I.D. and Jafo are great. They work hard to protect true skinners from rip-off artists. Thanks you two!

I.P. is the ugly bastard relative of 'normal' property typically ignored or dismissed as irrelevant.

Idiots confuse Intellectual with ineffectual/insignificant/irrelevant/immaterial.

The actual PERTINENT end of the phrase "Intellectual Property" is the PROPERTY bit.

My I.P. is MY PROPERTY, no-one else's.

It's such a simple concept it beggars belief how people can MISS THE POINT.

I do not care a TOSS WHO on this God's abomination of a planet may determine/decree otherwise, be it by arrogance, greed, subterfuge or legislation....if something is MINE then it is MINE.

...until I give it to someone else, [with or without remuneration].

If I DID NOT GIVE IT AWAY it was TAKEN FROM ME WITHOUT CONSENT.

And that IS "theft".

So according to this bill, who decides when to blacklist a site? Does a court have to allow the blacklisting? What happens if the site takes down the material? Is there a way to challenge the blacklisting?

Like most things it really comes down to implementation, not the purpose of the bill. And there is plenty of room here for that kind of thing.

The problem here is not that people are too ignorant to understand the whole property bit. Property as we know it is not some natural phenomena that people simply uncovered, but is a metaphysical concept that has been developed as an extension of our territorial nature. Thus, land and homes are naturally understandable as property from our nature, but thoughts and idea are much harder to wrap into this definition of property as their inclusion is an incredibly recent event historically speaking. In fact, most of the great artists and thinkers of history had no such protections for their works, and in many cases, the artists were pushed to develop greater artworks as a result.

In modern times, the concept of intellectual property has yet to prove itself as being for the good of people. With respect to art, it is an easy argument to say that an artist should have control over their artwork, yet one need only point to Mickey Mouse as an example of a work of art that has long since been in the control of the artist. In general, thoughts and ideas kept from the public are in ever way a detriment to the advancement of humanity. For example, a company which develops a cheap method of curing cancer could simply be bought up by another company producing a similar yet more expensive treatment, and due to protections on intellectual property, that cheap treatment may be hidden at a huge cost to the general public.

As I have said before, I very much empathize with artists seeking to maintain control of their art, and in the case of an artist who has some physical medium of art stolen, I support harsh treatment for the offenders. However, it is hard to support legislation that intends to give individuals the ability to control thoughts and ideas. In fact, such legislation would go against the fundamentals of art itself, as art intends to provoke  an emotional and intellectual response. Would this response be the property of the IP holder?

I figured it would be helpful for a good definition of IP.  Its Wikipedia, feel free to discredit it...sounds pretty spot on though.

Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized—and the corresponding fields of law. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.

So what level of extremism do you take this to? Do you have it within your personal and/or corporate power to protect your rights?  Countries may say they own territory, but it is their ability to protect this territory through the use of force or diplomacy that originally defined the borders.

Do you have within your personal power to protect your property 100%, meaning all profits that could be made will be 100% received, no borrowing of material for personal use, and no sale to other persons?

That answer is no, and it is upsetting to you, obviously.  But, are you rewarded quite well for your work, can you live comfortably on your wage? Are there people you can definitively prove that steal bread from your mouth and those of your family? The responsibility of any wrongdoing is not anyone nearby, but some unknown person(s) far away.  Another way to look at this with the same degree of responsibility is that, do you kill children? If you support a government that does with your tax dollars then, yes you do, but the responsibility you feel for this is divided amongst the millions that also support the country, so therefore you feel no responsibility, when in fact you do have a very small amount.  The USA has killed children in Iraq.  It will continue to kill other children too.  The system is works because it is designed to disconnect you with the reality of your actions and therefore you don't have to care.

What if the issue is not of survival but of whether or not you will afford the second summer house.  You may feel you are justified in that you deserve this, and there are laws in place to allow you to have the summer house, and by god you will have it. 

The problem is that god (I mean this as the "beginning" of things) made more than one person for this planet.  In effect, all things are communal property to some extent, whether we like to admit it or not.  One person breathes the same air that another does, does it make it his air?  One person feels the sun rays creating vitamin D in his skin making him feel good.  Does this mean that this is his sun?   One man kills another for land, does this make it his land?  Another man buys a summer house with an idea of value, does this make the land his?  He may have conned another man out of something useful for an idea with physical attributes, but that makes it no less his or any other mans.

