Actually, there is no such 'right'.

Generally, companies have a fair use policy which means they'll let people use their IP for non-monetary purposes. However, this can be revoked at any time, on an individual basis and without any need for an explanation.

This was quite big news recently, as YouTube began to enforce copyrighted IP of video games. Lots of videos containing gameplay were taken down. Perhaps a bit of a silly move, but they can (and do) do that.

 

We should keep in mind that US law and the will of big corporations are not either synonym to ethics nor global law.

I have a couple of examples.

1. You mentioned the Youtube incident. Google didn't want any part of this originally. But it is based on US soil, where big names in film, audio and video game industry reside. Political pressures finally led Google to introduce copyright claims and strikes on Youtube.
Question: If Google managed to find a way out of the legal labyrinth, would the taken down videos be legal or not?
Question: Would the same videos be legal if they where mounted on the Russian or Chinese equivalent of Youtube?

2. Are you aware of the FAA against Pirker case? It's the one where the FAA sent a fine and a cease and desist order to a Swiss citizen for professionally flying a 40cm UAV over a university campus, under a professional agreement with the university.
The main defense line of Pirker was that the FAA instruction was not a US law, just a decision of an authority body who was still pending validation from the US legislative bodies
Question: Would Pirker be acting illegally if in the future the FAA directive was approved of? Would he be acting ethically?

3. The claims on original content made by FOX against copyright infringements are just that: claims. Whether they will be approved by the judiciary bodies of any country that is a totally different story.

4. Many computer game companies distribute beta versions of an upcoming game to individuals under an NDA.
Question: Is the NDA, which is accepted by the recipient by a click, valid and binding? Would it be illegal to let your friend watch you while you play that game? Would it be unethical?

Obviously, all those questions are rhetorical. I don't expect answers to them.

Bonus Material: Computerphile episode on ToS

 

This whole discussion is is similar to ongoing arguments in a bicycle touring forum I frequent.

There is a group that believes in stealth camping. This is camping in a way that you will go undetected. They will claim the reason they do this is for security, But the real reason is that they are camping on private property. Something of which they do not have a problem.

Their argument is that if they do no harm to the property, there is no harm to the owner. My and (others) argument is that the amount of harm you do or don't do to a property is irrelevant. It is still stealing. And if you don't have problem with using the property, why hide? Chances are you will be safe out in the middle of no where.

I have no problem with using someones property if it is an emergency and you make a good faith effort to find the owner.

Some local laws do allow you to use undeveloped private property but I am in the camp that local laws are irrelevant. While it might nit be legally stealing there certainly is a moral component of it.

These same people think nothing of going to say a church or other public building and taking water. Their argument is that water is very inexpensive in most places so it is not stealing. It is not the value it is the fact that you are taking without permission that makes it stealing. Besides, many of these tourists follow the same route. There could be hundreds. If not thousands of touring cyclists passing that building each year, sometimes each month. If they were all took water from the same building, it could be a very expensive water bill.

The one the really found ironic was a woman on an Italian travel forum I used to frequent. Her argument was that there was no such a thing as private property, What was ironic is that she had an apartment in Rome that she rented to travelers. I have often wanted to tell her that I would be using her apartment for no charge since there was no such thing as private property, he has no right to charge rent.

 

This whole discussion is is similar to ongoing arguments in a bicycle touring forum I frequent.

There is a group that believes in stealth camping. This is camping in a way that you will go undetected. They will claim the reason they do this is for security, But the real reason is that they are camping on private property. Something of which they do not have a problem.

Their argument is that if they do no harm to the property, there is no harm to the owner. My and (others) argument is that the amount of harm you do or don't do to a property is irrelevant. It is still stealing. And if you don't have problem with using the property, why hide? Chances are you will be safe out in the middle of no where.

I have no problem with using someones property if it is an emergency and you make a good faith effort to find the owner.

Some local laws do allow you to use undeveloped private property but I am in the camp that local laws are irrelevant. While it might nit be legally stealing there certainly is a moral component of it.

These same people think nothing of going to say a church or other public building and taking water. Their argument is that water is very inexpensive in most places so it is not stealing. It is not the value it is the fact that you are taking without permission that makes it stealing. Besides, many of these tourists follow the same route. There could be hundreds. If not thousands of touring cyclists passing that building each year, sometimes each month. If they were all took water from the same building, it could be a very expensive water bill.

The one the really found ironic was a woman on an Italian travel forum I used to frequent. Her argument was that there was no such a thing as private property, What was ironic is that she had an apartment in Rome that she rented to travelers. I have often wanted to tell her that I would be using her apartment for no charge since there was no such thing as private property, he has no right to charge rent.

