[ co / p / r / sp ] [ s ] [ All / Recent / RSS ] [ FAQ / IRC / Rules / Legal / News ] [ Twitter ] [ Mod ]

/r/ - Random

FUCK TRADITION!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1558880683353.jpg (105.36 KB, 453x394, thinking.jpg)

 No.11341

All digital data are just numbers, a series of 1's and 0's, a long string of digits - in other words any digitalized media are just large numbers. If you digitalize a movie for example, you basically turn it into a large number.

But if those data are just large numbers, how can you claim copyright over them? It is equivalent to trying to patent the number 10 and then require everybody who uses the number 10 to pay you royalties.

Imagine if everybody patented a number and then schools would have to pay these patent trolls for being allowed to use those numbers to teach kids math.

Ridiculous, isn't it? Well, the copyright of any digital media is just as ridiculous, since if you digitalize something, it becomes just a number.

So claiming copyright of any digital data is basically just a number patent trolling.

No one can own digital media, because you cannot own a number. Because you didn't create that number. That number always existed. It is part of the Universe. You merely wrote that number down. If you digitalized your movie, then what you did was just writing down a large number that under some circumstances can be used to reconstruct your movie.

But does that mean that you own that number? Does that mean that you can claim ownership rights over that number? Of course not! That would be insane!

That would mean that anybody could claim ownership of any number by simply writing it down!

Would you really want to live in such a world? Well, you do live in such a world.

Copying any digital data is never a theft. You are not removing anything from anybody, you are merely making a copy of a number. Just because that number can be used to reconstruct a copy of someone's movie, doesn't mean that person can restrict you from using that number.

The concept of ownership makes sense only in terms of physical items. Extending it to the realm of ideas and numbers is pure madness. It is an unjust system and can potentially cause many unforeseen consequences.

 No.11342

This might be the worst jumble of words I've seen on this site to date.

Jumping from copyright to patent to trademark while trying to link it all to copyright. Projecting a concept so that the reader uses it as the rules of engagement, but the ideas alone aren't logical.

Either bad copy/pasta or someone was blogging while high.

 No.11343

>>11342

> Jumping from copyright to patent to trademark while trying to link it all to copyright.


There is not much of a difference. I guess I should have called it "Why intellectual property is a nonsense" instead.

> but the ideas alone aren't logical


They are perfectly logical. Maybe you can't into logic.

 No.11351

This is wrong on so many levels. Even though I personally disagree with certain aspects of IP and copyright law, this is just flawed thinking and is a false equivalency. By your logic, a (presumedly english) book should not be copywritten simply because it uses the same alphabet and therefore at the core is the same content. However, this is not true. Sure, all data at it's core is just numbers, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the organization of these numbers that create something that isn't just numbers. Whether that be an mp3 file, or a movie, or a pdf file. You also mentioned that ownership of something digital is insane because it isn't physical, except it is. You have a hard drive, on that hard drive is the physical data. On a dvd, is a physical representation of data. On an SD card you have a physical representation of data. The servers you're accessing this site from have a physical representation of the data being transmitted to your screen, which also is a physical representation of the data being interpreted from bits to pixels to light. So theoretically one could use your logic to say that DVDs aren't physical, as they contain a string of ons and offs. Might I also remind you that binary is quite literally a representation of the flow of electricity in your computer, which is also a physical thing. You seem to imply data is somehow imaginary, when it is physical.

That being said I do feel like if you somehow, some way actually get charged or sued over copyright law for sharing a movie/game/album/whatever that you have bought the rights to (because that's essentially what you do when you buy media, you buy a personal viewing/listening license as well as a physical representation of the data), I do think that's dumb.

Anyways this just sounds like bait from an angry pirate who got a letter from Comcast telling him to stop downloading the latest episode of Game of Thrones from ThePirateBay.

 No.11355

>>11351
You miss the point hard man.

> By your logic, a (presumedly english) book should not be copywritten simply because it uses the same alphabet and therefore at the core is the same content. However, this is not true. Sure, all data at it's core is just numbers, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the organization of these numbers that create something that isn't just numbers. Whether that be an mp3 file, or a movie, or a pdf file.


