On intellectual property and government surveillance

[Viliam Furik]

I am just going to say that I believe the concept of intellectual property is one of the most extreme displays of human selfishness, at least in its present-day form.

[Uncwilly]

Allowing people to benefit from their mental labour incentivizes them to expend effort. Without IP protections (patents and copyrights), there would be far less creation.

[Stargate38]

I see what you mean. DRM limits our ability to watch our purchased movies. We should be allowed to download/watch them on whatever device we want to, whenever we want, without logging in to our accounts. And if you look at the U.S. laws, you'll see that the DMCA Section 1201 is unconstitutional. If someone wants to circumvent the encryption on a DVD to make 1 or more backup copies, it should be legal to do so, as it's done in privacy. In other words, no law should be made to violate our privacy rights. Also, look at the NSA. They've been putting spyware in our devices, and now that they've been found out, companies and their customers are making patches to block such spying (see the "All your data R belong to us" thread for other such privacy violations). When it comes to so-called "circumvention devices", they shouldn't even be illegal. Also, possession and downloading of child porn (I know you'll probably disagree with me on this) should be legal, as long as it's not being redistributed. That would prevent any given person from framing someone else by breaking into their house and planting an "illegal image" on their PC (it could easily happen). In fact, nothing, physical or virtual, should be illegal to possess, except for physically stolen property. Not even drugs, counterfeit money, classified info, etc., as that allows the actual criminals to plant their physical/virtual contraband in the house/vehicle/business of someone completely innocent, resulting in wrongful imprisonment. In other words, the FBI (and other government branches) should have no rights whatsoever to arrest anyone for mere possession of something, unless it's physically stolen property from someone else's house/vehicle/business. And legalizing all drugs (at least for medical use) would seriously cripple the black market (a lot of crime involves drugs). This would also allow those drugs to be prescribed in smaller doses that aren't as dangerous, as long as "Big Pharma" (as they call it on certain websites) doesn't resist.

Sorry for the the huge post, but I wanted to voice my opinion on this, as it's been bothering me. I also saw that you put "This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information" at the bottom of every page, directly under the vBulletin copyright. In other words, no government has requested any private info from this site yet.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Stargate38

I also saw that you put "This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information" at the bottom of every page, directly under the vBulletin copyright. In other words, no government has requested any private info from this site yet.

Do you believe everything you read on the interweb thingy?

[Stargate38]

That's just what I assumed, based on what it said. Obviously, there are cases where an NDA results in no record of there ever being a government request, hence the 0.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by Stargate38

it should be legal to do so, as it's done in privacy.
...
In fact, nothing, physical or virtual, should be illegal to possess, except for physically stolen property. Not even drugs, counterfeit money, classified info, etc.
...
the FBI (and other government branches) should have no rights whatsoever
...

No, illegal (criminal) acts do not become legal if done in secrecy. An extreme case being the presumed murder of Jimmy Hoffa compounded by concealed disposal of the corpse.
A fundamental part of law is one side does not get to unilaterally modify an agreement. Purchase of a DVD comes with terms and conditions. You as buyer don't get to unilaterally revise the terms without the consent or knowledge of the seller (owner of the IP) of the physical media and certain rights licensed.

Great, you're an ardent supporter of unlimited second amendment rights, including full auto weapons, without caliber or capacity limits, Gatlings, cannon, fully functional military planes, PT boats, nukes, bioweapons, ...
Time to re-read the US Constitution and/or some state constitutions. People have rights. Governments have powers; limited and enumerated. (Too bad we don't follow that and haven't for decades.)

[Stargate38]

I'm not talking about murder and stuff like that, only "victimless" crimes that are non-violent (copying a dvd for a personal backup doesn't cause any physical harm, unless the disk copier explodes or shorts out). Mere possession of something (as long as it isn't physically stolen) doesn't cause any physical harm to anyone but the possessor, unless it's radioactive, in which case it becomes dangerous to those who aren't at a safe distance.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Stargate38

I'm not talking about murder and stuff like that, only "victimless" crimes that are non-violent (copying a dvd for a personal backup doesn't cause any physical harm, unless the disk copier explodes or shorts out). Mere possession of something (as long as it isn't physically stolen) doesn't cause any physical harm to anyone but the possessor, unless it's radioactive, in which case it becomes dangerous to those who aren't at a safe distance.

The Congress shall have Power
<snip>
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
<snip>

-- Section 8, clause 8, Constitution of the United States

[ixfd64]

[mod note] Posts were split from another thread that had gone off-topic: https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=28006

[Viliam Furik]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Allowing people to benefit from their mental labour incentivizes them to expend effort. Without IP protections (patents and copyrights), there would be far less creation.

You have pointed out another selfish aspect of it - creating for the sake of reward, not for the sake of the creation itself.

[kriesel]

More creation likely occurs if the talented creators live longer, and have the means to do so. https://intellectualtakeout.org/2017...ied-penniless/