Piracy in islam?

[Liks]

I downloaded movies/softwares that are full version
In my state i cannot nowhere to buy something original
I dont have incomes....so?

[AnonymousPoster]

I downloaded movies/softwares that are full version
In my state i cannot nowhere to buy something original
I dont have incomes....so?

So don't download them. Movies are boring, dud, crap, the lot,

Do something better with your time,

You have no income? Go get a job if possible. :thumbs_up

[Abdul Fattah]

This is actually a topic I've wondered about to. If you live in a country where it is illegal, I guess it's not ok, since as Muslims we are supposed to respect the rules of the country we live in (unless it contradicts Islamic rules). But strictly theoretically speaking, I see no reason why intellectual property should be protected in Islam.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

ive researched this and i think piracy is best avoided.

may Allah forgive us for what we've wrongfully taken


most pirated stuff (movies games etc) is non-beneficial anyway


so there is hikmah in avoiding it :)

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[AnonymousPoster]

This is actually a topic I've wondered about to. If you live in a country where it is illegal, I guess it's not ok, since as Muslims we are supposed to respect the rules of the country we live in (unless it contradicts Islamic rules). But strictly theoretically speaking, I see no reason why intellectual property should be protected in Islam.

Ohh intellectual stuff in Islaam, yeah I see no point in that.

Oh I dunno..:thumbs_up

[Trumble]

I don't see the issue; theft is theft. It's no different from stealing a DVD from a store, downloading is just the 'new' means of distribution and in a few years will take over as the source of most legal sales as well (like iTunes). You can't say it's OK to steal a cow but fine to steal a sheep.

'Intellectual property' is quite a complicated concept, but not the one relevant here.

[Azy]

I like this topic. We're not talking about theft here, we're talking about breach of copyright.
You or I do not have the right to copy whatever film/song it is you want without permission from the copyright holder, but if you do it is not theft.

If you had a machine that could make an exact replica of a Ford Ranger, would anyone accuse you of theft?

[Liks]

This is actually a topic I've wondered about to. If you live in a country where it is illegal, I guess it's not ok, since as Muslims we are supposed to respect the rules of the country we live in (unless it contradicts Islamic rules). But strictly theoretically speaking, I see no reason why intellectual property should be protected in Islam.

we are new state and its not against the law yet....

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

As-Salam alaykum, my dear akhi!

http://islam-qa.com/en/ref/102352/crack

[Liks]

i dont sell them

[Woodrow]

This can be a difficult problem. A short rule is if something is freely put up on line by the original author or copyright owner, it is fair to consider it public domain. However, that is seldom the case. Much is put up by people that do not have the distribution rights, it is theft and those download them are receiving stolen property.


There is plenty of material available as public domain, check the sources before downloading and do not encourage theft.

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum Liks

we are new state and its not against the law yet....

If there is no law against I see no reason against it, but I am not certain and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best.

Hi trumble

I don't see the issue; theft is theft.

I strongly disagree, we are dealing with two separate processes concerning two separate concepts.

* Theft is when you disown something.
* Piracy is when you make a copy something.

* Theft concerns material property from an individual.
* Piracy concerns intellectual property of an individual.

* In theft the victim no longer is in possession of his/her item. There is a loss of property.
* In theft the "victim" maintains his/her possession. There is no loss of property.

* When a state forbids theft, it disallows people taking something that already belongs to someone else.
* When a state forbids piracy, it disallows people making something new that is equal to the possessions of someone else.

So theft and piracy are not the same thing. Therefor you cannot claim that piracy should be forbidden for the same reasons as theft is forbidden. A whole new line of arguments should be brought up.
Unless of course, you main old fashion piracy, like: "Arr matie, I'm gonna commandeer your ship" In which case it is equal to theft afterall. ^_^

'Intellectual property' is quite a complicated concept, but not the one relevant here.

Again I disagree, it is very crucial. When you claim that material theft = piracy; then you are implying that intellectual property is self-evident and equal to material property. That looks like a big baseless assumption if you ask me.

[Whatsthepoint]

Making a copy of something without the author's permission is stealing. It may not disown the author directly, but it decreases his or her potential profits.

[Woodrow]

Making a copy of something without the author's permission is stealing. It may not disown the author directly, but it decreases his or her potential profits.

True, it does deprive the author ofhis right ful earnings. It is not stealing in the sense of taking cash money from a person. It is refusal to pay for work performed.

If you mow the neighbor's yard, charge $10 and he doesn't pay you, isn't that theft? He did not take any money from you.

Same thing when you download copyrighted material.

[Faye]

True, it does deprive the author ofhis right ful earnings. It is not stealing in the sense of taking cash money from a person. It is refusal to pay for work performed.

If you mow the neighbor's yard, charge $10 and he doesn't pay you, isn't that theft? He did not take any money from you.

Same thing when you download copyrighted material.

This works only if you and your neighbor had a previous contract for you to pay him $10 for mowing. Suppose he comes and mows it, without your knowledge or permission. Are you required to pay him?

[Faye]

Copyright According to Shariah
By Mufti Taqi Usmani
Q.) Can you please explain the Islamic injunctions about "copyright", especially about the copyright on computer software? The questions are: (i) Can we register a book under the Copyright Act which bars the people from publishing that book without permission of the copyright holder?
(ii) If something is registered under the law of copyright, should we abide by the restrictions imposed by that law?
(iii) Can a copyright holder sell his right of publishing to another person for a monetary gain?
A.) The question of "copyright" is related to a wider concept, generally known as the concept of "intellectual property". In previous days the concept of ownership was confined to those tangible commodities only which can be perceived through our five senses. But the speedy progress in the means of communication gave birth to the new concept of "intellectual property" which extended the concept of ownership to some intangible objects also. The theory of "intellectual property" contemplates that whoever applies his mental labor to invent something is the owner of the fruits of his labor.
If a person has invented a certain instrument, he does not own the instrument only, but he also owns the formula he has used for the first time to invent it. Therefore, nobody can use that formula without his permission. Similarly, if a person has written a book, he is the exclusive owner of the right to publish it, and nobody has any right to publish that book without his permission. This right of an author or an inventor is termed as his "intellectual property". It is also implied in this theory that the owner of such rights can sell them to others like any other tangible objects. The law of "copyright" has come into existence in order to secure such rights and to give legal protection to this kind of property.
It is obvious that the concept of intellectual property on which the law of copyright is based is a new phenomenon created by the rapid progress of industry and the means of communication, therefore, this concept is not expressly mentioned in the Holy Qur'an or in the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam.
The acceptability or otherwise of such new concept which are not clearly mentioned in the original resources of Islamic jurisprudence can only be inferred from the general principles laid down by the Shariah. As the views of the jurists may differ while applying these principles to the new situations, there is always a wide scope of difference of opinion in such cases. The question of "intellectual property" has also been a subject of discussion among the contemporary Muslim scholars of Shariah whose opinions are different about its acceptability in Shariah.
A group of contemporary scholars does not approve the concept of "intellectual property". According to them the concept of ownership in Shariah is confined to the tangible objects only. They contend that there is no precedent in the Holy Qur'an, in Sunnah or in the juristic views of the Muslim jurists where an intangible object has been subjected to private ownership or to sale and purchase. They further argue that "knowledge" in Islam is not the property of an individual, nor can he prevent others from acquiring knowledge, whereas the concept of "intellectual property" leads to monopoly of some individuals over knowledge, which can never be accepted by Islam.
On the other hand, some contemporary scholars take the concept of "intellectual property" as acceptable in Shariah. They say that there is no express provision in the Holy Qur'an or in the Sunnah which restricts the ownership to the tangible objects only.
There are several intangible rights accepted and maintained by the Shariah, and there are several instances where such intangible rights have been transferred to others for some monetary considerations.
They contend that the concept of "intellectual property" does in no way restrict the scope of knowledge, because the law of "copyright" does not prevent a person from reading a book or from availing of a new invention for his individual benefit. On the contrary, the law of "copyright" prevents a person from the wide commercial use of an object on the ground that the person who has invented it by his mental labor is more entitled to its commercial benefits, and any other person should not be allowed to reap the monetary fruits of the former's labor without his permission. The author of a book who has worked day and night to write a book is obviously the best person who deserves its publication for commercial purposes. If every other person is allowed to publish the book without the author's permission, it will certainly violate the rights of the author, and the law of copyright protects him from such violation of his rights.
Both of these views have their own arguments. I have analyzed the arguments of both sides in my Arabic treatise "Bai-ul-Huqooq" and have preferred the second view over the first, meaning thereby that a book can be registered under the Copyright Act, and the right of its publication can also be transferred to some other person for a monetary consideration.
This is an answer to your question no. (i) and no. (iii). Coming to the question no. (ii), I would like to add that if the law of copyright in a country prevents its citizens from publishing a book without the permission of a copyright holder, all the citizens must abide by this legal restriction. The reasons are manifold.
Firstly, it violates the right of the copyright holder which is, affirmed by the Shariah principles also according to the preferable view, as mentioned earlier.
Secondly, I have mentioned that the views of the contemporary scholars are different on the concept of "intellectual property" and none of them is in clear contravention of the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. In such situations, an Islamic state can prefer one view on the other, and if it does so by a specific legislation, its decision is binding even on those scholars who have opposite view. It is an accepted position in the Islamic jurisprudence that the legislation of an Islamic state resolves the juristic dispute in a manner not expressly mentioned in the Holy Qur'an or in the Sunnah. Therefore, if an Islamic state promulgates a law in favor of the concept of "intellectual property" without violating any provision of the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, the same will be binding on all its citizens. Those who have an opposite view can express their standpoint as an academic discussion, but they cannot violate the law in their practice.
Thirdly, even if the government is not a pure Islamic government, every citizen enters into an express or a tacit agreement with it to the effect that he will abide by its laws in so far as they do not compel him to anything which is not permissible in Shariah. Therefore, if the law requires a citizen to refrain from an act which was otherwise permissible (not mandatory) in Shariah he must refrain from it.
Even those scholars who do not accept the concept of "intellectual property" do not hold that is mandatory requirement of Shariah to violate the rights recognized by this concept. Their view is that it is permissible for a person to publish a book without its author's permission. Therefore, if the law prevents them from this "permissible" act, they should refrain from it as their agreement of citizenship requires them to do so.
Therefore, it is necessary for every citizen to abide by the law of copyright unless it compels a person to do an impermissible act, or to refrain him from a mandatory act under the Shariah.

