|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NYC_Gal
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 4:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I just get the international travel adapter. I can use it everywhere and it runs around 15 bucks anywhere I go--maybe 20 in the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| noraebang wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| I wonder how many of the 5000 even watched the movie. What's the policy on downloading a movie and not watching it? |
Theft has to do with taking someone's property without their permission. I think whatever way you choose to use it afterward (even if your use includes letting it remain idle) is probably irrelevant. |
Why do people keep talking about theft? It isn't even theft from a legal perspective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dev wrote: |
| Example: Master Lock made their locks in WI, U.S.A. Now made in China, a lock still costs the same price as before. |
In all fairness, though, the dollar has declined in value over time. If it's the same price as it used to be, it's actually cheaper from an objective stand point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Why do people keep talking about theft? It isn't even theft from a legal perspective. |
Many would say rather it isn't theft only from a legal perspective.
| Quote: |
interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. |
Believe me when I say I fully understand and even agree with why it can't be called theft. But illegal downloaders are still misappropriating or infringing on something they have no right to, and that the owners wish to be paid for. That may not be theft in technical terms, but it is in spirit. Correct me if I am wrong, but you still have not addressed this part of the argument. Your argument centers on whether the copyright holder's exclusive right to property trumps your right to do what you please with your computer,and whether copyright holders should have any legal recourse against private, non-paying, non revenue-producing use. The law of the jungle applies-there is no right or wrong.
I will say this though. I am a firm believer in the right to privacy, and I am not tech savvy enough to know how they go about obtaining the evidence to prosecute in these cases. I heard of some download cases where universities were being strong-armed to give up the names of students using their servers. This seems like a slippery slope and makes me very uneasy. However, I am talking about the right to privacy, not the right to usage. That right to privacy may help a downloader occasionally evade the law, as it should, but it does not condone the breaking of the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sector7G wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Why do people keep talking about theft? It isn't even theft from a legal perspective. |
Many would say rather it isn't theft only from a legal perspective. |
Given intellectual property exists purely from a legal perspective, that seems to be a meaningless qualification to me. One can be said to own a physical object outside of a legal framework simply because said object can be physically possessed. Outside of a legal framework, claiming to own an idea is essentially meaningless.
| Sector7G wrote: |
| But illegal downloaders are still misappropriating or infringing on something they have no right to, |
Something they have no legal right to. I've never seen a single even semi-meaningful defense of intellectual property outside of a legal framework, and law is not ethically compelling on its own (as is evinced by the existence of unjust laws).
| Sector7G wrote: |
| ... and that the owners wish to be paid for. That may not be theft in technical terms, but it is in spirit. Correct me if I am wrong, but you still have not addressed this part of the argument. |
I have addressed it by saying it's nothing more than a legal construct that I've yet to see justification for. Laws, not their absence, are what must be justified. When someone can show me the societal benefit of criminalizing private file sharing for personal use, I'll take it seriously.
| Sector7G wrote: |
| Your argument centers on whether the copyright holder's exclusive right to property trumps your right to do what you please with your computer,and whether copyright holders should have any legal recourse against private, non-paying, non revenue-producing use. The law of the jungle applies-there is no right or wrong. |
I don't agree that the "law of the jungle" applies. Ethics is very applicable to this situation. Infringing on our right to do as we wish with our own real property is wrong unless a tangible social benefit can be demonstrated. I've yet to see it demonstrated; everyone who argues in favor of copyright laws does so in a purely circular fashion, using the laws themselves to defend their case.
Show me how society benefits more under the model you're defending. I see how the tiny, ultra-wealthy minority might benefit more, but that's more or less where it ends. Tiny independent studios can't afford to go around suing individuals in attempt to scare them into compliance, so they don't benefit, and criminalizing what probably amounts to the majority of the population certainly doesn't benefit them. And that doesn't even get into valuable, taxpayer funded court time wasted by these scare tactics. No, the more we discuss this, the more certain I am that the current system is purely detrimental to society at large. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok Fox, I am a little slow, but it's finally sinking in. You have no qualms about illegal downloading(at least qualms about right or wrong) because you don't believe protecting Intellectual Property through the use of copyrights under the current system is justified in the first place. As you mentioned in the Hurt Locker thread, this is not an inherently internet issue, it's just that "the internet is the innovation that brought the issue to the forefront so prominently".
For my part, I have never really given it much serious consideration before. But in trying to find information and scholarly opinions to counter your arguments, I have discovered that IP and copyright issues have been debated for centuries. Centuries, Fox, centuries!! They are even quoting John Locke from his theory of property. Frankly, it's more than I wanted to delve into.
Now I hate to play the "agree to disagree" card, or the "I can see both sides have their points" angle, because that sounds like a cop out. Besides, in all honesty, I have to admit that I have read some pretty compelling opinions in the last day against giving exclusive rights protection to Intellectual Property. But, as you might imagine I would say, the other side makes some pretty good arguments as well. If ever there was a complicated issue to decide, this one is it.
| Quote: |
"America�s founders struggled with the issue of intellectual property
(IP) protection when they were authoring the Constitution. They
arrived at a delicate balancing act contained in Article 1, Section 8,
Clause 8, which gave Congress the power to ��promote the Progress
of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors
and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries.��
Tom Bell, an associate professor at Chapman
University School of Law, argues that there really can be no ��delicate balance�� between creators and consumers, and that the best that
can be hoped for is an ��indelicate imbalance. This points to the
possibility of considering new, market-based regimes that creators
might employ to protect their content through extra-legal means
in the future, thus enabling a ��flight from copyright.�� One can
legitimately reduce protections for what�s created if creators opt out
of traditional legal arrangements.�� *** |
| Quote: |
On the other hand, although also an advocate of market-based
protections, Jim DeLong, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-
based Competitive Enterprise Institute, stresses the fundamental
position that property rights occupy in our society. Many of the
reasons for not protecting intangible property and relying on selfhelp
apply to physical property too, he notes, but we don�t use
that fact to justify abandoning the regime. It isn�t valid to point to
��nonexhaustion�� as the reason for not protecting intellectual property.
The time one devotes to property creation, physical or not, is
scarce, and most want their hard work protected. (Indeed, part of
the outrage of robbery is the time consumed in one�s life acquiring
or creating the property that was stolen.) Important moral, economic,
political, and even psychological rationales exist for protecting
property.*** |
*** http://store.cato.org/pdfs/copyfights_intro.pdf
Anyway, my gut still tells me that intellectual property rights are valid, but I will concede that I am no longer 100% sure. I'm still thinking about it. The consensus seems to be that there needs to be reform at the very least. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
samd
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fox and Sector7G, very interesting, cheers.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seonsengnimble
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
Besides, doesn't it make sense that an item you are more likely to use in Korea would be cheaper in Korea? How many people are going to need a Canada to Korea plug adapter IN CANADA?
North American prong to South Korean prong adapter plug for electrical appliances
|
Sorry to continue derailing this thread, but this has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen.
Many people travel. European adapters work for Korean sockets, they also work for European sockets. Generally, people buy supplies they might need for traveling before they travel.
Korean prong to North American prong adapters cost the same. If you have a laptop, camera or any other electrical device you bought in Korea, are you telling me you won't want to use it when you go home? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
