# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Intellectual Property rights

## Revolution9

I, as an artist and musician and owning a gaming company am concerned about IP. I see many posts where folks call down the idea of IP. If we have no IP alot of stories will go untold. Folks making a movie with characters can be pre-empted and ripped off by lessor productions capitalising on any buzz the production has created. Folks could just recompile The Beatles recordings and sell them. How do I stop folks from ripping my artwork off from within my games, using publicly available tools and a bit of savvy and making their own game using my art chops and even my code? These are just a few examples. I can come up with dozens. I think this will kill an entire section of the economy. Prove me wrong. If you are taking the course of proving me wrong then explain to me why i should stay in a business where my work can be ripped and kill my profits and my ability to grow my IP into movie, music, character and other franchises.

Rev9

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Do you honestly believe that if another company decided to use Mickey Mouse that no one would watch Disney productions with Mickey Mouse and decide to watch those emulating him? Sure, you may not make as much money without IP as with (since it is protectionist), but on the other hand your works would be more widely spread and the ideas contained within them would reach a greater audience. The fact is that being first to market is all the incentive and benefit you need. Since when are you entitled to guaranteed profit? If someone decides to emulate your character, you still have your character. Nothing has been stolen from you. 

Besides, this is a fruitless argument to have with someone who benefits from IP. Only the most devoutly principled, far-sighted, and wise will choose a set of ideals which aren't immediately self-benefitting. It is akin to asking the robber to stop stealing and see the error of his ways.


PS: The idea of State-IP and Private Property are antithetical. There isn't anything stopping someone from NDA'ing a trade secret or otherwise, you just have no right to be an imposition on anothers property -- say if they decide to reverse engineer their property. It's like if I walk by someone who owns a rocking chair that someone has a patent out on -- I should be able to buy wood from Home Depot and re-create the design and if I want to sell it or not. The same principle applies to all of IP. I should be able to go to Staples, buy some paper, and re-create your character that I've either seen advertised, or from a friend whom has bought your work. Telling me I cannot do so is an abridgement of my fundamental rights of private property and liberty.

----------


## Revolution9

> Do you honestly believe that if another company decided to use Mickey Mouse that no one would watch Disney productions with Mickey Mouse and decide to watch those emulating him? Sure, you may not make as much money without IP as with (since it is protectionist), but on the other hand your works would be more widely spread and the ideas contained within them would reach a greater audience. The fact is that being first to market is all the incentive and benefit you need. Since when are you entitled to guaranteed profit? If someone decides to emulate your character, you still have your character. Nothing has been stolen from you. 
> 
> Besides, this is a fruitless argument to have with someone who benefits from IP. Only the most devoutly principled, far-sighted, and wise will choose a set of ideals which aren't immediately self-benefitting. It is akin to asking the robber to stop stealing and see the error of his ways.
> 
> 
> PS: The idea of State-IP and Private Property are antithetical. There isn't anything stopping someone from NDA'ing a trade secret or otherwise, you just have no right to be an imposition on anothers property -- say if they decide to reverse engineer their property. It's like if I walk by someone who owns a rocking chair that someone has a patent out on -- I should be able to buy wood from Home Depot and re-create the design and if I want to sell it or not. The same principle applies to all of IP. I should be able to go to Staples, buy some paper, and re-create your character that I've either seen advertised, or from a friend whom has bought your work. Telling me I cannot do so is an abridgement of my fundamental rights of private property and liberty.


You can create and sculpt and torture the character. The issue begins when you start SOCIALIZING my idea to put profits in your pocket. You are stealing from me. What I see from this argument is that I should give up art and do drywall. But..My ART is MY PRIVATE PROPERTY I CREATED. I also see that your kind have no problem socializing/stealing others work but are against socialism. Next argument.

Rev9

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I, as an artist and musician and owning a gaming company am concerned about IP. I see many posts where folks call down the idea of IP. If we have no IP alot of stories will go untold. Folks making a movie with characters can be pre-empted and ripped off by lessor productions capitalising on any buzz the production has created. Folks could just recompile The Beatles recordings and sell them. How do I stop folks from ripping my artwork off from within my games, using publicly available tools and a bit of savvy and making their own game using my art chops and even my code? These are just a few examples. I can come up with dozens. I think this will kill an entire section of the economy. Prove me wrong. If you are taking the course of proving me wrong then explain to me why i should stay in a business where my work can be ripped and kill my profits and my ability to grow my IP into movie, music, character and other franchises.
> 
> Rev9


 Im with you on this as an artist/musician and writer. Here is my argument:
There must be a balance between patent/copyright and free society. Without such a balance, and without a civil government in place to protect individuals and their property and the fruits of their labor there is no existence of an intellectually inclined and free society. I as an artist/musician and writer understand that the fruits of my labor should be that I own my property ,the very seed of my ingenuity and idea to create a music original to my individual identity and that my identity be protected from others who seek to steal my identity and steal the fruits of my labor. My hard creative work manifested into physical property which I would like to share with others. If my property ,my work and ideas cannot be protected then I would retract and not share the best of them with others. Simply put...you will have an uncivil society without patent and copyright balanced with free society.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

the DAILYPAUL has a nasty thread on this subject, and there are too many marxists perpetuating the notion that they can replicate my music on a cd and call it their own fruits of their labor.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> You can create and sculpt and torture the character. The issue begins when you start SOCIALIZING my idea to put profits in your pocket. You are stealing from me. What I see from this argument is that I should give up art and do drywall. But..My ART is MY PRIVATE PROPERTY I CREATED. I also see that your kind have no problem socializing/stealing others work but are against socialism. Next argument.
> 
> Rev9


 Once a person begins raping your idea or my idea as artists and profits from it ,that society turns into marxism.Marxists do not believe in property ,but equal share. I see that a marxist ideal has creeped its way into libertarianism and its very creepy to me. I for one have made a loud statement against it but then Im quickly called "un-intellectual" because I call it out for what it is...marxism.

----------


## Revolution9

Captain America is correct. I will weigh in later as I am going to have a meeting about IP and the purchase of our company.

Rev9

----------


## guitarlifter

On the contrary, libertarians are possibly more concerned with the protection of property rights than any other ideological group.  As a matter of fact, when it boils down to the essence of libertarianism and the government's role in a libertarian society, property protection is one of the handful of things that a government can and should do.  With that said, the way that libertarians and marxists denounce intellectual property is completely different.  Something cannot be stolen that isn't tangible to begin with.  AEP is absolutely right in that no one has a right to have guaranteed profit, nor does it supersede one's right to do whatever they please with their own body.  And I am speaking as a musician who gives away his music freely.  I only accept donations.

----------


## Conza88

> *Daily Bell**:* Where do you stand on copyright? Do you believe that intellectual property doesn't exist as Kinsella has proposed?
> 
> *Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe:* I agree with my friend Kinsella, that the idea of intellectual property rights is not just wrong and confused but dangerous. And I have already touched upon why this is so. Ideas - recipes, formulas, statements, arguments, algorithms, theorems, melodies, patterns, rhythms, images, etc. - are certainly goods (insofar as they are good, not bad, recipes, etc.), but they are not scarce goods. Once thought and expressed, they are free, inexhaustible goods. I whistle a melody or write down a poem, you hear the melody or read the poem and reproduce or copy it. In doing so you have not taken anything away from me. I can whistle and write as before. In fact, the entire world can copy me and yet nothing is taken from me. (If I didn't want anyone to copy my ideas I only have to keep them to myself and never express them.)
> 
> Now imagine I had been granted a property right in my melody or poem such that I could prohibit you from copying it or demanding a royalty from you if you do. First: Doesn't that imply, absurdly, that I, in turn, must pay royalties to the person (or his heirs) who invented whistling and writing, and further on to those, who invented sound-making and language, and so on? Second: In preventing you from or making you pay for whistling my melody or reciting my poem, I am actually made a (partial) owner of you: of your physical body, your vocal chords, your paper, your pencil, etc. because you did not use anything but your own property when you copied me. If you can no longer copy me, then, this means that I, the intellectual property owner, have expropriated you and your "real" property. *Which shows: intellectual property rights and real property rights are incompatible, and the promotion of intellectual property must be seen as a most dangerous attack on the idea of "real" property (in scarce goods).*


Maybe you are seeking protection via monopoly because your business model isn't good? How about you follow Trent Reznor from Nine Inch Nails?  




Better yet, go check out all the videos in this *intellectual property playlist*.

/thread

----------


## Conza88

> Once a person begins raping your idea or my idea as artists and profits from it ,that society turns into marxism.Marxists do not believe in property ,but equal share. I see that a marxist ideal has creeped its way into libertarianism and its very creepy to me. I for one have made a loud statement against it but then Im quickly called "un-intellectual" because I call it out for what it is...marxism.


*Goods, Scare and Non-Scare* by Jeffrey Tucker and Stephan Kinsella.

----------


## Diurdi

This is one of those debates are almost completely useless to argue with people who directly benefit from them. From the artists point of view it would seem incredibly unfair that someone copies their work. However, imitation of ideas for profit happen all the time in the business world. As businessess strive for competetive advantages to increase their profits in the market, the competitors quickly imititate this competetive advantage and "all the hard work is for nothing" from the original company's point of view. In reality though the consumer and the economy benefits.

----------


## Conza88

> This is one of those debates are almost completely useless to argue with people who directly benefit from them. From the artists point of view it would seem incredibly unfair that someone copies their work. However, imitation of ideas for profit happen all the time in the business world. As businessess strive for competetive advantages to increase their profits in the market, the competitors quickly imititate this competetive advantage and "all the hard work is for nothing" from the original company's point of view. In reality though the consumer and the economy benefits.


Yes, it's just a shame they are completely short sighted and that if the monopoly on ideas was abolished, everyone - including the user currently benefiting would be far better off in terms of wealth etc. 

This author gets it:




*They'd actually make more money...!*

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> You can create and sculpt and torture the character. The issue begins when you start SOCIALIZING my idea to put profits in your pocket. You are stealing from me. What I see from this argument is that I should give up art and do drywall. But..My ART is MY PRIVATE PROPERTY I CREATED. I also see that your kind have no problem socializing/stealing others work but are against socialism. Next argument.
> 
> Rev9


It seems less like you want a debate and more like you are set in your ways all ready. Why even bother posting if you are all ready decided? No one is stealing your art by re-creating or reproducing it. You still have your art. Creating a scarce good out of an inexhaustible reproducible good is an abridgement of the concept of property rights. These used to be called artificial rents, and were vehemently fought against by stalwart Classical Liberals, about as far away as you can get from a Marxist or Socialist. Artificial rents and private property are completely antithetical ideas.

----------


## Seraphim

> You can create and sculpt and torture the character. The issue begins when you start SOCIALIZING my idea to put profits in your pocket. You are stealing from me. What I see from this argument is that I should give up art and do drywall. *But..My ART is MY PRIVATE PROPERTY I CREATED.* I also see that your kind have no problem socializing/stealing others work but are against socialism. Next argument.
> 
> Rev9


The finished product is absolutely your private property and that must be protected. The idea? Not so much. An abstract is not a right. 

I just invented a word. Gaffufflegarble. It means; STUPID NONSENSE.

*But you can't use the word you $#@!ing Marxist.*

Jokes aside;

How many schools have made "profits" by teaching the general theory of relativity? A LOT.

Profiting off of the intellectual advancements of one man (and the great guy shared it with the world!)? Absolutely. Stealing anything from him? Absolutely not.

----------


## Acala

I'm on the fence on this issue.  And I don't profit from IP.  But there are a few things that should be cleared up at the outset.

IP doesn't protect ideas.  The theory of relativity cannot be protected by copyright.  However, if you write a book that explains the theory in your own words, that unique arrangement of words CAN be protected.  So, it isn't the idea, it is the unique expression of the idea that is protected.  Big difference.

IP is not guaranteed profit anymore than the right to fence people off your land is guaranteed profit.  If IP IS property, then exclusive use just comes with the bundle of property rights and is no different in that regard than any other form of property.

While ideas may not be scarce, real innovation most certainly IS.  To argue that innovation is not scarce is a ridiculous and unsupportable argument.  If innovation is NOT scarce you could sit down right now and write out a world-shaking novel, a classic piece of music, or the design for a compact fusion reactor.  The fact that you can't PROVES that innovation is scarce.

This still leaves the question whether innovation is a "good" that should be recognized as property.  Not everything of value that flows from a human being is a good that needs to be legally defended as property.      

I would like to hear someone suggest a business model for a process that takes ten years and fifty million dollars to produce a product that anyone can then reproduce identically for the same cost as it takes the originator to produce.  Somehow that fifty million and five years needs to be priced into the product for the innovator but not for the upstart competitor.

On the other hand, I think we should all be able to agree that the length of the grant of copyright is ridiculous and should at the very least be shortened to the life of the author, if not much less.

Oh, and by the way, are people also arguing here against trademark?  That is a form of IP.  Should I be able to sell computers and call them Apple?  If you support trademark and not copyright, why?

----------


## Seraphim

GOod post.




> I'm on the fence on this issue.  And I don't profit from IP.  But there are a few things that should be cleared up at the outset.
> 
> IP doesn't protect ideas.  The theory of relativity cannot be protected by copyright.  However, if you write a book that explains the theory in your own words, that unique arrangement of words CAN be protected.  So, it isn't the idea, it is the unique expression of the idea that is protected.  Big difference.
> 
> IP is not guaranteed profit anymore than the right to fence people off your land is guaranteed profit.  If IP IS property, then exclusive use just comes with the bundle of property rights and is no different in that regard than any other form of property.
> 
> While ideas may not be scarce, real innovation most certainly IS.  To argue that innovation is not scarce is a ridiculous and unsupportable argument.  If innovation is NOT scarce you could sit down right now and write out a world-shaking novel, a classic piece of music, or the design for a compact fusion reactor.  The fact that you can't PROVES that innovation is scarce.
> 
> This still leaves the question whether innovation is a "good" that should be recognized as property.  Not everything of value that flows from a human being is a good that needs to be legally defended as property.      
> ...

----------


## mczerone

FTR:

IP requires an all-knowing state to limit the actions of individuals.  Anyone calling the IP-abolitionists "marxists", "communists", or "thieves" is blatantly wrong in their characterization.

I don't have a problem with contractually based Intellectual Protections: Microsoft agrees to only use _your_ software; a medical insurance company agrees to only cover _your_ pharmaceutical; the local farmer's market agrees to let only you use _your_ symbol to mark your product.  These things are more than enough to protect your "market share", to reduce confusion over creators, to ensure you recover your investment.  And it leaves everyone free to develop their own products and compete with you.




> Without IP some stories would go untold.


Bull$#@!.  Good stories would freely replace bad as consumers selected their favorites.  You may not feel that you can compete with good stories, but that's no different than getting pissy because you can't get a job in the NFL.

Indeed, it is under IP where good stories go untold, good songs go unrecorded, good inventions go unmarketed, good trademarks go unused.  Why?  Because IP places restrictions on the transformation and re-telling of currently protected ideas.  Say you've patented a cold-fusion machine.  It works, but it costs $2 million dollars and is 20x20x20ft.  You introduce it to the market, and demand a licensing fee of $10 billion from any company that uses it in their own production scheme.  I, OTOH, have looked over the schematics and see tons of places where carbon fiber could replace polymers, where a bulky mechanical apparatus can be replaced with a small circuit board, and find a supplier of parts that could let me sell my redesign for $1.8 mil, and it's only 10x10x2ft.

Now is right for you to take my profits to cover your "license" charge, when I've made the most marketable improvements?  Should I be deterred from even going ahead with a prototype if I know that I would need to sell 10 million units just to turn a profit after paying you?  Or should I wait 20 years to introduce my product to the market to avoid your patent?

Maybe now you see that IP kills innovation, or at least artificially delays it, and hurts consumers.  Not only that, but it allows the patent holder to deliberately rest on semi-finished ideas to collect rents, when a finished idea would only bring them, and the wider society, more wealth.

----------


## Seraphim

Very well said! 




> FTR:
> 
> IP requires an all-knowing state to limit the actions of individuals.  Anyone calling the IP-abolitionists "marxists", "communists", or "thieves" is blatantly wrong in their characterization.
> 
> I don't have a problem with contractually based Intellectual Protections: Microsoft agrees to only use _your_ software; a medical insurance company agrees to only cover _your_ pharmaceutical; the local farmer's market agrees to let only you use _your_ symbol to mark your product.  These things are more than enough to protect your "market share", to reduce confusion over creators, to ensure you recover your investment.  And it leaves everyone free to develop their own products and compete with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Bull$#@!.  Good stories would freely replace bad as consumers selected their favorites.  You may not feel that you can compete with good stories, but that's no different than getting pissy because you can't get a job in the NFL.
> ...

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> This is one of those debates are almost completely useless to argue with people who directly benefit from them. From the artists point of view it would seem incredibly unfair that someone copies their work.


Not necessarily, my line of work and background would make this an incentive to me, and it was certainly one of the more difficult things for me to break down...

But even before I read Kinsella and 

http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intell...4361082&sr=8-1

that, I could already somewhat see the writing on the wall with my involvement on the internet and seeing things like YouTube, "Piracy", Creative Commons, and Opensource. 

The internet is already undermining and will be the end of IP.

That said, after reading up on the argument against it, there really is no case for it. It's a complete misnomer (IP is not and can not be _property_), and just another backwards protectionist measure used to create artificial scarcity. It serves corporate establishment interests far more often than it serves the interests of the artist.

----------


## Diurdi

> Oh, and by the way, are people also arguing here against trademark?  That is a form of IP.  Should I be able to sell computers and call them Apple?  If you support trademark and not copyright, why?


 If I attempt to mislead my customers into believing my product is something it isn't, then it's fraud. Im pretty sure selling a computer and calling it an iPad or Apple-product would be considered fraud.

And when they say that innovation/idea's are not a scarce resource, they mean that if I have an idea, and someone else copies it, I still have my idea. It doesn't transfer ownership, it's only copied. It can be copied an unlimited amount of times without I losing this idea. For a scarce good this is not the case. If I have a chair and you take it, I don't have it anymore.

----------


## CaptUSA

_“He who receives an idea from me receives [it] without lessening [me], as he who lights his [candle] at mine receives light without darkening me.”_  - Thomas Jefferson

IP rights are not natural rights.  However, both Jefferson and Adam Smith understood that the harm created by not protecting this type of property can outweigh the good.  Here's the thing, though.  You must understand that you don't really have a "right" to intellectual property once you expose it.  Nobody can 'steal' your idea if you still have it.  But, there is a place for *temporary* protections of intellectual property.  It has to be limited and temporary.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> IP rights are not natural rights.  However, both Jefferson and Adam Smith understood that the harm created by not protecting this type of property can outweigh the good.


This is just an appeal to authority. 




> Adam Smith held that, in a primitive society, the amount of labor put into producing a good determined its exchange value, with exchange value meaning in this case the amount of labor a good can purchase. However, according to Smith, in a more advanced society the market price is no longer proportional to labor cost since the value of the good now includes compensation for the owner of the means of production: "The whole produce of labour does not always belong to the labourer. He must in most cases share it with the owner of the stock which employs him."[23] "Nevertheless, the 'real value' of such a commodity produced in advanced society is measured by the labor which that commodity will command in exchange....But [Smith] disowns what is naturally thought of as the genuine classical labor theory of value, that labor-cost regulates market-value. This theory was Ricardo’s, and really his alone."[24]




Edit: Menger was better than Smith on Value, and Kinsella is better than Smith on IP.

----------


## fisharmor

Not generated under IP law:


Not generated under IP law:


Not generated under IP law:


Not generated under IP law:


Not generated under IP law:


Not generated under IP law (the score, not the video, of course):



Not generated under IP law:




I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on.
The point being,
*we were doing pretty damned well before the state started protecting it.*

----------


## YumYum

IP became protected to put garbage into the market place and sell it on a large scale. Music that is easily copied is spoon-fed to the masses, and is most likely not original, but a rip-off of someone else's original creation. If someone as an artist is as brilliant as Mozart, they will be recognized for their art and their brilliancy and enjoy all the fame and wealth they could ever want. Anybody trying to "steal" that person's music will be seen as not being original. Isn't that what being an artist is all about? Being recognized for your originality? Brilliant artists are identified with their work.

Get rid of IP protection and all the cream will rise to the top. I'm sick of the Gaga bull$#@!.

----------


## erowe1

> The issue begins when you start SOCIALIZING my idea to put profits in your pocket. You are stealing from me.


That's not stealing. You are still every bit as free to sell things that incorporate the idea of your character as you would be if no one else did.

You may think that you would sell fewer of those things if people had the ability to buy them elsewhere. I am not so sure that's the case. But even if it is, your property in the things you want to sell that incorporate that character does not bring with it the right to have any particular customer buy it.

----------


## erowe1

Incidentally, here's a book that I haven't read yet. But ever since reading a great review of it by Jeff Tucker, I've been wanting to get it.
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intell.../dp/0521127262

Supposedly it focuses on those kinds of pragmatic concerns about what IP laws are supposed to accomplish, and shows how they don't accomplish those things.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> But even before I read Kinsella and 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intell...4361082&sr=8-1


It's good.

AIM got into a lot more historical and data analysis, while Kinsella (in Against Intellectual Property) focused more on theory/logic IIRC, I vaguely remember AIP being shorter and more to the point while AIM was building a case from real-world examples... but it was a while back.

----------


## wizardwatson

This horse has been (as one said above) beaten to death already on this forum.

What's so hard to understand.

It's not about protecting or not protecting your creative works.  It's about the fact that when you "enforce" IP rights you're actually taking away the rights of others to realize the fruits of their labor.

Say you build a mousetrap and patent it, and I cannot afford to buy but one of your mousetraps, even though I have many mice in my house.  So I build mousetraps just like yours.  Under IP rights I'll be fined and have all my mousetraps taken away by the state.

So long story short, IP laws enrich the creator by taking away the rights of others to build/produce similar works.

----------


## Acala

> Not generated under IP law:
> 
> 
> Not generated under IP law:
> 
> 
> Not generated under IP law:
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty much all generated under the patronage of a coercive state of some kind I think.  Is that better?

----------


## Acala

> This horse has been (as one said above) beaten to death already on this forum.
> 
> What's so hard to understand.
> 
> It's not about protecting or not protecting your creative works.  It's about the fact that when you "enforce" IP rights you're actually taking away the rights of others to realize the fruits of their labor.
> 
> Say you build a mousetrap and patent it, and I cannot afford to buy but one of your mousetraps, even though I have many mice in my house.  So I build mousetraps just like yours.  Under IP rights I'll be fined and have all my mousetraps taken away by the state.
> 
> So long story short, IP laws enrich the creator by taking away the rights of others to build/produce similar works.


So if you can't afford land or food, do you get to enter my land and farm it for your needs?

What you can and cannot afford in the way of property should not undermine the rights of others in THEIR property.  in other words, your needs are not a good basis for establishing  property rights.

----------


## Acala

> This is one of those debates are almost completely useless to argue with people who directly benefit from them. From the artists point of view it would seem incredibly unfair that someone copies their work. However, imitation of ideas for profit happen all the time in the business world. As businessess strive for competetive advantages to increase their profits in the market, the competitors quickly imititate this competetive advantage and "all the hard work is for nothing" from the original company's point of view. In reality though the consumer and the economy benefits.


Perhaps.  But if those who benefit from IP are excluded from the debate so too should be those who benefit from disregarding IP.  So all of you who have pirated music, video, or software, stand down.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am licensed to practice before the Patent and Trademark office but have never done so and don't paractice IP law.

----------


## erowe1

> In the interest of full disclosure, I am licensed to practice before the Patent and Trademark office but have never done so and don't paractice IP law.


Of course the government licensing is even less debatable than IP laws. Playing this card is kind of like saying, "I'm qualified to adjudicate whether or  not the government is right to do what it does. See? I have this piece of paper from the government proving it."

----------


## wizardwatson

> So if you can't afford land or food, do you get to enter my land and farm it for your needs?
> 
> What you can and cannot afford in the way of property should not undermine the rights of others in THEIR property.  in other words, your needs are not a good basis for establishing  property rights.


