Awesome Stuff: New Digital Instruments Done Right

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th

from the digital-antiques dept

Sat, Jun 13th 2015 12:00pm — Leigh Beadon

Five Years Ago

There was a whole lot of copyright news this week in 2010. The organizers of a Bulgarian chess tournament were suing over a copyright on chess moves, copyright was holding back research, and a top public school was seeking to copyright and sell its curriculum. Armenia decided it needed incredibly strict copyright laws while the IFPI was complaining that Canada's new copyright laws weren't strict enough, and a Spanish court (not the first) found file-sharing to be legal. One US court smacked down a lawyer for bad faith pursuit of copyright infringement, while another was expressing skepticism over US Copyright Group's lumping together of cases (while many of the targets claimed innocence).

We considered a key question about whether the RIAA's lawsuits had been a "success" while some took a closer look at the association's rise and fall (debunking the idea that it was all about Napster), and Thom Yorke was pinning the lifespan of record labels in the months, not years. Also in need of debunking was the claim that unauthorized handheld games cost the economy tens of billions, not to mention Authors Guild president Scott Turow's freakout about book piracy. Amidst all this, we asked a simple question: is intellectual property immoral?

Ten Years Ago

Five years earlier, press in the UK was happily parroting the recording industry's spin on everything while the country's new creative minister was trying to increase the copyright term for pop songs lest Elvis hit the public domain. Apple's iTunes store was taking on the file-sharing networks (though it wasn't clear to what extent) and people were beginning to notice the curious copyright questions surrounding wedding photography.

The Apple-Intel rumours finally graduated to an official announcement (and some wondered if Apple might sue CNET over the early leak). Journalists at the WSJ got a taste of working without email when their system went down, and AOL finally dipped its toes into the web with a free email service and portal. Firefox was gaining ground in the browser wars, United became the first domestic airline to offer in-flight Wi-Fi, and the FCC bumped up the deadline for TV broadcasts to go digital.

Also this week in 2005, Congress was moving forward with a patent reform bill that was mostly bad with a little good thrown in, while we highlighted an economic analysis of why patents are inefficient in emerging markets.

Fifteen Years Ago

All eyes were on the dot-com world this week in 2000. With a sudden emphasis on actually making money ruining a lot of people's fun, startups were furiously racing to profitability while still advertising on every surface they could find (the latest: shopping bags). But not everything works out — sometimes acquisitions fail, and sometimes dot-coms collapse and are tough to liquidate.

A judge handed down the first ruling that Microsoft must be broken up this week in 2000, while IBM was trying to revive its PC business. CBS, meanwhile, laid off a quarter of its internet staff.The UK government was losing track of its laptops and struggling to understand what meta-tags were.

The first major mobile phone worm appeared in the wild, leading antivirus companies to immediately start peddling protection (not that they ever blow anything out of proportion or anything like that). More and more men were seeking wives online, while at least one internet dater found himself victim of a carjacking scheme.

Thirty-Eight Years Ago

I know many Techdirt readers have fond memories of the Apple II, one of the first truly successful personal computers. Well, it was on June 10th, 1977 that the very first Apple II computers went on sale. The machine's number one hook was its color graphics, which were practically unheard of at its price-point and attracted a lot of consumer attention.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: history, look back

87 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Copyrightor, 13 Jun 2015 @ 1:00pm

"is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
trying to prove creators immoral for wanting those who enjoy their works to pay a pittance.

Individuals need pay only tiny sums to enjoy the efforts of perhaps thousands making a $100 million movie, but the system can't work except in a milieu where paying is moral. Techdirt is intent on destroying the complex system, and has nothing to replace it with except vague notions that creators must adapt to unlimited numbers of freeloaders by finding a "new business model". The 100-year history of mass entertainment industries isn't enough to show Masnick and fanboys that there is NO workable alternative. -- And WHY should there be? The current one works!

Techdirters assert that copyright isn't needed at all because in moral terms they are THIEVES. -- And that cannot be defined away! Producers and creators have ALL the moral and copy rights because do all the investing and work.

Also, Techdirters point to new gadgets as if mechanical copying is the essential, rather than human intellectual faculties that copyright recognizes and protects. -- In short, Techdirt is ANTI-intellectual in all ways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Copyrightor, 13 Jun 2015 @ 1:01pm

"is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
trying to prove creators immoral for wanting those who enjoy their works to pay a pittance.

