Er....what?

That's about as logical as saying 'if you have children you are a paedophile'.

Make up your mind...if you say it's 'illegal' then it is.

Why the convoluted argument to the contrary?

In UK that's because as part of the terms and conditions of employment, you sign agreeing that all you produce during that employment (that is related to or materially assisted by the employers business) is the employers. In UK that's specifically enacted to prevent individuals using Company facilities - in their own time or not - to further their own ideas, when in fact they were materially assisted in terms of facilities, time or advice. In short, you work for them, tough, its theirs. Reasonable enough as a general proposition - provided you have signed to that effect. If you didn't, the UK Patent Office will tell the Company to go spin.



The difference is with the house, you are (at least you do in UK) buying all rights and claims to the house. Builders are happy, last thing they need is ownership in perpetuity and the bills that will follow. Its also a "one off" event in Law, a unique contract as the builder is specifically offering it "For Sale". The builder could offer it for Rent or Lease, "For Sale" is not mandatory if it was built on spec to a design they uniquely conceived for themselves. If it was built specially for you, you own it, you are contracting in skills.

Its similar for the CD Player and Computer, you buy it entire - the manufacturer is offering it "For Sale" - they could just as easily offer it for Rent or Lease, its their choice, they own the patent/copy write as applicable. The latter often happens in Corporate life whereby PCs are Leased not bought. Software is the same, however the overwhelming number of people/companies choose to licence the software, not sell it in perpetuity. Its their software, they can do what they want, same as the builder - but a builder would not sell many houses just licensing ....

Finally software houses need to legally keep hold of the source code, they cant if they "Sell" it, so software is "licensed", which is fine, they then hold ownership of the source code, its theirs to do with as they wish. If they were nuts enough to "Sell" it, they lose the source code after first purchase.

The right to Sell, Lease, or Rent is the same for anyone or anything as a general principle as long as you have the patent or copy write. The waters get muddy when individuals assume common practice is absolute law - it isn't eg a builder of a unique design that he owns could licence it, but he would be a candidate for the Funny Farm in the real world.

I hear the thoughts on Copy Write V Patent, and I dont know the reasons. However one thing I am sure of, this stuff gets tested so often in the Courts there will be a rationale for it, and despite popular opinion Corporates don't own the Courts of Law so rulings are absolute not biased.

UK music copy write is 50 years, and currently they are challenging that to extend it, there is a case pending in the European Court of Justice on the issue after a referral by the House of Lords.

Regards
Zy

Before I continue on this I just want to clarify something as I don't think we are on the same page so to speak.  I am not claiming that the current laws don't state something specific or have a 'rationale'.  What I am saying is I don't agree 100% with the laws and think that they need to be changed not just for the consumer but also the artist/corporation. 

Jafo, obviously there is no winning with these people. They are either dumb (my personal favorite) or they are hopelessly unscrupulous (the unfortunately more likely explanation). I'm done with this piracy debate.

Whoever designs a building owns its design.  That can be the Architect and/or Builder...depending on with whom the 'designer' is employed.

When a client contracts an Architect [or Builder/designer/co] he as client 'owns' rights to that design....PROVIDED HE HAS PAID IN FULL AS CONTACTED ...those 'rights' are in its 'intended use', namely to take and use to construct the project.

Typically [unless contracted] he does NOT own the rights to subsequently use the design on a second project, and it's even not guaranteed he has the rights to sell the property/design to a third party for them to complete/own.

I personally have several thousand houses/factories/shops/motels/unit developments/etc that are ALL mine....all designed by me...all licenced to their respective client...all over the past 35 years.

If any one of them were to take that design and re-use it on a second project without my consent they are liable for loss of 'profit'...that's my usual fee minus material costs....and typically on a $5000 drawing the ink/paper/printing costs are abot $20

Back to Basics

It'll be a short day.

The starting premise is IP is owned by the creator, to go down any other road is an exercise in self denial. No sane human being is going to work on something, sometimes for years - blood sweat and tears yaddie yadda - then say to the world "hey help yourself its all free take it away", with no material reward, and then they expire supremely happy into their six foot grave or raging furnace knowing they furthered the good of mankind. If they do, fine, strange people, but no case to answer - next case please.

Second premise
Prosecution presents proof of ownership, patent - copy write - licence whatever is applicable to the case as ownership. Hardly controversial by any normal standard.

Judge asks "Did you pay for the software licence?

Answer Yes: - "Case dismissed"
Answer No: - "Guilty, Court will retire to consider sentencing"

End of Story. The rest is just Fluff and matters of degree, which is what the appeal system is for, dont waste time appealing ownership - pointless.

The choice to bring the case lay with the owner, as in real life the choice to prosecute criminal cases lay with the DA - not all cases are brought, as Judges will throw them out as frivolous, stupidly minor (illegal or not), or no evidence. The owner will decide if his interests have been materially hurt, and if the Court agrees that's possible, it'll get heard, if its a minor frivolous case it will not get through the court door technically illegal or not.

Don't like the outcome, appeal to the State Supreme Court, and later The Supreme Court given leave to do the latter. But don't waste time on appealing on grounds of ownership, you will not get past first base, not gonna happen.