I'm not sure I'm understanding your argument here.  Of course you can't violate anothers property because you are "in need".  But IP is not real property.  The condition for establishing property rights is scarcity and first use.  There is no scarcity in IP, therefore its not property.  You can't "own" words and ideas.

Again, enforcement of IP involves taking away the rights of others to do what they want with their own property.  Whether its patents on mouse traps or music and books it's a matter of degree and not quality.

It's the commingling of IP with real property that causes all these arguments imo.  If you believe ideas are property, then naturally you would view infringement on your idea as "stealing", I just don't believe it is because it doesn't have the quality of scarcity, which imo, is one of two primary conditions for establishing property rights.

----------


## Acala

> If I attempt to mislead my customers into believing my product is something it isn't, then it's fraud. Im pretty sure selling a computer and calling it an iPad or Apple-product would be considered fraud.


Agreed.  But that isn't the troubling scenario.  Try this out:

I put an ad in the newspaper announcing that I am starting a company to manufacture computers and it will be called "Apple computers".  I also show the logo (which is identical to the other Apple Computer's logo).  And I announce plans to build a factory and manufacture computers that look EXACTLY like the product manufactured by the other Apple Computers.  I have reverse engineered those other computers and am reproducing them exactly except I skimp on component quality and take sortcuts in assembly and QA/QC, and I don't pay R&D staff, so I can undercut the existing market.  

I then go ahead and market those computers.  I have not said anything untrue and the product labels are perfectly accurate.  No fraud involved because there was no intentional misrepresentation.  I have been totally upfront and in the open about the whole thing.

The original Apple Computers Company has no remedy at law under a no IP scenario because they have no property rights in their name, their logo, the design of their product, any innovations incorporated into their product, or any code.  

Is it just tough jicama for Apple?

----------


## erowe1

> So if you can't afford land or food, do you get to enter my land and farm it for your needs?
> 
> What you can and cannot afford in the way of property should not undermine the rights of others in THEIR property.  in other words, your needs are not a good basis for establishing  property rights.


The thing is, it's only by way of the government artificially constricting the amount of land available to own that anybody could possibly not afford their own. There's more than enough land in the world for everyone.

A lot of land owners (not the least of which are governments themselves) acquired their land by way of some special government privilege, not terribly different from the government privileges that declare things to be people's IP. If you have land that you're actually using productively, then you have a right to it. And someone else who wants to use some land productively should have to go elsewhere to get it. Of course if you just have some extra land because you have a piece of paper at some government building that claims it's yours, then by rights the other guy should be able to use it.

Of course, we could say that he should have to buy it from you. But if we allowed a free market on land to prevail, and all that unused land owned by the government were made available for people, you wouldn't be able to charge much for whatever you wanted to sell. Some people wouldn't like the idea of not being able to charge much for their land, since in their minds they have a right to have customers who are willing to pay what they want to charge. These people are a lot like the people who own copyrights and think they have a right to have customers willing to pay what they want to charge in order to own some paper with ink arranged in it in words that convey a message that includes ideas they came up with.

----------


## Diurdi

> Is it just tough jicama for Apple?


 The same effect happens in current business climate as well. Companies are free-riding on the brand image of other, successful companies. The problem arises if the customer is led to believe that it is the same apple.

And if this new apple is creating suboptimal products, what makes you think it can compete with the old apple anyway?

----------


## kahless

I believe the government should get out the trademark registration business since they are completely inept at handling it and they are only aiding corporations that act like thieves to steals ones private property.

For example, I have had a very large company trademark as "first use in business" part of a domain name I have owned and have a business on for over 10 years.   A simply internet search would have proven that they should not have been granted the USPTO registration.  It will be costly for me to fight this through USPTO (which I will) and if I fight this company in court they will probably use USPTO registration as "first use in business" as part their defense.

As I see it the US government is assisting corporate criminals to steal my private property from me.  If we did not have the trademark laws or the government actually did due diligence before provided a registration  (which they do not and they cannot be trusted to do), I would not be faced with this problem now.

----------


## Acala

> Of course the government licensing is even less debatable than IP laws. Playing this card is kind of like saying, "I'm qualified to adjudicate whether or  not the government is right to do what it does. See? I have this piece of paper from the government proving it."


Agreed that government licensing is abominable.  I merely wanted to disclose my background so people could weigh my bias.  Not claiming any "authority" on the subject.

----------


## Acala

> I'm not sure I'm understanding your argument here.  Of course you can't violate anothers property because you are "in need". .


You used your economic hardship to justify IP laws here:

"So long story short, IP laws enrich the creator by taking away the rights of others to build/produce similar works."






> But IP is not real property.  .


That's what is being debated here.




> You can't "own" words and ideas..


Saying doesn't make it so.




> Again, enforcement of IP involves taking away the rights of others to do what they want with their own property. .


This begs the question.  If I exclude you from driving on my private road I am, in the identical way preventing you from doing what you want with your car.  So what?

----------


## Acala

> The thing is, it's only by way of the government artificially constricting the amount of land available to own that anybody could possibly not afford their own. There's more than enough land in the world for everyone.
> 
> A lot of land owners (not the least of which are governments themselves) acquired their land by way of some special government privilege, not terribly different from the government privileges that declare things to be people's IP. If you have land that you're actually using productively, then you have a right to it. And someone else who wants to use some land productively should have to go elsewhere to get it. Of course if you just have some extra land because you have a piece of paper at some government building that claims it's yours, then by rights the other guy should be able to use it.
> 
> Of course, we could say that he should have to buy it from you. But if we allowed a free market on land to prevail, and all that unused land owned by the government were made available for people, you wouldn't be able to charge much for whatever you wanted to sell. Some people wouldn't like the idea of not being able to charge much for their land, since in their minds they have a right to have customers who are willing to pay what they want to charge. These people are a lot like the people who own copyrights and think they have a right to have customers willing to pay what they want to charge in order to own some paper with ink arranged in it in words that convey a message that includes ideas they came up with.


Still, you aren't challenging a land owner's right to exclude people from his land, are you?  If not, then where's the point?

----------


## Acala

> I believe the government should get out the trademark registration business since they are completely inept at handling it and they are only aiding corporations that act like thieves to steals ones private property.
> 
> For example, I have had a very large company trademark as "first use in business" part of a domain name I have owned and have a business on for over 10 years.   A simply internet search would have proven that they should not have been granted the USPTO registration.  It will be costly for me to fight this through USPTO (which I will) and if I fight this company in court they will probably use USPTO registration as "first use in business" as part their defense.
> 
> As I see it the US government is assisting corporate criminals to steal my private property from me.  If we did not have the trademark laws or the government actually did due diligence before provided a registration  (which they do not and they cannot be trusted to do), I would not be faced with this problem now.


But the question of who enforces property rights is a different matter than the question here which is do you even HAVE property rights in a trademark?

----------


## fisharmor

> Agreed.  But that isn't the troubling scenario.  Try this out:
> 
> I put an ad in the newspaper announcing that I am starting a company to manufacture computers and it will be called "Apple computers".  I also show the logo (which is identical to the other Apple Computer's logo).  And I announce plans to build a factory and manufacture computers that look EXACTLY like the product manufactured by the other Apple Computers.  I have reverse engineered those other computers and am reproducing them exactly except I skimp on component quality and take sortcuts in assembly and QA/QC, and I don't pay R&D staff, so I can undercut the existing market.  
> 
> I then go ahead and market those computers.  I have not said anything untrue and the product labels are perfectly accurate.  No fraud involved because there was no intentional misrepresentation.  I have been totally upfront and in the open about the whole thing.
> 
> The original Apple Computers Company has no remedy at law under a no IP scenario because they have no property rights in their name, their logo, the design of their product, any innovations incorporated into their product, or any code.  
> 
> Is it just tough jicama for Apple?


It's really interesting that you bring up a computer company.
First of all, if the startup company is representing themselves as Apple and producing an inferior product, then how is that not fraud?

Second of all, you're talking about an industry which in its early years had to overcome IP *not* protecting its work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_art
Prior to 1984 microchip manufacturers weren't automatically covered by copyright.  So designers put microscopic doodles on the design.  If someone else produced a chip with the doodles on it, they knew that someone had copied their work instead of inventing it independently.

It might seem like I'm arguing in favor of IP, since IP enforcement was the reason they did it.  On the contrary, I bring it up to show that in the absence of strong IP laws, _the market figures something out._

But let's use another Apple example: iPhones.  
I will never own one.
I'm sure they're great.  But I can't sideload it, and if I can't put free apps on it, I'm not buying it.
Why can't I do it?   Technically I can, but I won't because 
A) they've made it difficult for me to do it, and 
B) they've made it possible for my contract to get terminated if I jailbreak it.

I'm sure there are IP defenders out there who would actually defend Apple's claim that they can legally control what you do with a device that you ostensibly purchased from them... but even if you don't, you have to agree that in the name of controlling their product, they've done a pretty good job keeping people from doing things they don't want done, without bankrupting and/or jailing people.

----------


## Acala

> The same effect happens in current business climate as well. Companies are free-riding on the brand image of other, successful companies. The problem arises if the customer is led to believe that it is the same apple.


Not sure what you are saying here.




> And if this new apple is creating suboptimal products, what makes you think it can compete with the old apple anyway?


They can make it cheaper.  And maybe some people are mainly concerned with having the Apple trademark on their gear.  That is certainly how knock off goods make a profit in the current market.

----------


## Acala

> First of all, if the startup company is representing themselves as Apple and producing an inferior product, then how is that not fraud?.


Because, in the absence of trademark protection, I can name my company anything I want.  The existing Apple Computers would have no property rights in its name.  So would be free to use the name for my company.  It would only be fraud if I told people that my company WAS IN FACT the other company.  But in my scenario I did just the opposite.  I announced that I, not Steve Jobs, was forming a new company, not the old Apple.  so I am not pretending to be them.  I am just using their name and making a cheap but nearly identical knockoff of their product.       




> Second of all, you're talking about an industry which in its early years had to overcome IP *not* protecting its work.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_art
> Prior to 1984 microchip manufacturers weren't automatically covered by copyright.  So designers put microscopic doodles on the design.  If someone else produced a chip with the doodles on it, they knew that someone had copied their work instead of inventing it independently.
> 
> It might seem like I'm arguing in favor of IP, since IP enforcement was the reason they did it.  On the contrary, I bring it up to show that in the absence of strong IP laws, _the market figures something out._
> 
> But let's use another Apple example: iPhones.  
> I will never own one.
> I'm sure they're great.  But I can't sideload it, and if I can't put free apps on it, I'm not buying it.
> ...


Any maybe there would be no Apple computers left in the absence of IP law?

----------


## Uriah

Ideas are not owned. They are not your property. By the logic presented, if I told you I have intellectual property rights to 'Idea A'. You will most definitely think of 'Idea A', therefore you have now stolen my property. That is false. All ideas naturally become "socialized" if they are good and shared. Manifesting an idea into reality is not theft. Stealing physical property is theft. Spreading the proceeds to all is socialism.

----------


## Diurdi

> Not sure what you are saying here.


 I'm saying that companies in today's environment are also attempting to benefit from already established brands by emulating them.




> They can make it cheaper.  And maybe some people are mainly concerned with having the Apple trademark on their gear.  That is certainly how knock off goods make a profit in the current market.


 If they specifically say it's an apple knock-off then I don't see the problem. If they pretent like it's apple then it's fraud.

...in my opinion.

----------


## Acala

> Ideas are not owned. They are not your property. By the logic presented, if I told you I have intellectual property rights to 'Idea A'. You will most definitely think of 'Idea A', therefore you have now stolen my property. That is false. All ideas naturally become "socialized" if they are good and shared. Manifesting an idea into reality is not theft. Stealing physical property is theft. Spreading the proceeds to all is socialism.


IP doesn't protect ideas.

----------


## Acala

> I'm saying that companies in today's environment are also attempting to benefit from already established brands by emulating them..


Sure.  But not by using the identical name, logo, design, code, etc.




> If they specifically say it's an apple knock-off then I don't see the problem. If they pretent like it's apple then it's fraud.
> 
> ...in my opinion.


But in the absence of trademark protection, it WOULD be an Apple because nothing would prevent me from naming my company Apple Computers and making computers that WOULD be Apples!  I could even call my computers Macintosh if I wanted.  That's the point!

----------


## fisharmor

> Because, in the absence of trademark protection, I can name my company anything I want.  The existing Apple Computers would have no property rights in its name.  So would be free to use the name for my company.  It would only be fraud if I told people that my company WAS IN FACT the other company.  But in my scenario I did just the opposite.  I announced that I, not Steve Jobs, was forming a new company, not the old Apple.  so I am not pretending to be them.  I am just using their name and making a cheap but nearly identical knockoff of their product.


Ok, so I wasn't delineating where I was going.  The fraud isn't against Apple.  The fraud is against the consumer who believes he is buying an Apple product.
That's the problem I have with IP, encapsulated right there: it shifts the focus away from the consumer and on to the producer.
It's the consumers who should care most whether they're getting genuine Apple products.  Not Apple.




> Any maybe there would be no Apple computers left in the absence of IP law?


Maybe.  That's not the discussion.  I'm really only interested in not holding a gun to people's heads to protect a corporate body's unwillingness to compete.  If Apple doesn't exist in that environment, it's because they didn't compete.

If Apple disappeared, people would cry.  Personally, I cry for Commodore, since they were unparalleled in new development for home and small business computers at one time.  But they couldn't compete, so I don't cry all that hard.

----------


## wizardwatson

> You used your economic hardship to justify IP laws here:
> 
> "So long story short, IP laws enrich the creator by taking away the rights of others to build/produce similar works."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what is being debated here.
> ...


Again, you are commingling real property rights with IP rights.  But as you say, that's what we're debating here.  You say they are the same, I say they are not.

Your car example is not a good analogy.  Driving my car on YOUR road is trespassing on your rights (assuming you don't want anyone else on it), saying I can't build my own private road because you patented the process or idea of how to build it is infringing my rights in my opinion.

If IP rights were a natural right they wouldn't have to make it a special clause in the Constitution.  It's a privilege supposedly to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." as the Constitution says.

If it was a natural right there wouldn't be a "time limit" on how long you could hold the patent.  It's utilitarianism.  And if that's how we want to roll, how about a clause that says you can only own land for a "limited time" in order to promote the "general welfare" of all?

----------


## pcosmar

I think it all needs to be readdressed. I do not oppose it in total or in concept,, but I do oppose them as they are implemented today.

Trademarks, copyrights and even IP have a place, but I think (due mostly to lawyers and greed and dishonesty0 they have been taken far beyond simply protecting the income and marketing of the individual.

They do have a place,, but need to be put in their place. Limited both by time and by common decency.
They need to be balanced with Fair Use.

I think the "laws" need to  be readdressed, especially as to second or third party transfers.

----------


## Acala

> The fraud is against the consumer who believes he is buying an Apple product..


But they WOULD be getting an Apple product because my company would legitimately be named Apple Computers because nobody would have any property rights in that name.  So my computers WOULD be Apple computers.  If the customers want a computer from a particular source or with particular guts, they will have to figure that out on their own because I have as much right to use the name Apple and Macintosh as anyone else in a world where trademarks are not property.   





> I'm really only interested in not holding a gun to people's heads to protect a corporate body's unwillingness to compete.  If Apple doesn't exist in that environment, it's because they didn't compete.
> 
> If Apple disappeared, people would cry.  Personally, I cry for Commodore, since they were unparalleled in new development for home and small business computers at one time.  But they couldn't compete, so I don't cry all that hard.


And you might be right.

I guess when it comes to IP, I am somewhere about where I am with anarcho-capitalism.  I am just about there but I have a few reservations.

----------


## Acala

Thanks for the fun discussion, y'all.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Thanks for the fun discussion, y'all.


I do draw the line with respect to trademarks, or at least I think it's a little less clear cut.  Saying you represent or are some company that you are not is fraud imo.  To me a trademark is like a signature.  Like when farmers brand cattle to show their ownership.  Or like domain names.

----------


## dannno

> Do you honestly believe that if another company decided to use Mickey Mouse that no one would watch Disney productions with Mickey Mouse and decide to watch those emulating him? Sure, you may not make as much money without IP as with (since it is protectionist), but on the other hand your works would be more widely spread and the ideas contained within them would reach a greater audience. The fact is that being first to market is all the incentive and benefit you need. Since when are you entitled to guaranteed profit? If someone decides to emulate your character, you still have your character. Nothing has been stolen from you. 
> 
> Besides, this is a fruitless argument to have with someone who benefits from IP. Only the most devoutly principled, far-sighted, and wise will choose a set of ideals which aren't immediately self-benefitting. It is akin to asking the robber to stop stealing and see the error of his ways.
> 
> 
> PS: The idea of State-IP and Private Property are antithetical. There isn't anything stopping someone from NDA'ing a trade secret or otherwise, you just have no right to be an imposition on anothers property -- say if they decide to reverse engineer their property. It's like if I walk by someone who owns a rocking chair that someone has a patent out on -- I should be able to buy wood from Home Depot and re-create the design and if I want to sell it or not. The same principle applies to all of IP. I should be able to go to Staples, buy some paper, and re-create your character that I've either seen advertised, or from a friend whom has bought your work. Telling me I cannot do so is an abridgement of my fundamental rights of private property and liberty.


Please, please, please..

If you are still for IP, read this post again, more slowly. Everything is in there. The sense of self-entitlement of Rev9 and the Capt. are astounding. If nobody was allowed to copy or emulate each other, we would still be living in $#@!ing caves.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> On the contrary, libertarians are possibly more concerned with the protection of property rights than any other ideological group.  As a matter of fact, when it boils down to the essence of libertarianism and the government's role in a libertarian society, property protection is one of the handful of things that a government can and should do.  With that said, the way that libertarians and marxists denounce intellectual property is completely different.  Something cannot be stolen that isn't tangible to begin with.  AEP is absolutely right in that no one has a right to have guaranteed profit, nor does it supersede one's right to do whatever they please with their own body.  *And I am speaking as a musician who gives away his music freely*.  I only accept donations.


That is your decision to do so. The music is still your property. Simply because you have willingly shared it does not mean it stops being property.

----------


## Acala

> I do draw the line with respect to trademarks, or at least I think it's a little less clear cut.  Saying you represent or are some company that you are not is fraud imo.  To me a trademark is like a signature.  Like when farmers brand cattle to show their ownership.  Or like domain names.


I think this is probably about right.  And, unlike patents, you don't need a government agency to "grant" the priviledge.

----------


## dannno

The real problem with the OP's argument is how completely subjective this whole thing is.

If you own a chair, and I steal it, then I have objectively stolen from you.

If you own a chair and allow me to view said chair, and I go out and create a similar chair, at what point is it your chair?? What if I adapted it slightly? How do you measure the amount of adaptation a person is allowed to do to a character or an object that is patented? 

The whole patent system is completely draconian. It stifles innovation and progress.

----------


## dannno

> I do draw the line with respect to trademarks, or at least I think it's a little less clear cut.  Saying you represent or are some company that you are not is fraud imo.  To me a trademark is like a signature.  Like when farmers brand cattle to show their ownership.  Or like domain names.


Being that branding is an important feature of a free market, and a case of fraud can be made when representing yourself as someone else, I can see a pretty good argument for this.

----------


## Conza88

*http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/*

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Prove me wrong. If you are taking the course of proving me wrong then explain to me why i should stay in a business where my work can be ripped and kill my profits and my ability to grow my IP into movie, music, character and other franchises.


Isn't the burden of proof on the one holding the gun to our heads?




> But..My ART is MY PRIVATE PROPERTY I CREATED. I also see that your kind have no problem socializing/stealing others work but are against socialism. Next argument.


So-called "intellectual property" is not property.  It is better described as a government-granted monopoly.

Here is an example of more hysterics:




> the DAILYPAUL has a nasty thread on this subject, and there are too many marxists perpetuating the notion that they can replicate my music on a cd and call it their own fruits of their labor.


You really ought to back down from calling people Marxists until you learn more.  It reflects poorly on you.  Also, could you not conflate taking credit for work with copying that work.  I may have some Metallica MP3s but I will not claim authorship.




> Once a person begins raping your idea or my idea as artists and profits from it ,that society turns into marxism.Marxists do not believe in property ,but equal share. I see that a marxist ideal has creeped its way into libertarianism and its very creepy to me. I for one have made a loud statement against it but then Im quickly called "un-intellectual" because I call it out for what it is...marxism.


I think you should be called ignorant.  First, study what other posters said and what the founders intended:




> _He who receives an idea from me receives [it] without lessening [me], as he who lights his [candle] at mine receives light without darkening me._  - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> IP rights are not natural rights.  However, both Jefferson and Adam Smith understood that the harm created by not protecting this type of property can outweigh the good.  Here's the thing, though.  You must understand that you don't really have a "right" to intellectual property once you expose it.  Nobody can 'steal' your idea if you still have it.  But, there is a place for *temporary* protections of intellectual property.  It has to be limited and temporary.


Keep in mind that the constitution does not use the term intellectual property (a term which may date back to 1867 per wikipedia):




> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.


Generally, you will find amongst Ron Paul supporters, Objectivists, freedom lovers, libertarians *both sympathy and hesitation* for trademarks, copyrights, and patents.  If you do not understand the motivation for both protection (defense of trademarks, patents, copyrights)  and freedom from these monopolies, then you are not qualified to advance the debate or the cause of liberty.  The knee-jerk use of the term Marxism indicates a lack of research.  There is a difference between something state owned and something nobody owns.

Trademarks:  It is good to know who you are doing business with and avoid marketplace confusion.  It is bad for a company to take control beyond what is necessary to accomplish that goal.  It is not violating the spirit of trademarks to use an image of Ronald McDonald to criticize the company, it is a violation to use that image to pretend your small-company fries are from McDonalds.

Copyrights:  Initial lengths for copyright were 5, 7, 14, 21 years until the US settled for 14 years with a 14 year extension (28 years, if you lived through the first 14).  The key is the time was limited.  Now, Congress has abused the meaning of limited such that it is life-of-the-author+75years or 99years (IIRC).  Copyrights are now very much against the spirt of the constitution.  More so, the copyrights are extended retroactively so if you paid to see Micky Mouse on the assumption the copyright would expire, guess again, it was extended.  Congress has violated any implied contract in favor of big corporations.  In my opinion, this is the second biggest mistake copyright defenders have made.

The biggest mistake are laws like the DMCA and, possibly the Protect IP Act.  Government and corporate overlords are using smut, terrorism, and copyright as a pretext to spy on everything you do, to override your control of computers and other electronic devices.  If they get their way, nothing will be copied, transmitted, published, or viewed without their knowledge, permission, and/or payoff.  You will never be secure in your person or papers as the government will outlaw any encrpytion they cannot access via backdoors or - more likely - jail anybody who does not willingly decrypt their information with or without a court order.  This will make possession of any random data - statistical noise - a dangerous thing.  How can you prove it isn't a Metallica MP3 secretly encrypted?  The only good thing about this is how unlikely the enemies of freedom are to succeed but many will be harmed in the attempt and a lot of time and money wasted.  If you are starting a business in the US, it is likely you will pay for software licenses.  If you are in China, not so much.  Think about that as you try to compete in  a global economy.  Bill Gates will send his money overseas to the developing world but the favor will not be reciprocated.

Patents:  In my opinion, these are the worst and most harmful.  The typical smart phone - iPhone or Android - has thousands of patents.  Although Apple, Microsoft, and Google will each jostle to reap the most money/protection from this system, keep in mind that the purpose is make sure that neither you or I is ever as powerful as Apple, Microsoft, or Google.  Patents on genes and on tax-payer funded medical research is another pathetic joke.  How would you like to have your DNA patented without your consent?  Or to be responsible for wind-blown seeds from big agriculture landing on your small farm?  Patents now exist almost to the sole benefit or big corporations and lawyers.  There are exceptions.  I would terminate all government-funded, non-military research or end patents (or both).  If the little guy needed a boost, it would almost be better to just give out monetary rewards for patents rather than handcuffing every rehashed idea.  We saw this with the internet.  Add "with the internet" to any idea and you would get a patent.  Now it is "with a touchscreen".  Soon it may be "with a tiny nanobot".

