I'm not a big fan of the drug companies, but right now I don't know who's going to pay for these scientists? Universities and governments? I'd love for the biggest brains on the planet to be paid to solve big problems instead of making drug companies rich, but I still live in reality today.

Can free IP be part of a future that is also capitalist and not socialist / communist? I hope so. Until then, I have no problems defending a dinosaur, if that means defending software developers and artists. When the new world comes, happy to move along.

I think you should start the new movement of free IP. Maybe it'll start with a T-shirt questioning the status quo...

"IP freely, do you?"

LOL! I also P freely, thank God. Hopefully still will after 30-40 years

Cheers!

For me in 30-40 years my t-shirt will be

"I can't help it. IP freely"

the back of my shirt will be

"Caution! Slippery road ahead"

If you only have one dollar in your pocket it is ok to steal your lunch by me. It's a matter of self preservations.

Software piracy on the other hand is not something you'll die if you don't do it. Also today, you can live just fine by using free software. So I don't think that not having enough money is a good excuse.
________
NAUGHTYSCHOOLTEEN

1. MS sells you a license of windows -- this is a service. It is physically impossible to use 3 computers at a time, yet I am forced to have 3 windows licenses (I do have them btw)
2. Apple forbids you to install their OS on non Apple Hardware. Say that I bought a Mac and then threw it in the sea. I still have right to use the software. Why can't I install it on a same spec'ed pc?
3. Gaming companies make it impossible to backup your cd. If it gets scratched they offer to send you another one and bill you the shipping cost. I am allowed by law to have one backup copy (why only one? It's a service I bought)
4, Unethical is something is generally considered wrong. This thread is proof that piracy is not generally considered wrong
5. Why software companies are just so relaxed against piracy by individuals? Couldn't each update break the cracking methods? Usually is just a cracked exe. My opinion: those methods are there only to make some people to think their time trying to crack the program is worth more than the price of it.
6. If you got 5 copies of a program and you paid for 4 of them? Last week it had an offer for the 4/5ths of the price...
7. It is illegal to sell a used software. Why? (Check autodesk - chinese ebayer case)

I 'm not saying I believe it's ok. It's not ok, but the practices of software companies are not ok too.
________
Vaporizer Wiki

thats a very difficile question.

from my own experience i can say, that most of the software that people pirate, they definitely would NOT have bought it if they didnt pirate it.

if there is a program i like (and i know that beforehand), i buy it straight away. if there is a program i'm not sure about, i download and try it. if i like it, i buy it. if i dont, i'll uninstall it and case closed.

now i know most anti-pirating people declare such a statement as an excuse for people to pirate software, but there actually are people who really just "pirate" for demoing purposes to get an opinion.

no one's going to buy a car without the obligatory test-drive, right?

not sure how it is law-wise...

I guess the other thing that really makes pirating a crime is if you profit from it's use or redistribution. I don't think there is any argument there.

is it ok when i steal your phone because i want one and dont hv money?

just because pircay is easy it is not legal....
when you dont hv money you also cant buy a ferrari.....
so you cant get sowftare when you dont hv money...

buy hey.... dont panic. ... i m a pirate too....

A few comments:

First, one minor comment: I am under the impression you use IP and copyright interchangeably, while what only talk about copyright. Remember that IP is a wide umbrella term, referring to a whole bunch of different stuff, including copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets and more. Each of these comes with its own issue (especially software patents). So just to set the record straight: we're talking about copyright and only copyright.

Now, you ask what was the problem that let to the creation of copyright in the first place. And in this regard I want to point out two things: First, it was a different era and the circumstances where different. And second, copyright was designed to strike a balance between the creator's needs and the public needs, a balance which is it no longer maintain.

Back than, copyright was designed to protect authors of books that where printed and sold commercially, printing was costly and copyright term was 14 years. Since than, a lot changed:

1. Copyright term was extended to life+70 years and 95 years for corporate authorship.
2. In the past, you had to register your work to get copyright protection. Now, everything is copyrighted, automatically, by default. Even my stupid comments here. Even if I never intended to get any financial gain from my work in the first place. This, together with term extension, contributed to the death of the public domain.
3. Copyright was extended to a lot of stuff, including things such as collections.
4. The concept of derivative work evolved and became quite extensive. You might violate copyright even if you use quite abstract elements from another work, such as sequence or structure. This hinders the ability to create and distribute original works which are based on other works.
5. When printing was costly, it did make a lot of sense to give a monopoly to the content creator. Since it already cost money to prepare a copy, books where an inherently scarce resource. Now that the production of a digital copy costs close to nothing, copyright leads to artificial scarcity and unnecessarily limits availability and access to cultural products.

All I want is to return the balance that was long lost. I am not sure what alternative viable solution there is to copyright, but at least I would like to:
1. Reduce the term of copyright back to a reasonable time frame (say, 15-20 years) - give enough time to the author to make profit from his work, but make sure we would have public domain.
2. Require registering your work. If your motivation is profit and you want the protection of the law, you need to do some minimal effort. Copyright should be an opt-in option (and not opt-out).
3. Use a much narrower definition for derivative work that allows non-verbatim copying in case it does not directly hinders the market value of the original work.
4. Use compulsory licensing schemes to alleviate the problem of artificial scarcity.

I'm well aware of what the terms mean and don't use them interchangeably, but thanks.

I'm also aware of the other details you cite. And I agree that recent copyright "reform" has been reactionary and overdone. It would be nice to see sense applied to the law but I'm not optimistic.

EDIT: one quibble-- printing costs aren't the only issue for the content creator. Even as replication and distribution costs have come down and opportunities broadened, the time necessary to create valuable content hasn't changed much if at all. That's what I would like to be compensated for.

In addition, ironically, the steady income erosion caused by piracy and other infringements has made it increasingly difficult for independent content creators to make a living at their craft just as the means to get work out to mass audiences dramatically improved. I had planned to "retire" as a writer at this point in life. Not going to happen.