[Uthman]

As far as I'm concerned, the whole 'loss of profits' argument doesn't really stand. In the vast majority of cases, if the files weren't available to download for free, then the downloader probably wouldn't have bothered to buy it from the shop.

[Woodrow]

This works only if you and your neighbor had a previous contract for you to pay him $10 for mowing. Suppose he comes and mows it, without your knowledge or permission. Are you required to pay him?

That is true. Without an agreement there would be no obligation.

In the case of copy right violations, there is a contract, called copyright laws. Sadly, it seems most people never read them and fail to understand that by violating the law, they are violating the contact and depriving a worker of his salary.

[Faye]

A group of contemporary scholars does not approve the concept of "intellectual property". According to them the concept of ownership in Shariah is confined to the tangible objects only. They contend that there is no precedent in the Holy Qur'an, in Sunnah or in the juristic views of the Muslim jurists where an intangible object has been subjected to private ownership or to sale and purchase. They further argue that "knowledge" in Islam is not the property of an individual, nor can he prevent others from acquiring knowledge, whereas the concept of "intellectual property" leads to monopoly of some individuals over knowledge, which can never be accepted by Islam.

I agree with these people though.

They contend that the concept of "intellectual property" does in no way restrict the scope of knowledge, because the law of "copyright" does not prevent a person from reading a book or from availing of a new invention for his individual benefit. On the contrary, the law of "copyright" prevents a person from the wide commercial use of an object on the ground that the person who has invented it by his mental labor is more entitled to its commercial benefits, and any other person should not be allowed to reap the monetary fruits of the former's labor without his permission. The author of a book who has worked day and night to write a book is obviously the best person who deserves its publication for commercial purposes. If every other person is allowed to publish the book without the author's permission, it will certainly violate the rights of the author, and the law of copyright protects him from such violation of his rights.

A lot of pirated software/books are free (on the internet). The pirate is thus deriving no commercial benefit from it. He is just trying to spread the knowledge present in the book so that you don't have to pay an arm and a leg to gain that knowledge. Finally, while an author may deserve to benefit from his 'intellectual property', what about his publishing house, who gets the majority of the profit, and his heirs for three generations, none of whom had anything to do with the book?

[Faye]

That is true. Without an agreement there would be no obligation.

In the case of copy right violations, there is a contract, called copyright laws. Sadly, it seems most people never read them and fail to understand that by violating the law, they are violating the contact and depriving a worker of his salary.

You never entered into a contract with the author, at least not in the case of books. And I don't think the 'I agree' statement at the installing of a program is a valid contract islamically, though I may be wrong.

If you're talking about a contract with the state to obey its laws, what if your state does not have copyright laws, or you're underage?:D

[qassy!]

its stealing, therefore its haram.

[Woodrow]

You never entered into a contract with the author, at least not in the case of books. And I don't think the 'I agree' statement at the installing of a program is a valid contract islamically, though I may be wrong.

If you're talking about a contract with the state to obey its laws, what if your state does not have copyright laws, or you're underage?:D

The one who is initially committing the crime is the person who uploaded the material to be downloaded. The concept of legal or legal will be based upon the expectation of the person who downloads it knows it is pirated material.

In other words that person would not be guilty if there was no way for the person to be able to find out it is illegal. Only the person who up loaded would be.

However, once it is obvious that the person downloading knows it is illegal, that person is as guilty as the one who uploaded it.

Now, if your state does not have copy right laws, you will find that most countries have laws that forbid distributing copyright material into the state.

In most cases it is the person who uploads the material that is prosecuted. However, there is a push on to prosecute those who download, especially large amounts.

Most ISP's now monitor bandwidth usage and here in the states a person who is uploading and/or downloading a large amount will be investigated.

Overall if we have reason to think we are engaging in an illegal activity, let us stop and reflect over it. No sense in trying to find justification for a crime. A crime is a crime, even if we disagree with it being one.

[crayon]

I agree with Abdul Fattah, that piracy is not technically stealing, but it should be illegal, because like whatsthepoint said, it decreases the profit of the original author.

Personally, I don't mind if someone saves a photo of mine, uses it as a wallpaper, etc. What I do mind is someone claiming one of my photos as my own, altering it in anyway and calling it their own, selling it, giving permission for anyone to use it.

Everything online is fair game, I guess, so I always watermark my images before putting them up online. I also never put up the large resolution image, just small enough so that if printed the quality would be bad.

[qassy!]

I agree with Abdul Fattah, that piracy is not technically stealing, but it should be illegal, because like whatsthepoint said, it decreases the profit of the original author.

Copyright stops the party from copying content that is not owned by you. COpying the copyrighted content is stealing. How would you like it if you made a film spent £40million and then people just download it!

[crayon]

Copyright stops the party from copying content that is not owned by you. COpying the copyrighted content is stealing. How would you like it if you made a film spent £40million and then people just download it!

Did you even read Abdul Fattah's post?

[qassy!]

Did you even read Abdul Fattah's post?

Nope, I will do, its to long. But Copying somthing that is not yours is stealing!

[MaiCarInMtl]

I think it would be considered stealing considering you are taking awya someone's livelyhood and means of support (imagine you work but your boss never pays you, how will you survive?).

Don't get me wrong though, I was a amajor pirate, I have slowed down a lot, and part of me knows its stealing but another part of me know I am getting ripped off too! Why buy a $20 CD if only 2 songs on it are good? As a student, how am I supposed to buy a $700 software I need for a class of mine (most free trials are only good for 30 days - 1/3 of a semester isn't enough)?

[qassy!]

I think it would be considered stealing considering you are taking awya someone's livelyhood and means of support (imagine you work but your boss never pays you, how will you survive?).

Don't get me wrong though, I was a amajor pirate, I have slowed down a lot, and part of me knows its stealing but another part of me know I am getting ripped off too! Why buy a $20 CD if only 2 songs on it are good? As a student, how am I supposed to buy a $700 software I need for a class of mine (most free trials are only good for 30 days - 1/3 of a semester isn't enough)?

What you need to understand, alot of money millions, and billions goes into devolving software therefore they make profit by selling a licence to use the software, and iff your a pirate your stealing a liance.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi whatsthepoint

Making a copy of something without the author's permission is stealing. It may not disown the author directly, but it decreases his or her potential profits.

First off all "potential" profits are abstract. You cannot loose something that you never had in the first place.
Secondly, the argument is completely circular. It's true that without protection of intellectual property one cannot make the same amount of profit as one can do with protection of intellectual property. If however you don't believe that an idea or concept can be righteously owned by an individual. In other words if you don't believe in the concept of intelectual property in the first place, those "potential" profits were not rightly theirs in the first place. In other words, the argument you present is depending on wheter or not they have the right to exclusivly make money with that. As an analogy, imagine a wiseguy arguing that not allowing him to collect protection money cuts in his income. Well of course it does, but that doesn't mean the concept of asking for protection money is justified, nor does it mean the money is rightfully theirs.

But really, how do you morally defend the idea that one should pay someone in order to be allowed to copy them? The law against theft can be justified by the well known principle: "My freedom ends where that of another begins.". However, for piracy the same principle no longer prohibits it. Like I said you don't loose anything when your property is copied (except perhaps the concept of exclusivity). In fact I would say quite the opposite. What right does a person have to forbid another person to make something just because he made it first? Here it's the opposite of: "My freedom ends where that of another begins.". You're limiting another's person freedom based on a baseless idea of intellectual property.