Individuals need pay only tiny sums to enjoy the efforts of perhaps thousands making a $100 million movie, but the system can't work except in a milieu where paying is moral. Techdirt is intent on destroying the complex system, and has nothing to replace it with except vague notions that creators must adapt to unlimited numbers of freeloaders by finding a "new business model". The 100-year history of mass entertainment industries isn't enough to show Masnick and fanboys that there is NO workable alternative. -- And WHY should there be? The current one works!

Techdirters assert that copyright isn't needed at all because in moral terms they are THIEVES. -- And that cannot be defined away! Producers and creators have ALL the moral and copy rights because do all the investing and work.

Also, Techdirters point to new gadgets as if mechanical copying is the essential, rather than human intellectual faculties that copyright recognizes and protects. -- In short, Techdirt is ANTI-intellectual in all ways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2015 @ 5:00pm

Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
That's complete bollocks.

Amongst other things, I would say Techdirt is attempting to promote a re-thinking of the copyright system, both in the way that it's currently implemented and in the ways that pro-copyright movements are attempting to change it.

You're attempting to have it both ways. All take with no give, and that, frankly, isn't the deal.

Copyright has it's place. It's a kind of -limited- monopoly to provide creative incentive for artists and producers. It's also a legal stick to stop materials being ripped off before they're able to realise some kind of profit from their efforts.

Both of these are fine -to an extent- but I'd argue that the way it's currently being used is not for the public benefit.

The other side of the copyright deal is that when the copyright term expires on something that that thing becomes available to the Public Domain for re-purposing. This is not happening to any great extent for a couple of reasons - lopsided lobbying ability, immortal companies v. mortal public, and crappy un-democratic trade agreements come immediately to mind.

The public domain clearly does provide great benefit for artists to draw upon - see Disney's extensive use. What we want is current content providers to realise a healthy return for their efforts, and then allow their material to be similarly drawn on for other derivative works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2015 @ 6:17pm

Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I can never understand why the leading cry against copyright as it is is that we are missing out on derivative works. Is this really what you want?
I much prefer original ideas.
Also don't forget that it is only in America is copyright about the progress of science and arts. And that America is largely out of step with the rest of the world with copyright.

I live in a country with life + 50, and whats in the public domain here is amazing but with the rest of the world extending their terms and TPP on it's way, there is nothing we can do with it as when it crosses the ocean it becomes illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2015 @ 7:04pm

Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Though next year it will be life+50 for Walt Disney so keep your eyes on NZ I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2015 @ 7:17pm

Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Fair question. I'd like both. I should be able to get both as that was the agreement.

Culture is derivative - recombining stuff we have seen before in different ways (playing it straight, subverting, whatever) to form a new whole. TVTropes provides superb examples of this kind of thing.

This re-working of ideas isn't just limited to tv. As you can see on that site, it also applies to other creative pursuits - film, literature for example. Whether we know it or not, these parts make up the vocabularies we work with, allowing us to explain things at a stroke eg. "Avatar is Pocahontas In Space".

We're all building on the shoulders of giants. It's akin to the argument that nobody makes a successful business in a vacuum - society provided the conditions that allowed your business to flourish as a result of your hard work. In this case, it's not roads or bridges but rather ideas, myth and legend.

Consider Bram Stoker's "Dracula". The copyright on that has been allowed to expire. How much has been generated off the idea [perhaps an indirect sample] as a result? I can't imagine it's been bad for the sales of the source work. If nothing else, it's helped keep that work in the consciousness.

All the current terms are doing is embargoing ideas that make up our culture from elaboration. In and of itself, it's not encouraging creators to create more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2015 @ 7:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Yeah. I hear Walt Disney is doing superb work with Mickey still.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 13 Jun 2015 @ 7:57pm

Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
You say "the 100 year history" as if entertainment isn't tens of thousands of years old.

If you think that 100 years of something is proof that it's the only way things can be, you are a moron. But, we already knew that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 13 Jun 2015 @ 8:00pm

Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
"Derivative" and "original" are not mutually exclusive. Not even slightly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2015 @ 8:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Same user, different IP.