I have written too much but will close on some campaign thoughts.  The anti-IP crowd could be very fertile ground for finding Ron Paul support.  However, the pro-IP crowd is filled with lobbyists and driven by corporatism.  These are the rent seekers.  I doubt their is much RP support there.  That said, the anti-IP crowd is likely young and not the most needed demographic (50+ years).  Pro-IP talk might play well if you STICK TO THE CONSTITUTION and drop the Marxist bull$#@!.  Both libertarians and Objectivists have strong proponents of both sides.  None are Marxists.

In my opinion, the US is not positioned to benefit from IP as we will mostly entangle ourselves as more nimble countries skirt the issue or play our rules against us.  We are creating a costly system that doesn't protect us as a nation.  China is notorious for spying or reverse engineering our technology.  Patents are internal roadblocks for the most part.

Those of you with your little paintbrushes and dusty guitars are living in the dark if you think IP is about protecting your precious works.  If you are talented, you will get a cut and might earn great success.  You likely could do this without a government-granted monopoly.  If you had real talent, I mean.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> *Maybe now you see that IP kills innovation*, or at least artificially delays it, and hurts consumers.


What are you defining as 'innovation'? I see this argument a lot and I have always considered innovating to be 'coming up with something new.' A bunch of people sitting around copying each other's ideas back and forth doesn't seem to be very innovative. It's just, well—. . . copying. If you want to try to do something entirely new, on the other hand, we'd have tons of different ideas in the market to pick from.




> The whole patent system is completely draconian. *It stifles innovation and progress*.


Same question to you. People have been sitting in chairs for thousands of years. Is it _innovative_ to copy someone else's chair design, or is it _innovative_ to come up with something new to sit on?

----------


## Revolution9

> Please, please, please..
> 
> If you are still for IP, read this post again, more slowly. Everything is in there. The sense of self-entitlement of Rev9 and the Capt. are astounding. If nobody was allowed to copy or emulate each other, we would still be living in $#@!ing caves.


What a frakking crock to call what I do with my unique set of talents and how I protect them to stay in business, entitlements. I did the goddamned work. I studied for years and years. I bought the tools. I didn't go to the frakking party because I was working or studying my work. Yet you clowns with your philosophical bodewashery and balderdash, including not understanding just what IP is want to have the ability to reproduce it for profit. That is a marxist entitlement headspace if I ever saw one. Only a talentless money grubbing fraud would think they had such a right.

If you do not think art is property just try walking out of The Louvre with the Mona Lisa and see what charges you get. What I create with my hands is my property and I am entitled to the profit..not some bozo with a marxist entitlement complex. Ya see, I will defend ALL my property by whatever means necessary from anybody thinking they are entitled to the fruits of MY LABOR.

Rev9

----------


## Diurdi

> What a frakking crock to call what I do with my unique set of talents and how I protect them to stay in business, entitlements. I did the goddamned work. I studied for years and years. I bought the tools. I didn't go to the frakking party because I was working or studying my work. Yet you clowns with your philosophical bodewashery and balderdash, including not understanding just what IP is want to have the ability to reproduce it for profit. That is a marxist entitlement headspace if I ever saw one. Only a talentless money grubbing fraud would think they had such a right.
> 
> If you do not think art is property just try walking out of The Louvre with the Mona Lisa and see what charges you get. What I create with my hands is my property and I am entitled to the profit..not some bozo with a marxist entitlement complex. Ya see, I will defend ALL my property by whatever means necessary from anybody thinking they are entitled to the fruits of MY LABOR.
> 
> Rev9


 You're missing the point here. Your drawing (or whatever art you do), is your property. yes. If someone sees your drawing and tries to copy it, then he has a drawing exactly like yours that is his property. You still have yours - but you now somehow want to stop others from copying it so that you can enjoy a monopoly-situation for X years because of government regulation. A business strategist might sink tons of work in coming up with an idea how to improve the efficiency of his corporation, only for a rival to imitate it within a couple months and thus losing the competetive advantage. Sucks for the strategist, rocks for the consumer.

----------


## Conza88

"Consider the following two examples. Jim is courting Susan and is just about to win her hand in marriage, when suddenly Bob appears on the scene and wins her away. Surely Bob has done great "harm" to Jim. *Once a nonphysical-invasion* sense of harm *is adopted, almost any outlaw act might be justified.* Should Jim be able to "enjoin" Bob's very existence?[14]

Similarly, A is a successful seller of razor blades. But then B comes along and sells a better blade, teflon-coated to prevent shaving cuts. The value of A's property is greatly affected. Should he be able to collect damages from B, or, better yet, to enjoin B's sale of a better blade? The correct answer is not that consumers would be hurt if they were forced to buy the inferior blade, although that is surely the case. *Rather, no one has the right to legally prevent or retaliate against "harms" to his property unless it is an act of physical invasion.* Everyone has the right to have the physical integrity of his property inviolate; *no one has the right to protect the value of his property, for that value is purely the reflection of what people are willing to pay for it.* That willingness solely depends on how they decide to use their money. *No one can have a right to someone else's money, unless that other person had previously contracted to transfer it to him.*" ~ Rothbard

----------


## nobody's_hero

> You're missing the point here. Your drawing (or whatever art you do), is your property. yes. If someone sees your drawing and tries to copy it, then he has a drawing exactly like yours that is his property. You still have yours - but you now somehow want to stop others from copying it so that you can enjoy a monopoly-situation for X years because of government regulation. A business strategist might sink tons of work in coming up with an idea how to improve the efficiency of his corporation, only for a rival to imitate it within a couple months and thus losing the competetive advantage. Sucks for the strategist, rocks for the consumer.


But there are factors that aren't tangible that are incorporated into the value of the drawing. Time—perhaps the largest one, which includes preplanning, trial and error, the time spent actually making the product. It's very easy for someone to come along and say, "Hey, I can do that." But you can't, see. There are things that cost the original artist which you were spared by being second in line. See, if not for his initial effort, *you would have no product to copy*. Seems to me that you owe him a little bit, at least. Royalties or_ something_.

----------


## Acala

> . A business strategist might sink tons of work in coming up with an idea how to improve the efficiency of his corporation, only for a rival to imitate it within a couple months and thus losing the competetive advantage. Sucks for the strategist, rocks for the consumer.


Exactly.  The question is does it suck enough for the strategist that he stops sinking the ton of work into projects?  If so, then the rocking for the consumers will be short-lived and will be replaced by a market devoid of innovation.

----------


## Diurdi

> But there are factors that aren't tangible that are incorporated into the value of the painting. Time—perhaps the largest one, which includes preplanning, trial and error, the time spent actually making the product. It's very easy for someone to come along and say, "Hey, I can do that." But you can't, see. There are things that cost the original painter that you were spared by being second in line. See, if not for his initial effort, *you would have no product to copy*. Seems to me that you owe him a little bit, at least. Royalties or_ something_.


 I understand. But consider this: A company decides to start selling icecream at a beach. He advertises the beach and his icecream across the town and more and more people flock to the scene. He has created himself a lucrative market with good profit margins. Competitors see the huge profit margins and they decide to start selling icecream at the beach as well. The profit margins collapse as the original icecream vendor has to reduce his prices and has a smaller market share.

What happened here is exactly the same. The original icecream vendor created a market for himself, paid money for advertisement and so on. He was a market pioneer. The "followers" got a free ride on his back. Yet I cannot see how one could argue that the original icecream vendor should have a monopoly right to his business idea.

----------


## Revolution9

> You're missing the point here. Your drawing (or whatever art you do), is your property. yes. If someone sees your drawing and tries to copy it, then he has a drawing exactly like yours that is his property.


That is not IP.

Next.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> I understand. But consider this: A company decides to start selling icecream at a beach. He advertises the beach and his icecream across the town and more and more people flock to the scene. He has created himself a lucrative market with good profit margins. Competitors see the huge profit margins and they decide to start selling icecream at the beach as well. The profit margins collapse as the original icecream vendor has to reduce his prices and has a smaller market share.
> 
> What happened here is exactly the same. The original icecream vendor created a market for himself, paid money for advertisement and so on. He was a market pioneer. The "followers" got a free ride on his back. Yet I cannot see how one could argue that the original icecream vendor should have a monopoly right to his business idea.


Ice cream is not IP.

Next.

Rev9

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Exactly.  The question is does it suck enough for the strategist that he stops sinking the ton of work into projects?  If so, then the rocking for the consumers will be short-lived and will be replaced by a market devoid of innovation.


Bingo. To me, that's where the "harm to innovation" comes in. You described the original intent of patenting but I have to agree with the anti-IP side that our government has since screwed it all up.

Originally, it was to protect upstart companies from bigger companies swooping in and taking the inventor's new ideas before he had time to market them and try to find investors who believed in his product enough to supply him the funds for mass production. 

Now-a-days, it seems more like patent laws exist to protect big companies from the 'small-fry' inventors. 

Yet, I think the system needs reform, not abolition.

----------


## Diurdi

> Exactly.  The question is does it suck enough for the strategist that he stops sinking the ton of work into projects?  If so, then the rocking for the consumers will be short-lived and will be replaced by a market devoid of innovation.


 History has shown that innovation will not dry out even in the absence of patent laws. For example the Swiss had no patent laws until 1888. For those of you who do not know European history, the Swiss are known for innovation during the pre-patent time (and after).

----------


## Diurdi

> Ice cream is not IP.
> 
> Next.
> 
> Rev9


 No, but his idea of selling icecream at this particular beach is an unique idea that no one has acted upon before him.

----------


## dannno

> If you do not think art is property just try walking out of The Louvre with the Mona Lisa and see what charges you get.


This statement alone represents a complete failure to understand even the most basic arguments we are making here. Nobody is saying that we should be able to walk into a store or exhibit and steal something physically..

But if I go home, paint a Mona Lisa, and put MY NAME on it, then IT'S MY $#@!ING PAINTING. 





> What a frakking crock to call what I do with my unique set of talents and how I protect them to stay in business, entitlements. I did the goddamned work. I studied for years and years. I bought the tools.


If you make something it belongs to you. If you present it to the public and somebody else makes their own art, even if it is based on yours, as long as they don't TAKE your art and PUT their name or trademark on it to sell, it is theirs.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I understand. But consider this: A company decides to start selling icecream at a beach. He advertises the beach and his icecream across the town and more and more people flock to the scene. He has created himself a lucrative market with good profit margins. Competitors see the huge profit margins and they decide to start selling icecream at the beach as well. The profit margins collapse as the original icecream vendor has to reduce his prices and has a smaller market share.
> 
> What happened here is exactly the same. The original icecream vendor created a market for himself, paid money for advertisement and so on. He was a market pioneer. The "followers" got a free ride on his back. Yet I cannot see how one could argue that the original icecream vendor should have a monopoly right to his business idea.


It isn't _exactly_ the same, IMO. There are certain brands of ice-cream that are patented. The' kind of ice-cream used' would be more of an issue as far as this IP debate is concerned, rather than 'the act of selling ice-cream' itself.

People who are pro-IP don't say that a company has a right to the market itself, I mean.

----------


## dannno

> Ice cream is not IP.
> 
> Next.
> 
> Rev9


But he is the one who first came up with selling ice cream at that beach!! *It was HIS idea!!* Why is that any less intellectual property than any other idea? 

Now you want to steal this guy's idea and go sell ice cream at the beach, too?

Face it, you're asking for government monopoly when you argue IP.

----------


## Revolution9

> *No one can have a right to someone else's money, unless that other person had previously contracted to transfer it to him.*" ~ Rothbard


Damned straight and since money is the store of the fruits of my labor I will kick their ass metaphorically or physically as the situation arises.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> But he is the one who first came up with selling ice cream at that beach!! *It was HIS idea!!* Why is that any less intellectual property than any other idea? 
> 
> Now you want to steal this guy's idea and go sell ice cream at the beach, too?


You are simply FOS.

Rev9

----------


## Diurdi

> It isn't _exactly_ the same, IMO. There are certain brands of ice-cream that are patented. The' kind of ice-cream used' would be more of an issue as far as this IP debate is concerned, rather than 'the act of selling ice-cream' itself.


 The ice-cream is not the issue here. The issue is the "idea" of selling icecream at the particular beach.

----------


## Diurdi

> Damned straight and since money is the store of the fruits of my labor I will kick their ass metaphorically or physically as the situation arises.
> 
> Rev9


 This is a good example why it's not a good idea to argue IP with people who earn a significant portion of their income thanks to it. Too much personal emotions.

----------


## Revolution9

> This statement alone represents a complete failure to understand even the most basic arguments we are making here. Nobody is saying that we should be able to walk into a store or exhibit and steal something physically..
> 
> But if I go home, paint a Mona Lisa, and put MY NAME on it, then IT'S MY $#@!ING PAINTING. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you make something it belongs to you. If you present it to the public and somebody else makes their own art, even if it is based on yours, as long as they don't TAKE your art and PUT their name or trademark on it to sell, it is theirs.


That is not IP.

Next. 

What an intellectually bereft bunch. No wonder they don't understand INTELLECTUAL property. If some of them had two coherent ideas it would be the biggest goddamned surprise of their life.

rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> This is a good example why it's not a good idea to argue IP with people who earn a significant portion of their income thanks to it. Too much personal emotions.


Let me steal your car or stereo and see if you want to kick my ass or not.

Rev9

----------


## dannno

> What are you defining as 'innovation'? I see this argument a lot and I have always considered innovating to be 'coming up with something new.' A bunch of people sitting around copying each other's ideas back and forth doesn't seem to be very innovative. It's just, well—. . . copying. If you want to try to do something entirely new, on the other hand, we'd have tons of different ideas in the market to pick from.



That is complete bologna!! 

So you are saying that if one person invents a tablet computer, then anybody who copies the design of that tablet computer and then adds a bunch of new features, makes it faster or uses better materials isn't innovating??

Innovation has EVERYTHING TO DO with copying each other's ideas. You take the best ideas, copy them, make them better. Or come up with new ones. Either way, that's how we innovate.





> Same question to you. People have been sitting in chairs for thousands of years. Is it _innovative_ to copy someone else's chair design, or is it _innovative_ to come up with something new to sit on?


See, here you are making our point for us.. Chairs are fine as they are already, but the person who made the first chair shouldn't have a monopoly on chair production. We can make better chairs today, but we're still COPYING his original design to some degree.

That's why I asked earlier how you measure adaptation.  It's an important question.

----------


## Diurdi

> Let me steal your car or stereo and see if you want to kick my ass or not.
> Rev9


 You completely miss the argument here. We're talking about intellectual property. That means, immaterial property. A car or stereo is none of those.

But really, what is the difference between being the first to implement a great business idea and then have others "steal it" and reduce your profits vs. being the first to innovate a certain type of drug, and then have others copy the drug and sell it - reducing the innovators profits?

----------


## fisharmor

> What are you defining as 'innovation'? I see this argument a lot and I have always considered innovating to be 'coming up with something new.' A bunch of people sitting around copying each other's ideas back and forth doesn't seem to be very innovative. It's just, well—. . . copying. If you want to try to do something entirely new, on the other hand, we'd have tons of different ideas in the market to pick from.


I invent X.
X is the next big thing in the widget market, and I know it.  So I patent it.
So nobody can use X for the next 14 years, minimum.

Meanwhile, my neighbor sees that X is the next biggest thing.  He also knows that it's patented, and knows that he has to come up with an *innovative* way to get around the patent restrictions.
So my neighbor ends up dumping the same amount of effort that it took to develop X into developing Y.

Same basic problem as the broken window fallacy, basically.  All you're seeing is the fact that people are forced to be inventive.  Great.  But how about the fact that we can't account for what my neighbor *would* have done, if he wasn't re-doing all the work I did?

It's simply foolishness to say that this system encourages innovation.  It kills innovation by making people re-innovate the same exact thing over, and over, and over.
And it happens with regularity.

----------


## YumYum

> What a frakking crock to call what I do with my unique set of talents and how I protect them to stay in business, entitlements. I did the goddamned work. I studied for years and years. I bought the tools. I didn't go to the frakking party because I was working or studying my work. Yet you clowns with your philosophical bodewashery and balderdash, including not understanding just what IP is want to have the ability to reproduce it for profit. That is a marxist entitlement headspace if I ever saw one. Only a talentless money grubbing fraud would think they had such a right.
> 
> If you do not think art is property just try walking out of The Louvre with the Mona Lisa and see what charges you get. What I create with my hands is my property and I am entitled to the profit..not some bozo with a marxist entitlement complex. Ya see, I will defend ALL my property by whatever means necessary from anybody thinking they are entitled to the fruits of MY LABOR.
> 
> Rev9


I hear what you are saying, but I too have been in the music industry enough to see that copyright laws only protect those who are already "in" the industry. If someone in the industry sues somebody for stealing their music which was copyrighted and published, they have juice and will prevail in court. But someone who is not in the industry, and has not had their music published by an established publisher, even though it was copyrighted, will not get compensated for their music being stolen.

There are many examples of this, and one I can think of was a court case brought against Mick Jagger. In the 1980's he had a solo album that had a hit "Just Another Night" which he totally ripped-off from a reggae songwriter. He stole the lyrics and he stole the melody. And yet the court ruled in Jagger's favor because Jagger was rich and famous and could afford well connected attorneys to defend him. Also, my dad wrote a number one hit that was recorded by Toby Keith and he was never compensated.

Great, brilliant artists are few and far between. The world is full of wannabes. In the music industry, you can "make it" based on "who you know", not how talented you are. Go visit Broad Street in Nashville and see how many great artists are walking the streets and playing for tips. Our IP laws have made mockery of true art, and have done nothing but exploit the true artist. Black artists were ripped-off by the very industry you defend. How do you feel about that? The music industry is one of the most dog-eat-dog, greedy industries ever, and it is dying because of its greed; not because of downloading.

----------


## dannno

> Let me steal your car or stereo and see if you want to kick my ass or not.
> 
> Rev9


This statement alone represents a complete failure to understand even the most basic arguments we are making here. Nobody is saying that we should be able to walk into a store or exhibit and steal something physically..

Of course, that's the second time I've had to say that.

----------


## Acala

Ideas are not protected by current IP law.  So the idea of the Mona Lisa could not be copyrighted.  You can paint your version of the Mona Lisa without running afoul of copyright.  The problem comes about when you can reproduce the Mona Lisa itself.  Only then is it a copyright violation.

The idea of a movie about an empire in space isn't protected.  The actual word-for-word script IS protected. 

So remember, it isn't the idea that is protected but the actual expression of it.   

Now carry on!

----------


## dannno

> That is not IP.
> 
> Next. 
> 
> What an intellectually bereft bunch. No wonder they don't understand INTELLECTUAL property. If some of them had two coherent ideas it would be the biggest goddamned surprise of their life.
> 
> rev9


Whatever, you're the one who keeps making outrageous statements that prove you aren't even reading or comprehending anything we say.

----------


## fisharmor

> You are simply FOS.
> 
> Rev9


And you're a lazy simpleton.
If you want the fruits of your labor, get off your ass, go out to clubs, and play, and get paid for it.
Stop telling us that other people duplicating magnetic fields or bumps in metal foil is robbing you, because it isn't.

----------


## dannno

> The idea of a movie about an empire in space isn't protected.  The actual word-for-word script IS protected.


What if I change 5 words? 10 words? 100 words? 1,000 words? At what point is the script not protected anymore?

What if I reproduce a replica of the Mona Lisa and paint a tiiinnny little yellow dot in the bottom right corner? Is it mine now? Or do I have to paint a mustache on her face? Then is it mine?

----------


## Acala

> I invent X.
> X is the next big thing in the widget market, and I know it.  So I patent it.
> So nobody can use X for the next 14 years, minimum.
> 
> Meanwhile, my neighbor sees that X is the next biggest thing.  He also knows that it's patented, and knows that he has to come up with an *innovative* way to get around the patent restrictions.
> So my neighbor ends up dumping the same amount of effort that it took to develop X into developing Y.
> 
> Same basic problem as the broken window fallacy, basically.  All you're seeing is the fact that people are forced to be inventive.  Great.  But how about the fact that we can't account for what my neighbor *would* have done, if he wasn't re-doing all the work I did?
> 
> ...


In theory, he takes your idea and improves it.  He then makes a deal with you to license your invention, then adds his innovation and takes it to market.  Alternatively, he patents his improvement and then licenses his improvement to you.  In theory.

----------


## Diurdi

Now people are just being rude to eachother. Nothing good will come out of that >_>

----------


## Acala

> What if I change 5 words? 10 words? 100 words? 1,000 words? At what point is the script not protected anymore?


It is not protected anymore when you are not copying any of it but are instead doing your own work.  Sometimes it is a close question, but generally not.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> That is complete bologna!! 
> 
> So you are saying that if one person invents a tablet computer, then anybody who copies the design of that tablet computer and then adds a bunch of new features, makes it faster or uses better materials isn't innovating??
> 
> Innovation has EVERYTHING TO DO with copying each other's ideas. You take the best ideas, copy them, make them better. Or come up with new ones. Either way, that's how we innovate.


Lol, it's not bologna!

If you design something completely new for people to sit on, as in the chair example, you would be the KING of innovation!

You just did something no one else has ever done before. That, to me, is innovative. Any fool can copy someone else's product and make one minor change.




> Now people are just being rude to eachother. Nothing good will come out of that >_>


Agreed.

----------


## Acala

> What if I reproduce a replica of the Mona Lisa and paint a tiiinnny little yellow dot in the bottom right corner? Is it mine now? Or do I have to paint a mustache on her face? Then is it mine?


You don't get to reproduce other people's original work and treat it as your own at all.  But there are minor exceptions.  Parody, for example.  Or excerpting for criticism.

I have not looked at the law recently so I don't know how the cases came out on sampling and I don't remember if there was litigation over Warhol's Campbell Soup painting.  But those are minor matters.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Lol, it's not bologna!
> 
> If you design something completely new for people to sit on, as in the chair example, you would be the KING of innovation!
> 
> You just did something no one else has ever done before. That, to me, is innovative. Any fool can copy someone else's product and make one minor change.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.


 What do you expect , there are people who pretend to advocate property rights and "individual liberty" with the contradiction of stealing from the fruits of someones labor by calling it "innovation" or in true perspective copying. Marxism is cleverly disguised as "anti-intellectual property" to sound smart.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> *Goods, Scare and Non-Scare* by Jeffrey Tucker and Stephan Kinsella.


 "anti-intellectual property" is radical and I completely disagree with the approach that an artist does not own their creative property and idea.

----------


## Diurdi

> What do you expect , there are people who pretend to advocate property rights and "individual liberty" with the contradiction of stealing from the fruits of someones labor by calling it "innovation" or in true perspective copying. Marxism is cleverly disguised as "anti-intellectual property" to sound smart.


 Fail. Marxism is against individual-property because it thinks every sort of property must be shared. Free market types are against individual property because it gives monopoly on behaviour and on an infinite resource.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Fail. Marxism is against individual-property because it thinks every sort of property must be shared. Free market types are against individual property because it gives monopoly on behaviour and on an infinite resource.


 "anti-intellectual property" advocates the marxist ideal that if you use your own cd to copy my music and sell it that you can do so and make money off my music because you took the time and effort to burn a cd of your own with my music on it.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> What do you expect , there are people who pretend to advocate property rights and "individual liberty" with the contradiction of stealing from the fruits of someones labor by calling it "innovation" or in true perspective copying. Marxism is cleverly disguised as "anti-intellectual property" to sound smart.


I don't know if I want to call it marxism. That usually entails government involvement for the redistribution of wealth (whether Karl Marx intended it to be that way or not). Of course, the pro-IP side enlists that same government to protect wealth.

The question is, of those two governments (one that redistributes an individual's wealth and one that protects an individual's wealth), which would you prefer? 

On another note, if government goons account for x% of killings in all these no-knock raids we read about all the time on RPF, and we the people decided to  abolish government, I would hope that we would still have the decency not to kill each other in the absence of government. Likewise, perhaps we could have that same decency not to steal from one another, in the absence of government patents. 

