MayheM wrote:The fact of the matter is, just because you feel it should be free, does not make is so. If someone feels killing another person should be legal, does that mean they should be aloud to kill?
Of course not. In a democracy whatever the majority thinks is right (should) be determining what is legal, and that opinion should be based on reason and fact. But law has always been decided and changed by "what people feel".
MayheM wrote:While intellectual property is far more difficult to keep track of a product is not. Music, games, software, and movies are all tangible things that can be seen and or heard. They are not longer intellectual property but have now become physical property.
Tangible? Yeah, the information is there. Just as sound is carried on airwaves and a concept can be held in your mind. But that doesn't mean it's physical property. You're confusing the medium with the content. Information needs a physical medium. The question is whether that information in itself can be owned. Even the IP industry acknowledges this and doesn't sell you physical property and it doesn't own music as physical property but intellectual property. I don't see what your trying to say there.
MayheM wrote:I agree that there are differencing opinions on the matter. But that does not mean those who believe it is stealing should have to deal with those who don't taking their shit. The principal of rights are that an individuals right end where another individual right begin. A person has a right to their own property, and if someone takes it their rights have been infringed upon. It is a matter of that person caring or not. If you take from someone who does not care if you take from then, then there is no harm done. However if you take from someone who does care, you have done wrong. You may feel differently, but the persons whose property you took has the final say.
I'm repeating myself now, but you're confusing theft with the act of unlawful copying, and that's not just semantics. Of course you don't have to agree or take peoples shit, but that's beside the point. The point is whether information (not the medium it's carried on/in) can be property.
To make it clear; when you download an "IP", you don't steal anything, you don't remove anything, you don't directly make anyone poorer. What you might do is reduce *potential* to make money in a market. It's not a direct loss on whoever might want to sell what you copied, it's an indirect potential loss. Whether it's deserved or not isn't even an issue yet.
MayheM wrote:Your point on the word take is arguing semantics.
I am intrigued as to how the open source community plans to live.
What do you mean "plans to"? The internet (servers) is basically driven by it and it's been around for quite a while now. Red Hat is a company making money in spite of anyone being able to sell their OS themselves legally for instance. Most open source projects are funded by support, which makes sense and works. A real business doesn't just buy a software package, they need it supported and adjusted to their needs. The best support comes from those who developed that product.
MayheM wrote:...When do we get to a point when we can walk into a store and just take?
You're still not getting the fundamental difference. If a cake were a song, I could copy the cake and there would be two. I could also eat the cake without ever losing it. At the same time according to the prevalent system of IP, the baker would be compensated for every copied cake to recoup a one-time baking cost. Would he starve or would people pay him to come up with new cakes?
MayheM wrote: Would you walk into a store now and take a CD off the shelf and walk out the door? Or do the same with a video game or software? If you can tell me you would, than I will allow you to tell me...
I don't condone stealing/theft. The production cost of a physical object is tied to that object. When the object is lost, the owner loses the potential value it could have been sold for completely. Information doesn't work like that. It still has a production cost, but since it can be spread around pretty much without extra cost, more people get an incentive to encourage and support the creator to keep on making new things.
Anyways, seen from a utilitarian point of view and setting aside the philosophic question about whether information can be owned, history has shown that a lack of intellectual property can encourage innovation and the enforcement of IP actively hinders it.(Which is important since innovation is used as the main argument to defend IP rights.)