If man were to die, would the earth even care who owned what?  The reality stares you in the face, when you die your stuff doesn't mean a damn thing now, doesn't it?  There is no law, legislation, or anything in this world that can change this.  It IS.  Your possessions can be used by your loved ones, or anyone smart enough to acquire them, but they do you little good.

No one should prevent anyone the right to survive.  But, no one should take far more then what is theirs to the detriment of others. Everyone has some understanding of this, it depends upon what specifically is being said, and who is getting hurt the most.  Rich people can always get hurt the most, since they have the most to lose.  Wealthy human beings require the most support of any living creature on the planet. I mean literally, man is at the top of the food chain, and the richest, most powerful men are at the top of the "food chain" for man.  If ANYTHING were to change substantially, be it major changes in laws, large scale mass extinctions, massive death, etc. the current framework that supports the wealthy would crumble, and they would face a very tough reality, they might not be considered valuable anymore.  This is why wealthy individuals need things to continue on as the same, even though the INTERNET has affected their support structure.  Control of information is the first key to protecting oneself, and naturally the internet created a disaster for information control. Information is also the most strategically important asset in war, and therefore must be protected.

This bill is another feeble attempt to create an illusion of protection of intellectual property, do you think it will change anything?  Will piratebay still be online? yes.  Will the games you design still be unprotected from hackers and pirates? Yes.  Will you still lose money to these people? yes.  Perhaps hoping that editing the internet will allow you greater protection will give you a false sense of security at night.  If the internet becomes so blatantly censored, then you can also rest assure that its value will decline, and that any industry that is connected to it will also decline. I mean the technology biz, and the entertainment industry as well.  Looks like Stardock has a lot to lose from this in the long term.  You can never really be sure that these hackers/pirates truly are hurting you or your corporation, the analysis of this is truly witch-doctory, and has little merit.

What we are witnessing with this bill is a bunch of unimaginative, hard bitten old men/women (old in ways of doing things based upon the available information of the environment, not physical age) trying to desperately cling onto their idea of business when things have changed so much that they don't fully understand what is going on.  They are failing to adapt, and this is common with old age, as well as old ideas.  Nature has a solution for this, it is called death, and old ideas become forgotten, or humorous.  Google has provided a different solution for businessmen, and some don't want to adapt with the times, because it requires a different way of thinking.  Even though google has made billions, many people would rather do business as usual then to use their brains and innovate, for whatever reason. You have to realize what is within your power (realistically) and what is not within your power(some egos get in the way here, as they feel they have all the power over their creations).  You create a free "hook" that is so good you make people feel they need it.  You then make money off of your creation, by selling things within your control.  What has happened is that the internet has changed what is within your control, and old men are really upset by this, since they thought that they had such things under TOTAL control.

They still have many things under their control, but they feel angry that something was taken from them that was theirs, things like control of distribution of music. All the while the music industry has actually boomed, except that they haven't been reaping 100% of the rewards, some small people have actually been able to make money by going with another distributor, the internet.

The internet out competes their old, inefficient ways of distribution, and they seek to remedy this.

I don't care if this bill gets passed or not, because in the end, the old, outdated ideas will turn to dust in the corpses of the men who had them and be forgotten, as nature has found a more efficient way to distribute ideas.  

I'm all for protecting Intellectual Property.  I'm not, however, for trading the rights and privacy of individuals to protect those Intellectual Properties.  Allowing companies to go on fishing exhibitions, and preventing individual artists from the same endeavous through red tape, all the while singing the tag line "if you're innocent, you've got nothing to worry about" is plain unacceptable.

sareth01:

It's really simple: What a person creates and can prove he has created, he has the rights to.  If you are found with it, and it hasn't been given freely, or purchased, you are in possession of it illegally. Unless you buy something, or were given it by the creator or his legal agent it's not yours.

What is so difficult to understand? You generate fancy theories which are nothing more than your justifications for taking something which is not yours.

Mechanisms are in place and more are being created to deal with the thieves. That's just fine by me. "We're in a new age." is rubbish. Thieves have existed from the beginning of time. They are motivated by envy, greed and/or a desire to harm.

How much a person has is irrelephant. You seem to believe that if a person has a good income, anything beyond that created by the person's ingenuity is fair game. Let me guess: You're the judge of that. How can you even begin to think that?