In Norway public access Relating to Outdoor Recreation is secured by law http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/Outdoor-Recreation-Act.html?id=172932

 

In Norway public access Relating to Outdoor Recreation is secured by law http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/Outdoor-Recreation-Act.html?id=172932

Yes I am aware of such laws. Some states (mostly western) in the US have similar laws. But I do not care what the law says. It is still wrong to make use of someone's property without their permission. Sometimes right and wrong has nothing to do with what is legal.

I would always try and ask permission before making use of someone's land.

I guess were I am a bit flexible is say in right of way to shoreline. I do not think property owners should have the right to by up hundreds of kilometers in front of shoreline and block access to the shoreline. Or block anything that might be considered public.

 

Yes I am aware of such laws. Some states (mostly western) in the US have similar laws. But I do not care what the law says.

That's a bold statement. It's one thing saying that you disagree with a law and another to disregard it.

When you disregard the law in an apparent manner you publicly state that you do not abide by the rules of the society with which you have signed a social contract. In a sense, this could null the contract.

And as always, remember that this is only your opinion and you can not enforce it to other people.

Campers in Norway can camp for up to 2 days in any pasture they choose, as long as they are at least 150 meters away from any residence and you don't have the right to inhibit them, according to the law.

Let's not start questioning the validity and enforceability of laws. Laws, in democratic constitutions, are the collective will of the majority of the citizens and automatically compulsory and binding.
Anarchy doesn't have very sound bases, especially selective Anarchy .

 

Actually, there is no such 'right'.

Generally, companies have a fair use policy which means they'll let people use their IP for non-monetary purposes. However, this can be revoked at any time, on an individual basis and without any need for an explanation.

This was quite big news recently, as YouTube began to enforce copyrighted IP of video games.

And music. They have lots of amatuer music videos and sometimes they disappear with a not that somebody claimed copyright on it and forced it's removal.

 

That's a bold statement. It's one thing saying that you disagree with a law and another to disregard it.

When you disregard the law in an apparent manner you publicly state that you do not abide by the rules of the society with which you have signed a social contract. In a sense, this could null the contract.

And as always, remember that this is only your opinion and you can not enforce it to other people.

Campers in Norway can camp for up to 2 days in any pasture they choose, as long as they are at least 150 meters away from any residence and you don't have the right to inhibit them, according to the law.

Let's not start questioning the validity and enforceability of laws. Laws, in democratic constitutions, are the collective will of the majority of the citizens and automatically compulsory and binding.
Anarchy doesn't have very sound bases, especially selective Anarchy .

I am not saying I disregard the law. I am saying that I would never take advantage of such law under normal conditions. There are always exceptions. For example I had a break down in the middle of nowhere and the choices are stay up all night on the side of the rode or camp on someone's field. I will camp but would first make a good faith effort to ask the owner for permission. If I owned property and the law said I had to allow the public to use my land then I would obey the law but I would not like it much. And if someone asked I would certainly appreciate it and would most likely allow it.

I can sort of understand the need for such laws in the western US where there are enormous expanses of land with no designated campsites or any civilization for miles for that matter.

I think there is an entirely different thinking on property rights between Europe and the US.

 

I think there is an entirely different thinking on property rights between Europe and the US.

I always considered the US an unknown variable, whereas I feel right at home with any European country's culture.

 

I always considered the US an unknown variable, whereas I feel right at home with any European country's culture.

Did you spend any time here? We are a pretty good lot, the everyday American that is. Just stay away from the cities and most people are great. But big cities get a bad rap too. Most people think New Yorkers are rude and unfriendly. True to maybe strangers but you just need to earn their trust. Once earned, there is nothing the average New Yorker won't do for you. I spent a lot of time there and my attitude sure changed.

And in my travels through Italy, I got to stay with a number of families. I was shocked to find out they are pretty much like us. They talk differently maybe eat a little differently a couple of different customs but basically still the same. It was really evident in the younger people.

even their streets look the same:

 

Nah, never been across the pond.

I plan to, one day, though.

 

Nah, never been across the pond.

I plan to, one day, though.

And I would like to get to Greece one of these days. Maybe after I retire, tour all through western and eastern Europe.

Lots of folks want to ride across the US. The US certainly has a lot of spectacular places in which to tour but I think Europe is far more interesting from a cultural standpoint.

Lots of people want to go around the world too. But there is just so much to see in both the US and Europe where if you use your brain you will almost be certain to have a safe trip barring an accident.

 

That's a bold statement. It's one thing saying that you disagree with a law and another to disregard it.