Licensing / Patent / Copy Write Law all messed up? Supreme Court - until then tough, live with it. Lost the case? Thats life - move on. Supreme Court bought out by Corporates, and have evidence? Great, tell The Senate - they'll love that one.

Life's a bitch then you die, its as simple as that.

Regards
Zy

I'll retire hurt on that one, I'm no lawyer

The process is there via the Courts if you think there is a case, but it going to have to be a real doozey, this stuff has been through those guys so many times its unreal - all the way up to the Supreme Court. Patent / CopyWrite Law goes through both House of Representatives, and The Senate, with The Supreme Court sniffing around in the background. Whilst there's always the case that something new crops up ..... if its the old arguments I would suggest you will waste your time... but that's why I retire hurt (on that one), me no lawyer.

Regards
Zy

Nice one



Absolutely right, I certainly have no issue with that, owners have every right to licence if they wish - whatever the product is.

Regards
Zy

"People need to get the "Robin Hood" fantasy OUT OF THIER HEADS.

Stealing from the rich, "they don't need it" "they won't miss it". IT'S STILL WRONG
The CEO of stardock is one example. Why is he the CEO of stardock? Well probably because he worked to get where he is.
We have words to describe the lifestyles of the rich. It is called LAVISH and LUXURY. Look them up you will learn they buy these things because they can afford to purchase them. Some even have established a buisness with enough money to ensure thier descendants never have to work.
DO NOT ENVY another man's belongings or lifestyle it is a waste of time."

Excellent point, the Robin Hood fantasy is a horrible reason to pirate. Envy of the rich is retarded.

One minor detail though. The rich get rich by being given money in return for goods and services.(the legitimate ones, naturally there are loopholes in life) This is the root of why envying them is retarded, they become rich because we choose to make them rich. One could say that piracy is the result of a failure of the creator to sufficiently convince the pirating populace that he is worth paying.

If I fall to the dark side and pirate a game, that is the exact reason I'm doing so. I either have insufficient reason to buy it, but a curiosity to see if I should, or I have sufficient reason to buy it, but other factors outside the product itself prevent my purchase. I'm not talking about a lack of money either, DRM for instance. Ubisoft and EA have both released numerous titles that were at best beta's, and then dropped all support for them. They aren't alone in their atrocious behavior, anyone wary of getting another KOTOR2? That used to be a company beyond reproach. Legally, you are a pirate if you check the game out before adding it to your collection.

When was the last time a major release that was a buggy, unfinished game actually got bad reviews pointing out the flaws? How would you have found out that KOTOR2 was only half finished from a demo? The game can be gone from shelves and in discount warehouses by the time you get accurate information second hand. You can pirate most of them day one and actually buy the game when the sale will count for something. In such a case, piracy is actually of substantial benefit to the company being infringed upon if they are creating a good product.

If you are a reasoning individual, you cannot say that there are no good reasons to pirate. You can say there are no legal reasons to pirate, thanks to the DMCA, but there are good reasons. The Robin Hood fantasy could apply to most people, but it surely doesn't apply to all, and I have a feeling it applies to a minority. I expect most pirates just have a great big fuck you to anyone that expects them to shell out money for the games they're pretty sure wont entertain them for five minutes and would gladly pay for a product they felt was worth it. Of course, no one is willing to do honest studies, so we'll never know.

They can't even tell the truth about their own knowledge.
PC piracy study commissioned by the BSA

Now how do they get 90-95% for PC games? They pull a number out of their ass. Not one study they've done has ever published the actual results, they just give us a number. They never come up with the same number either. They don't tell us how they arrived at the number to start with. The only one they actually bothered to publish is PC software in general, I look frequently and I've never found any, let alone useful ones.

How about a bill that bans whores from entering politics.

As for piracy stats, they always equate 10 pirated copies as 10 lost sales. Unless you're the cretins at Starforce who said it meant MORE than 10 lost sales...

Any study from RIAA, MPAA, BSA etc... Follow the money. Who do the stats benefit? The BSA is hardly going to release a study that says "Hey, we were wrong. The dent in our sales is minimal as 95% if those who pirated it wouldn't have bought it anyway!" are they.

I've pirated a few titles over the years. Stuff I'd never have bought. And if I discovered that it was actually GOOD (like Dungeon Keeper for example), I went out and bought it.

Fair enough but... and this is another topic all together...  I hope you aren't saying just cause it is a law and supported by the government that it is fair and just?  Need I mention a few things like racism (remember it was state sponserd for a while) and Prohibition that was a dosey!   Anyway thanks for the chat!

UncleDrood... Did you even look at the study? 21% They commission a study, only tell us the findings, 21% across the board in the US, 37% worldwide. Then they come up with other numbers that have no relation to it.

Chat away - no worries, I'm well into that - you'll not get anything significant out of me on the legals though, I have no real depth of knowledge of the US system, only the outlines, and dont pretend otherwise.

Government belief, well I guess I've been there a few times, I tend to be Right of Atilla the Hun on a few things   

Fair and Just? Hmmmmm seem to remember this charactor ....... George III??

*Runs like Hell*   

Regards
Zy

He he he he:D  Good stuff!

It doesn't take a law degree to understand right from wrong   (