I completely agree. Tried covering it with my "recombining stuff we have seen before in different ways", yours is much more succinct.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nickweller (profile), 13 Jun 2015 @ 10:08pm

Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
"The public domain clearly does provide great benefit for artists to draw upon - see Disney's extensive use"

How much does Disney owe the original authors for its retelling of all those fairy_tales?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_based_on_fairy_tales
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2015 @ 11:13pm

Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
They owe the same you do, $0.00.
And remember there's nothing stopping you from making your own version of any of those stories.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 12:37am

Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
You may need enough money to defend yourself in court if they can find the slightest excuse to sue you, see The Insanity Of Making A 'Wizard Of Oz' Film In Today's IP Climate for an example of the pitfalls.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 12:42am

Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I can never understand why the leading cry against copyright as it is is that we are missing out on derivative works. Is this really what you want?

Define the boundaries of derivative works, and should that include new tales about known characters in a known universe? Setting a tale in a rich and well known universe provides a lot of background to the experience. Their are many untold tales in the Lord of The Rings universe for example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 1:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
This is what I mean, why L.O.T.R's. The way people speak of derivatve works around here always reeks of having someone else do all the work for you. "I want to use everything but the plot", "I want to re-edit 3 films into 1". "I don't want to have to try too hard".
With this sort of attitude it's probably best that copyright is as it is, lest the theatres fill up with fantasy fan films.
There are no untold stories in The Rings the dude is dead. But if you must it's public domain here in 8 years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 1:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
No. You just have to forget everything you've seen of how the world looks and create your own.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 2:03am

Re:
Whereas copyright owners only need pay for something once and see no problem with travelling all over the world, demanding six figure sums from people who don't make that much money in a year.

You're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 5:29am

Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Not seen how resort to name calling advances your rebuttal. If anything it makes you look defensive and petty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 6:06am

Re: Re: Re:
I like how copyright advocates regularly think that they should be allowed to call anyone they disagree with pirates and thieves, but any remark that might even remotely hurt their feelings is considered "defensive and petty".

It's not as though they want a balanced discussion or anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Jun 2015 @ 6:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I like how copyright advocates regularly think that they should be allowed to call anyone they disagree with pirates and thieves, but any remark that might even remotely hurt their feelings is considered "defensive and petty".

What's especially funny is the guy who made the "defensive and petty" comment hangs out here trolling the site, constantly making defensive and petty insults on anyone who dares to question his beloved copyright or patent system (oh, and the surveillance state, too).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 7:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never ceased to be amazed that you constantly try to identify me as a strong supporter of patent and copyright law when I have taken great pains to refrain from expressing any such opinions. I have made comments that there are always two sides to every issue, but that is hardly a ringing endorsement of the current state of affairs.

As for the surveillance state, my comments have generally been limited to stating my personal opinion that your acquaintance Wyden acted in what I happen to believe was a totally cowardly manner. This, of course, hs absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of the various statutory provisions under which surveillance has been conducted.

It would be nice to just once read a rejoinder that ddresses what was actually said and sans expletive-laden personal attacks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 14 Jun 2015 @ 8:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
You're the one choosing to frame it as laziness. The people creating things are just following their creative instinct. Creativity is not about sweat of the brow: many beautiful, meaningful, original things have been "easy" to make if you measure it that way.

ALL creativity is based on things that were created before. Sometimes more directly and overtly than others, that's all. And there's nothing wrong with that, or less valuable about it. Why should there be? I'd be interested to know if you can make an actual case for why derivative work is worthless, rather than just brushing it off as "fantasy fan films" as though everyone will agree that such things are, without exception, bad art.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 14 Jun 2015 @ 8:52am

Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Not seen how resort to name calling advances your rebuttal. If anything it makes you look defensive and petty.

No, it makes me look exhausted and frustrated. Which is exactly the effect Blue there has on everyone in these comments.

Personally, I don't care much when people involve name-calling in their debate. I do, however, think it's pretty telling when someone tries to focus on that as the way to invalidate someone's argument: it just goes to show that you don't have any real argument of your own, and are hoping that you can use the "hey you called him a name!" cheat code to get out of responding or looking moronic yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris-Mouse (profile), 14 Jun 2015 @ 9:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
And remember there's nothing stopping you from making your own version of any of those stories.