Selam aleykum woodrow

True, it does deprive the author ofhis right ful earnings.

Like I said, I disagree that they are "rightfully" theirs, the argument is completely circular. Just because they invested work in it doesn't guarantee that.

It is not stealing in the sense of taking cash money from a person. It is refusal to pay for work performed. If you mow the neighbor's yard, charge $10 and he doesn't pay you, isn't that theft? He did not take any money from you. Same thing when you download copyrighted material. Without an agreement there would be no obligation. In the case of copy right violations, there is a contract, called copyright laws. Sadly, it seems most people never read them and fail to understand that by violating the law, they are violating the contact and depriving a worker of his salary.

Well, the first post I made, I said that first off all, we are expected to follow the law. But that theoretically speaking, I see no reason against piracy. I'd argue it is a completely ethical practive. Take away the law, and the argument fails.

Selam aleykum Qassi!
I've demonstrated quite clearly how piracy is not the same as theft. Just claiming it is and putting exclamationpoints behind it doesn't make it trough.

Copyright stops the party from copying content that is not owned by you. COpying the copyrighted content is stealing. How would you like it if you made a film spent £40million and then people just download it!
What you need to understand, alot of money millions, and billions goes into devolving software therefore they make profit by selling a licence to use the software, and iff your a pirate your stealing a liance.

Let's bring up our gangsteranalogy again. Lets say he invested heavely in automatic weapons, policebribes, hideouts, and so on... Can he claim that protectionmoney is rightfully his because he invested into it? Obviously there would be alot of changes is several branches of entertainment and art. But change isn't necesairly for the worse. All of your arguments are based on the idea that the current system is the right one.

[Eeman]

ohhhhhhhhh i dont like the sound of this...
ok so if i go on a like islamic site and there is a e book and i donwload it is that piracy too? :o$
am i stealing by downloading it...
ohhhhhhh i'm confused now:(

[Abdul Fattah]

By the way, any of you considered that from an Islamic pov, Allah subhana wa ta'ala owns all intelectual property, and therefor nobody can righteously claim something as his creation. We are not creators, but merely discoverors of ideas, ideas already created by Allah subhana wa ta'ala.

[barney]

Meh. I thought you were talking about these guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Pirates

[Mahir]

If you had a machine that could make an exact replica of a Ford Ranger, would anyone accuse you of theft?

LOOOL i was thinking the same thing.. i was thinking.. if i had an machine that could copy a camel (By the will of Allah) in Muhammeds(saw) time, would they give me the punnishment!?

[crayon]

By the way, any of you considered that from an Islamic pov, Allah subhana wa ta'ala owns all intelectual property, and therefor nobody can righteously claim something as his creation. We are not creators, but merely discoverors of ideas, ideas already created by Allah subhana wa ta'ala.

Well if you're going to look at it that way, since Allah owns everything, all intellectual property as well as material property are his. But that doesn't stop us from acquiring something material (book/land/house/etc) and then selling it, does it? So for example, if you build a house can you claim it as your creation? The materials you used are from Allah and the ideas and knowledge you used to build it are from Allah.

[manaal]

What you need to understand, alot of money millions, and billions goes into devolving software therefore they make profit by selling a licence to use the software, and iff your a pirate your stealing a liance.

But if the software is massed produced and sold at a more affordable price, there would be no piracy in the first place. For instance, If only 2 million CD's are made and say 5 million downlaod it illegally, it would be logical for the developer to sell more copies at a cheaper price.

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum

Well if you're going to look at it that way, since Allah owns everything, all intellectual property as well as material property are his. But that doesn't stop us from acquiring something material (book/land/house/etc) and then selling it, does it? So for example, if you build a house can you claim it as your creation? The materials you used are from Allah and the ideas and knowledge you used to build it are from Allah.

I already explained the difference between material theft and intelectual piracy. When it comes to material property, there isn't a way to share with everyone, since suplies are limited, like you can't house a whole town in that building of yours. When it comes to intellectual property though, there are no limitations to sharing, and what you have does not diminish. So what you're asking for is not to keep your own stuff, but to keep exclusivity. No offence, but I find that a selfish line of thinking. Basically its saying, I want to milk my gifts from Allah subhana wa ta'ala as much as possible, and not share it for free despite that I wouldn't loose anything by sharing. No matter which way you look at it, the analagy with theft is inapt. If you want to bring up other reasons why piracy should be illegal, feel free to try. But saying that it should be merely on the basis that it has some simularity with theft just doesn't cut the mustard.

[Whatsthepoint]

Steve, just because you don't believe in the concept of intellectual property. that doesn't mean nobody does. In fact, the overwhelming majority of artists do, and the law protects them, you are a citizen of Belgium, so by piracy you are breaking Belgian as well as international laws.

By the way, any of you considered that from an Islamic pov, Allah subhana wa ta'ala owns all intelectual property, and therefor nobody can righteously claim something as his creation. We are not creators, but merely discoverors of ideas, ideas already created by Allah subhana wa ta'ala.

So Allah created all ideas, no matter how unislamic they may be?

[crayon]

Selam aleykum


I already explained the difference between material theft and intelectual piracy. When it comes to material property, there isn't a way to share with everyone, since suplies are limited, like you can't house a whole town in that building of yours. When it comes to intellectual property though, there are no limitations to sharing, and what you have does not diminish. So what you're asking for is not to keep your own stuff, but to keep exclusivity. No offence, but I find that a selfish line of thinking. Basically its saying, I want to milk my gifts from Allah subhana wa ta'ala as much as possible, and not share it for free despite that I wouldn't loose anything by sharing. No matter which way you look at it, the analagy with theft is inapt. If you want to bring up other reasons why piracy should be illegal, feel free to try. But saying that it should be merely on the basis that it has some simularity with theft just doesn't cut the mustard.

I understand what you mean, but a lot of the time, it isn't just knowledge that goes into making something immaterial (a novel/piece of music/etc), but a lot of time and effort. So a part of the profit of these things are not ONLY for the knowledge, but for the time and effort it took to make these things.

For example, I spend a lot of time taking photos/editing them/circulating them. I spend money to buy my camera/lenses/film/developing. So if someone takes a photo of mine, without paying me, and sells it, or even keeps it to themselves, they are gaining without having worked for it.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi whatsthepoint

Steve, just because you don't believe in the concept of intellectual property. that doesn't mean nobody does. In fact, the overwhelming majority of artists do, and the law protects them,

I know that, but last I checked the rules of philosophy of etics, they are not established by the opinions of majority. And specificly not the artists, since they have a conflict of interests.

you are a citizen of Belgium, so by piracy you are breaking Belgian as well as international laws.

Why does everybody keep coming back to that? I already said in my opening post. That first off all one needs to follow the law, but that I see no logical arguments behind that law. I'm not arguing what th law does or doesn't say, I'm arguing what it should say.

So Allah created all ideas, no matter how unislamic they may be?

Yes, according to Islam, Allah subhana wa ta'ala created everything. Even created the devil, knowing very well what he would eventually do. Some people might see a conflict in that, I dont. As interesting as I might find that, it's a bit off topic here.

Selam aleykum Crayon

I understand what you mean, but a lot of the time, it isn't just knowledge that goes into making something immaterial (a novel/piece of music/etc), but a lot of time and effort. So a part of the profit of these things are not ONLY for the knowledge, but for the time and effort it took to make these things.

Well a lot of people invest time effort and money in things that benefits others without gaining money from it. I understand your position, but the argument is circular. You invetsed these things, with the knowledge that the state would protect your intellectual property. If there were no copyrightlaws, perhaps you would have gotten into the same buisness afterall, thinking you would still have some advantage over your copying competitors, or maybe you would have looked for another line of buisness, and merely have taken up photography in your leisure time. So again, the problem with the argument is, that it assumes the exclusive rights belong to the artists. The fact that someone chooses to invest into something is their own choice, and I don't see why another person shouldn't be alowed to reproduce something, just because someone else invested into it.

For example, I spend a lot of time taking photos/editing them/circulating them. I spend money to buy my camera/lenses/film/developing. So if someone takes a photo of mine, without paying me, and sells it, or even keeps it to themselves, they are gaining without having worked for it.

Well, if copyrights laws would be gone, then people wouldn't buy their copy, so nobody would gain from pirated. It doesn't mean that the buisness would die out either, people could still earn money making pictures on commision, like for a newspaper for example.

[Whatsthepoint]

Hi whatsthepoint
I know that, but last I checked the rules of philosophy of etics, they are not established by the opinions of majority. And specificly not the artists, since they have a conflict of interests.

