>Personally, I don't think intellectual property or software patents deserve
ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER!
I largely agree with you here, but- just to be pedantic- aren't software
patents a type of 'intellectual property' anyway? Regardless, it may also be
worthy of note that we guard 'intellectual property' here in the free
software community, in the form of protecting the copyright on works to keep
them free ('copyleft'). Of course, you may disagree with this practice, or
its ethics. However, I think the issue here is more that the function of
intellectual property- to force one's ideas about how a work should be used
onto others- can be right or wrong, depending on the specifics of a given
situation. That said, it's censorship nonetheless- and it must be treated as
such in considering its ethics.
>seriously... that's what allows people to abuse copyright for 70+ years and
that's after the original creator is dead.
Unfortunately, a few thousand dollars and infamous mice go a long way in
world politics.
>bs... the author doesn't care only the company does...
If you were referring to the above sentence, I'm not sure there IS anything
to add. In a more general context, however, there are sadly more
complexities. As an author, artist, or other person in a creative career,
making money is obviously very difficult- or very easy, if you reach the
highest ranks. For those at the bottom, the (financial) situation can often
be very precarious. Although I can't provide any evidence, it would seem
reasonable that a broken, tested system would be preferable to a superior but
unknown (in the modern-day world) system for such people. For those at the
top, the current system is obviously no apparent impediment- and, in a
typical elitist attitude, that's all that matters.
>I understand the reasons for why we shouldn't leak anything, due to
punishment from law enforcement, etc,
Does punishment from law enforcement justify not leaking though? It's
obviously something that should be taken into consideration, but legality and
morality are two different things.
>but the fact of the matter is, COPYRIGHT PATENTS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!
If I may ask, was 'COPYRIGHT PATENTS' a single entity or two things meant to
be joined by 'and'? I may be misunderstanding here, but copyright and patents
are two different forms of 'intellectual property', covering separate things
in separate ways. Regardless, they most certainly should be (although how the
GPL would then work I don't know).
>especially considering all the proprietary malfeatures such as being locked
in, being spied on, deceived, have your info sold for money, etc...
These are problematic indeed, but it's doubtful how much they have to do with
copyright or patents. Besides the proliferation of proprietary book-, music-,
and movie-access platforms, and the occasional software patent banning libre
software, these are just an extra lawsuit or two for a leaker to live
through. The big issues are trade secrets, for the developers, and EULAs (for
any computer user). These keep the source code hidden and make use of the
final product a game of legality-based hopscotch.
>If you want a piece of software something that can be emulated with free
software but it costs money and has malfeatures, screw the people who add
those malfeatures, do it your way not their way. Meaning, download it.
What exactly is the kind of software you had in mind here? I infer you mean
something like game console emulation, but can't quite tell. In any case,
absolutely true. It probably is much better to stay clear of such software
entirely- many malfeatures are intricately integrated with features in such a
way that liberation doesn't help, and running unnecessary proprietary
software is not ideal- but when the choice is not yours, definitely download.
That said, there are two things to consider here:
*If the software requires an Internet connection... it should be obvious.
Either run in a VM with no internet (if possible), pay for the software, or
just say "No!". It's always worth a try!
*No matter what, write an (anonymous) message to the developer stating what
what you have done, and why. Don't take the anonymity lightly, but they
deserve/need to know that at least one 'pirate' isn't merely a digital
shoplifter.
>I mean the dmca only punishes the uploaders not the downloaders right?
Perhaps, but the downloader is not legally innocent anyway- their safety is
because companies find suing uploaders pays higher dividends. Here, as
always, a healthy dose of anonymity pays greatly for all involved (except the
litigators).
>If I am wrong you may enlighten me but that's my theory.
The same here- although read the P.S. before discussing the term
'intellectual property', please.
P.S. I've used the term 'intellectual property' throughout. I'm fully aware
of the arguments against it, and that most people here support those, but I
believe it works well as a general-purpose noun for all forms of
government-enforced monopolies on the use of concepts or expressions. Please
correct me if I have used it to refer to anything less than their totality in
the above.