Well, go right ahead and announce you're making an animated movie of Kipling's Jungle Book stories, and watch how fast you get a call from Disney's lawyers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 9:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I see...he annoys you, so calling him a moron is fair play. Just a thought, but perhaps the best thing to do is resist the urge to make a retort that comprises a uniquely personal attack.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 14 Jun 2015 @ 10:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Perhaps the best thing for you to do would be make a point, instead of harping on this totally irrelevant detail. Honestly, how sensitive and weak are you that you can't get over the word "moron"? Or are you just out of other arguments?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 10:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
What is the difference between writing new stories in a pre-existing time period or fictional world?
Is music and songs written in an existing style a derivative work?.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 2:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
See, this is what I'm talking about with laziness. You go straight to an animated movie -i;e, as close to disney as you can get. Of course that will get the lawyers out - they've got property to protect in that arena. Why not a live action movie, or a serialised live action TV show. CGI animals that look realistic, a Mowgli that's a girl. There are many, many ways to pull it off without even rousing disney, but you argue with the one way that would guarantee it.
It's like I said above, you've got to forget everything you've seen and start new.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 2:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Funny thing about people and stories, they like to experience known stories, well told, and object to people fiddling too much with the stories they know. How else did the tales of the Trojan wars survive for several centuries before being written down by Homer, the rhythm and rhyme of poetry had a lot to do with aiding accurate recall, hence the form these tales were recorded in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 2:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
If your instinct is to need things to be in the public domain so as you can rehash them then maybe, just maybe, your instinct isn't that creative.
Like they say, 'there's a world of stories out there', if you really want to make a film or write a novel then start with one of your own.
This is where 'laziness' come in - if I start with a story of my own I have to create and visualise all the characters and locations and situations before I get to work on the plot and dialogue. If I set my story in the world of L.O.T.R then the majority of the work is done already.

'Creativity' is based on things that have 'happened' before - there is always some truth in a great story. Derivative, formulaic shite is based on things that were created before.

As for music - yes, a lot of it is very derivative, especially in the world of the Top 40 - where it almost has to be. But if you are interested and can be bothered searching it out there are still original voices in music today. They are harder to find, and by their very nature they are not to everyones tastes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 14 Jun 2015 @ 4:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Clearly we have different views on what constitutes culture and creativity. To my mind, your view is very narrow, and I suspect your life is less rich for it. It is a shame.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 14 Jun 2015 @ 4:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Why not a live action movie, or a serialised live action TV show. CGI animals that look realistic, a Mowgli that's a girl.

If you honestly believe there's no chance that any of those things would rouse Disney, then you don't know Disney...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 14 Jun 2015 @ 4:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
(Also, the idea that original voices in music are "harder to find" today is laughable. I must say, your views on this smell very much of a "get off my lawn" attitude about the kids these days, moreso than any reasoned opinion on what constitutes worthwhile art and culture)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 4:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Fuck you buddy, don't you dare cast aspersions on the quality of my life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 14 Jun 2015 @ 4:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I'm sure your life is great. But also, based on the huge world of creativity you are dismissing here in these comments, I also suspect you are missing out on lots. Don't worry, we all are, somewhere or another - and in this case, there's a lot of stuff out there that is enriching and enjoyable but falls under the umbrella of "lazy" art that you've defined.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 4:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
You've got a very nasty way of dealing with people you disagree with don't you. What the fuck are you trying to say? I'm old? I'm wrong?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 14 Jun 2015 @ 4:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
(and, y'know, if you're going to spend this entire thread quietly implying that my tastes -- and those of many readers here who rightfully defend transformative culture and the importance of the public domain -- are uncreative and formulaic and somehow inferior, then I'll say what I like about yours)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 14 Jun 2015 @ 4:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Well you've been saying over and over in this thread that all of us who defend derivative work, the public domain, looser copyright, etc. have childish tastes and only like crappy "fan fantasy" art, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Yeah, you do sound old and/or wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 4:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I don't think I'm missing out on much. Our lives are finite and there are more books, music, movies than we can fit into those lifetimes. I'm happy with the quality judgements I make about what I watch, read, listen to.
I've also read the odd bit of fan fiction, and it's pretty shit on the whole.
Harry Potter with sex, snore! L.O.T.R with sex, snore. Buffy the vampire slayer at age 40 (probably having sex) snore!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 4:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I wasn't talking about tastes, I was talking about motivations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 4:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Look back ^. Where do I say 'Childish tastes'? Others mention the jungle book and the wizard of oz, not me.