Well, that isn't going to happen, so disabuse yourself of the idea. Law abiding societies have mechanisms to deal with thieves. If they vary from place to place, that's more a function of what they could conceive of and get done than a true definition, which might or might not be difficult to formulate but which still exists.

"You've got enough, therefore the rest is mine." is nonsense. The internet gives thieves easier access, not the right to steal.

There is nothing magical about the internet that turns wrong into right. 

Bull crap.

NATURE created the Internet [?] so that IP could be distributed/stolen as easily as your child's innocence to the paedophile you THOUGHT was some nice person on 'the net'.

This quasi-touchy-feely ideology is ONLY the bastion of those who create NOTHING themselves but WANT to take whatever others create.

Half the effing 'civilized world' can't even get socialist about a public health system yet wants to tilt their caps at making sure capitalist pigs don't own ANYTHING they have not got themselves.

Ideology is for naive idealists.

The REAL world lives with the reality of bastards who STEAL and a system that cannot cope....and GOD help them if they try to close the fucking barn door AFTER the horse has bolted.

The real world doesn't have much room, time OR sympathy for philosophers and/or sociologists.... not while shit happens.

If all the touchy-feely people who pontificate on the social justices of Micky-Fucking-Mouse images spent a fraction of the effort kicking that bastard off Deviantart next time instead of me....then you could say you have actually made the world a better place.

He steals your [not mine, your] artwork.  He steals and distributes Stardock's [not mine, Stardock's] programs/products [it's still called warez, you know].

Get off your collective ARSES and kick HIS.

But, oh gosh no....it's not him doing anything wrong...oh, no....it's THE SYSTEM....it's progress...it's ANYTHING BUT him.

The serial pest on Devart has been IP-banned for the fifth time, thanks again to $chix0r .... she's the best...;)

Nope. Al Gore did. 

Too bloody right.

Bless her heart. The shmuck probably uploads from coffee houses. Hope he visits McDonald's for the hot coffee.

Exactly why we all damn bloody well should be saying our 'thank you' to you and I.D. and the whole point of the OP.

Accusing me of something I didn't do, irrelevant and a waste of time.  Learn to attack ideas not people when discussing in forums.

In the game of life, the thieves are overpowered.  Bill gates was a thief, and yet our society has exonerated his worthless hide above many other worthy individuals.

Don't put words in my mouth, did I state that I was a judge?  Its funny how you have to invent things I never stated to combat my argument.  You are touching upon a real problem though, how does anyone judge who has too much?  Should one person rule over everyone and live in absolute paradise while everyone else sleeps in shit, eats shit, and breathes shit?  I believe that the energy spent on war could just as easily be spent on peace, if the incentives were changed.  

Hmm I never said that the rest is mine, but it is quite possible that a person has too much for their own good.  I would prefer resource distribution choices to be handled by a machine intellect, with no human decision making at all.  I am quite sure that in the near future this will be quite possible.  Take the weak minded, selfish human element out of resource distribution and devote the energy of humanity towards a better future for all, not a better future for the few.

These thieves more than likely bought a personal computer.  Part of the value of the PC is the personal power it gives its user.  Devalue this power, and the entire industry will suffer.  Edit the internet into a shopping mall and see its value become nothing, and all the profit to be had disappear.

Nature created you, your brain.  You are inherently a part of nature no matter how much you may think that you are not.  Just because man feels he can "control" nature does not mean that he actually is. 

You are right, empathy is evil, it needs to be destroyed.  We should go on killing each other, its an efficient way of doing things after all, and is a result of a society that lacks empathy for other living things.

Yet, you eat your own words, as you just tried to persuade via empathy in the above quote where the child molester is interacting with the kid on the internet.

I have seen death, I have served in the armed forces, and I am the first one to say that empathy is the single most important aspect of being human.  Those that kill empathy in themselves are wretches, and I pity them. 

I am also an artist, and I have really don't have a problem if someone wants to use my art once I've made enough to eat.  Art is meant to be seen/heard, to be shared, to be marveled at.  If the art is truly valuable, no matter how much it has been copied or "stolen", the artist will still get the reward.  Do you know why? Because people will want to know the person that created the marvel.  The artist has control over their person, so therefore wherever they go they should charge people to see them.  This is how they make their money, and you can see it in music as a standard procedure.  Know what is in your control, and what is not in your control.