It's that sort of free-for-all, finders-keepers nightmarish anarchy that makes people somewhat hesitant to do away with the government altogether.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I don't know if I want to call it marxism. That usually entails government involvement for the redistribution of wealth (whether Karl Marx intended it to be that way or not). Of course, the pro-IP side enlists that same government to protect wealth.
> 
> The question is, of those two governments (one that redistributes an individual's wealth and one that protects an individual's wealth), which would you prefer? 
> 
> On another note, if government goons account for x% of killings in all these no-knock raids we read about all the time on RPF, and we the people decided to  abolish government, I would hope that we would still have the decency not to kill each other in the absence of government. Likewise, perhaps we could have that same decency not to steal from one another, in the absence of government patents. 
> 
> It's that sort of free-for-all, finders-keepers nightmarish anarchy that makes people somewhat hesitant to do away with the government altogether.


 and that is what you would end up with in court. An anti-intellectual property advocate winning against an artist and being able to re-sell the artist's fruits of labor.I actually believe in striking a balance and adding an amendment to the u.s. constitution to bar corporations from being treated as individuals.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> and that is what you would end up with in court. An anti-intellectual property advocate winning against an artist and being able to re-sell the artist's fruits of labor.


If you mean that the system no longer works as it was designed, then yes, that's probably what would happen. 

I can certainly understand why people are against IP given the current protectionist behavior of our government (in which patents are used to exclude newcomers from the market, rather than entice them into it), but at the same time, I would caution people not to forsake the reasoning the framers of our Constitution used when creating the patent system.

----------


## dannno

> "anti-intellectual property" advocates the marxist ideal that if you use your own cd to copy my music and sell it that you can do so and make money off my music because you took the time and effort to burn a cd of your own with my music on it.


Define "your" music.

If It's my CD, if I used my hardware to make the CD, then it's my property. That doesn't mean I can commit fraud and say I performed the piece and sell it as such. But the CD is now my property.

----------


## wizardwatson

The "marxist" jab is laughable.  It's marxist not to allow IP rights because it somehow "steals" the yet unrealized fruits of your labor.  

But being pro-IP is not marxist, even though you have to appeal to the State to allocate tax dollars to protect "the value" of your work.

So enforcing IP with tax dollars (other people's real property) isn't marxist, but not using other people's money to protect the market "value" of your investment is.

EDIT:  Anyway, the whole thing boils down to people on one side who think IP is real property and others who don't.  I side with the don'ts.

----------


## dannno

Imagine if humans invented a copy machine where you could copy cars, food, etc..

Everybody could be taken care of without stealing from anyone else. True musicians would come out of the woodworks and create music because they loved creating music. 

In the mean time, the government, and some people in this thread would try and put a violent stop to it. 

It's not STEALING if you have all of your possessions that you had before. If you don't lose property, it's not theft. When something is copied, it is not stealing.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> The "marxist" jab is laughable.  It's marxist not to allow IP rights because it somehow "steals" the yet unrealized fruits of your labor.  
> 
> But being pro-IP is not marxist, even though you have to appeal to the State to allocate tax dollars to protect "the value" of your work.
> 
> So enforcing IP with tax dollars (other people's real property) isn't marxist, but not using other people's money to protect the market "value" of your investment is.
> 
> EDIT:  Anyway, the whole thing boils down to people on one side who think IP is real property and others who don't.  I side with the don'ts.


The "appeal to government" argument is equally laughable. What is government? Society's embodiment of beliefs into law.

So if society views 'ideas' as property worthy of protection, then they will be protected. If society does not, then they will not. 

If someone steals my property, whether I have to take my argument to a 'government' or 'a random assembly of people in my community' should not define whether or not the object was ever actually property. Yet some here believe that it is the government involvement itself, that is causing IP to be viewed as such. It is very possible that IP was considered property before government existed, which, might help determine why the framers gave the government the power to protect it.

The argument boils down to whether or not two societies—one that protects the time and efforts of innovators and one that does not—can achieve equal innovative capacity. I doubt it. As Acala stated earlier, it only takes an inventor so many new ideas on which he cannot recoup the time and effort through profit (due to copy-cats) to 'throw in the towel', and innovation stagnates, unless others are willing to step up and create something (which is unlikely, since they're all copy-cats, remember?).

----------


## nbhadja

I don't believe anyone can own an idea. Knowledge is knowledge. And all knowledge has been based off of all other knowledge.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Imagine if humans invented a copy machine where you could copy cars, food, etc..
> 
> Everybody could be taken care of without stealing from anyone else. True musicians would come out of the woodworks and create music because they loved creating music. 
> 
> In the mean time, the government, and some people in this thread would try and put a violent stop to it. 
> 
> It's not STEALING if you have all of your possessions that you had before. If you don't lose property, it's not theft. When something is copied, it is not stealing.


I love the 'musicians' argument. It makes no sense whatsoever. Whether or not I decide to profit off of my music *does not* define whether or not music is property.

Just because musician A creates a masterpiece and decides to share his masterpiece with the world free of charge (how kind), does not mean that musician B's music is up for grabs to anyone and everyone who wants it.

Musician A may become more popular, which may be his goal, and musician B may become more wealthy, which may be his goal. Each has his own goal, but that is irrelevant in the context of a property debate.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Define "your" music.
> 
> If It's my CD, if I used my hardware to make the CD, then it's my property. That doesn't mean I can commit fraud and say I performed the piece and sell it as such. But the CD is now my property.


 Exactly. So then in a society of no IP I have no obligation to share my creation with anyone.In fact I currently have amazing music unpublished because I am waiting to get the cash to get it copyright protected .If there is no protection I would never share it ever.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Imagine if humans invented a copy machine where you could copy cars, food, etc..
> 
> Everybody could be taken care of without stealing from anyone else. True musicians would come out of the woodworks and create music because they loved creating music. 
> 
> In the mean time, the government, and some people in this thread would try and put a violent stop to it. 
> 
> It's not STEALING if you have all of your possessions that you had before. If you don't lose property, it's not theft. When something is copied, it is not stealing.


 Don't you dare relate "real musician" to the lack of IP. Real musicians and artists do everything to protect their identity and in a lawless anarchy without IP there is no stopping someone from stealing an identity in the digital era.

----------


## specsaregood

As an innovator and creator, I support IP.  My IP is the result of thousands of hours of work; get rid of IP and many like me will switch to farming or something else tangible and you will be left without.   I admit I'm biased; but so what, I create stuff.

----------


## Diurdi

> As an innovator and creator, I support IP.  My IP is the result of thousands of hours of work; *get rid of IP and many like me will switch to farming or something else tangible and you will be left without.*   I admit I'm biased; but so what, I create stuff.


 Maybe, but as I said earlier - Switzerland had no IP laws or patents until 1888, yet it was one of the best known nations for innovation before that time.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> As an innovator and creator, I support IP.  My IP is the result of thousands of hours of work; get rid of IP and many like me will switch to farming or something else tangible and you will be left without.   I admit I'm biased; but so what, I create stuff.


 And as an inventor would you share your ideas if people had equal right to your unique ideas and creation? I know that I would not share such ideas. I already have an entire music album written,recorded,produced and ready for sales and to share with the world a gift of music...but without IP hell no I wont share it because I know someone will steal the ideas and make money off of my hard work.

----------


## specsaregood

> And as an inventor would you share your ideas if people had equal right to your unique ideas and creation?


No, I would keep the knowledge a trade secret as much as possible.   And purposely obfuscate everything.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Maybe, but as I said earlier - Switzerland had no IP laws or patents until 1888, yet it was one of the best known nations for innovation before that time.


 So did the Soviet Union.

----------


## dannno

> I love the 'musicians' argument. It makes no sense whatsoever. Whether or not I decide to profit off of my music *does not* define whether or not music is property.
> 
> Just because musician A creates a masterpiece and decides to share his masterpiece with the world free of charge (how kind), does not mean that musician B's music is up for grabs to anyone and everyone who wants it.
> 
> Musician A may become more popular, which may be his goal, and musician B may become more wealthy, which may be his goal. Each has his own goal, but that is irrelevant in the context of a property debate.


Musician B's profits are fine, if people want to buy his music then great.. but to use government violence to steal other people's property to do it is wrong.

If musician A becomes more popular, they will probably be more wealthy because most musicians make most of their money playing live shows. 

There are plenty of bands who have had greater long-term success because they figured out that circumventing our bull$#@! IP law structure and giving away their music for free and then putting on concerts is more profitable than giving your soul to a wealthy music promoter who uses taxpayer money to keep guard in a failing system. 

In 20 years you will probably be laughing at yourself for thinking IP was a good idea. At least I hope that is the direction we end up going.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> One reason that it must be shown that the social regulative principle of a right to private property is sound and that it ought to be respected and protected in human community life is that it is a vital conceptual or logical implication of the individualist story. If individualism is indeed sound, so is the principle of private property rights. When the right to private property is not respected and not sufficiently protected, then there is something wrong with a community.


http://www.iep.utm.edu/property/#H1

----------


## noneedtoaggress

I find it ironic that the same people who support IP and claim they need it to be a fountain of innovation and creativity can't imagine the the world functioning without it.

And yet, every day the internet continues to make it less and less relevant.

/lols

----------


## Diurdi

> So did the Soviet Union.


 Sure. So we can conclude that innovation does not disappear if IP-laws disappear.




> http://www.iep.utm.edu/property/#H1


The problem is that if an intellectual "idea" or concept can be property or not.

----------


## dannno

> So did the Soviet Union.


That's a really good point, there was a lot of innovation in the Soviet Union because they didn't have IP laws. The people were totally $#@!ed and had no freedom, but not because of the IP laws.. the fact that the Soviet Union was able to compete with our country on a collective basis technologically for as long as they did is a huge testament to the lack of innovation that comes from a relatively free market system that does institute IP laws.

----------


## fisharmor

> As an innovator and creator, I support IP.  My IP is the result of thousands of hours of work; get rid of IP and many like me will switch to farming or something else tangible and you will be left without.   I admit I'm biased; but so what, I create stuff.


Left without what?  All I got out of your post is that we'll have more vegetables to go around.  Seems like a win to me.
Maybe in the process you'll end up finding a better way to grow vegetables.
Then you'll have to stop being a farmer, because someone else might find out about your better way to do it.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Musician B's profits are fine, if people want to buy his music then great.. but to use government violence to steal other people's property to do it is wrong.
> 
> If musician A becomes more popular, they will probably be more wealthy because most musicians make most of their money playing live shows. 
> 
> There are plenty of bands who have had greater long-term success because they figured out that circumventing our bull$#@! IP law structure and giving away their music for free and then putting on concerts is more profitable than giving your soul to a wealthy music promoter who uses taxpayer money to keep guard in a failing system. 
> 
> In 20 years you will probably be laughing at yourself for thinking IP was a good idea. At least I hope that is the direction we end up going.


 The flaw in his theory is that if musician A wants to succeed then the said pirate who uploads his newly debut album for free destroys musician A's profits and in a worst case scenario won't upload the album but mimic it nearly to the T with note for note,tempo,time signature and key changes as well as lyrical similarities. Worse case scenario is that a person steals musician A's music and profits on it.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Left without what?  All I got out of your post is that we'll have more vegetables to go around.  Seems like a win to me.
> Maybe in the process you'll end up finding a better way to grow vegetables.
> Then you'll have to stop being a farmer, because someone else might find out about your better way to do it.


 and thus you prove that mob rule is partial to anti-intellectual property. You have no respect for the individualist.

----------


## specsaregood

> Left without what?  All I got out of your post is that we'll have more vegetables to go around.  Seems like a win to me.
> Maybe in the process you'll end up finding a better way to grow vegetables.
> Then you'll have to stop being a farmer, because someone else might find out about your better way to do it.



No, if i find a better way, I sure as hell won't tell anybody else about it as I will have no incentive to do so.

----------


## Tod

I listened to the above video and must confess, it didn't do anything to convince me that an artist or inventor who produces something unique isn't wronged by others who take the work and sell copies of it as their own.

Suppose Joe Blow spends years composing some music.  How does he get compensated without copyright law?

Thanks,

Tod

----------


## Tod

Doesn't a lot of software come with an agreement that basically says you aren't actually buying a copy of the software, you are buying the right to use a copy of the software?

----------


## Diurdi

> No, if i find a better way, I sure as hell won't tell anybody else about it as I will have no incentive to do so.


 Or, like with all other intellectual concepts not protected by IP laws, you exploit them as long as possible before others can imitate them.

Being first on a particular market is usually an advantage even when counting the extra costs of being a market pioneer.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I listened to the above video and must confess, it didn't do anything to convince me that an artist or inventor who produces something unique isn't wronged by others who take the work and sell copies of it as their own.
> 
> Suppose Joe Blow spends years composing some music.  How does he get compensated without copyright law?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tod


In other words joe blow has no right as an individual because you and the mob rule decide that his property was not valid anyhow. Very interesting and intelligent observation I just made.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

Im done with this thread, the marxists will never admit that they advocate marxism.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Im done with this thread, the marxists will never admit that they advocate marxism.


Why so upset.  It's your side that's winning anyway.  Us mundanes who believe in objective law are in the minority.

----------


## Tod

Does anyone make a distinction between, say, a work of art, and something like genetically modified food?  It seems like it is one thing to compose a song and control the rights to it, but quite another to modify food sources to have certain unique properties that give the creator (ever-increasing) control over food supplies.

(see "The Future of Food", which discusses some very disturbing trends in food production (xx=tt):  hxxp://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food )


Thanks,

Tod

----------


## Diurdi

> Im done with this thread, the marxists will never admit that they advocate marxism.


 Name calling and using buzzwords like that is truly a sign of mental capacity for an intellectual debate.

My reasoning is completely different from the Marxist's reasoning.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

boo yuh, my work is done here.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Name calling and using buzzwords like that is truly a sign of mental capacity for an intellectual debate.
> 
> My reasoning is completely different from the Marxist's reasoning.



It's pretty funny, considering modern Austrians, hard core propertarians, are anti-IP.

----------


## Vessol

> boo yuh, my work is done here.


Never get tired of this video <3

----------


## Tod

> Imagine if humans invented a copy machine where you could copy cars, food, etc..
> 
> Everybody could be taken care of without stealing from anyone else. True musicians would come out of the woodworks and create music because they loved creating music. 
> 
> In the mean time, the government, and some people in this thread would try and put a violent stop to it. 
> 
> It's not STEALING if you have all of your possessions that you had before. If you don't lose property, it's not theft. When something is copied, it is not stealing.


Ah, but there is more to it than possessions.  As a creator, you may well have the cd with your original music on it, but you have been deprived of the potential compensation for your labor & creativity.  Therein lies the theft.  The person who made a copy without due compensation has profited without either laboring/creating OR providing anything for the real creator's benefit.

----------


## cheapseats

> Define "your" music.
> 
> If It's my CD, if I used my hardware to make the CD, then it's my property. That doesn't mean I can commit fraud and say I performed the piece and sell it as such. But the CD is now my property.



Once you BUY and OWN a shiny disc comprised of another's original work, do you believe you are within your rights if you REPLICATE the shiny disc as many times as you can sell "your" copies?  Without the investment of time, talent, production, marketing, et al. that go into the original Form, you could surely offer "your" product for sale rather more cheaply . . . which those who have never composed an original work can argue DOES serve the interest of the Consumer class.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> boo yuh, my work is done here.


If "your work" is posting the fruit of someone else's creative endeavors to spread ideas (which don't actually resolve anything you've been saying) then you'd be correct.

----------


## wizardwatson

This thread really needs a poll.  I'm interested to know how many on this forum are pro/anti IP.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> This thread really needs a poll.  I'm interested to know how many on this forum are pro/anti IP.


 That is pretty vague. I would take a poll more detailed than that.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Never get tired of this video <3


Yep.  Me too.  This video played a big role in my evolution.

But I don't think the dude who posted it understands it.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> That is pretty vague. I would take a poll more detailed than that.


Yeah, it should be labeled Pro-Marx/Anti-Marx so you can understand it.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Yep.  Me too.  This video played a big role in my evolution.
> 
> But I don't think the dude who posted it understands it.


 Property=the product of your time ,energy, and talents.Property of others in your hands is property given to you by mutual exchange(consent from one property owner to another). If you want to condescend me at least say my name.If property is not given to you by consent it is theft of time,energy and talent.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Property=the product of your time ,energy, and talents.Property of others in your hands is property given to you by mutual exchange(consent from one property owner to another). If you want to condescend me at least say my name.If property is not given to you by consent it is theft of time,energy and talent.


Yep.  You don't get it.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Ah, but there is more to it than possessions.  As a creator, you may well have the cd with your original music on it, but you have been deprived of the potential compensation for your labor & creativity.  Therein lies the theft.  The person who made a copy without due compensation has profited without either laboring/creating OR providing anything for the real creator's benefit.


Nope. You don't have a "right" to "potential customers".

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Yep.  You don't get it.


I get it, it's you who doesn't comprehend what is in the video.

Maybe you should watch it again and notice the part about "fraud".

----------


## Diurdi

> It's pretty funny, considering modern Austrians, hard core propertarians, are anti-IP.


 So am I. Captain America thinks I'm a marxist for being critical of IP-laws.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I get it, it's you who doesn't comprehend what is in the video.
> 
> Maybe you should watch it again and notice the part about "fraud".


My comments regarding the video, while relevant, would be off-topic of the thread, nor am I interested in the topic enough to get into the discussion any further than to say that I disagree that IP is real property for reasons stated by those on that side of the discussion.

----------


## CCTelander

> Yes, it's just a shame they are completely short sighted and that if the monopoly on ideas was abolished, everyone - including the user currently benefiting would be far better off in terms of wealth etc. 
> 
> This author gets it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They'd actually make more money...!*



Here's another video that demonstrates the same point:

http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_bla...e_culture.html

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> So am I. Captain America thinks I'm a marxist for being critical of IP-laws.


Careful, he put a lot of labor into that thought.

Have you ever considered yourself a Marxist before?

If not you may be infringing on his rights by repeating it.

----------


## Diurdi

> Careful, he put a lot of labor into that thought.
> 
> Have you ever considered yourself a Marxist before?
> 
> If not you may be infringing on his rights by repeating it.


O shi-

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> O shi-


Hey buddy... I have a patent on the use of the stand-alone, capital "O" as a substitute for the word, "oh".

Get off my lawn!

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> That is not IP.
> 
> Next. 
> 
> What an intellectually bereft bunch. No wonder they don't understand INTELLECTUAL property. If some of them had two coherent ideas it would be the biggest goddamned surprise of their life.
> 
> rev9


 If the person made a lithograph of the Mona Lisa ,it is an authorized copy/replication of the original painting by Da Vinci. If a person makes an exact or attempt of replicating the Mona Lisa it falls under the category of fraudulent. Fraudulent copy does not necessarily mean the person intends to use it for their own profit by reselling it but if they do so it is then the act of fraud.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

anti-intellectual property (fraud enabling) 

fraud:
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities. 

It takes the actual theft of someones TIME,ENERGY ,and TALENT to make a crime against another individual. Anti-intellectual property opens the door wide open for fraud.

----------


## fisharmor

> Property=the product of your time ,energy, and talents.Property of others in your hands is property given to you by mutual exchange(consent from one property owner to another). If you want to condescend me at least say my name.If property is not given to you by consent it is theft of time,energy and talent.


Dear Emperor CaptainAmerica,
You are naked.

-Fisharmor

----------


## CCTelander

> "Consider the following two examples. Jim is courting Susan and is just about to win her hand in marriage, when suddenly Bob appears on the scene and wins her away. Surely Bob has done great "harm" to Jim. *Once a nonphysical-invasion* sense of harm *is adopted, almost any outlaw act might be justified.* Should Jim be able to "enjoin" Bob's very existence?[14]
> 
> Similarly, A is a successful seller of razor blades. But then B comes along and sells a better blade, teflon-coated to prevent shaving cuts. The value of A's property is greatly affected. Should he be able to collect damages from B, or, better yet, to enjoin B's sale of a better blade? The correct answer is not that consumers would be hurt if they were forced to buy the inferior blade, although that is surely the case. *Rather, no one has the right to legally prevent or retaliate against "harms" to his property unless it is an act of physical invasion.* Everyone has the right to have the physical integrity of his property inviolate; *no one has the right to protect the value of his property, for that value is purely the reflection of what people are willing to pay for it.* That willingness solely depends on how they decide to use their money. *No one can have a right to someone else's money, unless that other person had previously contracted to transfer it to him.*" ~ Rothbard


This needs to be reposted again, and again, and again... Until the pro-IP bunch actually "gets it."

Good job, Conza.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> If the person made a lithograph of the Mona Lisa ,it is an authorized copy/replication of the original painting by Da Vinci. If a person makes an exact or attempt of replicating the Mona Lisa it falls under the category of fraudulent. Fraudulent copy does not necessarily mean the person intends to use it for their own profit by reselling it but if they do so it is then the act of fraud.





> anti-intellectual property (fraud enabling) 
> 
> fraud:
> 1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
> 2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities. 
> 
> It takes the actual theft of someones TIME,ENERGY ,and TALENT to make a crime against another individual. Anti-intellectual property opens the door wide open for fraud.


Cool story bro. 

You should write a book about it and then pay royalties to this guy:
http://www.paintingiant.com/painting...roduction.html

and the person who made the Philosophy of Liberty youtube video.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Cool story bro. 
> 
> You should write a book about it and then pay royalties to this guy:
> http://www.paintingiant.com/painting...roduction.html
> 
> and the person who made the Philosophy of Liberty youtube video.


 The Philosophy of Liberty is used by consent of the maker of the video, stop being facetious .

----------


## wizardwatson

> Cool story bro. 
> 
> You should write a book about it and then pay royalties to this guy:
> http://www.paintingiant.com/painting...roduction.html
> 
> and the person who made the Philosophy of Liberty youtube video.


I think he should pay royalties to Marvel Comics for use of his avatar and username.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

IP is legal fiction.  (also, a government-granted privilege that manipulates market forces) Was Paganini or his estate financially harmed when Rachmaninoff took one of the most famous Paganini themes (the A theme from the Caprice in A minor, no. 24) and did variations on it?  No.  Both composers benefited.  We can go on and on with examples like this in every creative medium.  The very concept of IP is very new, and prior to the copyright act, it would have been scoffed at by everyone except perhaps corporatists who make big bucks in royalties(usually screwing creators at the same time).  IOW, IP works great for fascists, but not so much for laissez-faire capitalists.

----------


## CCTelander

Regarding the false notion that no innovation will occur without IP, I offer this previous post from another thread:




> All of the classical composers produced their work in a non-IP environment. They were extremely prolific, sometimes writing hundreds of compositions. Most profited from it and their influence on Western music is still felt to this day.
> 
> The artists of the Renaissance produced some of the greatest works of art the world has ever seen. Most profited from their work and it still has tremendous influence upon the art world today.
> 
> William Shakespeare produced his work without IP protection. He, and others like him somehow managed to profit from it nonetheless. It would be difficult to overstate his infulence on English Literature.
> 
> Just a few examples. Granted all of them are from the arts, since that's the area I'm most familiar with, but they definitely prove that innovation can and did take place without the benefit of IP.

----------


## fisharmor

> Was Paganini or his estate financially harmed when Rachmaninoff took one of the most famous Paganini themes (the A theme from the Caprice in A minor, no. 24) and did variations on it?  No.  Both composers benefited.  We can go on and on with examples like this in every creative medium.


You know, I get Paganini over Pandora pretty regularly, for free.
And if I could hear him play a live concert, _I would part with a great deal of my possessions for the opportunity._

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> You know, I get Paganini over Pandora pretty regularly, for free.
> And if I could hear him play a live concert, _I would part with a great deal of my possessions for the opportunity._


I listen to few composers and in the classical genre of music composers either openly take from other composers or they get ripped off when they are dead. John Williams is for the most part good at fraud when it comes to song hooks. Jaws theme is a direct rip off on the intro to "New World Symphony Movement 4" -Dvorak.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

Hans Zimmer sued for blatantly ripping off Gustav Holst  Planets (Mars) 

http://moroninahurry.wordpress.com/2...-gustav-holst/

Expect Hans Zimmer to rip off "Verdi's Requiem Dies Irae" because he is "studying" Verdi for The Dark Knight Returns soundtrack. Hans Zimmer is a master at rip off.

----------


## Tod

> This thread really needs a poll.  I'm interested to know how many on this forum are pro/anti IP.