You sound unnecessarily angry, and a little irrational.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 14 Jun 2015 @ 5:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
"You sound unnecessarily angry, and a little irrational."

That's an amusing notion considering Leigh has been nothing but cordial and you're being consistently rude and insulting. You do sound like a grumpy old man whinging about how things have changed for the worse because you don't like it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 5:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
That's how you read it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 5:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Whined the guy who started using insults as his argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 5:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Because that's how every creative person works? In a vacuum? That's seriously what you're trying to imply is the norm?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 5:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know you can still act like an asshole without actually publicly declaring that you're being an asshole, right?

The fact is, you're here to defend anyone who disagrees with the site, especially if they're being rude and harassing, because that's what tickles your fancy. This isn't even the first time you've tried to rise to their defense, and it's in the most obnoxious way possible. Anyone with half a brain can see that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 5:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I didn't start with the insults Leigh did
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 5:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
How do you get that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 7:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Have you read the jungle book? It's nothing like disney's version of it at all. For a start Disney did a musical, and secondly the jungle book is a collection of short parables not a straight story. It's a really bad example actually.

What about, say, once upon a time - the Tv show. They manage to use a lot of the same characters and texts as disney (and other studios) And I haven't heard of the lawyers shutting that down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 7:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
What he did was suggest your perspective was "narrow".

That's supposed to be an insult compared to your "fuck you buddy" follow-up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 7:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
"Forget everything you've seen of how the world looks and create your own."

Your own words indicate that in your opinion the only way to be considered as "creative" is to ignore, forget and disregard everything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 7:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Read further up, I'm talking in the context of making something using a public domain text that has also been used by Disney. i;e, forget the world that was created around the text by Disney and create your own.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 7:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I'm not going to engage this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 7:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
And when Disney blocks you from using that original public domain text? What then?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 7:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
So saying your perspective is "narrow" is an insult while "fuck you buddy" isn't...

Aight, gotcha.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 7:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
How would they do that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 8:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
They could not, but never let fact get in the way of imaginative fiction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 8:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Suing you? Claiming that usage of the word "Oz", "Wizard", etc. infringes on trademarks, "moron in a hurry" confusion?

Did you not look at the link that was posted above?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 8:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
It helps in advance of waxing poetic on trademark law to actually possess a substantive understanding of the subject. Such an undestanding would have informed you that you comment was well off the mark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 8:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
How would that stop any large corporation from threatening financial ruin on another smaller company based on such an incorrect understanding? Lots of large corporations appropriate trademark law regardless of whether it's "substantive understanding".

I'm not surprised to see out_of_the_blue's fanboy rise to the defense of someone who approves of using "fuck you buddy" as a rebuff, yet complains about usage of the word "moron".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 8:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Perhaps because I have worked with other attorneys versed in trademark law, including The Disney Co., and not once has any of them expressed a view of trademark law such as you proffer. This is likely because they were not inclined to engage in idle speculation of dubious merit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Jun 2015 @ 9:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Perhaps because I have worked with other attorneys versed in trademark law, including The Disney Co., and not once has any of them expressed a view of trademark law such as you proffer. This is likely because they were not inclined to engage in idle speculation of dubious merit.

You are seriously arguing that no one at a large company like Disney has ever threatened someone making their own version of a public domain work that they themselves had used to make something?

Really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 9:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
In the example that's being used it was disney that got threatened.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 9:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
The commenter was talking with an air of almost absolute certainty about a trademark issue that simply does not arise except in very unusual factual circumstances, none of which pertain to his comment. So , yes, as a matter of trademark law I have not seen the issue ever arise.

As for copyright, titles, as is the case with trademark law, are not protectible, so creating an original work with the same title is generally not actionable under copyright law. Of course, the actual work itself could prove problematic, but even then ordinary rules concerning infringement pertain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 10:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Like the air of absolute certainty you and your fellow advocates had that Perfect 10 would triumph over Google?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 10:26pm

Looking back through the "Is IP immoral" thread, I am reminded of the brilliant legal minds that work the side of stronger copyright enforcement. A person in his fifties, claiming to have several bachelor's degrees, typing with the foaming mouth of a rabies sufferer and the punctuation of a termite, screaming at the top of his keyboard that "piracy = rape", because he insisted he heard a judge say so.