I was just saying why the law is there. Because artists, inventors etc want it.
As for the ethic, I already told you piracy deprives the author from his full potential profits, it doesn't matter if they're abstract. The point is, as Woodrow stated, that the wprk done isn't payed for.
I don't think ethical norms are absolute, but I personally think piracy is wrong, probably because I wouldn't like it myself, if my work were pirated.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi whatsthepoint,

I was just saying why the law is there. Because artists, inventors etc want it. As for the ethic, I already told you piracy deprives the author from his full potential profits, it doesn't matter if they're abstract.

Yes you already said so indeed, and I already replied to this argument, that it's circular since it's based on the assumption that these profits are rightfully theirs in the first place. I you are against copyrightlaws you don't agree that these profits are rightfully theirs in the first place. I consider it a bully attitude. "I did it first so I forbid you to play the same game, only I get to do it.".

The point is, as Woodrow stated, that the wprk done isn't payed for.
I don't think ethical norms are absolute, but I personally think piracy is wrong, probably because I wouldn't like it myself, if my work were pirated.

yeah, I get that. See copywriten profits are easy money. You do the work once and can reap the fruits of your labor over a large period of time whilst kicking it back. I bet everybody fantasised about making easy money like this one way or the other at one point of their life. So when this copyright is in question, we feel our dreams are being threathened. The truth is though, the argument is flawed. The work isn't payed for because nobody asked them to do the work in the first place, it's like those guys who come wash your windshield at the trafficlights without asking and then want to charge you for it. I wouldn't pay them for their work either, but I doubt anyone beside them has a problem with that.

[Trumble]

Rarely have I seen so much irrelevant waffle in a thread. This has nothing to do with "copyright" or any other form of "intellectual property" legislation or, indeed, ethics no matter how much some of you are trying to kid yourselves otherwise.

If you host files for download (as most file-sharers do, often unintentionally), burn off pirate copies for sale or present other people's work or ideas as you own you might have an 'intellectual property' issue. If all you are talking about is obtaining movies, music, software etc by unauthorized free download it is THEFT, pure and simple. The only difference between that and stealing a 'hard' copy from a store is that the method of distribution is different.

[Abdul Fattah]

Rarely have I seen so much irrelevant waffle in a thread. This has nothing to do with "copyright" or any other form of "intellectual property" legislation or, indeed, ethics no matter how much some of you are trying to kid yourselves otherwise.

If you host files for download (as most file-sharers do, often unintentionally), burn off pirate copies for sale or present other people's work or ideas as you own you might have an 'intellectual property' issue.

Intellectual property includes the exclusive right to copy, so making an illegal copy is just as much an intellectual property violation as distributing it is. As for taking credit for someone else's work, nobody even mentioned that. Plagiarism is a whole different concept altogether.

If all you are talking about is obtaining movies, music, software etc by unauthorized free download it is THEFT, pure and simple. The only difference between that and stealing a 'hard' copy from a store is that the method of distribution is different.

I already replied to that previously with:

I strongly disagree, we are dealing with two separate processes concerning two separate concepts.

* Theft is when you disown something.
* Piracy is when you make a copy something.

* Theft concerns material property from an individual.
* Piracy concerns intellectual property of an individual.

* In theft the victim no longer is in possession of his/her item. There is a loss of property.
* In theft the "victim" maintains his/her possession. There is no loss of property.

* When a state forbids theft, it disallows people taking something that already belongs to someone else.
* When a state forbids piracy, it disallows people making something new that is equal to the possessions of someone else.

I fail to see how repeating your views, and ignoring my arguments defeats them. Now that the differences between theft and piracy have been explored, and it has been illustrated that semantically speaking piracy and theft are definitely two different things, lets consider if conceptually the analogy still holds despite of these differences. In other words; can the same arguments that make theft unethical be used to argue that piracy is also unethical? The answer isn't simple. It off course depends on the premise: which criteria do you take to justify laws?I can think of only two criteria:
1. Maximalisation of the wellbeing and survival of humans.
2. Maximalisation of universal personal freedom.
If you have some other criteria, feel free to bring them up.
* The first criteria, wellbeing of mankind no longer holds. A society that allows theft is inevitably chaotic and will cause the weak to be exploited. The chaos and harm is a result of the insecurity of possession; the loss of possession by owners. For piracy on the other hand, ownership isn't lost therefor the chaos does not follow. Of course a society without protection of intellectual property will be different from our current society. It would change our culture, our economy perhaps even our sociological behavior. But change isn't necessarily for the worse. I'll attempt on the other pages of this site to argue that the differences would be for the better of mankind. That is of course speculation, since neither proponent nor opponent can really predict the future if we would abandon copyright laws. It is sometimes also assumed that without exclusive rights on any profits nobody would bother to innovate and progress will diminish. So for the wellbeing of mankind, progress aught to be protected. There's two objections I have with this argument. First of all I'm not buying this diminish of progress, in fact I would expect quite the opposite! Without exclusive rights, competition would be sharper, and developers or artists will have to work a lot harder to try and keep an edge over their competition. As an example just compare open source software with commercial software. Some linuxdistributions like ubuntu release a new version every 6 months, whereas windows releases a new generation every 2 to 5 years. The second objection is that protection of intellectual freedom holds individual rights prior to common wellbeing. A patent on revolutionary medicine allows pharmaceutical companies to keep the price high so they can milk their invention as much as possible, while at the same time many poor people lose their life because they aren't getting the treatment they could get.
* Then there's the second criteria, the maximalisation of personal freedom. For theft, since ownership is lost, we're dealing with an invasion of personal freedoms. For piracy on the other hand, one could argue that quite the opposite occurs. The original owner's freedom is not limited by piracy, since ownership is maintained trough the process, the pirates on the other hand are the ones having their personal freedom limited when they are not allowed to make or sell anything that is similar to someone else's possessions. Therefor the criteria "my freedom ends where that of another begins" favors against copyright laws!

Now, rather then dismissing all my arguments as "irrelevant waffle". How about you grant me the basic respect in debate to either counter my arguments or otherwise keep your opinions to yourself.

[Whatsthepoint]

As for the pharmaceutical companies, do you honestly think they'd be willing to invest hundreds of millions of euros into research if everything they invented suddenly became public domain?
I still hold that intellectual property is important and should be protected by the state, potential profits are an important issue, even though they're abstract. Why I believe artists, inventors etc should have the exclusive rights to their work? Well, because it was them who invested work and knowledge into it, I don't think its fair someone else could use it for free. I cannot logically prove why it it unfair, but then you can't logically prove the opposite, we can only state our opinions, I just happen to share mine with the majority of artists, and I think the law should respect their views.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Whatsthepoint

As for the pharmaceutical companies, do you honestly think they'd be willing to invest hundreds of millions of euros into research if everything they invented suddenly became public domain?

1. Just because it's public domain, doesn't mean that they can no longer make profit, it just means that competition will be a bit higher and profits a bit lower.
2. Governments and non-profit organisations would still work on it non the less.

I still hold that intellectual property is important and should be protected by the state, potential profits are an important issue, even though they're abstract. Why I believe artists, inventors etc should have the exclusive rights to their work? Well, because it was them who invested work and knowledge into it,

There's a lot of cases where the work and investment of one person does not give that person exclusive rights to the fruit of their labor. Secondly the work part isn't guaranteed, sometimes it's jut inspiration or good timing. Thirdly one could argue that the work invested is only put into the origenal and not in its copies, whereas the pirates have put effort into the copies and the author has not.

I don't think its fair someone else could use it for free. I cannot logically prove why it it unfair, but then you can't logically prove the opposite, we can only state our opinions, I just happen to share mine with the majority of artists, and I think the law should respect their views.

Well the rules of logic are tricky, and I know my arguments aren't 100% fool-proof, but I'd say I'm doing a pretty good job arguing

[Whatsthepoint]

[QUOTE]

Hi Whatsthepoint
1. Just because it's public domain, doesn't mean that they can no longer make profit, it just means that competition will be a bit higher and profits a bit lower.
2. Governments and non-profit organisations would still work on it non the less.

How can pharmaceutical companies that invest hundreds of millions in research possibly compete with companies that just make drugs and sell them, possibly at a cheaper cost due to lower expenses?
Governments and NPO's are doing a hell of a job, aren't they!

There's a lot of cases where the work and investment of one person does not give that person exclusive rights to the fruit of their labor. Secondly the work part isn't guaranteed, sometimes it's jut inspiration or good timing. Thirdly one could argue that the work invested is only put into the origenal and not in its copies, whereas the pirates have put effort into the copies and the author has not.

The work is put in the idea, you may argue ideas exist independently, but I don't think you can prove that. What I'm saying is that the author owns the idea and therefore all subsequent copies. I cannot prove it, but nor can you prove the opposite, well, you haven't so far.

