I Need A Good Graphic Artist To Make Art For Phatmass Merchandise

[Nihil Obstat]

Now [url="http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/10/20/jets-tebow-has-trademark-on-tebowing"]Tebowing is trademarked[/url]. If you kneel down like he does, then legally you are stealing from Tim Tebow.

Joking aside, what Tebow himself said is rather telling.
“It’s something I do that’s prayer for me and then it got hyped up as Tebowing. So I think (it’s) [b]just to control how it’s used[/b] as well. Make sure it’s used in the right way.”

[Winchester]

If copying is objectively theft, we have serious problems. If we're talking about the effects copying might have on others, then copying cannot be theft. It cannot become theft because it might hurt someone's earnings, but it could possibly be wrong due to damage inflicted by copying.

[arfink]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1350685176' post='2495101']
so anyway, any good graphic artists around?
[/quote]

Miko is going to steal some art from me.

Work hasn't begun yet, soon though.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1350712858' post='2495256']
If copying is objectively theft, we have serious problems. If we're talking about the effects copying might have on others, then copying cannot be theft. It cannot become theft because it might hurt someone's earnings, but it could possibly be wrong due to damage inflicted by copying.
[/quote]

Does ownership of private intellectual information exist if no form of IP exist?

[Nihil Obstat]

If the argument for IP boils down to creators of 'ideas' broadly speaking somehow deserving a profit for their work, then by that same logic we could ban technological advancements that would automate labour intensive processes.
Of course some people are actually ok with that, which is weird enough.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1350711987' post='2495255']
Now [url="http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/10/20/jets-tebow-has-trademark-on-tebowing"]Tebowing is trademarked[/url]. If you kneel down like he does, then legally you are stealing from Tim Tebow.
[/quote]
As a Gator, [spoiler] not a Gator [i]fan, [/i]there is a marked and important difference [/spoiler] I both support the trademarking and am permitted to Tebow [verb] at my leisure.

As for the rest of IP whackjobs and creativity suppressors/oppressors, they can go floop themselves.

Edited October 20, 2012 by USAirwaysIHS

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1350717224' post='2495272']
As a Gator, [spoiler] not a Gator [i]fan, [/i]there is a marked and important difference [/spoiler] I both support the trademarking and am permitted to Tebow [verb] at my leisure.

As for the rest of IP whackjobs and creativity suppressors/oppressors, they can go floop themselves.
[/quote]
It is not so much the specific case that I am concerned with (in fact the last NFL game I watched was the Superbowl two or three years ago). I just found it rather illustrative of the point we have been trying to make.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Winchester]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1350713728' post='2495262']
Does ownership of private intellectual information exist if no form of IP exist?
[/quote]
What do you mean by 'private'? Files on a personal computer, perhaps?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1349961730' post='2492279']
Your objection is the amount of effort put into copying, then?

The tools used represent a lot of effort. Probably not by the person using, say, their digital camera, but the effort used to invent, then build that camera (not to mention the work traded for money used to purchase the camera) is all effort. How much personal effort do you feel must be used?

The item itself is not stolen. The item itself retains all its inherent properties. It is not diminished materially. If copying did indeed damage the item, it would still not be theft of the item, but instead vandalism. You are not stealing the movie you copy. You cannot be stealing profit, either, since the profit was only potential (however likely it would be). You're interfering with profit, perhaps. There are two ways I can think of to interfere with this profit. Either by making a copy for personal use, thus avoiding purchase of the item, or making a copy or copies in order to resell them.

We obviously agree that there is no obligation to purchase items from someone, so my not purchasing the item cannot be the problem. Seems obvious. Suppose a song is playing on the radio, and I record it. I did this a lot, before the internet. Is that wrong? What if I check out a CD from the library and make a copy? What if I make multiple copies, and then sell them?

If copying is inherently immoral, then I cannot record even a song from the radio. There are all sorts of implications, for that. I suppose we could simply have everything physical stamped, and verbal warnings on audio performances that were played in public.

You've indicated, however, that copying isn't inherently immoral. If I paint a copy of your painting, you claim that the use of my skill and talent makes it different from activating a program. I've pointed out the difference is that the skill and talent are already spent in the process of making that program. I think you're talking about the problems arising from easy reproduction. I think you're talking about the [i]effects[/i] of streamlined copying. Copying itself is not inherently immoral, but there are problems with the effect on someone's livelihood.

IP doesn't protect the material object itself. It protects against the arrangement of the material others possess. It protects an idea. Ideas are not rivalrous. You and I can have the same idea at the same time. I cannot have the same painting at the same time. I may possess the original, and others may possess prints. We cannot have the same painting hanging in two different places. But we can have the same idea at the same time. We can employ the same methods of construction at the same time, swing a hammer in the same way, train horses in the same way, etc.
[/quote]

[ardillacid]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1350680409' post='2495005']


lol..

you silly little man.....
[/quote]
Based on the insult, I think you meant to quote Winchester...

Just helping you out. I know you can go edit your mistake away

[Winchester]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1350742031' post='2495305']
Based on the insult, I think you meant to quote Winchester...

Just helping you out. I know you can go edit your mistake away
[/quote]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCibwj396I[/media]

[ardillacid]

New York, here we come! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Mr. Boren needs to cut back on the hair gel.

[Winchester]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1350743004' post='2495309']
New York, here we come! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Mr. Boren needs to cut back on the hair gel.
[/quote]
Well done. Let Ardillacid's reaction be a lesson to all you potential butthurts. That how it's done, losers.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1350711987' post='2495255']
Now [url="http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/10/20/jets-tebow-has-trademark-on-tebowing"]Tebowing is trademarked[/url]. If you kneel down like he does, then legally you are stealing from Tim Tebow.

Joking aside, what Tebow himself said is rather telling.
“It’s something I do that’s prayer for me and then it got hyped up as Tebowing. So I think (it’s) [b]just to control how it’s used[/b] as well. Make sure it’s used in the right way.”
[/quote]
ummmm what the heck? a gesture is trademarked?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1350743232' post='2495313']
ummmm what the heck? a gesture is trademarked?
[/quote]
A gesture, like a painting, is a manifestation of an idea. If we can own ideas...