copyright "treaty"

[Knome_fan]

FYI, outside of the US, we have been thinking this way for generations. It goes back even years before president Roosevelt's "America for the Americans" speech.

I'm aware of this. I think my point was that at least here in Europe I get the impression that this image of the US being a bully, to put it mildly, is becoming more and more mainstream and widespread in recent years and that treaties like the one discussed here further add to that image.

[KiwiNZ]

I dont have a problem with this . I know that if I invent something I want to protect it ,and if I want others to have it with out paying then at least I get to make that choice and not have someone steal it.

[Knome_fan]

I dont have a problem with this . I know that if I invent something I want to protect it ,and if I want others to have it with out paying then at least I get to make that choice and not have someone steal it.

Jesus, did it ever occur to you that the problem might be a little more complex? While I understand your sentiment, does it really follow from your wish that copyright has to be extended to 70 years after the original creators death? How does a need for software patents follow from what you said? What about software patents being used to stiffle innovation and cashing in on the work of other people that really are inventive?

[KiwiNZ]

Jesus, did it ever occur to you that the problem might be a little more complex? While I understand your sentiment, does it really follow from your wish that copyright has to be extended to 70 years after the original creators death? How does a need for software patents follow from what you said? What about software patents being used to stiffle innovation and cashing in on the work of other people that really are inventive?

Why is it that there is the belief that software is some how so special that it must all be free?
If the writer of it choses it to be free great , if the writer choses to sell it only and to protect the property then again great .

[Knome_fan]

Why is it that there is the belief that software is some how so special that it must all be free?
If the writer of it choses it to be free great , if the writer choses to sell it only and to protect the property then again great .

I don't know if that is your prefered style of discussion, but it's really making me angy. Nobody said that software has to be free in this discussion and nobody here or anywhere else doubted that it was up for the author to decide under which lisnce he/she will put their product, so what's your point.

You are building up a stupid strawman argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#Rhetorical_use), just as you did in your last posts. Further, you are simply disregarding all I said in my last post, which is of course your right, but not very convincing when you are answering me. So again:

does it really follow from your wish that copyright has to be extended to 70 years after the original creators death? How does a need for software patents follow from what you said? What about software patents being used to stiffle innovation and cashing in on the work of other people that really are inventive?

[KiwiNZ]

I don't know if that is your prefered style of discussion, but it's really making me angy. Nobody said that software has to be free in this discussion and nobody here or anywhere else doubted that it was up for the author to decide under which lisnce he/she will put their product, so what's your point.

You are building up a stupid strawman argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#Rhetorical_use), just as you did in your last posts. Further, you are simply disregarding all I said in my last post, which is of course your right, but not very convincing when you are answering me. So again:

First up Chill out!

But OK since you asked if a patent is applied for and granted and the protection of that patent is given for 20, 70 200 years then so be it . It was the writers choice to seek and gain that protection.
And cover after the writers death ? again simply if the writers seeks it and is granted it so be it .If it is the writers choice to gift his family income from his creation after his death , that is his choice , that is his right .

[Knome_fan]

First up Chill out!

If you start to really argue your points I will.

But OK since you asked if a patent is applied for and granted and the protection of that patent is given for 20, 70 200 years then so be it . It was the writers choice to seek and gain that protection.

Ehm, it was the societies choice to give him that protection, that is to have laws that allow him some defined protection for a defined time. Now of course the author is free to search as much protection as the laws allow him to seek, but if this laws are in fact what they should be is of course up for debate, which is the point here.

And cover after the writers death ? again simply if the writers seeks it and is granted it so be it .If it is the writers choice to gift his family income from his creation after his death , that is his choice , that is his right .

No, it's not a natural right, it's a right we as a society might decide to grant him if we pass laws that allow him to get these rights. However, if you take a look at how copyright law has evolved in the last decades, how the protection was made longer and longer, how this clearly contradicts what the original purpose of copyright was, simply stating that if it's the law it's all right isn't really much of an argument, is it?

Btw., if you are interested in a good writeup of the problems with copyright:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misint...copyright.html

Now feel free to agree or disagree with this article, but stop acting as if it was some kind of devine right that doesn't merrit discussion.

[KiwiNZ]

[QUOTE=Knome_fan]If you start to really argue your points I will.

Hmmm To chill out is easy , and so is locking the thead .

No, it's not a natural right, it's a right we as a society might decide to grant him if we pass laws that allow him to get these rights. However, if you take a look at how copyright law has evolved in the last decades, how the protection was made longer and longer, how this clearly contradicts what the original purpose of copyright was, simply stating that if it's the law it's all right isn't really much of an argument, is it?

I said it was his right , I did not say his natural right , a big difference. And of course the laws of copyright have evolved like all else.
And I still do not see anything wrong with protecting ones property.

So following your statements , that if after discussion the elected officials pass in democratic process statutes that enact patents for 100 years then society has chosen and all should then comply with the choice.
Then should individuals seek again to alter those statutes they should by lobbying those elected officials to have the statutes reviewed and not to seek unilaterally to avoid the stautes by theft.

[Knome_fan]

Hmmm To chill out is easy , and so is locking the thead .

Uh, big Mr. Moderator, if you can't argue, just close it....
Very impressive.

I said it was his right , I did not say his natural right , a big difference.

Nope, you said it is his right no matter what and that this in itself settles the argument somehow, which it only would if it was some kind of natural right, which it isn't.

And of course the laws of copyright have evolved like all else.
And I still do not see anything wrong with protecting ones property.

Please, could you simply stop with arguing like this?
I can only repeat myself, nobody said protecting ones property was bad, wrong or anything, this is absolutely not the point here.

So following your statements , that if after discussion the elected officials pass in democratic process statutes that enact patents for 100 years then society has chosen and all should then comply with the choice.
Then should individuals seek again to alter those statutes they should by lobbying those elected officials to have the statutes reviewed and not to seek unilaterally to avoid the stautes by theft.

Again, you are simply trolling. Pleas point out who talked about theft being all right in this thread, who argued pro theft.
If nobody did, and the funny thing is, nobody did, I think it's high time to appologize.
Thanks in advance.

[KiwiNZ]

This will lead nowhere, Knome fan with respect it is our arguements are too passionate so to stop this thread getting out of hand I am going to close it .