Well the rules of logic are tricky, and I know my arguments aren't 100% fool-proof, but I'd say I'm doing a pretty good job arguing

I don't know a lot about the rules of logic, but all you proved is that piracy and material theft are different, you haven't proved piracy isn't theft.

[qassy!]

The work is put in the idea, you may argue ideas exist independently, but I don't think you can prove that. What I'm saying is that the author owns the idea and therefore all subsequent copies. I cannot prove it, but nor can you prove the opposite, well, you haven't so far.

Incorrect, when working in a large company, and you created the program you do not own that software you created, the company you work for does!

[Whatsthepoint]

Incorrect, when working in a large company, and you created the program you do not own that software you created, the company you work for does!

Thats beacause you signed a contract with the company.

[qassy!]

Thats beacause you signed a contract with the company.

Even if you choose not to you wont get the job, your forced into doing it

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi whatsthepoint

How can pharmaceutical companies that invest hundreds of millions in research possibly compete with companies that just make drugs and sell them, possibly at a cheaper cost due to lower expenses?

Well first of all I'd take those "hundreds of millions" with a pinch of salt. Second of all, even if research cost money, they would still be able to make a profit. In fact not all companies even choose to have their product patented in the first place! In some cases making a patent is even a bad business decision! See the thing with patents is, you are allowed exclusive rights for 3 to 5 years depending the product and all, but in return you are to explain your products secrets. In a lot of cases it's more economical to not take a patent at all (don't forget patents are expensive by the way), and just try to sell enough to break even during the period that the competitors try to figure out the exact formula and how to produce it easily in mass numbers. Once the competitors are up to speed the market might get divided, but there's still a profit to be made nevertheless! The cake is just a bit smaller afterwards. But either way, be it with or without patent competition will eventually come, they are even protected by antitrust laws.

Governments and NPO's are doing a hell of a job, aren't they!

Well they are doing a great job! In fact the vast majority of advancements in medicine have not been made by multinational corporations, but instead they are made by passionate students, scientists who lost a loved one to a certain disease, dedicated doctors who are sick of all their patients dying, government funding, fund raisers and so on. Sure the big corporations bring a new and advanced version of old medicines every now and then, making it seem like they are a big contributor to advancements. But when you only look at the improvements that really make a difference, corporations only brought a very small percentile of all medicinal advancements.

The work is put in the idea, you may argue ideas exist independently, but I don't think you can prove that.

Well I think I can prove that, and even by three different ways no less!
The first way is trough the difference in creation and discovery. An Idea is an invention, not a creation. A discovery not a manufacturing. Lets take Edison's light bulb for example. Edison might have been the human being to ever think to use wolfram under an electrical current to produce light. However, since long before Edison's birth, wolfram has always had the characteristic to light up when a current goes trough it. Edison did not create that characteristic, he discovered it. This is the same philosophical issue as the tree that falls in wood with no witnesses to hear it fall. Does it create sound waves even if nobody is there to hear it? Yes, of course it does. A fact is no less a fact simply because we fail to acknowledge it. An idea already exists even if nobody has discovered it yet. An idea refers to a nature, refers to something thats is, and could be. But this nature exists independent of us, independent of our advancement. Or to put it in other words, 1+1=2, even before people had the intelligence to count.
The second way to prove that an idea exists independently, is that separate people can come up with the same idea without each other's knowledge. Throughout history we see that isolated cultures ran somewhat parallel and made similar progresses without knowledge of one another. In other words, separate people had the same idea without being connected to one another. This clearly proves ideas are independent and not dependent upon a unique thinker.
Then for the third way to prove that ideas are independent; consider the mental process involved with investing in the development of an idea. What is the purpose of the invested time, energy, research? All these investments are directed to the mind, to alter the mind of the researcher. None of that work actually changes or forms the idea. No, what the work does, is it changes the researchers mind, so that the mind would be better fit to better understand already existing nature and characteristics of things. So none of the investments are directly linked to the idea in the first place. The investment is put purely into the perception and understanding of the researcher so he could discover that what was already there.

What I'm saying is that the author owns the idea and therefore all subsequent copies. I cannot prove it, but nor can you prove the opposite,

Of course you cannot prove either viewpoint, You cannot prove what is by definition. That would be like saying "You cannot prove red!", or "You cannot prove 24". There is nothing to be proven there, since there's something missing. However you can prove that this specific apple is red; and that 4 times 6 equals 24. Does intellectual property exist? I cannot and I need not prove that. The very existence of intellectual property is not what is at question here. We can however prove whether or not it is ethical, social, humane, beneficent, logical and so on.

well, you haven't so far. I don't know a lot about the rules of logic, but all you proved is that piracy and material theft are different, you haven't proved piracy isn't theft.

Sorry to be so frank with you, but I must say that now you are just being stubborn. Look up the definitions of theft and piracy, and you'll see that linguistically they refer to two different things, hence they have different names. Also, I have shown how semantically speaking that piracy is not even the same process as theft. And then I have also shown how philosophically speaking piracy does not follow under any of the philosophical arguments against theft. So by what claims can you argue that piracy is theft afterall? You admit that you have no grounds to make that claim, and you bring no counter to all my strong arguments that show that piracy is not theft. Yet you say I cannot prove this? What proof do you expect to satisfy your demand? A written confession from the word itself?

Selam aleykum Qassi!
although we might be on the same page here, I must say your example isn't very appropriate, since the firm pays you for your ideas. They have agreed to give you wages in order for you to come up with those ideas for them. If you don't like that, you can still work freelance or try to start your own business. It's not like they are breaking your arm and forcing you :)

[czgibson]

Greetings,

It's clear that as technology develops, it will produce new moral questions. The internet obviously provides lots. (Who has the patent for the internet, for example?)

I think Steve argues the case from a theoretical point of view quite well, although I would ask him this:

If there were no copyright law, wouldn't a massive incentive be removed for artists, inventors, writers, filmmakers and musicians? Wouldn't that actually stultify our culture, sending us back to the days when only the wealthy and leisure-rich would produce anything creative?

Let's face it, people don't always create things just because they were feeling inspired one day. Often the fruits of creative work are only revealed after years of patient study. Why embark on that if there is no potential financial reward whatever?

Shouldn't we encourage creativity in our society?

Peace

[SixTen]

Wrong, I don't know why people try justify it.

[Whatsthepoint]

Hi whatsthepoint

Well first of all I'd take those "hundreds of millions" with a pinch of salt. Second of all, even if research cost money, they would still be able to make a profit. In fact not all companies even choose to have their product patented in the first place! In some cases making a patent is even a bad business decision! See the thing with patents is, you are allowed exclusive rights for 3 to 5 years depending the product and all, but in return you are to explain your products secrets. In a lot of cases it's more economical to not take a patent at all (don't forget patents are expensive by the way), and just try to sell enough to break even during the period that the competitors try to figure out the exact formula and how to produce it easily in mass numbers. Once the competitors are up to speed the market might get divided, but there's still a profit to be made nevertheless! The cake is just a bit smaller afterwards. But either way, be it with or without patent competition will eventually come, they are even protected by antitrust laws.

It's not just the discovery of the substance that's expensive, its also the development, safety tests, trials on humans etc, so the end costs of an original drug are huge, usually a couple of hundred of millions, sometimes even more.
So suppose a company invests millions in the development of a drug and a rival company happens to discover the formula or gets it say from an employee, spends a couple of millions on clinical tests and starts selling it under a lower price, getting the market advantage. This could cause a lot of companies to stop developing new drugs. And besides, even if there still were competition and creativity, people could still use other people's ideas and gain money, which I personally find wrong.
The development of a new drug is so expensive, that most if not all drugs are patented, and from what I read a drug patent lasts 20 years, I'm not sure whether drug companies have to pay for it and if so how much is it, but I'm sure the potential financial loss due to their drug being stolen is certainly much greater than the cost of the patent.
Other fields of research may do well without the protection of patents, but I don't think the pharmaceutical industry is among them.

What about logos and slogans, do you think a company has the sole right to use its company logo or should those be public property as well?

Well they are doing a great job! In fact the vast majority of advancements in medicine have not been made by multinational corporations, but instead they are made by passionate students, scientists who lost a loved one to a certain disease, dedicated doctors who are sick of all their patients dying, government funding, fund raisers and so on. Sure the big corporations bring a new and advanced version of old medicines every now and then, making it seem like they are a big contributor to advancements. But when you only look at the improvements that really make a difference, corporations only brought a very small percentile of all medicinal advancements.

Medical science and pharmaceutical science are two separate sciences. The development of a new drugs costs millions and is a subject to rigorous laws and limitations, whereas medical and surgical procedures are not.
Governments and NPOs do not develop new drugs, a government can introduce laws to encourage pharmaceutical companies to make the more affordable or develop non-profitable drugs, NPOs can raise money and ship the drugs to Africa. In these days it is impossible to discover a healing substance and develop it into a drug without the backing of a pharmaceutical company.