I too know how to be angry, and I can guarantee that I am better at it then you are.  But that doesn't mean it really supports your case in the least bit.  Philosophy is the basis of science, if you were to study it perhaps you would understand it.  And by study, i don't mean that you took a school course on philosophy, the watered down garbage I've seen in those classes.  Science is the powerful idea that resulted from philosophical thinking.  To discredit philosophy, you discredit the science that is behind your entire industry.  Not a wise move if you want to remain credible.

So your business is software and game design.  Do you ever apply your understanding to the game of life?  What I mean is, look at the incentives in the game of life.  Where are the problems?  What is the source of the imbalance?  Do the thieves really end up stealing everything?A better question would be, who are the thieves we are trying to protect against?  There is no easy answer to this, no matter what image jumps first into your brain. 

I have no clue as to what specific, inside discussion you are referring to, I am not party to your politics or personal troubles. 

I know what it is like to be stolen from, it is not fun.  I don't think that it is right, but then I think that any society that gives up personal freedoms to protect against this minority deserve what they get. 

I for one refuse to fear, I despise fear.  You can go ahead and support a bill that will assuage your fears and think that you are in the right, but that is because you don't really care about the trade off.  You are like a politician, you will spend 100 million tax dollars for 10,000 dollars of campaign contributions.  I would vote for you, because you think small, other politicians make the same trade except they would give 100 billion dollars for the 10,000.

Pretty well every time there is a thread about IP and Artists' property rights someone will come on and say..."I'm an artist and I don't care".

Well, bully for you, but you are not the world's only artist.

Once the art is taken from its author the originator actually LOSES 'the reward' as 'people' will have no idea or perhaps just no certainty as to whose it is and thus who should be reaping the 'reward'.

My [personal] business is not Game Design [that isn't even Stardock's sole business], it is Architecture, and has been since 1972.  It just happens to be a very commercial/business side of 'art', and not entirely on a par with the form of art on display in the Louvre.

On this forum I am just one of several people in a position to be responsible for the IP of the site's skinners/artists and whose longevity/experience/connections afford me the opportunity to have an impact on other sites as well.  It's not done for some ego-trip, it's done because to NOT do so sets a precedent whereby future claims over [protecting] your IP can be disregarded/discounted even WITH the feeble Laws currently available.

It is neither 'my' politics nor 'personal troubles', it is systemic abuse of Artists' [and others'] property rights being 'channelled' by the Internet in particular.

Part of the failing of some to comprehend the relevance of the issue and its impact on others 'here' is that they aren't from the same 'here', in other words are from one of Stardock's Game forums, not Wincustomize, so probably aren't even aware there are artists/skinners on these forums too...;)

Technically Google can be taken down as the search engine falls under the legislated guidelines.

I wanted to have this discussion precisely because there are so many artists. 

I am not new to these forums, just new to having a discussion with you. 

Well, I never said I was.  Anyways, what does this "bully for you" colloquialism mean?

Its really a war against the reality of information.  Information can be discovered and the keepers of a secret cannot keep it forever and gain as much advantage as they can from the secret.  Sadly they will try to their dying breath to do so, things were set up in this world that information would spread like wildfire and a great many people will have to acknowledge this.  The internet is just something that facilitates the need.

Please explain what you mean by 'channelled'.

Also, I was referring to this(and the angry outburst in the previous post), whatever this is:

Check out Jacque Fresco's Venus project.  An idealist at age 95?  Haha I think not.  I enjoy how anti-fascist this old man is.

Why else would you generate them. For yourself or someone else or BS philosophy.

Like yours, perhaps?

That's the nub of it all. You think you're the judge in poorly veiled allusions and BS philosophy, but I'm not worried. If you steal, you'll get caught sooner or later. If the guy in the shit doesn't like it... he should try working and thinking. 

Hmmm why do I sense you really are afraid of saying private property irks you... 

Not everything is a "game" sareth01.  

https://forums.wincustomize.com/408259/page/3/#2937309  more than adequately shows your style of argument, and the ideas you espouse. 

To actively fight against ignorance and those who seek to steal freedoms for their own ends.

I think you mean "like you, perhaps?"

Again you try to make a baseless accusation, go back under your bridge, troll.

