No, it's one because the majority of the people I can have a reasonable conversation with also say it is one. They agree with me because for instance the Supreme Court agrees with me. Which will tend to be more convincing than the opinion of Grall for most people.
What should be paid for and what should be free on the Internet?
- Thread starter dizietsma
- Start date
My textbook definition is that it is a competitive monopoly. Effectively the one provider has monopoly on the one piece of content but that content must also compete against other similar products. So in effect it is a monopoly and at the same time subject to competition.
A monopoly on copying of the given work.
Sure, if they are not completely equivalent (ie. a not commoditized).
How about you broaden your horizons on the use of the word ... start with the Supreme Court decision I linked. Dictionary definitions are rarely relevant in the real world.
No, you merely noted that the judgement is in a context ... which is quite irrelevant to the fact that they literally call copyright a monopoly.
Just one example
They call copyright (without qualification) a monopoly ... period.
So it's fine and well discussing semantics, but when your definition of monopoly can not encompass copyrights then you can not converse with people using the Supreme Courts definition ... I personally would say your definition is reduced to uselessness by that, but to each his own.
Correction, not they, he. And, as I said before, you can call it a monopoly but it is over a single item in a market of millions. George Bush misused many words. Good for him.
The fact is, without copyright or some mechanism to protect content creators, you leave no option but no or far less content or extensive anti-copying technologies.
What do you propose MfA? That all software, music, movies, media of all sorts simply should be free?
By your definition and Houghes', patents are monopolies too...so basically any new innovation should be public domain?
The fact is, without copyright or some mechanism to protect content creators, you leave no option but no or far less content or extensive anti-copying technologies.
What do you propose MfA? That all software, music, movies, media of all sorts simply should be free?
By your definition and Houghes', patents are monopolies too...so basically any new innovation should be public domain?
I have no "case". I never said there was no moral justification for copyrights. I never said there was a reasonable alternative for copyrights. I merely said that you shouldn't drag capitalism into the discussion and got dragged into a semantic discussion along the way.
Because since it doesn't work like a normal good on which the entirety of capitalist theory is build, because it's based on a state enforced monopoly ... and if we stop looking at it as a moral issue there is simply no denying that while copyrights might be beneficial, piracy is as well. Not only the huge GDP benefits it has brought by promoting internet usage and selling hardware, but also the effect it has on pricing in digital distribution. Piracy has as much to do with the iTunes pricing of songs and TV series as Apple. Profits and rewards aren't really the "aim" in capitalism ... margins are supposed to be driven to zero.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
So in effect what you are saying is that, if some company were capable, they would be fully within their rights to...
Make an exact replica of a Ferarri car's engine, frame, body, and everything else. Badge it as a Ferrari car model of the same type and sell it as a Ferrari without paying anything to Ferrari for doing so?
Replace the Ferrari car with any other product, service, or idea that is sold to the public.
That would in essense be what you are saying.
Virtually everything sold on the market is a monopoly in this case.
Regards,
SB
Make an exact replica of a Ferarri car's engine, frame, body, and everything else. Badge it as a Ferrari car model of the same type and sell it as a Ferrari without paying anything to Ferrari for doing so?
Replace the Ferrari car with any other product, service, or idea that is sold to the public.
That would in essense be what you are saying.
Virtually everything sold on the market is a monopoly in this case.
Regards,
SB
That's of course an argument based on a fallacy, and besides, when people speak of monopolies - regardless what one supreme court or another may have to say on the matter - they mean something of broader scope and more encompassing than just any one specific work, or even works. Disney may have a "monopoly" on distributing disney movies. But they don't have a monopoly on MOVIES, so calling Disney a monopoly is erroneous.
There's no reason to take that snide tone with me. If you want a civil discussion you'd do best to remain civil...
From a moral perspective ... no, but the line where a car becomes a true copy instead of a justifiable variation is a blurry one. In reality everything is a slightly changed copy of something after all.
From a "natural rights" perspective ... yes, although they wouldn't be allowed to misrepresent the source.
From an utilitarian perspective ... maybe, whether some IP laws or complete absence of them would be better for wellfare in society is an open question (although it's pretty clear that strict enforcement of current laws is not in the best interest of society).
Yes, if you are clear on which kind of monopoly we are talking about here.
There are two different types of monopolies at work in case of ms office. The copyright monopoly granted by law - which should expire in 95 years iirc - and a monopoly in the market of office productivity software acquired through various methods.
The former monopoly would exist even if ms office were to have - say 1% market share vs open office and the like. The former monopoly is allowed solely on the basis of it's time limitation - and further qualified by fair use and first sale rights - and absence of any generally useful alternative mechanism to compensate artists and the like. Attempts were made about a decade ago to curb the latter monopoly, but failed on the whole. The former monopoly is somewhat acceptable. The latter monopoly is harmful for the broader economy.
And each creator has a monopoly on his creation. What you are saying means that there is no monopoly in the market for movie entertainment.
Because if I write this, only I have the right to allow who may or may not quote me, how many times, in which medium, and in what form.
I never said I don't care for the movies but I did say I wouldn't buy them.
Getting value from someone else's piracy is not stealing in the true definition, more like handling stolen goods I would say. But then again the original goods weren't stolen, they were copied and then shared for free. So even that gets watered down.
Like I said originally though, this is a moral judgement call, how far does it sit between murder and just breaking the speed limit. Some good points above.
So entertainment holds no value to you when it comes to movies? Seems odd that you would bother to watch them at all, you could probably find a better use of your time if that is the case, you shouldn't waste it watching movies.
It's ok, its quite apparent you have really loose sense of morals you'll be fine.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Well ofcourse the idea is that you ''have'' to watch the commercials in between when you watch on tv so some site streaming it for free and not paying anything to the company to be allowed to stream it doesn't really make it different from downloading imo.
It would get much more interresting when you swap movies/series for porn. I bet a lot of people who are against downloading of media don't actually buy their porn hehe.
That said. There should be 2 free things in this world I think. The sun and porn. You know, maybe it should be subsidized? Certainly would be a much better investment of tax money than some of the shit they waste it on currently.
just to confirm you are Dutch arn't you....