Well I think I can prove that, and even by three different ways no less!
The first way is trough the difference in creation and discovery. An Idea is an invention, not a creation. A discovery not a manufacturing. Lets take Edison's light bulb for example. Edison might have been the human being to ever think to use wolfram under an electrical current to produce light. However, since long before Edison's birth, wolfram has always had the characteristic to light up when a current goes trough it. Edison did not create that characteristic, he discovered it. This is the same philosophical issue as the tree that falls in wood with no witnesses to hear it fall. Does it create sound waves even if nobody is there to hear it? Yes, of course it does. A fact is no less a fact simply because we fail to acknowledge it. An idea already exists even if nobody has discovered it yet. An idea refers to a nature, refers to something thats is, and could be. But this nature exists independent of us, independent of our advancement. Or to put it in other words, 1+1=2, even before people had the intelligence to count.
The second way to prove that an idea exists independently, is that separate people can come up with the same idea without each other's knowledge. Throughout history we see that isolated cultures ran somewhat parallel and made similar progresses without knowledge of one another. In other words, separate people had the same idea without being connected to one another. This clearly proves ideas are independent and not dependent upon a unique thinker.
Then for the third way to prove that ideas are independent; consider the mental process involved with investing in the development of an idea. What is the purpose of the invested time, energy, research? All these investments are directed to the mind, to alter the mind of the researcher. None of that work actually changes or forms the idea. No, what the work does, is it changes the researchers mind, so that the mind would be better fit to better understand already existing nature and characteristics of things. So none of the investments are directly linked to the idea in the first place. The investment is put purely into the perception and understanding of the researcher so he could discover that what was already there.

Nature does exhibits certain properties I'm not denying that.
But just because wolfram glows under the electric current that doesn't mean the idea of putting wolfram under the electric current existed prior to Edison doing it.
Just because the universe has the potential for something to exists, those things do not necessarily exist as ideas.
Yes, inventions are a result of investigating the natural world, either random or with a specific problem in mind, but that doesn't mean the conclusions exist independently of the mind.
The tree-sound and math analogies are analogies, not really the best ones, sound waves are a physical phenomena, so is addition in a way. Tell me, why do you you think you can deduct these to example to every single idea? And how can you prove your deductions are true?
To answer your second point, the physical laws are the same all over the world, friction works the same, gravity works the same etc. Humans too are pretty much the same, our brain and its capabilities to solve problems are similar in all people, so I don't see it all that strange that separate cultures came to similar solutions when dealing with similar problems. That and the fact that humans, no matter if you're a creationist or an evolutionist, derive from the same area, so certain human ways passed on from the original human or primate society to all the later societies.
And even if ideas exist independently, that doesn't mean people can't claim ownership over their inventions, they were the first to discover the idea, so in a way its technically theirs, like uninhabited land. And for the most part they put a lot of effort in it and IMHO that is a reason enough for their ideas to be protected by law.

Of course you cannot prove either viewpoint, You cannot prove what is by definition. That would be like saying "You cannot prove red!", or "You cannot prove 24". There is nothing to be proven there, since there's something missing. However you can prove that this specific apple is red; and that 4 times 6 equals 24. Does intellectual property exist? I cannot and I need not prove that. The very existence of intellectual property is not what is at question here. We can however prove whether or not it is ethical, social, humane, beneficent, logical and so on.

I don't think we can prove whether it is ethical or logical, as I believe these two categories aren't absolute (you can prove the opposite if you want), but we can argue about benefits to the society or the individual, which again leaves us at unprovable premises, that is what matters more, the well-being of the society as a whole or individual rights. It often comes down to this.

Sorry to be so frank with you, but I must say that now you are just being stubborn. Look up the definitions of theft and piracy, and you'll see that linguistically they refer to two different things, hence they have different names. Also, I have shown how semantically speaking that piracy is not even the same process as theft. And then I have also shown how philosophically speaking piracy does not follow under any of the philosophical arguments against theft. So by what claims can you argue that piracy is theft afterall? You admit that you have no grounds to make that claim, and you bring no counter to all my strong arguments that show that piracy is not theft. Yet you say I cannot prove this? What proof do you expect to satisfy your demand? A written confession from the word itself?

What I'm saying is that both material theft and piracy are a subset of theft, so just because the subsets are different they can still belong to the same set.
As I said, piracy deprives the inventor of potential profits and I don't see why this shouldn't be considered a form of theft.
You claim they're abstract, but at the same time you claim ideas exist independently, so why not profits?

[qassy!]

What I'm saying is that both material theft and piracy are a subset of theft, so just because the subsets are different they can still belong to the same set.
As I said, piracy deprives the inventor of potential profits and I don't see why this shouldn't be considered a form of theft.
You claim they're abstract, but at the same time you claim ideas exist independently, so why not profits?

Your right. Its theft, companies spend millions even billions in development into software, and someone copying it is stealing it. Remember you dont own software you have a license to use it, and copying that license is stealing the license.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Wrong, I don't know why people try justify it.

LOL your joking

you mean you dont know that people want free stuff without a guilty conciounse? :D :p

[qassy!]

LOL your joking

you mean you dont know that people want free stuff without a guilty conciounse? :D :p

Yeah but downloading media of the Internet is easy to get away with if you know what your doing, i.e. proxies. I mean in a store its very hard, so people only doing it because they know they can get away with it. Unless your a developer, you wouldn't understand this whole issue. My self, was a developer for a company for a 6 months, alot of my time, and effort went into programming. Someone goes and copies it is just taking the mik.

[SixTen]

LOL your joking

you mean you dont know that people want free stuff without a guilty conciounse? :D :p

In exchange for hell? I stand by my sentence, I don't know why they try to justify it :P. It is possible probably everyone here, did some piracy, but I am not here to judge, rather state - we should not be telling people its ok!

[IbnAbdulHakim]

In exchange for hell? I stand by my sentence, I don't know why they try to justify it :P. It is possible probably everyone here, did some piracy, but I am not here to judge, rather state - we should not be telling people its ok!

bro thats the very reason they WANT to THINK that they WILL NOT go to HELL - justification makes sense now? :p

[qassy!]

In exchange for hell? I stand by my sentence, I don't know why they try to justify it :P. It is possible probably everyone here, did some piracy, but I am not here to judge, rather state - we should not be telling people its ok!

I downloaded music was Napster was free that was let me think....7 years ago nowadays i pay for my music via iTunes and buy software :D

[Güven]

What about watching/listening Youtube loool :D

[qassy!]

What about watching/listening Youtube loool :D

well........if ur not downloading the content from YouTube, I dont really see anything wrong with it.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi czgibson

I think Steve argues the case from a theoretical point of view quite well, although I would ask him this:
If there were no copyright law, wouldn't a massive incentive be removed for artists, inventors, writers, filmmakers and musicians? Wouldn't that actually stultify our culture, sending us back to the days when only the wealthy and leisure-rich would produce anything creative? Why embark on that if there is no potential financial reward whatever?

I doubt it'd be really that bad, people don't just make creative things because of the money it pays or the leisure time spent. People make art to express point of views, to teach or to see kacceptance from society, to shock, to get girls, there's tons of reasons. And even without copyrights, artists could still make a living just not that high a living as some currently make, no their work would be rewarded by the hour, like any other worker in any other buisness. I don't see what's wrong with that.

Let's face it, people don't always create things just because they were feeling inspired one day. Often the fruits of creative work are only revealed after years of patient study. Shouldn't we encourage creativity in our society?

Well I think abandoning copyright actually encourages creativity. Copying is human nature. From childhood on we learn by copying from one another. In sociology we see how adults are influenced by peer pressure. The most famous scientists all based their work on those that preceeded them by copying the process and adding something more. And when competition is harder, people tend to push themselves further. Secondly consider that ideas multiply. Say if we each have a dollar, and I give my dollar to you and you give your dollar to me, then we still each have one dollar. However if I share my idea with you, and you share yours with me, then we both have two ideas.

Hi Sixten

Wrong, I don't know why people try justify it.

So you're naturally assuming my justification is false and my intentions are doubious. Can you read my mind, can you see my intentions? It's easy to just claim that I am wrong and bad without proving it. You should better look in your own heart cause you are slandering me. If you want to bring your opinion and debate against my arguments, be welcome to do so. But just attacking me without any base to back that up is just wrong.

Hi Qassi!

well........if ur not downloading the content from YouTube, I dont really see anything wrong with it.

Actually when you watch something in streaming, your internet-browser downloads the video and saves it in a temporary file. So it's the same thing.

Hi Whatsthepoint

It's not just the discovery of the substance that's expensive, its also the development, safety tests, trials on humans etc, so the end costs of an original drug are huge, usually a couple of hundred of millions, sometimes even more.

