Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 2724672" data-attributes="member: 19675">Yes, I do.  I'm an entertainment lawyer.  I deal with this issue daily.Quote:I have won copyright infringement cases.  Nothing big like the ones that get all the press, but I have won.Copyright infringement (in the form of unauthorized reproduction) is as much a subcategory of theft as embezzlement, shoplifting or larceny by trick.  That it has its own section of law just highlights some of the unique problems it presents- you'll find in any criminal code that each form of theft has its own set of laws.You won't find a state criminal code with CI laws because it is exclusively under Federal jurisdiction in this country, and in every other country, it is controlled at the national, not regional, level.Intellectual Property, regardless of form, is property.  And when you "file share," you're exercising unauthorized control over another person's property.  That's black-letter-law theft.Go take a look through 17 U.S.C.A. or check out the case law.I have an excellent understanding of the abstract concept of currency.  Because of my undergraduate degree in economics, my law degree, and my M.B.A., I've had to take courses detailing the rise of monetary systems, including letters of credits, promissory notes, etc.- covering the history of money from the ancient world to modern day.No, I abandoned it because I read you right- you think that the difference in the form of the property (purely physical vs electronic) makes an ethical or legal difference.  It doesn't.That is why I also talked about photography of jewelry designs- the IP creator still has and can attempt to use the IP, but the thief has a copy with which he can interfere with the IP holder's use.A hypo from another thread on this topic:Quote:Apologies...that was meant to read "If I buy an option on a movie script and never intend to use it...It makes no difference. If I buy the rights to the script from you, they belong to me. The full value of the product, including any potential future exposure for you, is covered in the purchase price that you voluntarily agree to.Quote:No, I'm saying that because we percieve the value of fresh water as lower than it really is, we waste more of it than we would if we integrated all of the costs associated with obtaining fresh water into its price.While water covers 70% of the Earth's surface, only 3% of that water is fresh water, and only .03% of THAT is surface water. It has been estimated that 99.7% of all water in Earth's ecosystem is usable by humans for ingestion.(Water )Yes...If fresh water were accurately priced, it would be more expensive.  If it is more expensive, it is less likely to be wasted.  How is that absurd?Actually, no.  There's not much info on the web about it, but I did find this:<a href="http://www.nwri-usa.org/asp/bookdetails.asp?prodid=119&action=prom&id=4&main=m4&sub=s4" target="_blank">Water Use</a> Fresh Water has only recently (as in past 50 or so years) been understood as a finite resource, but its pricing is still little changed (relative to other consumer goods in the CGI) from the time when it was thought to be an effectively unlimited resource.  Desalinization is expensive.  Groundwater recovery is expensive.And we still water our lawns in the deserts with the good stuff.Price is one of those things that can be affected by non-market forces.  Water is but one example.  Diamonds are another.  The world market for diamonds is grossly inflated because the main suppliers have controlled supply for decades.  Prices of Sugar and Tobacco in the US are also artificially supported.  The entire Brazillian automotive industy is propped up by government subsidies.Only when tariffs and price supports are dropped will we actually see true market values.</blockquote>

Verification