Staples refuses to print my PDFs....

[Delta]

How is the principle "Before you act, ask whether you would want everyone else to act in substantially the same fashion." self-contradictory?

I want to eat a duck --> If everyone did that, ducks would be extinct and no one would eat duck again.
I want to write a song about chemistry --> If everyone did that, we'd be sick of songs on chemistry.
I want to marry a certain woman --> If everyone did that, she'd have no time for me.

The Golden Rule is generally stated as "treat others as you would like to be treated". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity). That's not "expect others to treat everything as you treat everything", which is an untenable inflammation of the idea.

Within Kant's framework, each inventor would ask "Before I use X's work without reimbursing/crediting them, would I want others to use my work without reimbursing/crediting me?"

I can't see why that would be the requirement, more so than "I want my ideas and their ideas to be freely usable."


Let me ask this. Today in Washington the Attorney General is pushing for the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007, which increases protections for IP beyond where they even are today. This includes:

* Criminalize "attempting" to infringe copyright.
* Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software.
* Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations.
* Allow computers to be seized more readily.
* Increase penalties for violating the DMCA's anti-circumvention regulations. (Currently criminal violations are punished by jail times of up to 10 years and fines of up to $1 million. The IPPA would add forfeiture penalties too.)
* Add penalties for "intended" copyright crimes.
* Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America.
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9719339-7.html

Are you in favor of all these increased penalties, as well? Is there any limit you would be in favor of?

 

[prosfilaes]

The heirs of the creator might disagree.

However much they disagree, that doesn't change the facts. 0.1% of heirs see anything, and it's hard to argue that providing money for most of those heirs, especially ones covered by the last extension from life+50 to life+70, is actually a good social goal.

 

[Morrus]

OK, folks, what we're NOT going to do here is get into that age-old argument of the pros and cons of copyright law.

We all know how it goes. we've all seen the argument a million times; nobody says anything new, and somebody always gets angry.

So, like every time this subject comes up, please drop the issue. There are plenty of places on the web to discuss such things. Thanks.

 

[paradox42]

It isn't staples "job" to make people happy. It helps, and that ensures return customers. It is staples "job" as a business to make sure that laws are upheld - especially if you are in the 'duplication' business as are kinkos and staples.

Not to thread hijack, but I must quibble with this statement- it is not in fact their "job" to follow laws. As a business, the "job" of Staples is to make a profit, period. The only reason they're being paranoid about the law here is because the government will come after them, if they don't and it finds out. Having a legal case brought against them by another company also falls under this, since without the court such an argument is just between the companies and the law is still irrelevant.

By being "annoying" and "following the rules" they are ensuring that they are keeping their costs down to a minimum.

This is what explains the company paranoia. Go ahead and watch that scene in Fight Club again where the main character explains how his company decides when to initiate a recall. No corporation of any size in the modern world will treat the law as anything other than a potential cost in its planning; obediance is simply one possible way of avoiding such a penalty.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Staples refusing to print a product just on the odd chance that I stole it, is no different than Wal-Mart refusing to sell me groceries on the odd chance that I counterfeited the money I give them without any other evidence to back it up.

 

[Ourph]

Staples refusing to print a product just on the odd chance that I stole it, is no different than Wal-Mart refusing to sell me groceries on the odd chance that I counterfeited the money I give them without any other evidence to back it up.

That's not technically true. Staples could be held liable for printing a copyrighted document without permission. They're not saying you stole it, they're saying they won't make copies until you prove your ownership entitles you to make copies. Also, accepting counterfeit money isn't a crime (only printing and passing it is a crime) so Wal-mart isn't facing any legal ramifications if they accept your counterfeit money.

A better analogy is that Wal-mart will only exchange opened DVDs and CDs for the exact same item, because you may have illegally copied the DVD/CD before returning it.

 

[wingsandsword]

Even better: When you open the file you've purchased you've just actually made a copy from one memory medium to another.

I think the temporary and transitive copies created by web caches and in RAM of opening documents were actually legalized by the DMCA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html).

 

[TheYeti1775]

I think the temporary and transitive copies created by web caches and in RAM of opening documents were actually legalized by the DMCA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html).

DMCA isn't a legistlative body I recognize.

 

[Banshee16]

Well, if a company likes to be in business it should be their job. Whatever happened to good ole customer service and the customer is always right?

The correct statement is "the customer is always right....unless they're wrong".

Banshee

 

[S'mon]

The heirs of the creator might disagree.

If they're the only people you include in your cost/benefit analysis, then sure. Make it eternal. In fact, make the government pay them a pension in case it ever goes out of print. *shrug* :\