nexus hate?

[IndorilTheGreat]

I think people are getting "Intellectual Property" and "ideas" confused far too often these days.

 

Intellectual property is something that someone created using their ideas, and their thought process. Taking intellectual property would be like stealing the design of a car, and then creating said car, claiming it to be your own design. This happens an awful lot, I must say. Not nescessarily cars, but incredibly similar products. For example: Kung Fu Panda. It is about a panda that does martial arts. Now take a look at Chop Kick Panda. Notice anything familiar?

 

Moving on to the second part of my post: you can not steal an "idea." And idea is something that is well and widely known. For example, someone could not sue another person for claiming that they invented gravity. That would be silly (from both parties).

 

There is most definitely a difference.

 

Edit: On topic. The people that hate the Nexus generally have either some personal beef with someone in a position of authority, break the rules of the site, or have admitted to committing illegal activities (I remember there was a post about how someone was using a highly illegal substance. Needless to say, they were promptly banned).

 

No matter what, they were being idiots about their actions. Most people usually filter their thoughts before they speak. Unfortunately, that filter has not reached as far down as the fingers for some.

Edited January 25, 2012 by IndorilTheGreat

[myrmaad]

I think it's utterly reasonable to sum up the character of those I interact with, it's always in my best interest to practice discernment.

[Arthmoor]

If someone who usually downloads games illegally is not able to do so anymore, do you think he would cease to play games? Or that someone who usually downloads E-books illegally would cease to read E-books if they could not download them illegally anymore? If you think so, I can tell for certain that you have never lived in a world without internet - you know, the time when people couldn't download games illegally...

 

Well, I once had a collection of duffel bags that would strongly disagree with your statement that illegal downloads were not possible before the internet. They were just more difficult and more expensive since it meant having to dial in to a BBS.

 

There was also much love for the Sneakernet back then too. Ah, the 1980s.

 

You just don't know what you're talking about, I can't soften it any more than that. Widespread internet service didn't come along until mid high school for me, and I didn't have it until well afterward. So your generalizations are completely without credibility.

Dinosaur here. Widespread internet didn't come around for me until 10 years AFTER high school. In some respects, piracy was probably worse then than it is now. I distinctly remember most folks blaming rampant piracy for the death of the Commodore Amiga's software market. May or may not have been true, but the internet certainly isn't helping the issue today.

[Deleted472477User]

I admit to visiting Something Awful and RPG Codex when I need to vent and blow off steam in a manner that would get me banned here. Also, I visit there for the Let's Plays, which I enjoy. But I don't talk smack about Nexus or anyone on it.

 

As for opinions, why is it so hard to just say "I don't like XYZ" and leave it at that? I have a lot of strong opinions that if expressed incorrectly would get me banned, so I keep shut about it.

 

finally, I think all the recent activity was brought on by Skyrim. People pirate it and come here for help, and get banned. Or they have a legit copy, and gripe about "Anime Mod #12764: Now with My Little Pony!" and get themselves banned.

[Lisnpuppy]

Public Libraries are sharing books by compensating the publishers (usually not the author's directly as they have typically sold the rights to their books to the publisher for an agreed upon sum) for a agreed upon amount (that likely gets the publisher a tax break in the US) that allows them to then share so many copies of the book.

 

So it is not the same as compensation is being provided...not as much if someone physically stole the amount of copies that the library's copy gets borrowed...but the tax breaks and for the public good and yadda, yadda.

 

Indoril...I think you make a good point about what the definition of intellectual property is...but I think in this thread folks are replacing intellectual property for maybe internet intellectual property as there really isn't a good word that I know..that means what we want it to mean. Something created that is only physical in the virtual world that would be, if it were physical or physically designed...be considered traditional property and thereby subject to the protections of such.

 

The laws are of course very behind the actualities. Trying to play catchup gets you things like SOPA.

 

And guys...really does this have to resort to taking pot shots at each other? If you feel someone's argument is wrong then say so and then show your evidence. Nothing else is needed.