Yes I know, and despite that I still stand by my counter that you need to take this figure with a big pinch of salt.

So suppose a company invests millions in the development of a drug and a rival company happens to discover the formula or gets it say from an employee, spends a couple of millions on clinical tests and starts selling it under a lower price, getting the market advantage. This could cause a lot of companies to stop developing new drugs. And besides, even if there still were competition and creativity, people could still use other people's ideas and gain money, which I personally find wrong.

Well like I said, it won't be millions, and despite that, there is still profit to be made. It might take a few extra years to break even. But they would still make a profit, just a slightly smaller one.

Other fields of research may do well without the protection of patents, but I don't think the pharmaceutical industry is among them.

Perhaps you're right about that. Be that as it may, I still think its profitable without exclusive rights

What about logos and slogans, do you think a company has the sole right to use its company logo or should those be public property as well?

No, that is one of the few exceptions. In trademarks, there's not only the issue of freedom to copy, but there's also the issue of lying (by pretending to be someone else) and damaging reputaion (if the counterfit is of inferior quality as the origenal). So because of that, trademark infringement can be argued to be unethical.

Medical science and pharmaceutical science are two separate sciences.

Patatoes, Phatatos. They are different yes, but my argument stands for pharmaceuticle science to. All the major advancements, peniciline, antibiotics, many of the vaccins, anti-inflamatories, or even the simple acetylcalycil; all of those have not been made by multinationals.

Governments and NPOs do not develop new drugs, a government can introduce laws to encourage pharmaceutical companies to make the more affordable or develop non-profitable drugs, NPOs can raise money and ship the drugs to Africa. In these days it is impossible to discover a healing substance and develop it into a drug without the backing of a pharmaceutical company.

Perhaps not the American Government, but many European, SouthAmerican, middle eastern, and azian countries have state hospitals who do reasearch in pharmaceutics to. My home country Belgium is a leading example as a matter of fact and many new advancements come from these hospitals.

Nature does exhibits certain properties I'm not denying that.
But just because wolfram glows under the electric current that doesn't mean the idea of putting wolfram under the electric current existed prior to Edison doing it.

But then again I could argue that an idea is an abstract concept and thus never truely exists.

The tree-sound and math analogies are analogies, not really the best ones, sound waves are a physical phenomena, so is addition in a way. Tell me, why do you you think you can deduct these to example to every single idea? And how can you prove your deductions are true?

True, the tree analogy is false since it refers to something physical. However, I didn't bring it as an analogy, I brought it up since both cases deal with the same underlying philosophical idea. Secondly math is abstract just as ideas, and therefor that analogy would still stand.

To answer your second point, the physical laws are the same all over the world, friction works the same, gravity works the same etc. Humans too are pretty much the same, our brain and its capabilities to solve problems are similar in all people, so I don't see it all that strange that separate cultures came to similar solutions when dealing with similar problems. That and the fact that humans, no matter if you're a creationist or an evolutionist, derive from the same area, so certain human ways passed on from the original human or primate society to all the later societies.

Yes of course, similar results from simular processes. I won't argue with that. However that doesn't change my point. My point was that these ideas are not exclusivly linked to the first thinker and therfor neither should the right to use that idea be linked to the first thinker exclusivly.

And even if ideas exist independently, that doesn't mean people can't claim ownership over their inventions, they were the first to discover the idea, so in a way its technically theirs, like uninhabited land.

Here you fall under the material vs abstract flaw again. In the case of land, we're dealing with material possesion, and theft in the case that someone tries to illegaly disown that land.

And for the most part they put a lot of effort in it and IMHO that is a reason enough for their ideas to be protected by law.

I already answered that before didn't I? I think you're running in circles now.

I don't think we can prove whether it is ethical or logical, as I believe these two categories aren't absolute (you can prove the opposite if you want),

I stronglt disagree here, even though one can never "prove" a philosophical school of thought, we are at some point forced to accept one viewor the other. If we do not, every single argument you make about pretty much anything would fail. Every law would be pointless without philosophy of etics and logic. In fact you can't even argue without logic! These two schools of thought are essential to any debate. To say that you want nothing to do with it, yet continue debating is in a way even hypocrite.

but we can argue about benefits to the society or the individual, which again leaves us at unprovable premises, that is what matters more, the well-being of the society as a whole or individual rights. It often comes down to this.

Yes it does, as I already pointed out several posts ago ^_^

What I'm saying is that both material theft and piracy are a subset of theft, so just because the subsets are different they can still belong to the same set.

Yes i know you point already, and what I am saying is that this is simply not true. Not semantically, not linguistically and not philosophically.

As I said, piracy deprives the inventor of potential profits and I don't see why this shouldn't be considered a form of theft.

Because it's circular. You assume that the profits are rightfully theirs in the first place, then you use that assumption to argue that copyrights should be protected. And since copyrights should be protected, the fruit of the idea should be exclusivly theirs. Well that's flawed by circularity, you can never use that which you set out to prove in your proof.

You claim they're abstract, but at the same time you claim ideas exist independently, so why not profits?

Do you question wheter ideas are abstract? How can they not be abstract? There is no indication once so ever of a material nature of an idea. As far as we know they are sticttly conceptual and not objects. To imply that they are not abstract is insane. And in fact this very charesteristic, their abstractness by itself guarantees that these ideas are independent, isolated on their own.

[abs]

i also guess wat whatsthepoint said is true, if u copy something without the owners permission its basically called a theft

[qassy!]

Hi Qassi!

Actually when you watch something in streaming, your internet-browser downloads the video and saves it in a temporary file. So it's the same thing.

Hi Whatsthepoint

Yes I know, and despite that I still stand by my counter that you need to take this figure with a big pinch of salt.

Well like I said, it won't be millions, and despite that, there is still profit to be made. It might take a few extra years to break even. But they would still make a profit, just a slightly smaller one.

Sites that are desgined to stream movies are illegal. YouTube is a legal website,when consumers visit the website they type in what ever they want knowing there visitng a legal website. Looking at it from that context makes YouTube liable.

[truemuslim]

yeh all the movies that just come out here in america are already on dvd in yemen. piracy.
cant answer u question tho but its a waste of time and its doing something ur not supposed to do behind people backs so figure it out from ther

[Whatsthepoint]

But then again I could argue that an idea is an abstract concept and thus never truely exists.

I think I can agree with that. Abstract concepts and ideas, such as putting wolfram under the electric current, exist in the human mind, I don't think you can prove they exists independently, you haven't so far. Mathematics is a human invention, its a human attempt to describe nature and its laws, the equation 1+1=2 doesn't exist outside the human mind, though some sort of addition exist in nature and it is not abstract.

Do you question wheter ideas are abstract? How can they not be abstract? There is no indication once so ever of a material nature of an idea. As far as we know they are sticttly conceptual and not objects. To imply that they are not abstract is insane. And in fact this very charesteristic, their abstractness by itself guarantees that these ideas are independent, isolated on their own.

As I said, I don't think abstract concepts and ideas exist outside the human mind. So far you nor anyone else have conclusively proven the opposite.

Yes of course, similar results from simular processes. I won't argue with that. However that doesn't change my point. My point was that these ideas are not exclusivly linked to the first thinker and therfor neither should the right to use that idea be linked to the first thinker exclusivly.

Have you proven your point?
I won't argue that a lot of humans have the capacity to create (yes create, not discover) the same idea, but only a few invest work into it and therefore I think they should have some rights over it, especially people who invest large sums of money in their invention. This is an unprovable assumption, I won't deny that, but I don't think you have proven the opposite though I may be missing something.
Lets say a company develops a drug, patents it and shares its findings with everyone else without having to worry their invention would be produced by another company. The other company on the other hand does not patent the drug but keeps its secrets safe. Which system is of greater benefit for science?

I already answered that before didn't I? I think you're running in circles now.

You haven't.

I stronglt disagree here, even though one can never "prove" a philosophical school of thought, we are at some point forced to accept one viewor the other. If we do not, every single argument you make about pretty much anything would fail. Every law would be pointless without philosophy of etics and logic. In fact you can't even argue without logic! These two schools of thought are essential to any debate. To say that you want nothing to do with it, yet continue debating is in a way even hypocrite.

Well, I have chosen my ethical school of though, I don't think ethical norms are absolute, some may be shared by a majority of people, some may derive from society, some from our sense of empathy, but they are not absolute.
However, I believe ethical norms should be followed in order to sustain social cohesion and achieve maximum happiness happiness without infringing the rights of an individual.
I cannot prove my theory is right.
As for logic, sure, rules of logic do exist, but I don't think we can prove all things using logic, in this instance the existence of ideas, we can only make unprovable deductions.

Yes i know you point already, and what I am saying is that this is simply not true. Not semantically, not linguistically and not philosophically. Because it's circular. You assume that the profits are rightfully theirs in the first place, then you use that assumption to argue that copyrights should be protected. And since copyrights should be protected, the fruit of the idea should be exclusivly theirs. Well that's flawed by circularity, you can never use that which you set out to prove in your proof.