But those things ARE just numbers.

The number 1337 is also an unique organization of digits 1, 3 and 7. Does that mean that I can copyright the number 1337 now?

> You also mentioned that ownership of something digital is insane because it isn't physical, except it is. You have a hard drive, on that hard drive is the physical data. On a dvd, is a physical representation of data. On an SD card you have a physical representation of data. The servers you're accessing this site from have a physical representation of the data being transmitted to your screen, which also is a physical representation of the data being interpreted from bits to pixels to light. So theoretically one could use your logic to say that DVDs aren't physical, as they contain a string of ons and offs. Might I also remind you that binary is quite literally a representation of the flow of electricity in your computer, which is also a physical thing. You seem to imply data is somehow imaginary, when it is physical.


Again, this is completely missing the point.

Of course all information must be represented by something physical in the real world. I wasn't implying that data are literally un-physical.

But there is one big difference between data and what we usually call physical items. Data can be easily copied. You can copy a movie with few clicks, you don't have to make another identical movie yourself in order to have a copy. While if you break your phone, you would have to either buy a new one or make one from scratch yourself (pretty hard, isn't it).

Of course 3D printing kinda blurs this distinction between data and physical items, but so far you can't 3D print all of the items you use every day, so let's not go too deep into that.

Maybe in the future the distinction won't exist, but we aren't there yet.

The point is: By copying a movie you aren't taking away anything from anybody, so it should not be considered "theft". Because the term "theft" was referring to the act of taking away something from someone in pre-digital age. It simply doesn't match to the act of copying some data. That is twisting of the original meaning in order to fuel corporate agenda.

Also video related.

 No.11356

>>11355
If you attach a meaning to '1337' its become more than a number. It's an idea. If I copywrite '1337 shitposters inc' it's no longer just a number. It represents my shitposting company. Copywrite doesn't exist to protect numbers, it exists to protect the ideas represented by the numbers.

 No.11357

>people here defend the concept of owning something you can't hold, when at the same time music/vidya/movie jews are trying to take even that away from them with streaming services instead of downloadable files
>>11356
And what if I also had an idea for a shitposting company named 1337 shitposters inc? What happens then?

 No.11362

>>11357
I came up with it first, fuck off, or pay me.

 No.11363

>>11362
But I came up with it. Can't I own my own idea?

 No.11364

File: 1559080694310.jpg (72.81 KB, 1820x1500, 30c24eeed53….jpg)

>>11363
Not in this neighborhood bucko.

 No.11365

>>11364
Then why not? Why can you stop me from owning my own idea?

 No.11366

File: 1559086889699.png (21.09 KB, 474x280, ClipboardIm….png)


 No.11367

>>11363
No way to prove that. Come up with another idea. Or a better idea.

 No.11369

>>11366
>>11367
But if someone else can have a claim to an idea, why can't I just because it's the same idea? How comes it that an idea belongs to one man?

 No.11371

>>11369
because you didn't get your idea until you saw mine. duh.

 No.11372

>>11371
But I came up with it independently, same as you did, only you say you own your idea and therefore I can't own mine.

 No.11374

>>11372
mine was in the public conscious when you came up with yours. stop trying to profit off other people's ideas you jew.

 No.11375

>>11357
>people here defend the concept of owning something you can't hold, when at the same time music/vidya/movie jews are trying to take even that away from them with streaming services instead of downloadable files

Very true.
Video related.

 No.11388

>>11375
Video games are terrible with this shit, even compared to other industries. Can you imagine the backlash if Netflix or Hulu said "pay extra to get two exclusive new shows next July and December!" then those shows were never even made?

 No.11391

>>11374
Stop trying to stop me from profiting off my idea, fairly created, you jew.



[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ co / p / r / sp ] [ s ] [ All / Recent / RSS ] [ FAQ / IRC / Rules / Legal / News ] [ Twitter ] [ Mod ]