When you disregard the law in an apparent manner you publicly state that you do not abide by the rules of the society with which you have signed a social contract. In a sense, this could null the contract.

And as always, remember that this is only your opinion and you can not enforce it to other people.

Let's not start questioning the validity and enforceability of laws. Laws, in democratic constitutions, are the collective will of the majority of the citizens and automatically compulsory and binding.
Anarchy doesn't have very sound bases, especially selective Anarchy .

geo,
Did you misunderstand spinnaker or do you believe he is creating anarchy by asking a land owner if he can camp on the land - even if the law says he doesn't have to ask?


From my view, he is on the other side of anarchy and acting more civilized than the law requires, and not lawless in any why.

 

Their argument is that if they do no harm to the property, there is no harm to the owner. My and (others) argument is that the amount of harm you do or don't do to a property is irrelevant. It is still stealing. And if you don't have problem with using the property, why hide? Chances are you will be safe out in the middle of no where.

And if there are no trespassing signs posted, the owner could sneak up and shoot them for trespassing (worst case) or have the local sheriff arrest them for trespassing.

 

And if there are no trespassing signs posted, the owner could sneak up and shoot them for trespassing (worst case) or have the local sheriff arrest them for trespassing.

Exactly why these folks stealth camp. If there is nothing wrong with it then there really isn't a reason to use stealth.

I can understand if you are near a city for safety concerns. Even in the country somewhat but there, I would imagine if you are out of the way then danger from attack by others is pretty unlikely.

 

What you 'stole' was the value of 'Ferrari' R&D and engineering. The actual cost of making that car might be high but the 'IP' that created the first Ferrari and all models up to the one that was copied is much more valuable and should be protected so people will continue to invest long term money for future income derived from possible products. There is a huge amount of sham software and design patents that should be scrapped but real products need solid protection.

I understand your argument completely, but it only partially true.

Forget the "magic button" for a minute.

If i walked past your parked Ferrari, and looked at it (my legal right) and went home and just built one myself in my garage (also my legal right)...

If your argument is 100% true then I am just as guilty of "stealing" a Ferrari. But that is not true. I have not broken any theft laws by looking at your car, nor have I broken any theft laws by building my own.

So the best argument you could counter with is that it's perfectly ok for me to build a copy of your car using technology A, but it's perfectly "stealing" if I build a copy of your car using technology B.

You just can't win that one. Building a copy for yourself is either stealing, or it is not. And 99.9% of the evidence, before the digital age, was that building your own copy for your own use was perfectly legal and ok.

And now all of a sudden now you say it is 100% stealing... The best you can do here is admit it is a grey area as per my first post.

 

I you engineered it all yourself then no it is not stealing, But if copied the body style and brand name you would be stealing.

When the PC first came out there was a group developing compatible PC ROM. They broke the company into two sections. During development, hey were never to see one another, The first group tore apart a PC an analyzed the ROM and wrote up spec sheets. The second group got the specs and wrote the code. It was legal.

 

"Laws, in democratic constitutions, are the collective will of the majority of the citizens and automatically compulsory and binding.
Anarchy doesn't have very sound bases, especially selective Anarchy."




There is no way I would ever agree with that, George.

By now, I think everyone knows that each and every law, is decided only by a select few groups of individuals; not by the majority, at all.

If you ask the majority of Americans, for instance; they would agree that those laws were never run past them for their ideas/input.
A governing body who gets too powerful, is corrupt.

Just look at all the bankers and politicians who went to prison for bankrupting the World economy.


I forgot, no one went to prison for derivatives.

 

Theft (stealing) is not only the physical possession of a physical object that's not yours, terms like 'stealing a child's innocence' express the value of something other than purely physical.

And now all of a sudden now you say it is 100% stealing... The best you can do here is admit it is a grey area as per my first post.

You've changed your argument with the "artist interpretation" of a Ferrari.

There's nothing 'grey about it, if you 'copied' (not created independent of and with no foreknowledge of their specific design) the car exactly even for your personal use (the entire car is not 'fair use') they can and will be all over you. Even replicas are under close scrutiny.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304617404579304421511930880

 

There is no way I would ever agree with that, George.

By now, I think everyone knows that each and every law, is decided only by a select few groups of individuals; not by the majority, at all.

If you ask the majority of Americans, for instance; they would agree that those laws were never run past them for their ideas/input.
A governing body who gets too powerful, is corrupt.

Just look at all the bankers and politicians who went to prison for bankrupting the World economy.


I forgot, no one went to prison for derivatives.

Of course. What you say is the reality, what I described was the ideal situation and the one I would aspire to and support.

But this gets political and it is my fault. Sorry for dragging the conversation onto this.