Yes, although the poll should have more than two choices.  There should be anti IP, IP w/ some restrictions, and complete IP.  I personally think there should be some IP but not for every new creation/invention (such as for food and possibly other things).

Some things, such as the understanding of a process that comes from studying it, probably should not fall under the IP domain, meaning that an employee with a unique understanding of a problem (time invested in understanding the problem paid for by the employer) could take that understanding to another employer and use it to solve the problem for them.  A special solution to the problem could, however be patented for a limited time period.

----------


## dannno

There are free market solutions to people "ripping off" other people's ideas in non-constructive ways for their personal benefit. 

Example-

Where is Carlos Mencia today? Well, he's not where he was years ago, let me tell you.. He's struggling, and this is a big reason why.

Carlos Mencia got a lot of money to be promoted and in order to come up with enough material to take advantage of that, he had to 'steal' jokes from other comics. 

Joe Rogan doesn't like it when comics use other comics jokes, but does he call the cops on Mencia? No. He uses the internet to tell everybody about it. He makes other comedians aware of it so when Mencia comes in the room they know not to do their new material. Nothing wrong with ANY of this!! Not to mention, it worked quite well.

So here's how it went down:

----------


## CCTelander

> I think he should pay royalties to Marvel Comics for use of his avatar and username.



That DOES seem just a tiny bit hypocritical, doesn't it?

----------


## low preference guy

i think i should pay royalties to the heirs of the guy who invented the word "a" every time i use it.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> That DOES seem just a tiny bit hypocritical, doesn't it?


 If they ask me to remove it I will remove it.I am a fan of Marvel and I don't intend to steal profits from Marvel.

----------


## Revolution9

> Maybe, but as I said earlier - Switzerland had no IP laws or patents until 1888, yet it was one of the best known nations for innovation before that time.


Show me all the great Swiss artists? Bankers yes.. Artists..well there are not that many acknowledged masters through the Baroque and Rennaissance.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> I find it ironic that the same people who support IP and claim they need it to be a fountain of innovation and creativity can't imagine the the world functioning without it.
> 
> And yet, every day the internet continues to make it less and less relevant.
> 
> /lols


LOLz at you. Try to download an oil painting of mine. You cannot. Your argument is currently in shreds.

Rev9

----------


## low preference guy

> LOLz at you. Try to download an oil painting of mine. You cannot. Your argument is currently in shreds.
> 
> Rev9


um... of the world's demand for artistic products, the demand for yours is probably less than 0.0001%. his argument is not "in shreds" because of all the artistic products people want in the world, those that are most wanted have practice no IP protection thanks to the internet.

----------


## Revolution9

> Name calling and using buzzwords like that is truly a sign of mental capacity for an intellectual debate.
> 
> My reasoning is completely different from the Marxist's reasoning.


No it isn't. You have socialized right to private property in your thinking.

Rev9

----------


## low preference guy

> LOLz at you. Try to download an oil painting of mine. You cannot. Your argument is currently in shreds.
> 
> Rev9


um... of the world's demand for artistic products, the demand for yours is probably less than 0.0001%. his argument is not "in shreds" because of all the artistic products people want in the world, those that are most wanted have in practice no IP protection thanks to the internet.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> No it isn't. You have socialized right to private property in your thinking.
> 
> Rev9


 Its useless to argue with them. They view their right to someone elses work as "liberty".

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> um... of the world's demand for artistic products, the demand for yours is probably less than 0.0001%. his argument is not "in shreds" because of all the artistic products people want in the world, those that are most wanted have in practice no IP protection thanks to the internet.


 Once again you display the mob rule in manifestation. Just because you think that he is insignificant as a person means that you pool him together with everyone else and call his efforts and the fruits of his labor in less demand and infer its "insignificance" . My you would make Karl Marx proud.

----------


## low preference guy

> No it isn't. You have socialized right to private property in your thinking.
> 
> Rev9


what property? for something to be "private property" is has to be a physical good. intellectual property is a contradiction of terms.

----------


## Revolution9

> Yep.  You don't get it.


You are so full of it you should be stripped of your forum handle.

Rev9

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> what property? for something to be "private property" is has to be a physical good. intellectual property is a contradiction of terms.


 Your "right" to the product of my TIME,ENERGY,and TALENTS is a contradiction to property.

----------


## low preference guy

> Once again you display the mob rule in manifestation. Just because you think that he is insignificant as a person means that you pool him together with everyone else and call his efforts and the fruits of his labor in less demand and infer its "insignificance" . My you would make Karl Marx proud.


lol. having a level of reading comprehension as low as yours is quite a feat.

----------


## Revolution9

> Hey buddy... I have a patent on the use of the stand-alone, capital "O" as a substitute for the word, "oh".
> 
> Get off my lawn!


That is not IP.

Next.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Careful, he put a lot of labor into that thought.
> 
> Have you ever considered yourself a Marxist before?
> 
> If not you may be infringing on his rights by repeating it.


That is not IP.

Next

Rev9

----------


## low preference guy

> That is not IP.


why not? where do you draw the line?

----------


## Revolution9

> Dear Emperor CaptainAmerica,
> You are naked.
> 
> -Fisharmor


Dear FishArmor. You are covered in wool with several layers over your eyes.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> I think he should pay royalties to Marvel Comics for use of his avatar and username.


Fair use. It is not IP theft. However if he was to put out a comic using the icon and name an character he would be violating IP. It would be fraud..

Rev9

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> lol. having a level of reading comprehension as low as yours is quite a feat.


 I comprehend just fine seeing that you attack Rev9 by inferring that his artwork is of no significance. You clearly debase the value of his individualism before making your philosophical debut.

----------


## dannno

> Its useless to argue with them. They view their right to someone elses work as "liberty".


That's not true at all.

If you record a CD and keep it in a safe in your house, I have no right to your work.

If you share it on public airwaves, then I have a right to listen, record, replay and reproduce your work. I do not have the right to say that I performed the work and charge others, as that would be fraud.. But I do have the right to sell it otherwise.. but honestly, who is going to buy a blank CD from me of some band, and why would anybody pay me more than $1 or $2?? How do I find people who want to buy it? If I sell it online for $2/cd, then you can go online and sell it with artwork and claim it is your material and charge $5. If I had a choice between ordering a $2 cd made by some dude with a CD burner and buying it from the artist for $5, I'll choose the artist for many reasons. And guess what? Even big name bands only get like $.05 or $.10 per album they sell, so if you had a website and sold a CD for $5 you would be making an absolute killing compared to these other big name bands, in a per unit sold basis. 

Money from live shows mostly goes back to the band, so if you want to support a music artist go see them live. Money from CD sales mostly goes back to the distributor and the promoters, which are becoming increasingly unnecessary due to MP3 technology and the internet.

----------


## Revolution9

> Regarding the false notion that no innovation will occur without IP, I offer this previous post from another thread:


This was prior to the ability of technology to mass produce. Here is where you clowns lose it. If these musicians had let their entire catalog out then only folks who had the training and talent or the ability to contract  for an orchestra would be able to play or hear it. All you cashless peasants would have to wait in the dung filled streets for a waft of that beauty to stimulate your ears.

Rev9

----------


## low preference guy

> I comprehend just fine seeing that you attack Rev9 by inferring that his artwork is of no significance. You clearly debase the value of his individualism before making your philosophical debut.


let me remind you of the argument:

1. a poster claims the internet is making IP useless
2. rev 9 claims this is not true because his work can't be downloaded
3. i point out that his work is a small portion of the market not to imply that his work is "insignificant", because i know value is subjective. i point it out to show that there is a gigantic portion of the market in which IP is practically irrelevant, so the argument of the first poster is not "in shreds".

----------


## Wesker1982

> You are so full of it you should be stripped of your forum handle.
> 
> Rev9


Is there any thread that you *don't* troll? Just wondering

----------


## Revolution9

> There are free market solutions to people "ripping off" other people's ideas in non-constructive ways for their personal benefit. 
> 
> Example-
> 
> Where is Carlos Mencia today? Well, he's not where he was years ago, let me tell you.. He's struggling, and this is a big reason why.
> 
> Carlos Mencia got a lot of money to be promoted and in order to come up with enough material to take advantage of that, he had to 'steal' jokes from other comics. 
> 
> Joe Rogan doesn't like it when comics use other comics jokes, but does he call the cops on Mencia? No. He uses the internet to tell everybody about it. He makes other comedians aware of it so when Mencia comes in the room they know not to do their new material. Nothing wrong with ANY of this!! Not to mention, it worked quite well.
> ...



So basically one guy as stealing another guys means to make a living and since it was jokes which are not necessarily IP in a standup context, the fellow went about protecting his "goods". Very illustrative of what the pro IP fokks are getting at here. It was affecting Rogans bottom line so he did something about it.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Is there any thread that you *don't* troll? Just wondering


I started this thread. Are you trolling it?

Rev9

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> That's not true at all.
> 
> If you record a CD and keep it in a safe in your house, I have no right to your work.
> 
> If you share it on public airwaves, then I have a right to listen, record, replay and reproduce your work. I do not have the right to say that I performed the work and charge others, as that would be fraud.. But I do have the right to sell it otherwise.. but honestly, who is going to buy a blank CD from me of some band, and why would anybody pay me more than $1 or $2?? How do I find people who want to buy it? If I sell it online for $2/cd, then you can go online and sell it with artwork and claim it is your material and charge $5. If I had a choice between ordering a $2 cd made by some dude with a CD burner and buying it from the artist for $5, I'll choose the artist for many reasons. And guess what? Even big name bands only get like $.05 or $.10 per album they sell, so if you had a website and sold a CD for $5 you would be making an absolute killing compared to these other big name bands. 
> 
> Money from live shows mostly goes back to the band, so if you want to support a music artist go see them live. Money from CD sales mostly goes back to the distributor and the promoters, which are becoming increasingly unnecessary due to MP3 technology and the internet.


 *double face palm. 

the musician who created the music which is on your cd took TIME ,ENERGY, AND TALENT to create the music. You then copied the files which contain exact image of the wave forms of every song and sound onto a cd. You possess the copy of a series of wave forms produced by a musician who took TIME,ENERGY and TALENT to produce. You do not own but possess the copy. You therefore have no right to use it other than for listening purposes in most cases as consented by the musician who created the music. Plain and simple.

----------


## KingRobbStark

Imagine if Newton patented his ideas? He would have had thee ultimate monopoly.

----------


## Revolution9

> why not? where do you draw the line?


At intellectual Property. IP is not just an idea. It is a product.

Rev9

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> TIME ,ENERGY, AND TALENT


This is not property.

----------


## low preference guy

> *double face palm. 
> 
> the musician who created the music which is on your cd took TIME ,ENERGY, AND TALENT to create the music. You then copied the files which contain exact image of the wave forms of every song and sound onto a cd. You possess the copy of a series of wave forms produced by a musician who took TIME,ENERGY and TALENT to produce. You do not own but possess the copy.


but that's because the producer put those waves in dannno's private property. once they are in his property, he can do whatever he wants with it.

if you play a song and i hear it from my house, all those waves are in my private property. i have a right to reproduce any wave that occurs in my own damn private property. i didn't steal anything from you.

----------


## Revolution9

> Imagine if Newton patented his ideas? He would have had thee ultimate monopoly.


Patents are not the issue. He could not have had IP for his ideas, but for a book he wrote he could.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> but that's because the produced put those waves in dannno's private property. once they are in his property, he can do whatever he wants with it.
> 
> if you play a song and i hear from my house, all those waves are in my private property. i have a right to reproduce any wave that occurs in my own damn private property. i didn't steal anything from you.


If you sell it then all bets are off. Do what you want with your CD. But when you sell it you are actionable.

Rev9

----------


## cheapseats

> what property? *for something to be "private property" is has to be a physical good.*



Y'know how every few month there's a thread about the pronounced GENDER GAP in Ron Paul support, whereupon the Choir reassures one another that the people who not on board (especially women) are collectivist group-think Nanny Staters?

Consider the possibility that REVERENCE for private property as expressed in Hard Assets is one of the things that scares lotsa people about EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF Libertarians.  





> intellectual property is a contradiction of terms.


You like PROPRIETARY RIGHTS FOR ORIGINAL FIXED FORM COMPOSITIONS better?

You wanna talk CONTRADICTION OF TERMS, we'll end up going 'round the ol' ANTI CHOICE mulberry bush again.  Which brings us up against the weird juxtaposition of being willing to SHOOT TO KILL a Trespasser and to LOITER FOR YEARS ON END AT WAR, while repeatedly derailing elections over Sanctity of Life.

----------


## low preference guy

> If you sell it then all bets are off. Do what you want with your CD. But when you sell it you are actionable.
> 
> Rev9


i can reproduce any wave that occurs in my private property, under any conditions i want to. preventing me from doing so is a violation of my property rights.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> This is not property.


 Time,Energy,and Talent belong to a person who owns their own self. From that individual's TIME,ENERGY,and TALENT come a product. That product is property.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

I'd love to see what Ron Paul says in depth about property rights in a free society founded upon the principles of individual liberty.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> i can reproduce any wave that occurs in my private property, under any conditions i want to. preventing me from doing so is a violation of my property rights.


 that is the very definition of fraud if you were to sell something you did not produce as a product.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Time,Energy,and Talent belong to a person who owns their own self. From that individual's TIME,ENERGY,and TALENT come a product. That product is property.


What is the purpose of property, captain?

----------


## cheapseats

O


> riginally Posted by Conza88  
> "Consider the following two examples. Jim is courting Susan and is just about to win her hand in marriage, when suddenly Bob appears on the scene and wins her away. Surely Bob has done great "harm" to Jim. Once a nonphysical-invasion sense of harm is adopted, almost any outlaw act might be justified. Should Jim be able to "enjoin" Bob's very existence?[14]
> 
> Similarly, A is a successful seller of razor blades. But then B comes along and sells a better blade, teflon-coated to prevent shaving cuts. The value of A's property is greatly affected. Should he be able to collect damages from B, or, better yet, to enjoin B's sale of a better blade? The correct answer is not that consumers would be hurt if they were forced to buy the inferior blade, although that is surely the case. Rather, no one has the right to legally prevent or retaliate against "harms" to his property unless it is an act of physical invasion. Everyone has the right to have the physical integrity of his property inviolate; no one has the right to protect the value of his property, for that *value is purely the reflection of what people are willing to pay for it.* That willingness solely depends on how they decide to use their money. No one can have a right to someone else's money, unless that other person had previously contracted to transfer it to him." ~ Rothbard






> This needs to be reposted again, and again, and again... Until the pro-IP bunch actually "gets it."



ANTI ORIGINALITY people need to GET that being "free" to trade on another's Original Fixed Form DOWNWARDLY IMPACTS THE PRICE/VALUE OF ORIGINALITY.  Theory Spouters and Libertines will argue that people have a right to make a living off whatever is floating around and that lower prices are a good thing in a Free Market.  

Inability to conceptualize proprietary value in Originality is "natural" among those who HAVE NONE &/or who are INCAPABLE of fixing an idea in a Unique Form that is viable for producing value by whatever measure connotes utilization &/or gratification.

Buying one's Fixed Form IN fixed form, then using/playing/reading/viewing/enjoying it to your heart's content (as opposed to having to pay each time you use/play/read/view/enjoy it) is a whole different ball game than being "free" to trade for free on Others' labor.  That is the province of Government, Bankers & other Select Few.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Time,Energy,and Talent belong to a person who owns their own self. From that individual's TIME,ENERGY,and TALENT come a product. That product is property.


http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=3

Perhaps proponents of anti-IP should put this in easier to understand terms.




> Replicators are the real world equivalent of illegal downloading on the Internet.  Bit torrent files allow you to copy information from one place to another, and replicators allow you to copy physical objects from one place to another.  If filesharing is illegal, just imagine the unspeakable crime of replication.  If we had replicators today, people would be stealing computers, cars, televisions, sofas, and Rolex watches.  It would be mass theft on a scale never before imagined.
> 
> The elusive concept to grasp, however, is that the world is actually a better place because of it.  Let’s take a moment to remember why stealing is illegal in the first place.  If I steal your car, you no longer have a car.  If I steal your food, you might go hungry and die.  Stealing can really hurt people.  As a society, it was generally decided that stealing is bad and was thus made illegal.
> 
> Copying, on the other hand, is not the same as stealing.  If I copy your music, you still have music.  Recording a TV show doesn’t prevent other people from watching it.  Copying actually adds to the world we live in.  Because of copying, there is more music in the world, more information, more video, not less.  More people can enjoy it, more people have access to it, more people can learn it, and more people can watch it.  Nothing has been lost, and so much has been gained.
> 
> Imagine a world where replicators actually existed and people could steal whatever they wanted.  Would we really throw people in jail for replicating food for their family?  For replicating expensive cancer drugs?  For replicating clothes for their children?  What if an old man decides to replicate himself a wheelchair?  Do we throw him in jail for that?  He didn’t pay for it, after all, he stole it.  “No,” you say, “that’s different.”
> 
> “That’s different” is an easy way out.  The funny thing is, we are now on the verge of an information utopia, a world where everybody no matter how rich or poor has free access to all information, and we are trying so hard to stop it.  With free information, your child’s future college education might cost $0 instead of $150,000.
> ...



Creating artificial scarcity of a non-scarce and infinitely reproducible good is criminal, destructive, and counter-productive. The simple concept of reproduction, where the original owner still has their good, and the addition of the replicated good does not detract from the property of the prior, and so on and so on ad infinitum. With a scarce good however, if I take it from you, you no longer are in possession of such good. There is no replication. This is the difference between scarcity and non-scarcity. Ideas, patents, copyrights, are all non-scarce. Mises called them recipes. If you cannot understand this simple difference and resort to childish ad hominem's you should at least reflect on what intellectual capacity you engage in.

----------


## low preference guy

> that is the very definition of fraud if you were to sell something you did not produce as a product.


fraud is misrepresenting reality. when i sell something to somebody else and say "these waves occured in my house but i didn't produce them, in fact, i think Captain America produced them", there is no misrepresentation of reality. i'm telling the truth. i'm doing nothing but using my own damn property. i didn't force you to send those waves to my house. you sent them yourself (in the example where you're playing a song and they alter the waves of my property). you have no right to restrict my use of my own property because of something you did.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> What is the purpose of property, captain?


 to protect a person's identity. Individualism and prevent fraud which is others laying claim of being someone they are not, and producing something they did not produce.

----------


## Wesker1982

> I started this thread.


Cool. That still doesn't explain why so many of your posts are ad hominems and other various logical fallacies.

----------


## Diurdi

> Time,Energy,and Talent belong to a person who owns their own self. From that individual's TIME,ENERGY,and TALENT come a product. That product is property.


 That's the thing though, no one is stealing any property from anyone. Yes, they may be making it hard for you to cash in on your product, but that's life. That's competetive markets at work.

As I've mentioned to the point of exhaustion: If a company comes up with a competetive advantage in the market (e.g. new logistics strategy), they will be able to cash in on that only until other companies are able to imitate them.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> to protect a person's identity. Individualism and prevent fraud which is others laying claim of being someone they are not, and producing something they did not produce.


Fail.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> fraud is misrepresenting reality. when i sell something to somebody else and say "these waves occured in my house but i didn't produce them, in fact, i think Captain America produced them", there is no misrepresentation of reality. i'm telling the truth. i'm doing nothing by using my own damn property. i didn't force you to send those waves to my house. you sent them yourself (in the example where you're playing a song and they alter the waves of my property). you have no right to restrict my use of my own property because of something you did.


Fraudulent to claim that those waves were not produced by someone else when you copied and listened to something you did not create.
ffraud·u·lentAdjective/ˈfrôjələnt/
1. Obtained, done by, or involving deception, esp. criminal deception: "the fraudulent copying of American software".
2. Unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities.




*fraudNoun/frôd/
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being*

----------


## cheapseats

> That's the thing though, no one is stealing any property from anyone.


Sez the party that produced nothing.






> Yes, they may be making it hard for you to cash in on your product, but that's life. That's competetive markets at work.



Y'know how every few month there's a thread about the pronounced GENDER GAP in Ron Paul support, whereupon the Choir reassures one another that the people who not on board (especially women) are collectivist group-think Nanny Staters?

Consider the possibility that REVERENCE for private property as expressed in Physical Assets is one of the things that scares lotsa people about EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF Libertarians.

----------


## low preference guy

> Fraudulent to claim that those waves were not produced by someone


but i won't claim they weren't produced by someone else. i can just sell a cd that reproduces the waves and explicitly say I DID NOT PRODUCE THEM. there is no misrepresentation of reality so there is no fraud.

----------


## enjerth

> If I attempt to mislead my customers into believing my product is something it isn't, then it's fraud. Im pretty sure selling a computer and calling it an iPad or Apple-product would be considered fraud.
> 
> And when they say that innovation/idea's are not a scarce resource, they mean that if I have an idea, and someone else copies it, I still have my idea. It doesn't transfer ownership, it's only copied. It can be copied an unlimited amount of times without I losing this idea. For a scarce good this is not the case. If I have a chair and you take it, I don't have it anymore.


A brand name is intellectual property as well. Without IP, you can call it an iPad or an Apple product. It isn't fraud if you have an equal claim to use the name.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Sez the party that produced nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'know how every few month there's a thread about the pronounced GENDER GAP in Ron Paul support, whereupon the Choir reassures one another that the people who not on board (especially women) are collectivist group-think Nanny Staters?
> 
> Consider the possibility that REVERENCE for private property as expressed in Physical Assets is one of the things that scares lotsa people about EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF Libertarians.


 anti-ip is beyond radical.

----------


## low preference guy

> 1. Wrongful or criminal *deception* intended to result in financial or personal gain.


Where is the deception if I tell them that I did not produce the waves? That's the truth, so there is no fraud and no deception.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> anti-ip is beyond radical.


Voting for Ron Paul is beyond radical, what a kooky kookerson kookoo klock.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Where is the deception if I tell them that I did not produce the waves? That's the truth, so there is no fraud and no deception.


 First of all you had no consent to make personal financial gains,therefore it is fraud of the consent to resell to others or redistribute without permission.

----------


## dannno

> So basically one guy as stealing another guys means to make a living and since it was jokes which are not necessarily IP in a standup context, the fellow went about protecting his "goods". Very illustrative of what the pro IP fokks are getting at here. It was affecting Rogans bottom line so he did something about it.
> 
> Rev9


He did do something about it, but he didn't use government violence. That is what we are against. Instead he informed the market and the market decided that Carlos Mencia wasn't adding a lot of value to the jokes he was ripping off and so they became fans of other more talented comics who come up with their own material. 

Dave Chappelle had just left the scene and people were craving good, funny social commentary. Carlos Mencia was no Dave Chappelle, and it didn't take the market long to figure it out.

Yes, he did make some money.. but finding good jokes to use and presenting them in a funny way takes it's own sort of talent. He's just not good long-term talent because once you realize a comic is ripping off stuff they don't seem as funny, unless the way they present it makes up for that.. and Mencia doesn't have the best presentation.. not the worst, but not the best.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Voting for Ron Paul is beyond radical, what a kooky kookerson kookoo klock.


 Oh ,I see now you are trolling  because you cannot refute me.

----------


## Diurdi

> Sez the party that produced nothing.


 Yes. Free riding on an idea is not theft though. It happens in business life all the time.




> Y'know how every few month there's a thread about the pronounced GENDER GAP in Ron Paul support, whereupon the Choir reassures one another that the people who not on board (especially women) are collectivist group-think Nanny Staters?
> 
> Consider the possibility that REVERENCE for private property as expressed in Physical Assets is one of the things that scares lotsa people about EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF Libertarians.


 I have no idea what relevance this has to the topic at hand.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> He did do something about it, but he didn't use government violence. That is what we are against. Instead he informed the market and the market decided that Carlos Mencia wasn't adding a lot of value to the jokes he was ripping off and so they became fans of other more talented comics who come up with their own material. 
> 
> Dave Chappelle had just left the scene and people were craving good, funny social commentary. Carlos Mencia was no Dave Chappelle, and it didn't take the market long to figure it out.


 Who said that having a court recognize someone as fraudulent is violence? 

Maybe you ought to check your language and be clear when you speak. As an artist if someone was purposely being fraudulent with my artwork I would warn them to stop and if they continued I would take them to court and make them pay royalties and recognition of stealing my art. Often times a negotiation is made between 2 parties.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Your "right" to the product of my TIME,ENERGY,and TALENTS is a contradiction to property.


Come, now.  If you put a piece out into the public for consumption, you've already abandoned your right to it.  You got their money, they got your work.  It's now theirs to do whatever they please with it.  To argue otherwise is an argument against private property.

----------


## low preference guy

> First of all you had no consent to make personal financial gains,therefore it is fraud of the consent to resell to others or redistribute without permission.


I  don't need anyone's consent to use my own property. If I own my house, I can observe and record or sell if I want to any waves that occur in my house. All these rights follow from the fact that I own my house.

----------


## aravoth

> anti-intellectual property (fraud enabling) 
> 
> fraud:
> 1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
> 2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities. 
> 
> It takes the actual theft of someones TIME,ENERGY ,and TALENT to make a crime against another individual. Anti-intellectual property opens the door wide open for fraud.


does using clips from various news channels, and overlaying music that you did not make in a video that you composite constitute theft of intellectual property?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

I'm just going to assume I have consent because I consider myself a fan of your comic character music.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Oh ,I see now you are trolling  because you cannot refute me.


Nope, that's your argument.

----------


## Diurdi

> A brand name is intellectual property as well. Without IP, you can call it an iPad or an Apple product. It isn't fraud if you have an equal claim to use the name.


 If there are two persons with the same name, and one of them tries to make it seem like he's the other guy - it's fraud. Similar things like you talk about happen in the markets as well, where companies try to imitate a succesfull companys' brands as closely as possible (within the legal realm).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> anti-ip is beyond radical.


Incorrect.  IP is radical.  The practice only came to be because European monarchs gave exclusive rights to "IP" to loyal serf artisans and various craftspeople.  It's always been and always will be a racket.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Come, now.  If you put a piece out into the public for consumption, you've already abandoned your right to it.  You got their money, they got your work.  It's now theirs to do whatever they please with it.  To argue otherwise is an argument against private property.


 Look up the definition of fraud.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Inorrect.  IP is radical.  The practice only came to be because European monarchs gave exclusive rights to "IP" to loyal serf artisans and various craftspeople.  It's always been and always will be a racket.


NO _YOU_ don't understand, Ron Paul is totally radical, he's gonna take us back to Jim Crow and Robber Barons. And Iran will have nukes HES GONNA DESTROY AMERICAH.

HES BEYOND RADICAL.

----------


## dannno

> First of all you had no consent to make personal financial gains,therefore it is fraud of the consent to resell to others or redistribute without permission.


Uhh, if somebody is willing to pay him then it sounds consensual to me. You consensually released your material to the public instead of releasing it in a private forum where copies could not be made (you could check people for cameras and audio recording equipment, etc).. When you do release your material to the public, be sure to trade mark it so you can sue other people for fraud if they claim the work is actually something they came up with.. but in a non-IP world you won't be able to do much if somebody goes down to kinkos and makes a copy of it, but then how much is it worth?

Let's look at comic books. If you are into comic books, you are not just buying them for entertainment but for investment. A fraudulent copy of a comic is worth next to nothing. There will be magazines about comic books and they will help people to be able to identify genuine copies and such. In fact, identifying genuine copies of works will be even MORE important in a non-IP world than an IP world, there will be more emphasis on this and it could end up benefiting the writers of comic books and other artistic pieces tremendously.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Incorrect.  IP is radical.  The practice only came to be because European monarchs gave exclusive rights to "IP" to loyal serf artisans and various craftspeople.  It's always been and always will be a racket.


 IP can be radical if it is treating corporations as individuals. You on the other hand would advocate the extreme radical anti-ip which is basically every man for themselves armed with baseball bats and the artist inbetween them.

----------


## aravoth

> does using clips from various news channels, and overlaying music that you did not make in a video that you composite constitute theft of intellectual property?


someone answer my question, you all are confusing the $#@! out of me.

----------


## cheapseats

> but i won't claim they weren't produced by someone else. i can just sell a cd that reproduces the waves and explicitly say I DID NOT PRODUCE THEM. there is no misrepresentation of reality so there is no fraud.



'Cuz I want people to be real clear who stands where on what, are you saying YOUR answer in the following exchange is YES, PEOPLE SHOULD THUSLY BE FREE?





> Originally Posted by dannno  
> Define "your" music.
> 
> If It's my CD, if I used my hardware to make the CD, then it's my property. That doesn't mean I can commit fraud and say I performed the piece and sell it as such. But the CD is now my property.






> Once you BUY and OWN a shiny disc comprised of another's original work, do you believe you are within your rights if you REPLICATE the shiny disc as many times as you can sell "your" copies?  Without the investment of time, talent, production, marketing, et al. that go into the original Form, you could surely offer "your" product for sale rather more cheaply . . . which those who have never composed an original work can argue DOES serve the interest of the Consumer class.



Does anyone on this Board have enough clout to get Ron Paul to spare a couple sentences on the topic?  When I consider how GRATEFUL y'all would be if he would grace you with an occasional remark . . .

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> 'Cuz I want people to be real clear who stands where on what, are you saying YOUR answer in the following exchange is YES, PEOPLE SHOULD THUSLY BE FREE?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone on this Board have enough clout to get Ron Paul to spare a couple sentences on the topic?  When I consider how GRATEFUL y'all would be if he would grace you with an occasional remark . . .


 I would like to hear Ron Paul speak in depth about this topic. It would make a lot of people butt hurt.

----------


## Diurdi

> Does anyone on this Board have enough clout to get Ron Paul to spare a couple sentences on the topic?  When I consider how GRATEFUL y'all would be if he would grace you with an occasional remark . . .


 While Paul's stance would be of interest, he's not the end all source of truth.

----------


## low preference guy

> I would like to hear Ron Paul speak in depth about this topic. *It would make a lot of people butt hurt.*


yeah, like you.

----------


## Diurdi

> someone answer my question, you all are confusing the $#@! out of me.


 Yes it is, if you believe you actually can _steal_ intellectual property.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I would like to hear Ron Paul speak in depth about this topic. It would make a lot of people butt hurt.


Appeal to authority.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> IP can be radical if it is treating corporations as individuals. You on the other hand would advocate the extreme radical anti-ip which is basically every man for themselves armed with baseball bats and the artist inbetween them.


BS.  Absent IP laws, artists would continue to make plenty of money the good old fashioned way- PRODUCING, rather than sitting around collecting royalty checks.  Beethoven never had IP rights.  He sold his services and products outright, as any businessperson would.  Somehow I don't think his reputation, fame, or fortune suffered for it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> yeah, like you.


pwned!

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> BS.  Absent IP laws, artists would continue to make plenty of money the good old fashioned way- PRODUCING, rather than sitting around collecting royalty checks.  Beethoven never had IP rights.  He sold his services and products outright, as any businessperson would.  Somehow I don't think his reputation, fame, or fortune suffered for it.


 Ah yes the famous talking point from the non-musician non-artist non-inventor. "you can still make a few pennies while everyone else rapes your original individuality".Don't lump me into the sum of individuals who chose not to protect their property. Just because you can walk into joes house and take a beer doesn't mean I will let you come into my house and drink my beer.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Ah yes the famous talking point from the non-musician non-artist non-inventor. "you can still make a few pennies while everyone else rapes your original individuality".Don't lump me into the sum of individuals who chose not to protect their property. Just because you can walk into joes house and take a beer doesn't mean I will let you come into my house and drink my beer.


I agree with that statement and I make a living creatively.

Get over yourself.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> pwned!


 You guys have no idea what Ron Paul's deep philosophy is. I'm willing to bet you are completely wrong about his ideas.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I agree with that statement and I make a living creatively.
> 
> Get over yourself.


 So far you have managed to attack me for my personal belief in defending my property, what else do you want to tell me Noneedtoaggress? Stop the aggression towards my pursuit in happiness as an individual  with control over my individual property and control of my time,energy and talents .

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> You guys have no idea what Ron Paul's deep philosophy is. I'm willing to bet you are completely wrong about his ideas.


No, it's you who doesn't even recognize the school of thought Ron FRAUDULANTLY STEALZ his ideas from and where they tend to currently stand on the issue.

You know what I did when I learned about Ron Paul? I went to the source, cause he pointed in that direction to those who listen. But to you he's just Dear Leader.

http://mises.org/daily/4601

The Short version of a Philosophy of Liberty video on YouTube will do for you.

----------


## Tod

> A brand name is intellectual property as well. Without IP, you can call it an iPad or an Apple product. It isn't fraud if you have an equal claim to use the name.


Isn't part of Government's function to ensure that society isn't chaotic?  Can you imagine the chaos if you went to a store and wanted a certain product but could never be sure you were getting what you thought you were? (e.g., a product that looked like an iPad in every way but was actually greatly inferior)  There would be violence on the streets.  People would not put up with such nonsense.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> No, it's you who doesn't even recognize the school of thought Ron FRAUDULANTLY STEALZ his ideas from and where they tend to currently stand on the issue.
> 
> You know what I did when I learned about Ron Paul? I went to the source, cause he pointed in that direction to those who listen. But to you he's just Dear Leader.
> 
> http://mises.org/daily/4601
> 
> The Short version of a Philosophy of Liberty video on YouTube will do for you.


 I said I would love to hear his ideas, I didn't say I worship Ron Paul. You assume too much. Likewise I don't worship Mises institute.Your mistake is in assuming that I am radical when the real radical is the person who claims that property exists then says that no one has right to their own property. Non-contradiction

----------


## aravoth

> Yes it is, if you believe you actually can _steal_ intellectual property.


so every grassroots video ever made is theft?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> so every grassroots video ever made is theft?


 the composers,the artists and photographers etc.. the original creators of each piece spliced together have the right to demand the removal of their property yes.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

You said you wanted him to make everyone who didn't agree with you butthurt.

----------


## Diurdi

> There would be violence on the streets.  People would not put up with such nonsense.


 No, I'm pretty sure they would be enjoying $100 iPads. And still, selling something and claiming it to be something else is fraud, with or without IP.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> You said you wanted him to make everyone who didn't agree with you butthurt.


 Oh did I? I said a lot of people would be butt hurt. I didn't say who.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Oh you were talking about yourself then?

Is this thread over yet?

----------


## Diurdi

> so every grassroots video ever made is theft?


 Pretty much yes. But apparently in the case of IP you can "take" without asking first. Just another bizarre characteristic of intellectual property.

----------


## dannno

> Isn't part of Government's function to ensure that society isn't chaotic?  Can you imagine the chaos if you went to a store and wanted a certain product but could never be sure you were getting what you thought you were? (e.g., a product that looked like an iPad in every way but was actually greatly inferior)  There would be violence on the streets.  People would not put up with such nonsense.


lol, that is ridiculous.. People would take more personal responsibility for what they bought and from where. STORES would take greater care to ensure that they were selling high quality products so that they would have a better reputations. Instead everybody expects the government to do it.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Pretty much yes. But apparently in the case of IP you can "take" without asking first. Just another bizarre characteristic of intellectual property.


 People take without asking to begin with, therefore IP is established so that individuals can protect their property as they wish to when they have to.

----------


## aravoth

> the composers,the artists and photographers etc.. the original creators of each piece spliced together have the right to demand the removal of their property yes.


doesn't the combining of that material, edited down, re-formatted, color corrected, overlayed, and composited make it mine from that point on? Battles like that have been fought time and again in U.S. courts, and fair-use, especially in the case I described above, seems to win the day nearly every-time. Even in cases when it was used for profit.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> doesn't the combining of that material, edited down, re-formatted, color corrected, overlayed, and composited make it mine from that point on? Battles like that have been fought time and again in U.S. courts, and fair-use, especially in the case I described above, seems to win the day, nearly every-time, even in cases when it was used for profit.


 No it does not make the material yours.Usually an IP would address specifics about content being used . Some IP is less restrictive than other depending on what the person had it copyright protected for in the first place.

----------


## aravoth

> No it does not make the material yours.Usually an IP would address specifics about content being used . Some IP is less restrictive than other depending on what the person had it copyright protected for in the first place.


But it wouldn't make it yours either, because now it's been altered, it's been customized. It no longer represents your original work. Kinda like buying a classic car, and modifying it. Just because I painted my truck green doesn't mean Ford can take it back.

----------


## KingRobbStark

Captain America should stop beating a dead horse.

----------


## cheapseats

> Captain America should stop beating a dead horse.



Yeah?  And I think Ron Paul should dare to weigh in once in awhile, where his ardent supporters and enthusiastic fundraisers lock horns.  But perhaps "serious" candidates apprehend vulnerability in clarity?

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Yeah?  And I think Ron Paul should dare to weigh in once in awhile, where his ardent supporters and enthusiastic fundraisers lock horns.  But perhaps "serious" candidates apprehend vulnerability in clarity?


What does this have to do with Ron Paul? If you have a questions, go to one of the rallies and ask him.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> What does this have to do with Ron Paul? If you have a questions, go to one of the rallies and ask him.


 I'd like to know what Ron Paul thinks since I already know what Ayn Rand thought. Also curious about what Rand Paul thinks .

----------


## cheapseats

> What does this have to do with Ron Paul? If you have a questions, go to one of the rallies and ask him.



You ask what WEIGHING IN ON FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWPOINTS has to do with the candidate this Board supports for the highest (overt) position in the land?

Your response to all who want clarification about AND FROM Ron Paul is that they should individually seek him out, and avail themselves of a web site that I routinely "hear" criticized?  In other words, the onus is on VOTERS to get to know Ron Paul?  Why should they BOTHER, when Time is the scarcest of all resources and Government has been on the same slippery slope to right where we are for DECADES (with Ron Paul in Congress, it bears mention).

Lemme guess, rah rah rah . . . they should do it 'cuz RON PAUL IS THE ONLY POLITICIAN WHO CAN "SAVE" US?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I'd like to know what Ron Paul thinks since I already know what Ayn Rand thought. Also curious about what Rand Paul thinks .


Pretty good argument.

http://blog.mises.org/11162/an-objec...recants-on-ip/




> How can ideas and patterns be property?

----------


## cheapseats

> http://blog.mises.org/11162/an-objec...recants-on-ip/



Circular sourcing.

It's true because the thing I read that resonated with me SAID it's true.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

...




> Pretty good argument.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

lol the Mises institute is divided and can't agree with Ayn Rand anymore their own godmother.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." -ayn rand

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ah yes the famous talking point from the non-musician non-artist non-inventor. "you can still make a few pennies while everyone else rapes your original individuality".Don't lump me into the sum of individuals who chose not to protect their property. Just because you can walk into joes house and take a beer doesn't mean I will let you come into my house and drink my beer.


Actually, I am in fact a musician, artist, writer, and composer.  And you're still wrong.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> "Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." -ayn rand


IP isn't property.  This quote is irrelevant.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> captain america should stop beating a dead horse.


ftw.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> "Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." -ayn rand


I'd ask you how in the world this is supposed to translate to the anti-IP position, but honestly it seems completely pointless to take this further.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Actually, I am in fact a musician, artist, writer, and composer.  And you're still wrong.


 You are your own self, and I am my own self and obviously we have completely different ideals when it comes to perspectives of property. I work with professional musicians like myself who would never permit their music to be ripped off or sold without permission if they found out that was happening to them.

----------


## dannno

> "Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." -ayn rand


The problem is you are using a made-up definition of property.

You can own land. You can own a CD. You can own a car. 

More complex now.

You can own a piece of paper with an idea written on it and you can choose not to show or tell anybody about it, but you can't own the idea written on the paper. Once you release that information to the public, it doesn't belong to you, in fact it never did, because that idea can multiply and change and adapt. You can only own the paper it is written on.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I'd ask you how in the world this is supposed to translate to the anti-IP position, but honestly it seems completely pointless to take this further.


 Well considering a few pages back that several people said that they should be able to copy a cd of music I created and resell it for their own profit. You put it into context, and figure it out since you are so intelligent.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You are your own self, and I am my own self and obviously we have completely different ideals when it comes to perspectives of property. I work with professional musicians like myself who would never permit their music to be ripped off or sold without permission if they found out that was happening to them.


Then you work with professional musicians who don't know anything about law or property rights.  So?  There are plenty of professional musicians who entirely disagree with your friends, including myself.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The problem is you are using a made-up definition of property.
> 
> You can own land. You can own a CD. You can own a car. 
> 
> More complex now.
> 
> You can own a piece of paper with an idea written on it and you can choose not to show or tell anybody about it, but you can't own the idea written on the paper. Once you release that information to the public, it doesn't belong to you, in fact it never did, because that idea can multiply and change and adapt. You can only own the paper it is written on.


This^^^

----------


## cheapseats

> The problem is you are using a made-up definition of property.
> 
> You can own land. You can own a CD. You can own a car. 
> 
> More complex now.
> 
> You can own a piece of paper with an idea written on it and you can choose not to show or tell anybody about it, but you can't own the idea written on the paper. Once you release that information to the public, it doesn't belong to you, in fact it never did, because that idea can multiply and change and adapt. You can only own the paper it is written on.



Self-serving claptrap.  

An IDEA cannot be copyrighted, nor even a title.  How many apocalypse/armageddon movies have been made?  How many murder mysteries have been penned?

But the notion that SLACKERS can simply lay up, wait for someone else to create, then peddle replicas of the Creation (EASILY made more cheaply), without any compensation to the Creator is just a more scrappy version of the GIMME GIMME model.






> Originally Posted by dannno  
> Define "your" music.
> 
> If It's my CD, if I used my hardware to make the CD, then it's my property. That doesn't mean I can commit fraud and say I performed the piece and sell it as such. But the CD is now my property.



I'd ask again . . . 'cuz I want Small Government people to be wide-screen on where AnCaps & Libertines stand.





> Once you BUY and OWN a shiny disc comprised of another's original work, do you believe you are within your rights if you REPLICATE the shiny disc as many times as you can sell "your" copies?  Without the investment of time, talent, production, marketing, et al. that go into the original Form, you could surely offer "your" product for sale rather more cheaply . . . which those who have never composed an original work can argue DOES serve the interest of the Consumer class.

----------


## YumYum

> You are your own self, and I am my own self and obviously we have completely different ideals when it comes to perspectives of property. I work with professional musicians like myself who would never permit their music to be ripped off or sold without permission if they found out that was happening to them.


The only problem with that is that "professional" musicians/songwriters/arrangers/producers rip-off the little guy who isn't "in" the industry, and they get away with it because they have the money to hire the best attorneys. Its all about money. The people in the industry who have money think nothing of ripping off people who are not in the industry. Copyrights don't protect anybody; to win in court you need to be in the "business", and have your stuff "published". "Cashless peasants" can just suffer.

----------


## dannno

> Well considering a few pages back that several people said that they should be able to copy a cd of music I created and resell it for their own profit. You put it into context, and figure it out since you are so intelligent.


Copying a CD and selling it takes time and effort as well as resources. Why wouldn't someone expect some compensation if there is a demand for it? 

The question is, why aren't people buying your music CD from you? Could be a number of reasons.

You sell it for too much $$ and so people aren't willing to compensate the artist and would prefer to have a burned CD

You chose to stop making copies, even though there is a demand

You only sell it in certain locations and not everybody has access to buying it

The truth is, this person is providing a service to the market. It doesn't, however, mean the musician has to fail. There are plenty of ways for the musician to succeed very well in this environment. Sell your CD for a reasonable amount and make it more accessible to people.. or THANK the person who made all those copies when you get 30k people showing up at your sold out concerts!!

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I said I would love to hear his ideas, I didn't say I worship Ron Paul. You assume too much. Likewise I don't worship Mises institute.Your mistake is in assuming that I am radical when the real radical is the person who claims that property exists then says that no one has right to their own property. Non-contradiction


I think it is telling that you ignore our arguments and instead construct your own that you attack. To me this shows a lack of confidence in your position and your argument. Can you tell me how an idea which is infinitely reproducible which has no loss of property to the original owner -- that is, a good that is non-scarce in nature such as recipes, ideas, patterns, formulas, etc. can be property? How can I steal something that you still own? If I draw Mickey Mouse and then market him on my own, does not Disney still have the ability to draw and use Mickey Mouse themselves? 

Furthermore, I would presume that in the event a Star-Trek replicator was ever invented, that you would be in favor of artificial rents and would throw people in jail for infinitely replicating shelter, food, TVs, etc. even though the original owners have lost no property. When you take a scarce good, you take from one and give to another. When you reproduce you create an all new good. Nothing is lost by the original owner. 

Can you challenge this argument, or will you continue to avoid it?

----------


## YumYum

> Copying a CD and selling it takes time and effort as well as resources. Why wouldn't someone expect some compensation if there is a demand for it? 
> 
> The question is, *why aren't people buying your music CD from you?* Could be a number of reasons.
> 
> You sell it for too much $$ and so people aren't willing to compensate the artist and would prefer to have a burned CD
> 
> You chose to stop making copies, even though there is a demand
> 
> You only sell it in certain locations and not everybody has access to buying it
> ...


It has to be outstanding music. People will pay for great, original music.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> The only problem with that is that "professional" musicians/songwriters/arrangers/producers rip-off the little guy who isn't "in" the industry, and they get away with it because they have the money to hire the best attorneys. Its all about money. The people in the industry who have money think nothing of ripping off people who are not in the industry. Copyrights don't protect anybody; to win in court you need to be in the "business", and have your stuff "published". "Cashless peasants" can just suffer.


 You assume that the "little guy" is me or any other musician I mention? You have obviously created prejudice with your statement.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> It has to be outstanding music. People will pay for great, original music.


 people will also steal and rip off unique music .

----------


## YumYum

> I think it is telling that you ignore our arguments and instead construct your own that you attack. To me this shows a lack of confidence in your position and your argument. Can you tell me how an idea which is infinitely reproducible which has no loss of property to the original owner -- that is, a good that is non-scarce in nature such as recipes, ideas, patterns, formulas, etc. can be property? How can I steal something that you still own? If I draw Mickey Mouse and then market him on my own, does not Disney still have the ability to draw and use Mickey Mouse themselves? 
> 
> Furthermore, I would presume that in the event a Star-Trek replicator was ever invented, that *you would be in favor of artificial rents and would throw people in jail for infinitely replicating shelter, food, TVs, etc.* even though the original owners have lost no property. When you take a scarce good, you take from one and give to another. When you reproduce you create an all new good. Nothing is lost by the original owner. 
> 
> Can you challenge this argument, or will you continue to avoid it?


The music industry was suing elderly grandmothers because their grand-kids had downloaded music on their grandmother's computer.

----------


## dannno

> It has to be outstanding music. People will pay for great, original music.


lol, that's not true, that's just in the current bull$#@! environment we live in where CD's cost $#@!ing $17.99 or some $#@! (actually I haven't been in a CD store in years, I know some used to be in the $12.99 range on SALE!!)

If artists could sell their music cheaper more people would buy it. Or they would get pirated, but they would still end up with more exposure, more fans, and more sold out concerts.

The problem is people in this thread who are arguing for IP don't seem to understand that a burned CD is only worth $1 or $2, whereas an original CD from an artist is worth at least $5 or so. The price in the market would reflect this, the person on the corner selling your CD is not going to find a lot of customers, not to mention they aren't going to be able to command near the same price as if they had the CD straight from the artist.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

Hmm...




> *"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." - Thomas Jefferson*

----------


## YumYum

> people will also steal and rip off unique music .


So, write more unique music. Let them have it. After awhile, people will ask "Who is this genus?" And in time the cashless peasants will worship you as a god. True artist create. They don't depend on "one" song to "make it". They can write a couple of "hit" songs a day. The music industry created a monarchy where artists had to beg and "pay their dues" to even get a foot in the door. Now, the music industry is feeling the effects of Karma.

Explain to me how I can buy the DVD to the movie "Titanic" for $9.99, and it includes the whole musical score, but if i want to only buy the music to "Titanic", I have to pay $18 for the cd? This makes no sense. The music industry's greed is what killed their little cartel. 

Hollywood better learn from their mistakes if it doesn't want to end up the same way.

----------


## KingRobbStark

Captain America's arguments are purely based on emotion. This is my paraphrasing of his arguments. 

" But...but I worked so hard to think of an idea that others would have though of someday regardless if I had thought of it at all. Its unfair that people should use my "ideas", and make money out of it. Hurr durr my idurras being stollin durr *more crying* hurr durr *more tears* IP durr...". 

            --------Captain America

----------


## YumYum

> lol, *that's not true, that's just in the current bull$#@! environment we live in where CD's cost $#@!ing $17.99 or some $#@! (actually I haven't been in a CD store in years, I know some used to be in the $12.99 range on SALE!!)*
> 
> If artists could sell their music cheaper more people would buy it. Or they would get pirated, but they would still end up with more exposure, more fans, and more sold out concerts.
> 
> The problem is people in this thread who are arguing for IP don't seem to understand that a burned CD is only worth $1 or $2, whereas an original CD from an artist is worth at least $5 or so. The price in the market would reflect this, the person on the corner selling your CD is not going to find a lot of customers, not to mention they aren't going to be able to command near the same price as if they had the CD straight from the artist.


I didn't say how much they would pay; just that they would pay. 

The best way to get reimbursed for your songs is to give out CDs at live shows to those people who bought tickets to hear you live.

I mean, a Rascal Flatts ticket cost $75+. They could give their fans who paid that their new CD in the mail or at the door of their concerts.

----------


## One Last Battle!

> I didn't say how much they would pay; just that they would pay. 
> 
> The best way to get reimbursed for your songs is to give out CDs at live shows to those people who bought tickets to hear you live.
> 
> I mean, a Rascal Flatts ticket cost $75+. They could give their fans who paid that their new CD in the mail or at the door of their concerts.





> I think it is telling that you ignore our arguments and instead construct your own that you attack. To me this shows a lack of confidence in your position and your argument. Can you tell me how an idea which is infinitely reproducible which has no loss of property to the original owner -- that is, a good that is non-scarce in nature such as recipes, ideas, patterns, formulas, etc. can be property? How can I steal something that you still own? If I draw Mickey Mouse and then market him on my own, does not Disney still have the ability to draw and use Mickey Mouse themselves?
> 
> Furthermore, I would presume that in the event a Star-Trek replicator was ever invented, that you would be in favor of artificial rents and would throw people in jail for infinitely replicating shelter, food, TVs, etc. even though the original owners have lost no property. When you take a scarce good, you take from one and give to another. When you reproduce you create an all new good. Nothing is lost by the original owner.
> 
> Can you challenge this argument, or will you continue to avoid it?


Are you going to actually attack the substance of the argument or will you attack peripheral points and run away to avoid it?

----------


## YumYum

> Are you going to actually attack the substance of the argument or will you attack peripheral points and run away to avoid it?


What are talking about?

----------


## CCTelander

> I think it is telling that you ignore our arguments and instead construct your own that you attack. To me this shows a lack of confidence in your position and your argument. Can you tell me how an idea which is infinitely reproducible which has no loss of property to the original owner -- that is, a good that is non-scarce in nature such as recipes, ideas, patterns, formulas, etc. can be property? How can I steal something that you still own? If I draw Mickey Mouse and then market him on my own, does not Disney still have the ability to draw and use Mickey Mouse themselves? 
> 
> Furthermore, I would presume that in the event a Star-Trek replicator was ever invented, that you would be in favor of artificial rents and would throw people in jail for infinitely replicating shelter, food, TVs, etc. even though the original owners have lost no property. When you take a scarce good, you take from one and give to another. When you reproduce you create an all new good.* Nothing is lost by the original owner.* 
> 
> Can you challenge this argument, or will you continue to avoid it?


* "Nothing is lost by the original owner."* 

* "Nothing is lost by the original owner."* 

* "Nothing is lost by the original owner."* 

* "Nothing is lost by the original owner."* 

* "Nothing is lost by the original owner."* 

This point needs to be driven home over and over also.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> * "Nothing is lost by the original owner."* 
> 
> * "Nothing is lost by the original owner."* 
> 
> * "Nothing is lost by the original owner."* 
> 
> * "Nothing is lost by the original owner."* 
> 
> * "Nothing is lost by the original owner."* 
> ...


Haven't noticed this posted yet.  Kinda obligatory for IP threads.

----------


## YumYum

I minored in the "Recording Industry" at MTSU. I wanted to be a journalist who would do reviews on all crappy music that is coming out today. The music industry collapsed while I was sitting class.

A pretty lady who was "in" the industry, and had paid her "dues", visited our class. She had graduated from MTSU with a degree in the Recording Industry, and gave our class a lecture on how to get your foot in the door. What she said pissed me off.

She told the class that after they graduate, one way they could get their foot in the door was to get hired on, working for free, cleaning the record company's restrooms. By doing this the grads would eventually rub shoulders with someone with power who might like the grad and give them a paying job in the building; like running errands and delivering mail. I exploded!

"You mean to tell me that we are paying thousands of dollars for an education to learn about this industry, and you want us to clean some billion dollar record company's toilets for free to get our foot in the door?!?"

"Yes", she said. "People have done it. It just depends how bad you want a career in the music industry."

What an evil industry. Now, that the music industry is dead, and the music is free, and the true artists (not the wannabes) can create without having to clean toilets for no pay, we should soon be hearing some great, wonderful, sweet sounding music real soon!

----------


## Mustang

The main point here that is being ignored by the pro-IP side is the question of whether abstract and non-physical concepts deserve the same protections against theft as tangible and physical objects. The fact that much time and effort goes into the production of both abstract and tangible goods is irreverent to the discussion at hand, so the appeal to emotion of needing to protect one's investment to justify IP is outside of the debate.

This is where the principle of nonaggression comes into play, since under a libertarian or "free" society no one should be allowed to initiate force against another. When it comes to physical goods, it's clear that seizing someone's tangible product would be considered as an act of aggression due to the use of force. However, for an abstract good such as a musical arrangement, no force is employed when someone copies it and the owner maintains the ability to use and reproduce the concept. Aggression only comes into play with the retaliation using IP, since the one who copied the musical arrangement would be unable to do so under the threat of force, and in that view the first act of aggression comes from not the person who copied but the person who wants to prevent the duplication.

Unless initiating force is justified in order to protect the potential for profit, the argument of the pro-IP side completely falls apart as inconsistent under the principle of nonaggression.

Of course, the pro-IP side might say copying IS in fact an act of aggression, and they are welcome to present a completely consistent method for identifying which forms of copying are forms of aggression and which are not. It will be difficult to use loss of profit as a means to prove copying is an aggressive action, since there are numerous examples that have already been brought up and accepted in this thread demonstrating that a loss of value and/or loss of initial investment in a competitive free market is not inherently aggressive.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> The main point here that is being ignored by the pro-IP side is the question of whether abstract and non-physical concepts deserve the same protections against theft as tangible and physical objects. The fact that much time and effort goes into the production of both abstract and tangible goods is irreverent to the discussion at hand, so the appeal to emotion of needing to protect one's investment to justify IP is outside of the debate.
> 
> This is where the principle of nonaggression comes into play, since under a libertarian or "free" society no one should be allowed to initiate force against another. When it comes to physical goods, it's clear that seizing someone's tangible product would be considered as an act of aggression due to the use of force. However, for an abstract good such as a musical arrangement, no force is employed when someone copies it and the owner maintains the ability to use and reproduce the concept. Aggression only comes into play with the retaliation using IP, since the one who copied the musical arrangement would be unable to do so under the threat of force, and in that view the first act of aggression comes from not the person who copied but the person who wants to prevent the duplication.
> 
> Unless initiating force is justified in order to protect the potential for profit, the argument of the pro-IP side completely falls apart as inconsistent under the principle of nonaggression.
> 
> Of course, the pro-IP side might say copying IS in fact an act of aggression, and they are welcome to present a completely consistent method for identifying which forms of copying are forms of aggression and which are not. It will be difficult to use loss of profit as a means to prove copying is an aggressive action, since there are numerous examples that have already been brought up and accepted in this thread demonstrating that a loss of value and/or loss of initial investment in a competitive free market is not inherently aggressive.


Welcome to the forum. +rep

----------


## noxagol

> The main point here that is being ignored by the pro-IP side is the question of whether abstract and non-physical concepts deserve the same protections against theft as tangible and physical objects. The fact that much time and effort goes into the production of both abstract and tangible goods is irreverent to the discussion at hand, so the appeal to emotion of needing to protect one's investment to justify IP is outside of the debate.
> 
> This is where the principle of nonaggression comes into play, since under a libertarian or "free" society no one should be allowed to initiate force against another. When it comes to physical goods, it's clear that seizing someone's tangible product would be considered as an act of aggression due to the use of force. However, for an abstract good such as a musical arrangement, no force is employed when someone copies it and the owner maintains the ability to use and reproduce the concept. Aggression only comes into play with the retaliation using IP, since the one who copied the musical arrangement would be unable to do so under the threat of force, and in that view the first act of aggression comes from not the person who copied but the person who wants to prevent the duplication.
> 
> Unless initiating force is justified in order to protect the potential for profit, the argument of the pro-IP side completely falls apart as inconsistent under the principle of nonaggression.
> 
> Of course, the pro-IP side might say copying IS in fact an act of aggression, and they are welcome to present a completely consistent method for identifying which forms of copying are forms of aggression and which are not. It will be difficult to use loss of profit as a means to prove copying is an aggressive action, since there are numerous examples that have already been brought up and accepted in this thread demonstrating that a loss of value and/or loss of initial investment in a competitive free market is not inherently aggressive.


Yes. Handling IP is a matter of contract agreements. I think CD's come with a bunch of fine print that says they are copy written, which is pretty much another way of saying, "Hey, part of buying this is agreeing to not make and distribute copies, free or not". Costs can be in more than simple dollar signs.

----------


## Mustang

> Yes. Handling IP is a matter of contract agreements. I think CD's come with a bunch of fine print that says they are copy written, which is pretty much another way of saying, "Hey, part of buying this is agreeing to not make and distribute copies, free or not". Costs can be in more than simple dollar signs.


I don't see how that is a valid contract. If someone buys and now owns a CD, he/she must be free to use it as he/she wishes in order for private property to have any true meaning. A contract stating that the purchaser of a CD is not allowed to use it for X is unenforceable unless the CD is still actually owned by the manufacturer and the buyer is merely renting it. It's similar to jailbreaking an iOS product, which Apple argued was illegal since it was prohibited in the contract but that was rightfully overturned since the device is now the private property of the buyer after purchase.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes. Handling IP is a matter of contract agreements. I think CD's come with a bunch of fine print that says they are copy written, which is pretty much another way of saying, "Hey, part of buying this is agreeing to not make and distribute copies, free or not". Costs can be in more than simple dollar signs.


You can put all sorts of things on a CD, but that doesn't make it a binding contract.  By your reasoning, I could write "by using this CD, you agree to kill your neighbors", and you would be bound to it.  Sorry, there is no such thing as an "implicit contract" brought about by the mere purchase of anything.  It's all legal fiction.

----------


## affa

> If we have no IP alot of stories will go untold.
> Rev9


Stories existed before IP law, and they would exist afterwards.

The argument can be made that IP inhibits progress -- for example, something like The Grey Album can be squashed, despite the fact that it is obviously original, and has artistic value.

And yes, I create things.  But an idea is an idea -- different people can have them at different times, and it isn't always theft.  Patent law, for example, clearly inhibits progress when applied incorrectly (which happens all the time).  

It's a good thing IP did not exist when someone invented the wheel.

----------


## low preference guy

> lol the Mises institute is divided and can't agree with Ayn Rand anymore their own godmother.


this is probably the most clueless statement of the week and offensive to both Objectivists and Rothbardians.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Captain America's arguments are purely based on emotion. This is my paraphrasing of his arguments. 
> 
> " But...but I worked so hard to think of an idea that others would have though of someday regardless if I had thought of it at all. Its unfair that people should use my "ideas", and make money out of it. Hurr durr my idurras being stollin durr *more crying* hurr durr *more tears* IP durr...". 
> 
>             --------Captain America


 Im not crying, you're the one who will never get rid of IP

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Guess he never saw Mozart was a Red.

shrug.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> what is the purpose of property, captain?


shack!!!^^^^^^^^

----------


## low preference guy

> Im not crying, you're the one who will never get rid of IP


lol. people had gotten rid of it to a pretty good degree. google "bittorrent".

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I don't see how that is a valid contract. If someone buys and now owns a CD, he/she must be free to use it as he/she wishes in order for private property to have any true meaning. A contract stating that the purchaser of a CD is not allowed to use it for X is unenforceable unless the CD is still actually owned by the manufacturer and the buyer is merely renting it. It's similar to jailbreaking an iOS product, which Apple argued was illegal since it was prohibited in the contract but that was rightfully overturned since the device is now the private property of the buyer after purchase.




 what is so difficult about understanding consent of use? 

-free individual owns themself
-free individual owns TIME,ENERGY,and TALENT
-Time,Energy,Talent=product
-free individual consents to other free individual to use a copy of product by consent of "listening,copying for personal use,backup " and whatever else the free individual creator of that product chooses to consent to the other individual.

When an individual does not receive consent to copy another individuals product and does things with the product which are not given with consent it is the action of fraud

fraud:
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being

----------


## Mr Tansill

> IP isn't property.  This quote is irrelevant.


What is it then?  Do you have an apt description?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> What is it then?  Do you have an apt description?


 It is whatever he uses,disposes of and creates, even if it takes from another, disposes from another and creates from another.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What is it then?  Do you have an apt description?


It is purely a legal fiction invented by politicians and lawyers, primarily during the authoring of the copyright and patent acts.  Prior to these laws, no one had ever heard of such a thing as IP.  When audio recordings were invented, a clause in the law was added expanding the definition of copyrightable material.  It is and always has been a racket that benefits corporate/business interests and their buddies in the government.  To this day the RIAA, MPAA, and similar organizations have lobbies that are in business to get ever-stronger laws passed to benefit the corporations and undermine the free market of ideas. 

Only politicians and lawyers are stupid/crooked enough to come up with "solutions" to problems that don't exist.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> It is purely a legal fiction invented by politicians and lawyers, primarily during the authoring of the copyright and patent acts.  Prior to these laws, no one had ever heard of such a thing as IP.  When audio recordings were invented, a clause in the law was added expanding the definition of copyrightable material.  It is and always has been a racket that benefits corporate/business interests and their buddies in the government.  To this day the RIAA, MPAA, and similar organizations have lobbies that are in business to get ever-stronger laws passed to benefit the corporations and undermine the free market of ideas. 
> 
> Only politicians and lawyers are stupid/crooked enough to come up with "solutions" to problems that don't exist.


 you would really make karl marx proud

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It is whatever he uses,disposes of and creates, even if it takes from another, disposes from another and creates from another.


That's even clumsier than the definition given in music law books. lol

----------


## Mr Tansill

> http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=3
> 
> Perhaps proponents of anti-IP should put this in easier to understand terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creating artificial scarcity of a non-scarce and infinitely reproducible good is criminal, destructive, and counter-productive. The simple concept of reproduction, where the original owner still has their good, and the addition of the replicated good does not detract from the property of the prior, and so on and so on ad infinitum. With a scarce good however, if I take it from you, you no longer are in possession of such good. There is no replication. This is the difference between scarcity and non-scarcity. Ideas, patents, copyrights, are all non-scarce. Mises called them recipes. If you cannot understand this simple difference and resort to childish ad hominem's you should at least reflect on what intellectual capacity you engage in.


Homey, the wheels come off this logic train in the first sentence.  While I agree in principle that creating artificial scarcity is criminal and destructive, you falsely posit that there exists such a thing as an "infinitely" reproducible good - at least not one that you would _need_.  In fact, crops, food, cars, etc. all fit your definition of "infinitely" reproducible.  Think about it.  It takes a very _small_ amount of energy to produce a copied CD...it takes a greater amount for you to toil in the field all day and produce a harvest of corn...the point is, they both take a finite amount of energy and time.  ANYTHING fits your definition, so if you deny IP, you deny all property with it.  IP may be a poor choice of words and a poor characterization because it colludes something ethereal with goods which are physical, but the concept is there and it is important to recognize that the _product_ of someone's _time and energy_ is what you are buying.

Here's the most important point for those of you who are anti-IP: if you don't like the price, don't buy it!  All the word games etc that I see being played on this board serve merely to justify stealing - I'm actually pretty surprised that I see this much in the way of communist/socialist ideas on a RP forum...

The ultimate fallacy in that article is he assumes ideas are non-physical.  Ideas are absolutely physical, whether they be written words in an old book, data on a CD, or a certain combination of electrons in your brain - there is no such _thing_ as something _non_-physical.

----------


## Mustang

> -free individual owns themself
> -free individual owns TIME,ENERGY,and TALENT
> -Time,Energy,Talent=product
> -free individual consents to other free individual to use a copy of product by consent of "listening,copying for personal use,backup " and whatever else the free individual creator of that product chooses to consent to the other individual.


There's a missing line of reasoning here. You go from a person needing time, energy, effort, etc, to create a product, to a person inherently being able to dictate how someone else uses this product. There's no justification for why someone can dictate any terms in a contract to someone else, no differentiation between physical and abstract products, no analysis of how the nonaggression principle comes into play, and no consideration for how the value of one's effort cannot be protected by force.

In other words, you have only an assumption and nothing more. I explained my stance on IP and how it relates to the nonaggression principle in an earlier post, which you ignored. Hence the burden of proof is on you to explain why some forms of copying should be considered an act of aggression, else your assumption and argument fall apart.




> When an individual does not receive consent to copy another individuals product and does things with the product which are not given with consent it is the action of fraud
> 
> fraud:
> 1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
> 2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being


I see the word "deception" in both official definitions of fraud, and since the mere act of copying is NOT a deception it cannot inherently be considered fraud without further analysis. In fact, you invented your own definition of fraud that conveniently supports your claim, but given that is clashes with the accepted and legal definition it cannot be taken as fact. Fraud is NOT failing to receive consent to so a certain action with a product.

Example, I can buy an iPhone and make it clear my intention is to jailbreak it. Apple has no legal recourse and cannot stop me despite not having give consent, since I purchased the iPhone making it my private property. Under your definition that would be "fraud' when clearly no fraud has taken place.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> you would really make karl marx proud


 Some counter-argument there!  Actually, Marx would be extremely disappointed in me, because I believe in private property.  He would be quite proud of you and your dialectics, though.  You make up a "problem"-(poor, helpless creators need a way to "protect" their ideas from capitalists); the thesis.  Then you come up with the antithesis-government control of idea dissemination rather than free market exchange.  Now, you've created your synthesis-a perfect state/corporate marriage in which the state and corporations benefit at the expense of everyone else, and then the state uses its share of the loot in its various other schemes.  

Pat yourself on the back, Marxist!

----------


## low preference guy

> you would really make karl marx proud


more name calling and straw men

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Homey, the wheels come off this logic train in the first sentence.  While I agree in principle that creating artificial scarcity is criminal and destructive, you falsely posit that there exists such a thing as an "infinitely" reproducible good - at least not one that you would _need_.  In fact, crops, food, cars, etc. all fit your definition of "infinitely" reproducible.  Think about it.  It takes a very _small_ amount of energy to produce a copied CD...it takes a greater amount for you to toil in the field all day and produce a harvest of corn...the point is, they both take a finite amount of energy and time.  ANYTHING fits your definition, so if you deny IP, you deny all property with it.  IP may be a poor choice of words and a poor characterization because it colludes something ethereal with goods which are physical, but the concept is there and it is important to recognize that the _product_ of someone's _time and energy_ is what you are buying.
> 
> Here's the most important point for those of you who are anti-IP: if you don't like the price, don't buy it!  All the word games etc that I see being played on this board serve merely to justify stealing - I'm actually pretty surprised that I see this much in the way of communist/socialist ideas on a RP forum...
> 
> The ultimate fallacy in that article is he assumes ideas are non-physical.  Ideas are absolutely physical, whether they be written words in an old book, data on a CD, or a certain combination of electrons in your brain - there is no such _thing_ as something _non_-physical.


Totally incorrect.  In order for something to be copyrighted/patented, it has to be captured in a tangible medium.  Anything captured in a tangible medium can be reproduced infinitely.  

Noone's advocating stealing here.  We're advocating freely copying and sharing information.  You're the one conflating copying with "theft".  If you had bothered to read any of the IP laws, you'd know that even those laws NEVER use the term "theft".  They use "infringement".  I suggest you actually learn the law before trying to argue about it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> more name calling and straw men


qft.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Totally incorrect.  In order for something to be copyrighted/patented, it has to be captured in a tangible medium.  Anything captured in a tangible medium can be reproduced infinitely.


Can you explain "captured in a tangible medium?"  I guess a banana could be copyrighted then...banana's are tangible media.  Better yet, can you provide an example of something that cannot be captured in a tangible medium.




> Noone's advocating stealing here.  We're advocating freely copying and sharing information.  You're the one conflating copying with "theft".  If you had bothered to read any of the IP laws, you'd know that even those laws NEVER use the term "theft".  They use "infringement".  I suggest you actually learn the law before trying to argue about it.


Copy, you're advocating "infringement."  How is that acceptable under the "don't tread on me" premise?  I guess you got me on that though...I could go read the law instead of arguing this on principle...laugh.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> qft.


 Can I have a cd of your band?I have a friend who wants to rewrite your music and resell it.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Can I have a cd of your band?I have a friend who wants to rewrite your music and resell it.


Yeah, this ^^^

----------


## Mustang

> Homey, the wheels come off this logic train in the first sentence.  While I agree in principle that creating artificial scarcity is criminal and destructive, you falsely posit that there exists such a thing as an "infinitely" reproducible good - at least not one that you would _need_.  In fact, crops, food, cars, etc. all fit your definition of "infinitely" reproducible.  Think about it.  It takes a very _small_ amount of energy to produce a copied CD...it takes a greater amount for you to toil in the field all day and produce a harvest of corn...the point is, they both take a finite amount of energy and time.


So far this is true, but doesn't directly refute the idea that one is allowed to use his/her private property even to "copy" the property of another.




> ANYTHING fits your definition, so if you deny IP, you deny all property with it.


That's false, and this conclusion doesn't logically follow your above argument. Your above argument is discussing the fact that it takes some effort to produce any product, including a copy of someone else's property which is entirely true. However, the real argument against IP is the fact that the act of copying ONLY depletes one's personal private property and does NOT in anyway deny the use or possession of the original product to the innovator. Thus the fact that anything takes energy to make doesn't address the true issue at hand, which is there is a lack of force in copying whereas IP allows the innovator to initiate force for the act of merely using one's private property in a certain way.




> IP may be a poor choice of words and a poor characterization because it colludes something ethereal with goods which are physical, but the concept is there and it is important to recognize that the _product_ of someone's _time and energy_ is what you are buying.


No one has denied that it takes time and energy to make a product, whether it is music or a chair. However, I am free to make my own products or buy from a different vendor if I wish without the obligation to pay someone for their efforts. If it takes less of my own personal effort, time, and resources to copy instead of purchase from someone, I am free to do so. The innovator retains possession of his/her product, hence his/her time and effort didn't go to waste, and I have now used my own resources to create a copy. There is no force involved, and hence no justification for the innovator to suddenly deny me the use of my private property in a certain way.




> Here's the most important point for those of you who are anti-IP: if you don't like the price, don't buy it!  All the word games etc that I see being played on this board serve merely to justify stealing - I'm actually pretty surprised that I see this much in the way of communist/socialist ideas on a RP forum...


Socialism is an economic system in which the state owns the means of production, which has nothing to do with the anti-IP position. Being against IP is completely consistent with supporting private property, especially since IP is in a way an attack on private property since it arbitrarily prohibits certain uses to the owner.

----------


## Revolution9

> I don't see how that is a valid contract.


It is called an Adhesion Contract IIRC.

Rev9

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Can you explain "captured in a tangible medium?"  I guess a banana could be copyrighted then...banana's are tangible media.  Better yet, can you provide an example of something that cannot be captured in a tangible medium.


You don't know what a "tangible medium" is?  Why are you debating this when you don't even understand the law?  A "tangible medium" is one that can be observed physically (a CD, a canvas, etc).  "Bananas" are not a tangible medium.  They are not a medium at all.  "Banana", even under existing law is not a "creation" (something becomes IP when it is "created"-that is, captured in a tangible medium-according to IP law)-it simply exists in nature.






