Wealthy people more likely to cheat, lie and break the law...?

[RD]

That's hilarious

[raspberry jam]

And I doubt even that information is honest or correct. Because it all depends on how they pick their test group. I think it is almost impossible to do a study like this without being biased one way or the other. Because there is an inherit bias in the purpose of the study itself.

Well, ok, look at it this way: rich and powerful people have greater opportunity to be *******s and get away with it. Regardless of in which country they live.

False, You can make the exact replica of the chair as long as you do not use another company's logo if you intend to use it for commercial use. Even similar names is allowed in many cases. You can even make the exact replica with the logo but you cannot use it for commercial use. Many small sunglasses vendors are using terms like 'inspired by Oakley' for example. The logo is obviously different from that of Oakley but the design is almost exactly the same.

When you copy a company's logo, you need have evidence that prior art exist and that logo is not exclusive, or that you have made enough adjustments to ensure your company's logo is substantially distinct. This is also true in terms of game art, sprite and character concepts. After all, why would anyone NOT want to make his own company and product unique(unless for malicious use)?

You can design an addidos shoe and try to sell it, oh wait, that brand is already taken.

Hmm. Where I live, similar names are not allowed. Still, the argument still stands: if you're allowed to copy a physical product and sell it, why would you not be allowed to copy a digital product and give it away?

[Kael Valeran]

Hmm. Where I live, similar names are not allowed. Still, the argument still stands: if you're allowed to copy a physical product and sell it, why would you not be allowed to copy a digital product and give it away?

I want to go back to a point that I covered in the previous post. This is important as it is the cornerstone of what determines theft.

Spoiler

There is no theft when there is informed choice/consent. If someone wishes to give away something, it is not theft if you take it.

...

I also want to cover informed consent. Sometimes people who are ignorant vote. That is fraud. A person's consent is only valid if he is able to show capacity and ability to weigh the pros and cons of that decision, retain and convey the decision made.

Why? Because the original owner of the product is is not fully informed and aware of the intent of the buyer. He does however state that he does not wish his product to be distributed for free. If you agree to do so, he will charge you a 'retail' price for the product. If you want to use it commercially, he will only agree to sell it to you for a commercial price or not sell it to you at all. Do note that he is the original owner. So if you break that agreement, you have committed fraud, the owner of the product is not well informed and you cannot say that he gave you the product with informed consent.

If he did not consent you to have the product for that price, why are you holding on to it? That is theft isn't it? i.e. to take an object from an owner without informed consent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

[Art]

So wait...

If I build a house and then sell it to a guy with a lovely family and then later he sells it to a murderous ****** psychopath can I sue the family guy?

-Art

[Kael Valeran]

So wait...

If I build a house and then sell it to a guy with a lovely family and then later he sells it to a murderous ****** psychopath can I sue the family guy?

-Art

Only if it is preagreed that he will not sell the house to certain persons. For example, some properties of preserved heritage are not allowed to be sold to be used commercially.

Assuming that during the transfer of title deed, you have stated those conditions and that he has to inform the next buyer of the house with the same conditions. Your property will lose value though and you also need to fork out extra solicitor fees.

[RD]

Only if it is preagreed that he will not sell the house to certain persons. For example, some properties of preserved heritage are not allowed to be sold to be used commercially.

Assuming that during the transfer of title deed, you have stated those conditions and that he has to inform the next buyer of the house with the same conditions. Your property will lose value though and you also need to fork out extra solicitor fees.

((Mental Note: Always put this in every contract. Oh, wait, I probably won't ever own property because I live in NY and it ends up costing more than twice the property value to own something.))

[Art]

Only if it is preagreed...

I appreciate you are trying to suck the boabie of the big man here Kael but prearranged agreements to purchases as standard is futile and silly.

-Art

[raspberry jam]

Why? Because the original owner of the product is is not fully informed and aware of the intent of the buyer. He does however state that he does not wish his product to be distributed for free. If you agree to do so, he will charge you a 'retail' price for the product. If you want to use it commercially, he will only agree to sell it to you for a commercial price or not sell it to you at all. Do note that he is the original owner. So if you break that agreement, you have committed fraud, the owner of the product is not well informed and you cannot say that he gave you the product with informed consent.

If he did not consent you to have the product for that price, why are you holding on to it? That is theft isn't it? i.e. to take an object from an owner without informed consent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

Right, but that's not how it happens. Instead, you can go buy a DVD and not agree to a thing (because you buy it just like you buy any other product, without being informed of any such agreement before the moment of purchase), and you are still not allowed to give a copy of the DVD away for free. Also, the person creating the content on it does not need to inform you that you are not allowed to make and give away a copy.

It is already present in the law. As I said, that DVD was stolen from you before you were born.

[Alaris]

Ok, we need to print warning labels on CDs and DVDs now, just for jam because she's the only one who seems unaware that there are copyright laws.

jam, don't be an idiot. You might not like the current system (and I am with you on this) but that does not give you the right to rewrite the Merriam-Webster.

[Art]

Labels...interesting.

These words which you use, you learned them for free. In fact you are actively encouraged to learn them. The use of words is promoted as the ideal means of communicating what your brain perceives the universe as. Through words we share thoughts, solve puzzles and argue with one another.

Words are the underpinning centrepiece of society. Laws are made of words. Exchanges are established with words. Songs are sung with them and critiques expressed with them.

Words are labels. Words are free. Words are the great leveller.

Now excluding silly censorship such as 'The N Word' we are free to utilise words as we see fit. However, intellectual property people would love to charge me for saying 'I'm lovin it" or "Just do it" as they seem to think they have the authority on the use of these collection of words in their respective orders. You specifying the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary makes you a prime target for lawyers seeking exclusivity on who can represent that body of work or others competing with it. Are you actively belittling the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary or trying to establish it as the pinnacle of dictionaries?

This is exactly how the entertainment industry would like things to be. Whilst I can cite other bodies of work with lengthy quotes using the Harvard method I cannot sample a piece of music or incorporate video to the same ends. The DMCA prevents any assumption of fair use and tries to discourage people from doing what publishers actually want us to do - talk about their stuff.

Copyright laws can and will change. Whilst we will always have people who claim they don't know that coffee is hot we will have silly disclaimers. However the fundamental issue of 'fair use' and 'licensing' are merely mechanisms for greed and control and whichever way these greedy bastards try to deploy their goals they will ultimately be using words which they don't own, haven't created and disrespect as the ultimate gift from our forefathers.

I 'pirate' because that is what we do. Disagree? Find another means of communicating it to me which doesn't involve words at any level and doesn't break any laws.

Make no mistakes - this is a battlefront.

-Art