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.
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.
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.