Observing the likes of the anti-public domain campaigners here, it's almost comforting to see some things just haven't changed. Intellectual property must give people the brainpower of a bowl of lukewarm oatmeal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2015 @ 11:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I did, and the story before that that was linked in the text.
That first story starts by asking the question " which parts of The Wizard of Oz movie were public domain, and which were still under copyright".

The answer is of course nearly all of it, but not the text it was based on.
And it's a question that didn't need asking, at least not framed that way.

But it highlights the point I was trying to make, that people here seem to want works in the public domain so they can plunder them. Works that are in the public domain still cause problems if they are linked to a work that isn't.

Maybe I should re-frame my question...

What do you want to do with public domain works?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 15 Jun 2015 @ 12:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Well I don't know about the other guy, but I'm rather taken with the idea of locking them up until no-one can remember them and they cease to have any relevance to current culture, which has the added benefit of making sure they don't compete with anything new.

Or, you know, failing that take the ideas, characters, and worlds in the works and updating them for a more modern audience, incorporating bits and pieces in other works if not taking the entire thing and giving it some sort of twist that completely changes the underlying story or message it was originally meant to convey, even if most of the rest of the work remains the same.

And all of this without having a massive threat of potential legal action against me hanging over my head should someone object to my actions(whether it's ruled ultimately to be legitimate or not doesn't matter, I'd have to pay out either way), causing a massive chilling in creation 'just in case'.

Either works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 15 Jun 2015 @ 7:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Harry Potter with sex, snore! L.O.T.R with sex, snore. Buffy the vampire slayer at age 40 (probably having sex) snore!

See, you're still doing it: implying that the only things we must be talking about are silly oversexed fanfics.

Go see the incredibly moving and mindblowing Mr. Burns: A Post-Electric Play. Go watch Cracked's utterly hilarious (if you are a fan of the shows) mashup of Arrested Development and Game of Thrones. Go read Timothy Findlay's Headhunter or watch Apocalypse Now, both based on Heart of Darkness. Go see a production of The Beggar's Opera.

Expand your damn mind and stop assuming this is all about trivial slashfic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 15 Jun 2015 @ 7:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
What about, say, once upon a time - the Tv show. They manage to use a lot of the same characters and texts as disney (and other studios) And I haven't heard of the lawyers shutting that down.

That show airs on Disney-ABC and is backed by Disney. The most recent episode introduced Elsa from Frozen, after a bunch of negotiations and a greenlight from Disney.

So uh yeah, want to try again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 15 Jun 2015 @ 7:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Disney forced a movie to take the word "Frozen" out of its title with a trademark claim less than 2 years ago.

So yeah, it does happen.

http://www.newyorktrademarkattorneyblog.com/2014/02/10/disney-prevails-trademark-lawsuit-involving-m ovie-frozen/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 15 Jun 2015 @ 7:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
What do you want to do with public domain works?

Enjoy them, remix them, distribute them, derive things from them, mash them together, update them, present them in new lights, produce the next Apocalypse Now. Y'know, the stuff you're allowed to do with public domain works. Why, what do you want to do with them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 15 Jun 2015 @ 7:41am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I wasn't talking about tastes, I was talking about motivations.

Your ENTIRE argument is based on the notion that any creativity that is derived from a public domain work is inherently worthless and low-quality. Sounds like a taste judgement to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2015 @ 7:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Apparently you do not realize that the link does not support your point and is consistent with mine. Rather than digging a deeper hole for yourself, you would to well to use this as an opportunity to learn about substantive trademark law so that you can in the future present your arguments with precision and accuracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 15 Jun 2015 @ 7:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Settle down, I realize that in this particular case the behaviour of the other studio was fairly egregious.

There's also Disney and Warner Bros. fighting over Wizard of Oz trademarks, with the latter especially aggressively opposing things at the trademark office (which, again I realize, is about opposing new trademarks, not trying to block creation of the works).

