because it's not about stealing or infringing copyright. It's about how the cultural sector fails time again to adapt.

Stone platters are killing live musicians, radio is killing records, cassette tapes are killing records and radio, video killed the radio star, youtube kills music channels, libraries kills story tellers, vhs kills the movies (plus vhs lets more than one person watch at the same time while only paying once, this argument was even used against a prototype video cassette that could only be watched once).

Funnily enough, film industry doesn't seem to have had a problem with reselling us the same stuff over and over when changing formats from vhs->dvd and dvd->bluray. This is however a cause for decline for the music industry, as people are unlikely to buy a digital copy from them if they already have it on cd and can rip it to their hard drives instead.

And as I said before, there are some initiatives I applaud. Like spotify. It's hella ****ing awesome in many ways. In others, it's unfortunate that the record companies are being dicks and demanding geographical restrictions management on it (like there are even some albums where I can listen to half of the tracks but the others are redded out. wtfisthataboutreally?).

I understand literally the words coming out of your mouth but the argument itself is so disconnected it makes no sense. I'm trying to piece together the parts you're saying.

You're saying that these music companies (and I suppose movie companies etc etc) misrepresent their clients (Who I might add almost surely signed a formal contract on all this)? Ok, the solution is simple. If these artists are always getting the shaft in terms of how these companies work... THEY SHOULD STOP WORKING WITH THEM.

You're acting like artists are children that don't sign contracts (and fail to resign all the time). Why aren't these artists revolting against these companies and joining other ones that DO operate in a way that you feel is the best for this century or whatever?

Do you really think the piracy in these areas is going to help these artists? You're increasing their popularity and lowering their sales.

Is it entirely possible that most of them just don't care and are happy with the companies they are with? I don't understand why it's YOUR responsibility to do some civil disobedience to show these artists they're part of the machine. Why isn't it the artists responsibility to do what's best for their work?

[Blue Lion]

yes, exact copies, I'm really really good at makeing stuff.

im my example, I am not makeing a profit, in fact I'm probably losing money because I never said my friend was going to repay me for materials. if I sell the car then you might have a point, but at this point it is only personal usage.

But you didn't buy, so you saved money by making an exact copy of a product. I KNOW you know why a product costs more than just parts and labor combined.

The argument is still having trouble following. How are you possibly losing money downloading a video or song for free?

You're getting the benefit of planning, designing, construction, testing, retesting, production, marketing and distribution but you're not giving this company anything in return.

You're getting the result of their work, that has value. You're not giving anything back.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

I'll go with my how many times do I have to pay for something before I own a copy of it stance:  Let's take a Zeppelin song.

Bought the 8-track
Bought the Album.
Bought the a mix cassette with it on.
Bought the CD
Bought the box set

so now i've alreay paid for it 5 times

So now lets get to the real costs:

Played it on the Jukebox in the bar I don't know how many times
Listened to advertisements to hear it played on the radio
Have DirecTV which includes XM satellite radio that I pay for every month and part of that I'm sure goes to XM and back to royalties.  

Then there are the things you don't think about:

It's used in a movie that you pay to see/buy/rent/etc
It's use on a TV show that you pay for by watching commercials
It's used in those commercials

And on top of all that if you want to listen to it on your computer they want you to by the MP3 instead of ripping it?
Then they want you to by the ringtone for you phone?
Get a new phone?  Can't take that ringtone with you have to buy it again.  

When does it stop?  How much are they milking us for?

[Bobboau]

saveing money does not equal makeing money.

[Blue Lion]

I'll go with my how many times do I have to pay for something before I own a copy of it stance:  Let's take a Zeppelin song.

Bought the 8-track
Bought the Album.
Bought the a mix cassette with it on.
Bought the CD
Bought the box set

so now i've alreay paid for it 5 times

So? How is that their fault?

Why did you buy it again after you bought the 8-track? A new format? I don't really see how that's a music companies fault. Like why don't they just provide you with free means of listening to a song on all new formats? Really?

You gonna like save receipts or something?

So now lets get to the real costs:

Played it on the Jukebox in the bar I don't know how many times
Listened to advertisements to hear it played on the radio
Have DirecTV which includes XM satellite radio that I pay for every month and part of that I'm sure goes to XM and back to royalties.  

Then there are the things you don't think about:

It's used in a movie that you pay to see/buy/rent/etc
It's use on a TV show that you pay for by watching commercials
It's used in those commercials

And on top of all that if you want to listen to it on your computer they want you to by the MP3 instead of ripping it?
Then they want you to by the ringtone for you phone?
Get a new phone?  Can't take that ringtone with you have to buy it again.  

When does it stop?  How much are they milking us for?

Don't they have ways for people to purchase rights to a song to use it how they see fit (like you're asking)?

[Blue Lion]

saveing money does not equal makeing money.

Ok fine, your net value has gone up.

Your worth, plus the value of one DVD.