Heard about 3D printers….. It’s gonna be so much fun using a kinect to build a 3d mesh of your car and then run it into my 3d car printer…. whatever…

Patents and copyright should be abolished so we as a race can further advance what we can do. This isn’t saying the original creator shouldn’t get recognition, it just means the person/persons improving on the idea can without limitations. Because if you start limiting thing that people can do you are limiting the potential of the human race.

I don’t buy your argument, mainly because in your example, person isn’t communicating his own work or thoughts; he’s communicating someone else’s. Also, no one is saying that person A can’t give person B his copy of something; we’re only saying that he can’t make a new copy and give that. Sharing is fine, but filesharing isn’t actually sharing. If you lost your digital copy when you sent it to someone else, that would be sharing. Distribution of existing copies, but actually creating new copies is the privilege of the artist.

Again, I must ask; what services could artists and companies possibly provide? Let’s look at videogames. The only service they have is multiplayer servers, and many of the best videogames are fundamentally incompatible with multiplayer. Including it would actively decrease the quality of the product by diverting money and time from the quality. See Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 2 for easy examples. The only service I see is streaming games, and that’s still just paying for games, except that you don’t get a copy to keep.

I support copyright law because if offers a mechanism for quality to be made and support itself. I have seen no evidence that a piracy based system can come anywhere close to replicating this. If you want to convince me that copyright law is unnecessary, then convince me that its purpose, furthering the progress of the arts, can be done by piracy. If it can’t, then I must remain on the side that offers quality.

I don’t buy your argument, mainly because in your example, person isn’t communicating his own work or thoughts; he’s communicating someone else’s. Also, no one is saying that person A can’t give person B his copy of something; we’re only saying that he can’t make a new copy and give that. Sharing is fine, but filesharing isn’t actually sharing. If you lost your digital copy when you sent it to someone else, that would be sharing. Distribution of existing copies, but actually creating new copies is the privilege of the artist.

Again, I must ask; what services could artists and companies possibly provide? Let’s look at videogames. The only service they have is multiplayer servers, and many of the best videogames are fundamentally incompatible with multiplayer. Including it would actively decrease the quality of the product by diverting money and time from the quality. See Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 2 for easy examples. The only service I see is streaming games, and that’s still just paying for games, except that you don’t get a copy to keep.

I support copyright law because if offers a mechanism for quality to be made and support itself. I have seen no evidence that a piracy based system can come anywhere close to replicating this. If you want to convince me that copyright law is unnecessary, then convince me that its purpose, furthering the progress of the arts, can be done by piracy. If it can’t, then I must remain on the side that offers quality.

Otherwise, you’re in the land of do-as-you-please – which invariably degenerates into self-destructive riots. It happens with piracy in the Internet, and for various complex reasons (wealth distribution, economical and political instability, etc.) it’s happening now in the UK.

Seriously? what the *FUCK* are you talking about? Do you have any basic grasp on reality?

Watch / read some news about events in the UK over the past few days.
There’s your anarchy for you.

If you live in the UK, take a stroll into one of these chaotic urban nightmares and practice what you preach.

And we’ll see how long you’ll last.