Originally posted by kmax87Now, now. You wouldn't be issued a patent on a gene sequence!
And in some corporate quarters, discovering the complexity in nature (copying), and identifying certain gene sequences, is giving some the power to derive patents for which others will have to pay! Viva la revolutiones. Be civil in your disobedience!
What you could patent is the method of production of a compound that interacts with a certain gene squence.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOK, I see what you mean.
Why? You're copying something, and that may be illegal in some countries (in the same way that some books are copyrighted in some countries and not in others), but it can't be said to be stealing, surely. Use the handbag analogy to make things clearer. If I copy your gorgeous handbag, I am not stealing it, am I?
If you keep on saying 'it is t thout giving reasons, I'm going to have to categorise you as a religious nut like rwingett.
It's not easy for me to explain the 'why', but I'll think about it a little more...
I don't care if you copy my handbag, but I'll not be happy if I was the guy who spent 3 months designing the thing, collecting beads from West Africa and had killed a crocodile to get its skin. The handbag was then hailed as the next best thing since pickled baby cucumbers.
This is the basis of argument, I suppose, although the handbag analogy doesn't quite 'get there'.
Copying a digitised piece of music or film is as easy falling out of a tree, whereas copying my one of a kind handbag will take some skill and a big knife.
I think the answer will also have to depend on this:
What does having the song or album on your PC and listening to it mean to you? What does it 'do' for you?
Does it bring you some form of contentment, joy etc. If so, I believe you are a thief.
Originally posted by CrowleyFortunately I only listen to music that makes me miserable.
I think the answer will also have to depend on this:
What does having the song or album on your PC and listening to it mean to you? What does it 'do' for you?
Does it bring you some form of contentment, joy etc. If so, I believe you are a thief.
Seriously, though, that's an odd thing to assert. I'm sure you can back it up, though.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOdd? I don't think so.
Seriously, though, that's an odd thing to assert. I'm sure you can back it up, though.
If I need a bread, I either need to make it or buy it. I can easily do both.
Same goes for the glorious handbag, except I can't realistically make or copy one, so if I want it - I need to buy it.
Now, onto the music example.
If feel I 'need' the song and I make my own personal copy with my own instruments, that will be fine - obviously provided I don't sell my copy. But, if I just copy the artist's actual creation in a digital form, then I need to pay for it.
I don't know, I don't see much wriggle room here.
Originally posted by CrowleyJust to be clear: We're discussing whether copying something is theft, not whether you should pay for something or not. It's illegal to copy things without paying for them, but that doesn't make that infringement theft, just illegal. Jaywalking is illegal, too, but it's not stealing. People who say 'copying is stealing' are either ignorant or lying. 'Copying is illegal' -- yes ... why? Because ... er ... It's much more difficult to convince people they're doing some intrinsically wrong if, in fact, they are not.
Odd? I don't think so.
If I need a bread, I either need to make it or buy it. I can easily do both.
Same goes for the glorious handbag, except I can't realistically make or copy one, so if I want it - I need to buy it.
Now, onto the music example.
If feel I 'need' the song and I make my own personal copy with my own instruments, that will be fine - ...[text shortened]... al form, then I need to pay for it.
I don't know, I don't see much wriggle room here.
So anyway. Why is the act of copying something that you haven't bought not merely illegal but immoral?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBecause the person who created the music and the company that packaged promoted and distributed the artist have copyrighted the material and have asked all those who would enjoy the musical treat to pay for it.
So anyway. Why is the act of copying something that you haven't bought not merely illegal but immoral?
I suppose by asking why it is immoral goes to the heart of whether morality is an intrinsic objective reality, or merely something agreed to by consensus. Much like we have civil laws that we subscribe to for the smooth running of society, they are to a large extent arbitrary and are only usually valid while most people continue to enforce them without reservation.