You base this on the assumption that an inventor or an artist doesn't have exclusive rights over his work. You haven't proven this assumption, at least not using logic.
It's not circular, it is an assumption that the author holds the right to all profits originating from his or her artwork or a copy thereof. When someone uses an artwork or a copy thereof. The law merely enforces it.

[Whatsthepoint]

[QUOTE]

Yes I know, and despite that I still stand by my counter that you need to take this figure with a big pinch of salt.
Well like I said, it won't be millions, and despite that, there is still profit to be made. It might take a few extra years to break even. But they would still make a profit, just a slightly smaller one.

Well, companies themselves say they spend hundreds of millions on research, and they are a subject to tax inspections like the IRS, so it would be hard for them to cover up millions.
And there's independent institutions that study the industry that provide similar figures.

No, that is one of the few exceptions. In trademarks, there's not only the issue of freedom to copy, but there's also the issue of lying (by pretending to be someone else) and damaging reputaion (if the counterfit is of inferior quality as the origenal). So because of that, trademark infringement can be argued to be unethical.

What about using literary or film characters?

Patatoes, Phatatos. They are different yes, but my argument stands for pharmaceuticle science to. All the major advancements, peniciline, antibiotics, many of the vaccins, anti-inflamatories, or even the simple acetylcalycil; all of those have not been made by multinationals.
Perhaps not the American Government, but many European, SouthAmerican, middle eastern, and azian countries have state hospitals who do reasearch in pharmaceutics to. My home country Belgium is a leading example as a matter of fact and many new advancements come from these hospitals.

Universities and hospitals do make research and discover new healing substances, but the way from the substance to a safe drug on the market is a long and an expensive one, much longer and more expensive than it was in the past, the regulations have changed drastically.
You can't have a drug without the backing of a pharmaceutical company.

yeh all the movies that just come out here in america are already on dvd in yemen. piracy.
cant answer u question tho but its a waste of time and its doing something ur not supposed to do behind people backs so figure it out from ther

This is for you Steve, what do you think about gaining money from pirated material.

[czgibson]

Greetings, Steve,

I can see you're involved in some lengthy posting here, so I'm reluctant to take up more of your time.

I think you're brave to stick with your view and carry on defending it in the face of the evident opposition from most of us here, and I commend you for it.

Out of interest: there is something almost Marxist in the egalitarian spirit of your position. I'm not calling you a Communist here or anything, but do you see what I mean? The sharing of ideas, the sharing of wealth. Do you think that copyright is a partial result of capitalism? If some of us weren't living in capitalist societies, do you think we might think differently about this question?

Hi czgibson

I doubt it'd be really that bad, people don't just make creative things because of the money it pays or the leisure time spent. People make art to express point of views, to teach or to see kacceptance from society, to shock, to get girls, there's tons of reasons.

The things you say about the motives for artistic creation are all obvious, but don't detract from the fact that if people were unable to be creative and use it as a career, the number of creative works produced would be drastically diminished. Although that would rid us of an awful lot of dross, it would deprive us of many masterpieces too.

This next sentence prompts so many questions I'm afraid I'm going to have to break it up:

And even without copyrights, artists could still make a living

How could a photographer, for example, make a living if his work could be reproduced by anybody and sold on without a penny going to him? Where would his income come from?

just not that high a living as some currently make,

Have you met any professional artists or musicians lately? It is definitely not the way to make big bucks, unless you're extremely lucky.

no their work would be rewarded by the hour, like any other worker in any other buisness.

By who? If there's no copyright on anything they produce, who is under obligation to give them money?

Or are you proposing an entirely state-funded arts system, or something like that?

Well I think abandoning copyright actually encourages creativity. Copying is human nature. From childhood on we learn by copying from one another. In sociology we see how adults are influenced by peer pressure. The most famous scientists all based their work on those that preceeded them by copying the process and adding something more.

Standing on the shoulders of giants, absolutely. But there's a difference between imitating and copying and passing off as your own, surely.

And when competition is harder, people tend to push themselves further. Secondly consider that ideas multiply. Say if we each have a dollar, and I give my dollar to you and you give your dollar to me, then we still each have one dollar. However if I share my idea with you, and you share yours with me, then we both have two ideas.

But does copyright really prevent the spread of ideas? I don't think you've shown that it does.

While I'm here, I'll say that I think this is one of the most interesting debates I've seen on LI for a long time. Well done to everyone who's taken part: thank you all for making us think.

Peace

[Abdul Fattah]

I think I can agree with that. Abstract concepts and ideas, such as putting wolfram under the electric current, exist in the human mind, I don't think you can prove they exists independently,

Well if they don't exist, they cannot exist independently either. But that's just semantics of the word existence. Do concepts exist or not, it's not what matters here but it's an obstacle for our debate. So whether you say that they exist or not isn't really the issue, they still are independently. Anyway this playing around with existence or non-existence is a double cutting sword. I could say that if they don't exist, which you say you agree on, then there is nothing to own and protect in the first place. So since it doesn't really take any weight away from my arguments, I suggest we drop this existence vs non-existence, since neither of us are inclined to one position or the other.

As I said, I don't think abstract concepts and ideas exist outside the human mind. So far you nor anyone else have conclusively proven the opposite.

Well I could reply that I don't think they exist inside the human brain either. But both arguments is playing with words.

Have you proven your point? I won't argue that a lot of humans have the capacity to create (yes create, not discover) the same idea, but only a few invest work into it and therefore I think they should have some rights over it, especially people who invest large sums of money in their invention. This is an unprovable assumption, I won't deny that, but I don't think you have proven the opposite though I may be missing something.

You're running in circles again, every counterargument you place is either some other version of "they own it" or "they put work in it". As if those magical words defeat my arguments.

Lets say a company develops a drug, patents it and shares its findings with everyone else without having to worry their invention would be produced by another company. The other company on the other hand does not patent the drug but keeps its secrets safe. Which system is of greater benefit for science?

Still the system I propose, because it leaves the most freedom. And eventually the secrets aren't the biggest contribution to science. what matters is that scientist understand how it works, and before the meds can be sold they would have to be approved, and therefor the information that is vital for science would be out. If the company keeps some secrets of the trade beside that, there's no harm in that in terms of scientific development.

You haven't.

Euhm it was a rhetorical question, I'm actually 100% confident that I did already reply to that. something about the work only being invested in the original, and then you replied to that, and then I replied to your reply, and then you just went back to square one.

Well, I have chosen my ethical school of though, I don't think ethical norms are absolute, some may be shared by a majority of people, some may derive from society, some from our sense of empathy, but they are not absolute.
However, I believe ethical norms should be followed in order to sustain social cohesion and achieve maximum happiness happiness without infringing the rights of an individual.
I cannot prove my theory is right.
As for logic, sure, rules of logic do exist, but I don't think we can prove all things using logic, in this instance the existence of ideas, we can only make unprovable deductions.

You base this on the assumption that an inventor or an artist doesn't have exclusive rights over his work. You haven't proven this assumption, at least not using logic.

Well the burden of proof is on those who call for the restrictions. If you propose that my actions and freedom to copy should be limited, I expect you to provide the argument, not turn the table on me and ask me to prove the opposite.

It's not circular, it is an assumption that the author holds the right to all profits originating from his or her artwork or a copy thereof. When someone uses an artwork or a copy thereof. The law merely enforces it.

But the assumption comes from the idea that he owns the idea, which in turn you defend by the work he invested, wich in turn you say entitles him to his due profit, which in turn means he has exclusive rights to the fruits of it. See completely circular.

Well, companies themselves say they spend hundreds of millions on research, and they are a subject to tax inspections like the IRS, so it would be hard for them to cover up millions.
And there's independent institutions that study the industry that provide similar figures.

Yeah of course they invest millions, but not all of these investment are on research. With or without copyrights, you have to invest in a fabrication hall, employees, ground materials, office supplies and so on. But those are not the ones that you used in your argument. I mean if a company copies their product, they will have to make these same investments. Your argument was that they should have exclusive rights, because of the investments they made into the development of the product; not the manufacture, transport, packaging and what you have.

What about using literary or film characters?

That is not a trademark issue but a copyright issue, so I see no moral objection with that.

Universities and hospitals do make research and discover new healing substances, but the way from the substance to a safe drug on the market is a long and an expensive one, much longer and more expensive than it was in the past, the regulations have changed drastically.

No, not really they do these things in universities and hospitals here to.

This is for you Steve, what do you think about gaining money from pirated material.

Well I see no moral objections with it, except of course that it is illegal by law. Just because I don't like the law, doesn't mean I find it moral to break the law. So, if a country bars its copyrights laws, I'd say: "yes, pirate away!"