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

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1350738532' post='2495301']

What do you mean by 'private'? Files on a personal computer, perhaps?
[/quote]

That and any kind of intellectual private property. If one cannot own or have rights over an idea there is no such thing as having ownership of intellectual private information.

[Winchester]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1350749421' post='2495324']
That and any kind of intellectual private property. If one cannot own or have rights over an idea there is no such thing as having ownership of intellectual private information.
[/quote]
The concept of trespass is not dependent upon IP.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1350751693' post='2495330']

The concept of trespass is not dependent upon IP.
[/quote]

With the marvels of modern technology and even by natural means (sight, hearing) one need never physically touch or trespass onto the origination of the private information to make a copy of it.

[Winchester]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1350757062' post='2495355']
With the marvels of modern technology and even by natural means (sight, hearing) one need never physically touch or trespass onto the origination of the private information to make a copy of it.
[/quote]
So you feel that hacking is not a form of trespass? If someone enters my private files by hacking, this is not trespass?

Information you put in front of my eyes is no more private than the color of your shirt. You want it private, you keep it private.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Winchester

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1350757177' post='2495356']

So you feel that hacking is not a form of trespass?
[/quote]

Say someone is hacked a individual trespasses to copy the private intellectual information, then attempts to share the copy with others. Does the originator of the intellectual information have rights over or own that copy of information to have a legitimate right to stop it from spreading to other parties? How about after the information has already been copied from the trespasser by others? Can the originator have rights to still try to stop the spread of the intellectual information? If one cannot own a idea the answer is no they cannot.

[KnightofChrist]

How can any information be private if information cannot be owned?

[Winchester]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1350758187' post='2495358']
Say someone is hacked a individual trespasses to copy the private intellectual information, then attempts to share the copy with others. Does the originator of the intellectual information have rights over or own that copy of information to have a legitimate right to stop it from spreading to other parties? How about after the information has already been copied from the trespasser by others? Can the originator have rights to still try to stop the spread of the intellectual information? If one cannot own a idea the answer is no they cannot.
[/quote]

Trespass is the actual violation. That's a good question, though. Would the copied property carry that stain of theft, since it was never supposed to be released? Knowing information was illegally obtained, it seems it would be immoral in some way to make use of it, if you knew how it was obtained.

But the fact is, you never owned the idea. You had an idea. Anyone could have had that idea. Someone else might have had that idea. You owned the property where you recorded the idea.

What if you had a ring in a safe, and someone broke in and used a device that copied the ring. Your ring remained in its entirety. You can still wear it, it looks and functions exactly the same. Of course, if you wanted to sell it, you would likely find fewer buyers.

The trespasser/copier, would clearly owe all his profits from sales to you.But would you be able to command those who purchased the copies to return their copies (obviously in exchange for the return of the amount of money they exchanged)? I would say no. You didn't own the arrangement of the materials, which is all the copies are. It seems to me justice would demand the trespasser not enjoy profit from his trespass.


Suppose you build a gate in a certain way. A neighbor passes by, sees the design, and goes and uses the same design. Is that theft? If it's possible to own an idea, then which ideas?

[quote]How can any information be private if information cannot be owned?[/quote]
Information kept on my property out of the view of others is clearly private. It's not the information itself, but its location. You have no right to enter my private property without permission.

[quote]
Teh Winchester sed (a long time ago, in a thread far, far away):
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]

Edited October 20, 2012 by Winchester

[MIKolbe]

you girls smell of elderberries at being an artist.

[Winchester]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1350762747' post='2495412']
you girls smell of elderberries at being an artist.
[/quote]
Your face is an of.

[r2Dtoo]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1350763307' post='2495417']
Your face is an of.
[/quote]
I'm reporting you to my English Prof for ending a sentence with a preposition, so don't be surprised when the Grammar Police come to take you away to a concentration camp.

[Winchester]

[quote name='r2Dtoo' timestamp='1350763945' post='2495421']
I'm reporting you to my English Prof for ending a sentence with a preposition, so don't be surprised when the Grammar Police come to take you away to a concentration camp.
[/quote]
I'm quite good at concentrating, so I'll be fine.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='r2Dtoo' timestamp='1350763945' post='2495421']
I'm reporting you to my English Prof for ending a sentence with a preposition, so don't be surprised when the Grammar Police come to take you away to a concentration camp.
[/quote]

Ending a sentence with a preposition is not necessarily ungrammatical.

[MIKolbe]

you are using way too many big words for him to understand you.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1350764554' post='2495426']
you are using way too many big words for him to understand you.
[/quote]
You can end sentences with prepositions, butthat.

You are right, that is much better.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[MIKolbe]

THERE we go!