While your very narrowly defined statement -- that there are no instances of someone blocking a movie based entirely on a trademark claim -- appears true, the extrapolation that as such trademark represents no threat and creators don't have anything to worry about (or to spend money and time preparing for / thinking about / defending against) is not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2015 @ 8:01am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Judging by the OPs postings, I suspect that s/he is well aware that self published works are the biggest danger to the studios,labels and publishers, and is therefore trying to denigrate them to put people off of exploring what is actually available. When you competition is a large anarchistic group of people, you need to put the paying public off of looking at what is really available, as you cannot shutdown or buy out the competition.
I suspect that this problem has a lot to do with the attacks on Spotify, file sharing sites and search engines, attack the bottlenecks to shut down the competition, because you cannot shutdown the individuals one by one..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 15 Jun 2015 @ 8:08am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I don't know if I buy that. I think it's just another sad and all-too-common case of someone dismissing art they don't understand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2015 @ 11:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
No , It's that I don't believe there are (m)any filmmakers or novelists here.
It's cool that there is an argument for shorter copyright length here - the situation in the US is ridiculous. But the gut feeling I get when derivative works get mentioned here is that what people really want is stuff out of copyright so that it's legally free to download and share. This was pretty much confirmed when the discussion started focusing on how you can't really do anything with public domain anyway ( you can still download it without threat tho). And then someone calls me a shill for the studios trying to disrupt anarchy, FFS, nice one dude.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 15 Jun 2015 @ 12:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Do you really think that people here are concerned about being able to download and share The Wizard Of Oz, not about the many potentially awesome reimaginings of it that could still happen?

This was pretty much confirmed when the discussion started focusing on how you can't really do anything with public domain anyway

Not sure what you mean here. That discussion started not as something people are accepting -- but as yet another thing that needs to be fixed about copyright law. You're focusing solely on the question of reducing copyright terms and we're talking about so much more than that - such as strengthening the sanctity of the public domain, clamping down on attempts to effectively re-copyright it, drastically strengthening fair use and transformative work defences when it comes to stuff that *isn't* in the public domain, adopting more compulsory licensing schemes to remove most/all issues of "permission" from copyright, and still more beyond...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2015 @ 12:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
And then someone calls me a shill for the studios trying to disrupt anarchy,

What they are trying to disrupt are the tools that allow individuals to find a wider audience. They cannot stop people creating, but they can attack the means by which they can get widespread distribution. The threat to their business model is not people creating new works, but rather the ability of those people to reach an audience without any gatekeepers to dam up the flood of new works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 16 Jun 2015 @ 5:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Nobody creates in a vacuum. Think of one thing you consider to be original and I'll show you who has done it before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 16 Jun 2015 @ 5:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
It's not property, it's a monopoly privilege. Your maximalist slip is showing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 16 Jun 2015 @ 5:18am

Will the Real Thieves Please Stand Up?
Intellectual property must give people the brainpower of a bowl of lukewarm oatmeal.

It does. It's the word "property" that does it. It's like gold fever, but for imaginary property.

Is intellectual property immoral?

Yes it is. First of all, it misrepresents the Constitutional limits of a temporary monopoly privilege as a thing that can be owned, and should therefore be owned permanently like actual property.

Secondly, it creates a breed of froth-mouthed adherents who not only disregard everyone else's rights, they insist on getting laws passed that actively infringe upon them.

Thirdly, it facilitates theft from the public domain via expansion, locking up works that were formerly free to use.

Fourthly, it robs us of our cultural heritage by letting unprofitable works on celluloid film decay instead of enabling them to be copied and saved for future generations.

Seriously, don't get me started on how utterly offensive and morally bankrupt "intellectual property" is. You can call it intellectual output if you will but if I see anyone calling it property or describing the experience thereof as "consuming," believe me I will put you straight. Let's not be using words from the real thieves' lexicon.

/End rant
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 3:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Plato's Cave Anaolgy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 3:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
And you're minimalist knickers are going up your buttcrack
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2015 @ 8:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Plato wins.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
limbodog (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 7:46am

Re: Will the Real Thieves Please Stand Up?
Would you be so kind as to do a write up for Reddit? I think more people need to understand what's wrong with the idea of intellectual property, and I'd love to have something to direct them to when I meet maximalists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]

Awesome Stuff: New Digital Instruments Done Right

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Friday
19:39	Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)

This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th

from the digital-antiques dept

Reader Comments

"is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

"is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re:

Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way: