Well hell, using your statement cars and movies are also comparable, and music and silverware. What you listed is jus about anything that is physical . Sorry to break it to you but cars and video games couldn't be any more different, one is physical the other digital, world of difference there and that's why your arguments are weak and I don't need to read any further.

I think you're thinking too much in extremes.

Nobody is saying that the current situation with IP rights is perfect, just like freedom of speech hasn't been perfected, etc.

Nobody then goes and says, lets get rid of it.

I don't see how the general concept of IP is silly. You can't actually own an idea or ideology (which why I think scientology is fucked up O.o, at least it violates the right to freedom of religion too). However you can own the right to print an arragement of words (books), produce a software with coding, etc. But you can't actually own an idea itself. Like you said, it's a bit strange to think of it that way.

However, like the Wikipedia definition I just ctrl+v'd, IP rights is the exclusive right to produce a certain thing based on a creative idea (a chair or table, based on a design for e.g. Or labeling your product with a logo and name).

You don't actually own ideas, but the RIGHT  to use them for a limited ammount of time.

After a while the right becomes public, as it only seems to be hindering creativity if one gets to have an monopoly over that right forever.

Ideas are usually based off of previous ideas (e.g. Disney's most iconic characters are ironically based off of stories that are public domain now), and it helps creativity for them to be shared. But the government thinks it also helps for people to have a monopoly on using that idea, and be rewarded for it, to give incentive to think of those creative ideas.

=============================================

You're right, if it's forever, then it's hindering, but if there's no IP at all, no temporary intellectual monopoly there are many ramifications.

If I create a product, and it, along with its name, gets a good reputation what would happen if people are allowed to use my brand name? Not only does it hurt me, but the consumers, who won't be able to tell a quality good from a bad one (since the names are all the same O.o).

Real world example is bootlegs. You see a product and it looks genuine. You buy it, you get scammed.

If I spend money to research a technology, or medicine, and it gets to be produced by others, it's now a matter of who can produce cheaper and manufacturing, rather than who researched better, and there'll be no incentive to invest in research. It'll be a death to private and commercial science.

To what extent? Who knows. That's another debate. But I think everyone agrees that we need SOME sort of IP rights...

What about cars that contain computer programs?

???

I don't see how being a genius allows you to break someone's right to intellectual property. If you're saying why can't we replicate/produce the thing ourselves, then you haven't really introduced a new concept... we can already do that without being a genius. We can easily slap on a popular brand on our own products, upload a torrent, etc.

Don't we have limits to patents, trade marks, copyrights, etc? Popular sayings like kleenex are examples of an IP (name) that's gone public. So I don't understand your "infinity" thing. As for investments and what not, a brand name still needs maintenance. You can't just establish a good brand name, and expect it to have the same value without continually investing in maintaining it (ads, making good products, costomer relations, etc). Sure you don't have to invest in a technology anymore once you've finally achieved it... that's just common sense O.o I discovered something, so how I can keep discovering the same thing? I can, though discover NEW things, and by getting a temporary monopoly over that I have an incentive to do so. Whereas, if I didn't, I'll put an effort to discover it and produce it, but others will only need to put in the effort to produce it (Me: discover and produce. They: produce). It just doesn't make sense.

As for making money off of illness, it's just a result of human nature. Sure there might be some doctors and scientists who would be happy with a low wage, but the ones who want a higher wage will go to the companies that will give them one. And the ones that are able to afford higher wages are the ones who make money. Without the incentive to make a lucrative pay check, there may not be as many doctors and scientists.

IDK man, now you're starting to go into utopia world O.o

Seriously....?

What about brand names? What about medicine that have technology behind them? Cars that are physical objects that have technology behind them? INVENTIONS THAT HAVE TECHNOLOGY BEHIND THEM >.<

I really don't get your emphasis on strict non-materialism.

Errr, most, if not all modern cars do use computers and chips...

WHAT ABOUT PIGS WITH WINGS?!?!?!?!?

Also yoru difference of piracy/used gamign was weak, becaause those are minor details and the devs don't care who has the game, jsut that anyone who plays it pays for it.

Because video games are a superior class of consumer product that shouldn't adhere to the doctrine of first sale, obviously.

I'm pretty much done with this guy.  There is no analogy that will work with him because he sees video games in this perfect little sphere that cannot be intruded upon by other forms of media, consumer products, or intellectual resources.  Nothing will convince him because games are unlike anything else to him, and therefore deserve special treatment, despite the law being very clear about first sale rights.

He's also an admitted pirate, which I find so hilariously ironic that I actually hope he's just putting us on.  Unfortunately, hypocrites do tend to be the loudest in an argument.

Just a comment...

I find it interesting that the main opinions of why something is immoral, according to the OP, is that the developer did not get paid money.