Copyright infringement, real problem?

[saltinespike]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Just because you're the first person to become aware of one of the possible existing sets of information should not mean that you have any sort of control over how other people become aware of it.

You can and do, and should. Unless someone is under contract to reveal information as it comes, then they should be entitled to it. In your theory, the right to remain silent would be completely stripped away. Your view is a bit like a communism point of view.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Not if the information is released only on the condition that it will not be reproduced.

There is no such thing as "releasing the information".

It's all already out there.



As well, a contract is null unless it's an explicit contract.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: saltinespike then they should be entitled to it.

No person should ever be entitled to control another person.

And you'll never convince me otherwise.

the right to remain silent would be completely stripped away.

No it wouldn't.

[saltinespike]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 And you'll never convince me otherwise.

Why are you debating? If you are not open-minded, why are you even participating in the debate forum? Imagine if every person in this forum thought that way. You are just wasting my time, if this is how you feel.

No person should ever be entitled to control another person.

Keeping information from somebody is not controlling someone.

No it wouldn't.

Explain.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: tman There is no such thing as "releasing the information". It's all already out there.

It’s not known to anyone other than the discoverer though; that’s the point. He knows; others don’t. If others want him to tell them, they must agree to his terms before he does so.

Quote by: tman As well, a contract is null unless it's an explicit contract.

One could argue that copyright laws amount to the exact same thing as an explicit contract. Terms are set, the participants are fully aware of them, and fully aware that breaching them leaves them open to prosecution. It basically is a contract; it just has a different name.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: saltinespike Keeping information from somebody is not controlling someone.

The only possible way to keep someone from becoming aware of a set of information is to control them.

Explain.

A person would be able to remain silent if they chose to.

Not sure what you're talking about.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy If others want him to tell them, they must agree to his terms before he does so.

Or, once he modulates the information onto a medium and sells it, a copy (perhaps not exact, depending on the medium and modulation scheme) of the information can be made.

One could argue that copyright laws amount to the exact same thing as an explicit contract.

An explicit contract requires a signature.

[saltinespike]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The only possible way to keep someone from becoming aware of a set of information is to control them. A person would be able to remain silent if they chose to. Not sure what you're talking about.

These merge into each other, so I will write my response to them as one.

You said that no person has the right to keep information from another person, whoever it is. This would mean expressing everything you know about something before a police officer/judge/jury/etc. This would mean you CANNOT remain silent, but reveal any bit of information you know.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: saltinespike You said that not person has the right to keep information from another person, whoever it is.

I said that no person has a right to control another person.

[saltinespike]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I said that no person has a right to control another person.

You also said:

The only possible way to keep someone from becoming aware of a set of information is to control them.

[tman_ndsu08]

Keeping information from someone and preventing them from becoming aware of information are 2 different things.

[saltinespike]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Keeping information from someone and preventing them from becoming aware of information are 2 different things.

Explain.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: tman Or, once he modulates the information onto a medium and sells it, a copy (perhaps not exact, depending on the medium and modulation scheme) of the information can be made.

Not if the medium is sold on the condition that it won’t be copied. Copying it would then be breach of contract.

Quote by: tman An explicit contract requires a signature.

Yes, I am aware of that. However, that’s merely a formality. The two situations are still exactly the same; the lack of a signature doesn’t change the underlying principle of a conditional transaction.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: saltinespike Explain.

Keeping information would be someone not telling something to someone else because they chose not to.

If I don't want to tell you what my favorite color is, I don't have to.


Preventing someone from becoming aware of information would be attempting to keep someone from becoming aware of information that is already out there.

If my favorite color is a know fact, it's on billboards, in books, on the internet, the only way I could keep you from become aware of that information would be to follow you around and try to keep you from seeing it, hearing it, or whatever.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Copying it would then be breach of contract.

Not if it's copied by someone other than who it was sold to.

the lack of a signature doesn’t change the underlying principle of a conditional transaction.

By definition it does.


No signature => not explicit.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: tman Not if it's copied by someone other than who it was sold to.

Then that person would be facilitating breach of contract. Like I said before, it's equivalent to handling.

Quote by: tman By definition it does. No signature => not explicit.

What difference does this make, other than semantically?

The purpose of a contract is to allow the seller to specify conditions upon which the transaction is made, and the purpose of the signature is to show that the buyer is aware of and has agreed to these terms.

The purpose of a copyright law is to allow the seller to set conditions upon which the transaction is made. Since it is a law, it is universal, and the specification of the conditions, and therefore a contract, is not necessary. The agreement to these terms is made explicit when the customer chooses to buy the item in question.

It's exactly the same principle.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Then that person would be facilitating breach of contract.

That person would be doing nothing, as that person was not under any contract.

What difference does this make, other than semantically?

If a contract isn't explicit, then it's 100% non binding.

Might as well not even made a contract.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: tman That person would be doing nothing, as that person was not under any contract.

By that rationale, someone handling stolen goods would be doing nothing wrong, since he or she is not infringing upon anyone’s rights. The point is that they are still open to prosecution because in their actions they are knowingly facilitating an infringement of someone’s rights.

Quote by: tman If a contract isn't explicit, then it's 100% non binding. Might as well not even made a contract.

How is someone agreeing to the terms through buying the product any different from someone agreeing to the terms through writing their name on a piece of paper? In both cases, the person in question knows the conditions and knows the consequences of breaching them.

[saltinespike]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Keeping information would be someone not telling something to someone else because they chose not to. If I don't want to tell you what my favorite color is, I don't have to. Preventing someone from becoming aware of information would be attempting to keep someone from becoming aware of information that is already out there. If my favorite color is a know fact, it's on billboards, in books, on the internet, the only way I could keep you from become aware of that information would be to follow you around and try to keep you from seeing it, hearing it, or whatever.

In that case, I never even mentioned preventing someone from knowing information, because when you discover information, it is not yet openly advertised, not until you make it so (unless someone else discovers the information and registers it before you do). So someone would just be keeping information, and not preventing someone from knowing.

[saltinespike]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 That person would be doing nothing, as that person was not under any contract. If a contract isn't explicit, then it's 100% non binding. Might as well not even made a contract.

Laws are basically contracts. Have you ever signed a contract to make a law? No. Congress does that for you. Just because you did not sign a contract accepting the laws, does that mean you are exempt from them? No.