And if you rent a CD or computer program you are stealing the music or software.
Nonsense. You are not doing anything to
own a copy of that intellectual property. If you rent a CD, copy it, and keep it in your CD collection, then you might be stealing it. Renting a DVD, however, is no different than renting any other piece of property: like a car, for example. Somebody purchased the car (the rental company) and they are lending it to you for a period of time for your personal use. When that period of time is over, you no longer have control of that automobile. Similarly, if you rent a DVD, Blockbuster is lending you the DVD -- or, specifically, the intellectual property on the DVD -- for a brief time. If you want to own that intellectual property, just like if you want to own a car, you can go and purchase the DVD yourself. It's just like any other product.
BULL. When did society decided that the public wanted to reduce the rights they have on Music or Computer Programs that they have purchased?
Lawmakers decided but that is not at all the same thing.
In a democratic country, it is the only official avenue we have for implenting such a consensus, so effectively, it is the same thing.
Eminent domain can certainly be stealing. What else should think of it when it is done to promote a private business venture?
So are you ready to charge public officials with theft?
So why should different types of material under copyright be treated differently? Libraries or "Book Sharing" would certainly be considered illegal if introduced now and would be called theft. So why are they being grandfathered out of the status that they rightly deserve, that of stealing?
As with DVD rentals, libraries do not allow people to copy entire books and take them home to own. The person can borrow the book, and then has to return it. Ownership is the key here. If I want to own the book, I have to buy it.
Copyright infringement can be stealing, I am thinking of counterfeit products that are sold. As some of them are functionally identical the buyer has little or no way of knowing if the product is legitimate or not.
Though I agree, this doesn't seem to jibe with the rest of your position here. Even in counterfeiting, they aren't
depriving anyone of a physical object, they're simply copying a logo or name. It's essentially the same thing as plagiarism.
And in principle I agree that such protections should exist, it is how they have been bent in ways that are not in the public interest that pisses me off. If the recent trends in how intellectual property is treated continue libraries will be illegal, or prevented from having anything not in the public domain. I do not really expect that to happen, but individuals are losing rights that they have over things that they have purchased.
Well, like I said, I think intellectual property should have the same protections as any other product. As such, just as someone can rent or borrow a car, the same should extend to people renting or borrowing DVDs, CDs, or books. I agree, I don't think they will ever pass a law banning that -- at least, I sure hope they don't.
So where does the public domain fit into this? Is it an out modded concept?
Then what about some small businesses that made a nice business publishing thing that sat in large record company vaults and would never have been published with out it? Why is it in the public interest to keep such things out of the publics hands?
Valid question and points, and I certainly don't claim to have an answer. Logically, as Gumboot has argued, we don't do this with anything else: my house doesn't become public property after I pass away. On the other hand, though, I agree that I would hate to see classic works sit in vaults collecting dust.
I am curious, though, what companies you are talking about (and I mean this question honestly): are there public domain works that were discovered sitting unpublished before a company came along and, because of public domain, was able to release them to the public?
