Costin Moroianu said:
An example would be Harry Potter, which many people tried to rip off. Copyright is designed to prevent them ripping off J.K.Rs ideas.
That was its original intent, yes, but nowadays it has been perverted to a degree where it is almost unrecognizable. The only thing it does nowadays is to protect corporations, not authors! I mean they get to retain the rights of “their” content creators for 80 years after their death! Are you fucking kidding me?
Ironically it’s corporations like Disney who pushed for these laws although they were built on “plagiarizing”. Snow White? Pinocchio? Dumbo? Bambi? All these iconic movies of theirs are adaptions of books! You can count the number of original screenplays by Disney from back then on the fingers of your hand. Had today’s copyright legislature existed at the time of their founding then Disney would have never even made it that far.
So please, don’t you ever assert that our modern copyright laws are supposed to protect the artist because that is just bullshit. Through lobbying they’ve been altered to now do nothing but secure the monopoly of corporations by squashing competition. There’s a reason why people claim that these days innovation is stifled by copyright laws.
Costin Moroianu said:
And yes, stealing ideas is stealing
No, it isn’t. Why won’t you see this? The same reasons apply here. Ideas, too, are non-rival goods and thus “stealing” them doesn’t leave the original “owner” without his idea. Copying is still the preferable term here.
If you are replying to me, what? What does the First Amendment have to do with ANYTHING being discussed here? Please, please explain.
You wanting to assault that person from your little story for what they believe in is what lead me to conclude that.
Now I’d like you to explain what that weird tale of yours has to do with the discussion at hand.
[Y]ou still are illegally obtaining something. [...] It is their right to get compensated for those products.
I whole-heartedly agree. Where did I ever argue that this is not the case?
A video game is not "information". Adobe Illustrator is not "information". Madonna's Immaculate Collection is not "information".
Yes, they are. I suggest you look up this word in a dictionary, mate, because the source of the information is irrelevant to its definition.
"Oh, gee". I don't hurt anyone. It's not the same", yeah, whatever makes you sleep at night. You are still in the wrong.
Again, I never argued that it isn’t wrong and I certainly did not claim that it does not hurt anyone (although it does so far less than you mistakenly believe, methinks). So what’s up with these false accusations?
If their stock are under-priced there is danger of aggressive acquisition from bigger companies like let's say EA am i right?
Wait, what? CDPR is a publicly traded company?