Ultimately if you are going to insist on an answer that goes beyond mere illegality, we will first have to agree on the notion of natural and inalienable rights. The way I see it all morality boils down to what we accept as moral. The more you pick at it the less absolute the concept of morality becomes, because you could almost always find exceptions to your societies accepted moral norms within other societies accepted moral norms. Enough to make the notion of an absolute morality as being something a little suspect.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAh, yes. My choice of words were not correct. Illegal is the correct term.
Just to be clear: We're discussing whether copying something is theft, not whether you should pay for something or not. It's illegal to copy things without paying for them, but that doesn't make that infringement theft, just illegal. Jaywalking is illegal, too, but it's not stealing. People who say 'copying is stealing' are either ignorant or lying. 'C the act of copying something that you haven't bought not merely illegal but immoral?
I see why my post was not clear.
From the BBC:
'Slow lane' for copyright thieves
The government has all but ruled out using a "three strikes" law to tackle persistent net pirates.
Using warnings and disconnection to tackle pirates was thought to be in the final Digital Britain report due to be published on 16 June.
Cutting people off was not the government's "preferred option", said culture secretary Andy Burnham in a music industry conference keynote.
Instead, he said, the report will back "technical solutions" as a deterrent.
Mr Burnham made his comments during a keynote speech at Music Week's Making Online Music Pay conference.
The interim Digital Britain report was released on 29 January, 2009. The wide-ranging review looked at everything from broadband speeds to internet regulation and public service broadcasting.
The final review was widely expected to back a so-called three strikes law that music companies have called for. This would see a person's net connection terminated if they ignored official warnings about pirating digital content.
A spokesman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, said this was not the government's preferred option now that net access was as valuable as other utilities such as water and electricity.
Although unwilling to give exact details, the spokesman said: "The Digital Britain report coming out soon will build on last year's Memorandum of Understanding between content holders and ISPs to tackle illegal file sharing."
"It is likely to include an obligation on ISPs to send out letters to people who are infringing copyright," he said.
"What Mr Burnham also said was there was the likelihood that the MoU would be backed up by new powers for Ofcom to impose 'technical solutions' for repeat offenders if that process of sending out letters was not effective enough," added the spokesman.
It is not yet clear what those "technical solutions" would be though Mr Burnham said they would involve ways to "limit or restrict" file-sharing activity.
Mar Mulligan, vice president at Forrester Research, took this to mean that pirates would gradually have their connection speed dialled down.
"It instinctively sounds like a decent compromise," said Mr Mulligan.
"We know that ISPs currently use a mix of technical solutions to manage traffic at peak times," he said. "The ISPs already have the technical infrastructure to implement this kind of stuff."
"The sign of a good compromise is one that going to annoy both sides," he said. "I think ISPs will have an issue with it and so will the music labels."
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/8083866.stm
Originally posted by spruce112358Oh yeah?
Now, now. You wouldn't be issued a patent on a gene sequence!
What you could patent is the method of production of a compound that interacts with a certain gene squence.
"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has granted thousands of patents on human genes – in fact, about 20 percent of our genes are patented. A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing has been delayed, limited or even shut down due to concerns about gene patents."
http://aclu.org/freespeech/gen/brca.html
Originally posted by richjohnsonThanks for that I know I had heard as much on a news broadcast.
Oh yeah?
"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has granted thousands of patents on human genes – in fact, about 20 percent of our genes are patented. A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. "
http://aclu.org/freespeech/gen/brca.html
Originally posted by StTitoBut are acts of civil disobedience that are mostly beneficial to the individual just an excuse? If you believed that taxes should be lower would you find ways to avoid paying tax (illegal ways) as an act of civil disobedience? Would you expect other tax payers (who now have to pay more to make up for your civil disobedience) to understand your position?
It is an act of civil disobedience. Immoral laws should not be followed blindly.
I believe that price fixing is wrong. It happens quite a lot in the food industry in South Africa. Can I steal food from shops that are involved as an act of civil disobedience?