In the end, the guy in the shit has only one recourse.  Killing.  I don't enjoy that thought, but when a man becomes an animal his thoughts turn to those of an animal. 

I enjoy private property I even have some, fancy that.  This discussion is about Intellectual Property now isn't it?  Come on, you can attack me better than that.  Have at thee troll!

Yes I am happy you spent the time to read that.  You imply it is a shameful work, I applaud it. The ideas therein are truly horrible, I know, its a sin to think for yourself in this world.

Anyways, you have decided to attack me with baseless accusations, I will take that as a sign that you yield, since you can provide no more intelligent conversation. 

Dare I prance about with my troll head on a spike?

~dance dance dance~ Thrust thrust thrust!

Oh there once was a troll,

he was sooooo droll,

I put his head on a pole!

~dance dance dance~

Name calling? That ends the discussion from my end.

IP is private property. That's the whole point. Which you missed, and/or avoid. So selfless of you to worry about folks having too much (in your opinion and by your standards).

Deny all you want, however the 'thrust' of your argument:

Such an altruist. And a machine will make the judgments. lol.

Hey... if you're gonna paraphrase Bob Dylan's songs... the words were "Something's going on and you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?" at least credit him.

Into revolution? Went out in the 60's.

IP is a lot less physical in some cases then a piece of land.  Ideas and inventions can be quite a bit different then your more tangible property. 

Anyways, why not a machine?  I'd just as well get rid of the entire political establishment as it is and replace it with something that doesn't have self interest.  Know any people that don't have self interest?  I didn't think so.  I think a machine or program could do well enough to say that people in Africa do deserve good medical care, that people do deserve to eat. 

The common fear would be, well there won't be enough for everyone.  Sorry, but factories have already churned out enough crap for everyone in the world to drown themselves in, there is no shortage, even of food. We are growing things in the desert here in the US, its not that hard if we helped others do the same.  Its just that our corporate interests can't make money off of this sort of altruism, and therefore it will never happen.  We can grow enough medicine in labs to do it as well. If people were instead to actually spend time solving problems, we could all live the good life, no more carrot on a stick.

I have never heard one of Bob Dylan's songs, so I would the be the last person to know what was in those songs.  I'll check him out.

Now I wasn't talking about a revolution, words in my mouth again, man I should just be quiet and let you type for me since you know me so well.

It looks like the troll can still talk with its head cut off.  You are quite a magical beastie.

Your [and that of others in similar vein] acceptance of, or lack of care for theft of IP is your right but you cannot speak for all artists, just yourself.

'bully for you' is Anglo/Aussie slang meaning 'fine and dandy' ... probably dates to WW1 [bully beef and biscuits].

This isn't some 'noble cause' for the dissemination of "information" it's about the taking and 'owning' of others' invention without consequence or recourse.

"channelled" means the Internet is the greatest tool [since sliced bread] that facilitates theft on a massive scale.

The Internet also facilitates access to OTHER illegal activities which people try ever so hard to NOT equate with 'theft'.

Paedophiles have access to their 'network'.  Pornography is accessible to/by your children. The latest 'fun thing' is cyber bullying which is yet another cause of teenage suicide.

Some ego-centric FOOL thinks it's great to publicly distribute information which may or may not endanger actual human beings [thankyou, Wikileaks you are a consummate arse].  Who cares about embarrassing some pollie...I don't....but I for one are NOT so presumptuous as to determine what will or will not endanger the lives of serving people [from ALL countries not 'just' the US, you know].

The dissemination of information is not an end...it is a means, and the real issue is...to WHAT end?

On a separate note, please do not refer to other contributors as 'troll'.  The determination of who is or is not a troll on these forums is the responsibility of Stardock's Admins only.

Seriously, no requirement for judicial oversight, no opportunity to contest or appeal a decision before you have your site confiscated?  This is a complete abuse of due process and a disaster waiting to happen.  It's easy to blame the bad guys, but the fact of the matter is that poorly designed bills like this will ruin innocent people who get swept under the rug by an overly broad law with no easy mechanism for appeals.  Pirates will be unaffected as usual; they'll move to DNS alternatives or encrypted networks that are outside of American jurisdiction.  It will be legitimate innovators will be the ones stuck with a system that can shut down their entire digital operations just because they riled up a multi-national media corporation.  This is just another knee-jerk reaction that will do nothing to combat piracy while causing collateral damage in the process.

