Mr. Wynand Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 I've read some objectivist writings on copyrights, but one issue is ignored. With copyrights, such as with a logo, there can be more money made by suing a perpetrator of the copyright than by letting them use the logo and profiting from the free adveritizing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 I've read some objectivist writings on copyrights, but one issue is ignored. With copyrights, such as with a logo, there can be more money made by suing a perpetrator of the copyright than by letting them use the logo and profiting from the free adveritizing. Yeah, I suppose. But who owns the product? Who made it or bought it for their use? The perpetrator? It's theft. Isn't that a pretty basic moral standard to have taken from you? Giving someone the use of a logo for free in return for advertising would be a trade. Theft isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 With copyrights, such as with a logo, there can be more money made by suing a perpetrator of the copyright than by letting them use the logo and profiting from the free adveritizing.And so? Do you think that means that remedies for copyright infringement should be limited to proven actual damages? Why would undercompensation be just? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 I've read some objectivist writings on copyrights, but one issue is ignored. With copyrights, such as with a logo, there can be more money made by suing a perpetrator of the copyright than by letting them use the logo and profiting from the free adveritizing. You appear to be suffering from the false belief that all objectivsits care about is how much money they make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juxtys Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 You appear to be suffering from the false belief that all objectivsits care about is how much money they make. Did you ever consider the perpetrators making the original idea much more known, so the product becames better known by the public? Also, it makes a punch to competitors. Ex. the only real reason for Linux distributions not being as widely used as Microsoft ones is software piracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Did you ever consider the perpetrators making the original idea much more known, so the product becames better known by the public? For what end means? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Did you ever consider the perpetrators making the original idea much more known, so the product becames better known by the public? Rationalization for theft is still rationalization. Also, it makes a punch to competitors. Ex. the only real reason for Linux distributions not being as widely used as Microsoft ones is software piracy. See previous statement. None of which is relevant to my point, which is that "doing whatever makes you the most money" is not an Objectivist principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Did you ever consider the perpetrators making the original idea much more known, so the product becames better known by the public? Also, it makes a punch to competitors. If they're putting out a quality product, why don't they come up with their own trademark? They are not advertising for Sony. They are counting on Sony's success to make their crappy product acceptable. Ex. the only real reason for Linux distributions not being as widely used as Microsoft ones is software piracy. Um, how can you pirate Linux? It's open source. Or are you saying that the only reason why people use Windows is because they pirate it? That's purely bogus. Most of the people I know who use Windows do it because they use software that only runs in Windows (particularly games), or work at a large company that uses products like Windows Server. I don't see the point in switching to any form of Linux when I'd just have to run Windows on the same machine in order to use any of my software. Linux has no features that I particularly need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.