 

Edit: typos

[Fonger]

 

let us presume that this opinion stands in world court

 

as a natural consequence of this ruling

 

all compositions, copyrights and patents worldwide would become public domain

 

as no idea would be safe from theft

 

and therefore could be used in any other product

 

(physical or intellectual)

 

therefore all composers would start raising chickens instead of producing new music

 

all game designers would manufacture Fords for a living

 

and new ideas would vanish off the face of the earth

I seriously doubt that. Like I said, this community is proof that people do creative things in absence of monetary gain.

For a time Ireland was taxing 105% of new books

Yes taxing more than the book produced as income

 

so authors stopped

 

hence proof that monetary considerations will stop creativity

 

but somehow you are still standing on the belief that intellectual property is not property

 

therefore there can be no such thing as a copyright or patent

(logical conclusion of your belief system)

 

as anybody could look at the copyrighted/patented item

then produce one of their own

and even sell it

 

again

 

as a logical consequence of your stated beliefs

 

civilization as we know it

 

would not exist

[viennacalling]

I think history gives us a good idea of what could happen. In the absence of any regulatory framework, people will still create but those who want to do it for a living and are any good at it will have patrons. These days instead of the nobility it will be corporations. The popular singer in between his love songs will sing jingles praising the cool, refreshing taste of Coca-Cola. To some extent corporate artists already exist but this would be to a much greater level.

[Ganon2020]

Really?

I am of a mind that reasonable people can disagree, but as you said, it is your prerogative.

 

Yes, reasonable people. Based on your posts, I'm not sure you fall into that category.

 

[...] theft is "the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent".

 

If someone who usually downloads games illegally is not able to do so anymore, do you think he would cease to play games?

 

No, they would not.

If, for example it were not possible to obtain games illegally on the internet, there would be two ways of obtaining games.

 

A) Buy them from a store.

 

B) Steal them from a store.

 

...

 

Of course you could always buy, borrow, or steal them from others, but the point at which it was first obtained would be from a store, or other form of distribution center.

 

Through one of those two choices.

 

...

 

In the end, you either obtain it legally through purchase, or you steal it.

 

There is no middle ground.

 

If you want something then pay for it.

 

If you can't afford it then you can't have it.

 

If you take something without paying for it you have stolen it.

 

If you steal something you are a thief.

 

To argue further against this is folly.

[Yoshh]

Though, back to piracy, it's funny how this site has a strict anti-piracy rule yet a lot of members inquire about their pirated copies of the game. It's almost ironic, actually, like stealing from a police station. Why is it like that?

 

And they get banned if somebody reports them. What is your point?

 

I'd say dazzer's point is that people are just dumb. Or they just enjoy defying authority. Which is somewhat in line with the OP's theme. The internet is a barrier, so people entitled themselves with the right of acting how they want without repercussions. They do not care about you, and they're surely not going to respect you... because they can. Well... They can't here, because they get banned.

 

 

Public Libraries are sharing books by compensating the publishers (usually not the author's directly as they have typically sold the rights to their books to the publisher for an agreed upon sum) for a agreed upon amount (that likely gets the publisher a tax break in the US) that allows them to then share so many copies of the book.

 

People can't still photocopy it. The thing is... Is there any difference between copying the book in it's entirety, or just a small excerpt? I have to borrow a lot of books from my University's library when I feel like I shouldn't buy them. Main reason would be because I only need partial information from the book. You take notes, and you give it back. People will still be in the dark about what you did with the book while you had it in your possession. It's complicated :armscrossed:

Edited January 26, 2012 by Yoshh

[Arthmoor]

People can't still photocopy it. The thing is... Is there any difference between copying the book in it's entirety, or just a small excerpt? I have to borrow a lot of books from my University's library when I feel like I shouldn't buy them. Main reason would be because I only need partial information from the book. You take notes, and you give it back. People will still be in the dark about what you did with the book while you had it in your possession. It's complicated :armscrossed:

There is, actually. Taking a small excerpt for the purpose of academic review (which is what you're describing) falls under the Fair Use provisions of copyright.

 

I think it's pretty obvious that piracy is equal to you taking the whole book from the library with no intent to pay them for it.