Sophistry, as before. PROPERTY IS PROPERTY. If you didn't buy it from nor were given it by it's owner, and you are in possession of it, then that is theft. END OF DISCUSSION.

No machine will tell me what I can or can't have, do or not do. Smacks too much of Orwell or 'Brave New World". You might like machines and relate well to them, but for me THEY are the servants. As for who'll give care to Africans, Americans or anyone else? That'd be me, not a machine and not you.

And yet you persist in name calling. You can't drag me into that foolishness. My last response to you is a bit of advice - heed well what Jafo told you...

Darvin3, I'm not sure where you got that idea. Such action would require a Court Order, so the accused would have to be served with papers regarding the pending request for seizure. Only after being served would it come up before a Judge and both sides would be represented in any action. Only after review of evidence and listening to expert witnesses as well as legal counsel would such an order be issued. The Senate Bill only defines what level of domain, etc. can be acted against.

Actually a public servant usually abuses their power, a machine could not if it was properly programmed.  In Brave New World, it was good ol humanity running the show if you remember correctly .  I think you should have used a terminator "skynet" approach on this analogy.  But then you realize it is possible once you understand the US mail distribution system, what a beautiful design, and a machine runs most of it.  Imagine what that could do when you strip politicians of their power of the purse and just let the program manage it all.  There might just be enough for everyone, perish the thought!

Oh I agree, I don't think of the Julian Assange fellow as a saint, but I for one think that his news is more real than the propaganda i've seen on the television.  I have no doubt he is doing this for his own intentions, for good or for ill.  Also, arrogance can sometimes be mistaken for confidence, I'm quite sure he knows hes got a lot of people by the balls. 

So, can you grow plants in your intellectual property?  There is a difference between the two, that is why it has been named a different name.  You acknowledged this fact when you used the term Intellectual Property.  The law acknowledges this fact by having special considerations made for intellectual property.  How is that Sophistry?  This is perfect logic.  Names are used to separate, hence why you have a name as an individual.  IP is a very different form of property, yes it is property.  IP really cannot be protected 100%, that is part of the risks of it.  Then there is the co invention.  Who so ever gets the patent in first wins, it doesn't matter who did it first.  Thieves can be people with the legal rights to IP as well.  If the other person is too poor to fight the monster that made money off of his case, then what?

You can only own the intellectual property for so long anyways, the reality is that your ownership is temporary at best, and the law understands this.  Do you own your land forever(as long as you pay your tax of course)?  Yes.  IP is most certainly a different type of property.  Remember, there are many forms of IP, i will re state the definition i started my contribution to the discussion with:

Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized—and the corresponding fields of law. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.

I see it right there, copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets.  Most of those don't last a lifetime. 

Those who own IP know this, may be frustrated by this, but in all reality you can only make money on a new invention before it becomes impossible to prevent it becoming a part of the public domain.  Why fight the way things are already legally constructed?  There will always be a lot of risk when owning IP.  That will NEVER change.  Ideas are like air, in front of you one moment, gone the next.  Understand the limits.

 The law acknowledges the grey area, yet you see this only in black and white. 

Oh goodie, Skynet, perhaps.

Yep, that'll work a treat.

Metropolis was so much more elegant. [though not quite the same]...;)

Well, I'm with Doc on all this, I totally agree with his philosophy! ID and Jafo are the best, taking on the scum of the world!

Simply because almost ALL 'legally constructed' LAW is flawed..... either by artifice or design.

Quoting a 'definition' of IP is all well and good, just as is quoting discrimination between variations of Interpretation of Property Law.

I'm pretty bloody certain I never agreed to the establishment of limited ownership rights to MY OWN PROPERTY but am forced to acquiesce due to the vagaries of Common Law and its interpretations and undermining from/by vested interests.

If I create something it is my creation, no-one else's.  If I choose NOT to share it with others that SHOULD be MY RIGHT as I can argue my refusal affects no-one, as, without my artifice it would NOT exist at all.

Instead, I am FORCED by Copyright Law to eventually relinquish rights for some free loader's benefit [oh, shit... I mean 'common good'].

The Law is an ARSE. [you may say 'ass' but in Australia that's just too cutesy for words].