Originally Posted by Sirusblk

Phooey I say. That would be in accordance with your definition of take. My definition of take is such: "to get into one's hold or possession by voluntary action". Regardless we're arguing semantics here. There's a huge difference in what I'm arguing. When I talk about piracy I'm talking about something very different from simply copyright infringement. Gaining access to a good which you have not paid for in any form is just plain stealing. Unlike ripping music off of a CD that I own. Yes I recognize that under the law currently they're essentially the same and I agree that copyright law is so stone age. However I'm arguing a completely specific issue. If I go download a game like Modern Warfare 2 for no cost, it's not right.

Your definition doesn't have anything to do with the word take, so it doesn't matter. I have a hard drive with some information on it that doesn't really exist. Someone could take my hard drive from me, but if they make a copy of the information on it they haven't taken it from me because it is still there. Making the comparison to stealing is part of the problem of piracy, people know that they aren't stealing, they know they aren't depriving someone of something. If they instead appealed to the concepts behind copyright people would care as long as the copyright period was reasonable.

Sure, MW2 is a recent game and should be covered so the creators can make money right now. Super Mario Brothers (the original) should be in the public domain for anyone to copy because it has been a part of culture for over 25 years. Nintendo can still claim trademarks on the characters so people can't just make Super Mario games, but the original game itself should be freely traded by anyone because it is now a part of society and we deserve to have access to the item now that they have had their time to make money.

Copyright is not stone age, it is a completely modern concept that came about just as the US was being formed and the printing press and industry had come about. Since the artisans could no longer sell their individual work because it could be mass produced, the idea of patents to encourage innovation (by being the only one who could mas produce the item for a limited time before everyone could) was introduced to keep people working hard. Copyright followed the same ideas for words, they were so easy to print (like the digital copy of their day for leaflets) that copyright made paying for content worthwhile. But again, it was limited.

The very recent concept of indefinite copyright is the problem, not copyright itself. If it was limited again, and to a reasonable time like 15 years, it would be great for society and worth giving that distribution protection.

Thanks for the information (I did read it all just cut it out for the interests of saving space), however we were arguing about the distribution of something that can instantaneously be copied through the use of some kind of replicator, ala Star Trek technology. I choose to use this example because attributing real physical items, such as a hammer, seems to make this notion that it suddenly is stealing, but a video game, movie, or album suddenly isn't, solely because it exists as digital data.

In the old days, printing a book cost a lot and a press selling copies of works they did not have the copyright to could easily put the other publisher under by swamping their area of sales. Being digital makes the whole distribution ruin excuse moot. There remains the sole reason that the artist should make money, and they should only deserve to for a limited time.

I bring up the hammer showing what patents and copyrights should be concerning digital information. However making a copy of a hammer, just like making a copy of a game is wrong. It is effectively stealing. No a product is not removed. But it is unwarranted access to a good or service without consent or payment.

Ok, first person who made the claw hammer has an indefinite copyright/patent on it and only sells hammers every 50 years and the rest of the time puts it in a vault ala Disney. Why does society need to reward that behavior with an indefinite control on distribution and not allow anyone else to produce a claw hammer indefinitely after the creator is dead?