> Copy, you're advocating "infringement."  How is that acceptable under the "don't tread on me" premise?  I guess you got me on that though...I could go read the law instead of arguing this on principle...laugh.


Strawman.  IP "Infringement" is a non-crime.  It's a legal fiction.  It sure helps the corporations in their never-ending quest to prevent the free flow of information, though-such as shutting down napster, etc.  Win for the prison/government/industrial complex, lose for individuals and the broader culture.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Can I have a cd of your band?I have a friend who wants to rewrite your music and resell it.


Do you _really_ have a "friend" who intended to rewrite and resell their music, cap?




> fraud:
> 1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
> 2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Do you _really_ have a "friend" who intended to rewrite and resell their music, cap?


 No I don't I am being clever and witty.

----------


## Mustang

> It is called an Adhesion Contract IIRC.
> 
> Rev9


As stated clearly even in Wikipedia



> While these typ[e]s of contracts, in and of themselves, are not illegal per se, there exists a very real possibility for unconscionability.


The fact that you named the general category of the contract doesn't in any way mean all forms of them are valid. That will require actual argumentation especially in the case of prohibiting a consumer from using private property in a certain way.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> No I don't I am being clever and witty.


uh huh.

----------


## Revolution9

> Do you _really_ have a "friend" who intended to rewrite and resell their music, cap?


Probably a "rap star". They are really good at that particular form of displaying how talented _they_ are.

Rev9

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Can I have a cd of your band?I have a friend who wants to rewrite your music and resell it.


  You don't need a CD.  I keep it all online (check my sig).   FYI, what you're talking about isn't even illegal under current law.  It's called "arranging".  Arrangements can be copyrighted by the arranger.  But you wouldn't know that, having never actually _read_ the law, would you?

----------


## Revolution9

> As stated clearly even in Wikipedia
> 
> The fact that you named the general category of the contract doesn't in any way mean all forms of them are valid. That will require actual argumentation especially in the case of prohibiting a consumer from using private property in a certain way.


Adhesion contracts are used all the time in the US. You are party to many of them currently, whether you know so, like so or not. Ignoring the strictures of some you are party to can lead to a run in with various authorities.

Rev9

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

No one has cared to address the fact that the act of copying does not deny or in any fashion constitute a dispossession of anothers property. Of course they can't because the fact that a replication, duplication, or copying of an idea, set of ideas, a recipe, or any other abstract thought never has, nor cannot deprive the original individual of the same. In other words -- when you copy you create a new tangible good. The IP advocates attack the superfluous arguments and ignore the crux of the matter. Perhaps if they sat for a moment and reflected on this, they would then ponder the consequences of their inaction. They still yet cannot fathom that the very act of denying another individual full use of their own property (that is as all defined as a scarce tangible good) which IP by necessity does, is the violation of the principles of private property. If I buy a blank CD I have full use and authority to dispense of it as I so choose -- using the Government to either confiscate my property, or throw me in a cage because I choose to use the CD in a fashion you disagree with is, at the core a despicable and Government empowering set of ideals resembling nothing of individual liberty and private property. Rent-seeking for the sole purpose of exacting an aggressive profiteering racket is antithetical to free-markets and free individuals. 

Before you speak of such things you should at least take into consideration the full range of arguments on either side, and the history involved.

----------


## Mustang

> Adhesion contracts are used all the time in the US. You are party to many of them currently, whether you know so, like so or not. Ignoring the strictures of some you are party to can lead to a run in with various authorities.
> 
> Rev9


You ignored my point. I never stated that all adhesion contracts are invalid, only that you need to justify why a contract prohibiting someone from using a product to do X after purchasing it would not be considered unconscionable (and hence unenforceable) especially considering the real world example of Apple being unable to outlaw jailbreaking despite the terms of the adhesion contract.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> You don't need a CD.  I keep it all online.   FYI, what you're talking about isn't even illegal under current law.  It's called "arranging".  Arrangements can be copyrighted by the arranger.  But you wouldn't know that, having never actually _read_ the law, would you?


 arrangements require copyright permission

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> No one has cared to address the fact that the act of copying does not deny or in any fashion constitute a dispossession of anothers property. Of course they can't because the fact that a replication, duplication, or copying of an idea, set of ideas, a recipe, or any other abstract thought never has, nor cannot deprive the original individual of the same. In other words -- when you copy you create a new tangible good. The IP advocates attack the superfluous arguments and ignore the crux of the matter. Perhaps if they sat for a moment and reflected on this, they would then ponder the consequences of their inaction. They still yet cannot fathom that the very act of denying another individual full use of their own property (that is as all defined as a scarce tangible good) which IP by necessity does, is the violation of the principles of private property. If I buy a blank CD I have full use and authority to dispense of it as I so choose -- using the Government to either confiscate my property, or throw me in a cage because I choose to use the CD in a fashion you disagree with is, at the core a despicable and Government empowering set of ideals resembling nothing of individual liberty and private property. Rent-seeking for the sole purpose of exacting an aggressive profiteering racket is antithetical to free-markets and free individuals. 
> 
> Before you speak of such things you should at least take into consideration the full range of arguments on either side, and the history involved.


+1 Property is property. Copying property is not stealing property.

----------


## Mustang

> No one has cared to address the fact that the act of copying does not deny or in any fashion constitute a dispossession of anothers property. Of course they can't because the fact that a replication, duplication, or copying of an idea, set of ideas, a recipe, or any other abstract thought never has, nor cannot deprive the original individual of the same. In other words -- when you copy you create a new tangible good. The IP advocates attack the superfluous arguments and ignore the crux of the matter. Perhaps if they sat for a moment and reflected on this, they would then ponder the consequences of their inaction. They still yet cannot fathom that the very act of denying another individual full use of their own property (that is as all defined as a scarce tangible good) which IP by necessity does, is the violation of the principles of private property. If I buy a blank CD I have full use and authority to dispense of it as I so choose -- using the Government to either confiscate my property, or throw me in a cage because I choose to use the CD in a fashion you disagree with is, at the core a despicable and Government empowering set of ideals resembling nothing of individual liberty and private property. Rent-seeking for the sole purpose of exacting an aggressive profiteering racket is antithetical to free-markets and free individuals. 
> 
> Before you speak of such things you should at least take into consideration the full range of arguments on either side, and the history involved.


Thank you. I've mentioned this fact several times throughout my posts but they have so far been ignored by the pro-IP side. The incompatibility of IP laws with the nonaggression principle has also been ignored, and I would be interested in seeing a counterpoint of substance instead of these ancillary (and for the most part irrelevant) issues.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Yeah it's just that they don't care about those arguments, this is all just an emotional response because those "creative types" lack imagination about society organizing without it and need protectionism from the gubmint to feel secure in their own work.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> You don't need a CD.  I keep it all online.   FYI, what you're talking about isn't even illegal under current law.  It's called "arranging".  Arrangements can be copyrighted by the arranger.  But you wouldn't know that, having never actually _read_ the law, would you?


 I know quite clearly that you need permission to re-arrange music which is copyright protected and you probably don't know that because you've never done that before

----------


## Mr Tansill

There are a few idiots on this thread (I know, I know, ad hominem, blah, blah, fluffy), and instead of responding to straw men, red herrings, other chaff, and otherwise going down some irrelevant tangent, I'll lay out the argument very simply:

1. A person creates something, let's call it a song.

2. You wish to hear this song, so you purchase the CD (and an agreement that comes with it; i.e. a _condition_ by which you must abide) which is the medium through which the song is transferred to you.

3. The agreement is that you will not copy it (other than for personal back-up), distribute it, or otherwise provide it to another individual.  Forget _who_ you're making the agreement with - all the BS about this or that media mogul is irrelevant.

4. You now are party to a contract, and if you violate that contract, you are undermining the basic axioms of a libertarian society.

_4a._ If you come into possession of this CD, through the unlawful violation of another party, you are also subject to the restrictions of purchase.  The sharing of the song, and the agreement in #3 are *one and the same*.

I now see the whole idea that this stuff is property _is_ the problem.  Forget the whole argument about "property" rights, _intellectual_ property, etc (words, words, and more words).  It's an unnecessary convolution.  You're violating a contract, an _agreement_.  There are no "rights" beyond this most basic, fundamental, and sacred idea.

So basically, screw the whole "property" structure this argument and law has been constructed around - quite simply, you're in violation of a contract - a condition by which the "creator" of this information agreed to "share" it with you.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> IP AS CONTRACT
> The Limits of Contract
> The law, then, should protect individual rights to ones
> body, and to legitimately acquired scarce resources (property).
> There is not a natural right to ideal objectsto ones
> intellectual innovations or creationsbut only to scarce
> resources. Many opponents of IP rights typically support
> only contractual arrangements to protect ideas and innovations
> private contracts between property owners.80 Suppose,
> ...


http://mises.org/books/against.pdf

----------


## Mustang

> There are a few idiots on this thread (I know, I know, ad hominem, blah, blah, fluffy), and instead of responding to straw men, red herrings, other chaff, and otherwise going down some irrelevant tangent, I'll lay out the argument very simply:
> 
> 1. A person creates something, let's call it a song.
> 
> 2. You wish to hear this song, so you purchase the CD (and an agreement that comes with it; i.e. a _condition_ by which you must abide) which is the medium through which the song is transferred to you.
> 
> 3. The agreement is that you will not copy it (other than for personal back-up), distribute it, or otherwise provide it to another individual.  Forget _who_ you're making the agreement with - all the BS about this or that media mogul is irrelevant.
> 
> 4. You now are party to a contract, and if you violate that contract, you are undermining the basic axioms of a libertarian society.
> ...


The problem here is the implicit assumption that ALL contracts are legal under a libertarian society, which is untrue. The burden of proof lies on the pro-IP side to explain why private property can be legally prevented from certain uses via an adhesion contract which even in today's non-libertarian society are often found to be unconscionable and hence unenforceable.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> There are a few idiots on this thread (I know, I know, ad hominem, blah, blah, fluffy), and instead of responding to straw men, red herrings, other chaff, and otherwise going down some irrelevant tangent, I'll lay out the argument very simply:
> 
> 1. A person creates something, let's call it a song.
> 
> 2. You wish to hear this song, so you purchase the CD (and an agreement that comes with it; i.e. a _condition_ by which you must abide) which is the medium through which the song is transferred to you.
> 
> 3. The agreement is that you will not copy it (other than for personal back-up), distribute it, or otherwise provide it to another individual.  Forget _who_ you're making the agreement with - all the BS about this or that media mogul is irrelevant.
> 
> 4. You now are party to a contract, and if you violate that contract, you are undermining the basic axioms of a libertarian society.
> ...


What does this have to do with IP as we are conversing about? As far as I am aware there are among the anti-IP crowd very few of us who would deny that there does exist and can exist within the propertarian axiom contractual agreements for the express purpose of protecting ones ideas. However, once the trade secret, idea, or otherwise becomes distributed and reaches a party whom was not part of the original contract, it is fully open and anyone can then use that information for whatever purposes they choose to. That is to say, suppose you agree to be hired upon the fact that you sign a NDA in regards to a trade secret. You decide to break the contract -- you should be held accountable (fired) -- however now the information is in the public domain available to individuals whom have no contractual obligation. This is the only compatible form of 'IP' if you want to call it that, with individual liberty and private property. IP today has nothing whatsoever to do with the aforementioned. 

I've discussed this in great length with advocates for IP and they've concluded the same, that the State-IP regime is incompatible with a free society & individual liberty, but that contracts arisen in the market between individuals are fully compatible. The problem is, that the market-IP (e.g. informed contracts) is not as rigid and harsh as the State interfering because it is bound to non-aggression.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There are a few idiots on this thread (I know, I know, ad hominem, blah, blah, fluffy), and instead of responding to straw men, red herrings, other chaff, and otherwise going down some irrelevant tangent, I'll lay out the argument very simply:
> 
> 1. A person creates something, let's call it a song.
> 
> 2. You wish to hear this song, so you purchase the CD (and an agreement that comes with it; i.e. a _condition_ by which you must abide) which is the medium through which the song is transferred to you.
> 
> 3. The agreement is that you will not copy it (other than for personal back-up), distribute it, or otherwise provide it to another individual.  Forget _who_ you're making the agreement with - all the BS about this or that media mogul is irrelevant.
> 
> 4. You now are party to a contract, and if you violate that contract, you are undermining the basic axioms of a libertarian society.
> ...


Still the same fundamentally incorrect argument cap'n was trying to make.  By calling ideas "property" you are creating fiction.  It simply isn't property.  There is no contract involved when one purchases a piece of IP anymore than when he purchases a rock.  The piece of property has changed hands, and the new owner can do whatever he wants with it, just like any other product.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> The problem here is the implicit assumption that ALL contracts are legal under a libertarian society, which is untrue. The burden of proof lies on the pro-IP side to explain why private property can be legally prevented from certain uses via an adhesion contract which even in today's non-libertarian society are often found to be unconscionable and hence unenforceable.


Bro, ALL contracts ARE legal under a libertarian society (at least those between consenting adults).  Besides, if the contract _is_ unlawful, then the creator of the music has the simple right to withdraw from your use his product.  This is pretty basic, do you see it?

----------


## Revolution9

> You ignored my point. I never stated that all adhesion contracts are invalid, only that you need to justify why a contract prohibiting someone from using a product to do X after purchasing it would not be considered unconscionable (and hence unenforceable) especially considering the real world example of Apple being unable to outlaw jailbreaking despite the terms of the adhesion contract.


If the print is there and your state has not ruled against such strictures then you may have to wrangle with lawyers.

What is missing from the anti-IP people most of the time that the issue is profiting from another's work. As well all the rainbow fairy dust tales of the artists just releasing all these superb works if IP was abolished is disingenuous as a quick thought experiment states that to produce a well crafted artwork in the realms of imagery or music takes time. In the real world during that time there is overhead from eating, drinking, energy and living quarters outlay. Under your system of non-acknowledgement of the talent and time and focus taken to produce said work they should release it to the world and let a bunch of miserly bastards just take it for their own with no tribute. Under my system the artist's time is being compensated at the point the original work is duplicated. You can then play the gambit of, well if it is good people will pay him. OK..so he starts getting paid and along comes Psychopath Inc. who sees the people love the work and sends a message to his factory to immediately begin mass duplication and ship it to all the markets outlets he has garnered from picking the best artist's work to mass duplicate and giving the consumer a fair price to him, having the ability to buy mass quantities of raw materials and the artist whop originated the work not having those resources.

In the anti-IP system there will be a world of starving artists making pizzas and flipping burgers, whilst a small conglomerate of fraudulent ripoff artists gets bigger and bigger stealing one idea after another till there is never any point in any artist trying to make a living from being an artist.

Rev9

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Still the same fundamentally incorrect argument cap'n was trying to make.  By calling ideas "property" you are creating fiction.  It simply isn't property.  There is no contract involved when one purchases a piece of IP anymore than when he purchases a rock.  The piece of property has changed hands, and the new owner can do whatever he wants with it, just like any other product.


This is true once you start distributing your idea in the marketplace, however, there are forms of non-State IP which are in use today such as NDA's that are perfectly compatible under the conditions I listed -- that is it only pertains to the individual whom has signed and agreed to the contract. Think of something like the KFC recipe. Once it's out of the bag though, there exists no contractual agreement.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> What does this have to do with IP as we are conversing about?


Everything, as I am attempting to re-frame the argument into terms that we should all be able to see, since it is apparent that some people here are wrapped up about an abstract convolution, and misunderstanding the underlying premise - which is that you cannot compel anyone to share their "ideas" with you.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> In the anti-IP system there will be a world of starving artists making pizzas and flipping burgers, whilst a small conglomerate of fraudulent ripoff artists gets bigger and bigger stealing one idea after another till there is never any point in any artist trying to make a living from being an artist.


Yawn.

http://www.kickstarter.com/discover

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Bro, ALL contracts ARE legal under a libertarian society (at least those between consenting adults).  Besides, if the contract _is_ unlawful, then the creator of the music has the simple right to withdraw from your use his product.  This is pretty basic, do you see it?


 he doesnt understand it...Ive said it like 5 times already in complete detail but instead I get bashed.

----------


## Mustang

> Bro, ALL contracts ARE legal under a libertarian society (at least those between consenting adults).  Besides, if the contract _is_ unlawful, then the creator of the music has the simple right to withdraw from your use his product.  This is pretty basic, do you see it?


That's false. Not all contracts are legal even in a libertarian society, especially those with ridiculous and unenforceable clauses that conflict with other basic principles of libertarianism.

For example, person A enters into a contract with person B that he will pay person B $10,000 by a certain date, and if failing to do that he will kill person C to settle the debt instead. That is not a valid contract in a libertarian society, and a contract attempting to control one's private property in arbitrary ways after purchase would also be considered unenforceable.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Bro, ALL contracts ARE legal under a libertarian society (at least those between consenting adults).  Besides, if the contract _is_ unlawful, then the creator of the music has the simple right to withdraw from your use his product.  This is pretty basic, do you see it?


Not all contracts are moral (forget legality for a moment). Think of murder contracts. You think they should be legal? Contracts have to conform to the principles of liberty and self-ownership. Liberty is not Freedom - that is to say there exists a distinct set of actions that are immoral, unethical, and wrong. We make laws as a way of expressing these natural laws. Also, you should recognize that the only individuals bound to a contract are those that have signed and agreed to it. You cannot hold someone accountable for a contract they had nothing to do with. Which means, if someone gives away that CD to a friend, the friend is not bound by the contract between his friend and the company. So then the very act of copying, replicating, etc. is not wrong, nor a violation of any contractual or principles of individual liberty.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> By calling ideas "property" you are creating fiction.  It simply isn't property.


I think I just said that...is there an echo in here?  I agree with the above statement.




> *There is no contract* involved when one *purchases a piece of IP* anymore than when he purchases a rock.  The *piece of property* has changed hands, and the new *owner* can do whatever he wants with it, just like any other product.


You are still calling it property!!!!!  There absolutely IS a contract - read the back of a CD case.  There is NO _new owner_.  There is someone who has entered a contractual usage agreement, and is legally obligated to abide by it.

When you go to Disneyland to ride the rides, you entered into an agreement by which the owners of the park agree to let you ride space mountain for one day...do you get to ride the rides everyday thereafter and/or hand your ticket off everyday hence to every other individual on the planet because you bought admission to use it for one day?

Space mountain is obviously "infinitely" reproducible (there is no upper-bound on the # of times an individual could conceivably ride it)...but again, I digress into an irrelevant rabbit-hole.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Everything, as I am attempting to re-frame the argument into terms that we should all be able to see, since it is apparent that some people here are wrapped up about an abstract convolution, and misunderstanding the underlying premise - which is that you cannot compel anyone to share their "ideas" with you.


Of course you cannot, but the individual who then puts his work and ideas into the 'public' sphere, that is, he has expressed them to another individual cannot then restrict the actions of all individuals in society for his own benefit. Your arguments also have nothing to do with State-IP as we are discussing because contracts are market-based, and not a function of the State -- that is they do not originate out of the state, but between consenting parties. You can be anti-IP (as in State-IP as it is), and be for market-IP (NDA, contracts, etc.), but you have to understand that CONTRACTS ONLY BIND CONSENTING PARTIES. Once the idea or otherwise is out in the public sphere there is no contractual obligation and anyone can freely duplicate, replicate, or otherwise put to use their own property in regards to those recipes. That is a very important distinction you are missing.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I think I just said that...is there an echo in here?
> 
> 
> 
> You are still calling it property!!!!!  There IS a contract.  There is NO _new owner_.  There is someone who has entered a contractual usage agreement, and is legally obligated to abide by it.
> 
> When you go to Disneyland to ride the rides, you entered into an agreement by which the owners of the park agree to let you ride space mountain for one day...do you get to ride the rides everyday thereafter and/or hand your ticket off everyday hence to every other individual on the planet because you bought admission to use it for one day?
> 
> Space mountain is obviously "infinitely" reproducible (there is no upper-bound on the # of times an individual could conceivably ride it)...but again, I digress into an irrelevant rabbit-hole.




 the anti-IP advocates still have no clue about the philosophy shown in this video at 00:36 second mark

----------


## Mustang

> If the print is there and your state has not ruled against such strictures then you may have to wrangle with lawyers.
> 
> What is missing from the anti-IP people most of the time that the issue is profiting from another's work. As well all the rainbow fairy dust tales of the artists just releasing all these superb works if IP was abolished is disingenuous as a quick thought experiment states that to produce a well crafted artwork in the realms of imagery or music takes time. In the real world during that time there is overhead from eating, drinking, energy and living quarters outlay. Under your system of non-acknowledgement of the talent and time and focus taken to produce said work they should release it to the world and let a bunch of miserly bastards just take it for their own with no tribute. Under my system the artist's time is being compensated at the point the original work is duplicated. You can then play the gambit of, well if it is good people will pay him. OK..so he starts getting paid and along comes Psychopath Inc. who sees the people love the work and sends a message to his factory to immediately begin mass duplication and ship it to all the markets outlets he has garnered from picking the best artist's work to mass duplicate and giving the consumer a fair price to him, having the ability to buy mass quantities of raw materials and the artist whop originated the work not having those resources.
> 
> In the anti-IP system there will be a world of starving artists making pizzas and flipping burgers, whilst a small conglomerate of fraudulent ripoff artists gets bigger and bigger stealing one idea after another till there is never any point in any artist trying to make a living from being an artist.
> 
> Rev9


All of what you just stated is irrelevant to the IP discussion. I've acknowledged multiple times the fact that creating music and other abstract concepts requires time and effort, and I've also explained how copying a song or a certain arrangement of words does not in anyway deny the innovator from keeping and using/selling the original compilation. Hence there is no aggression and no loss of profit, whereas enforcing IP laws inherently requires an initiation of aggression for doing nothing more than using private property in a certain manner.

Also, the claim that all artists and musicians would be starving without IP is simply not true. Original artworks will always be worth enormous sums of money despite attempts of forgeries, and musicians are always free to go on tour sell their performance which cannot be exactly reproduced just to name a few examples. Some artists and musicians who solely depend on IP to make money will suddenly find themselves in difficult times, but it's not correct to claim the entire industry will suffer.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> All of what you just stated is irrelevant to the IP discussion. I've acknowledged multiple times the fact that creating music and other abstract concepts requires time and effort, and I've also explained how copying a song or a certain arrangement of words does not in anyway deny the innovator from keeping and using/selling the original compilation. Hence there is no aggression and no loss of profit, whereas enforcing IP laws inherently requires an initiation of aggression for doing nothing more than using private property in a certain manner.
> 
> Also, the claim that all artists and musicians would be starving without IP is simply not true. Original artworks will always be worth enormous sums of money despite attempts of forgeries, and musicians are always free to go on tour sell their performance which cannot be exactly reproduced just to name a few examples. Some artists and musicians who solely depend on IP to make money will suddenly find themselves in difficult times, but it's not correct to claim the entire industry will suffer.


see the word "fraud".

----------


## Mr Tansill

> he doesnt understand it...Ive said it like 5 times already in complete detail but instead I get bashed.


I'm just struck that there is this separate "logic" out there...

----------


## low preference guy

> Bro, ALL contracts ARE legal under a libertarian society (at least those between consenting adults).  Besides, if the contract _is_ unlawful, then the creator of the music has the simple right to withdraw from your use his product.  This is pretty basic, do you see it?


The thing is, what if some thief put your song in my backyard? I never signed any contract with you, so I'm not restricted to use it any way I want. Sure, if you can figure out who the thief is and if he has a contract with you, he has to pay you for breaking the contract. But if _I_ didn't sign any contract, I can do as I wish with my replication of the waves of the song.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I'm just struck that there is this separate "logic" out there...


 They are ignoring the word "fraud" and "fraudulent" because it protects their "anti-intellectual property" fallacy.

----------


## Mustang

> the anti-IP advocates still have no clue about the philosophy shown in this video at 00:36 second mark


Repeatedly posting the same video and claiming it refutes everything does nothing to defend your positions. Please articulate how the video justifies IP and why it invalidates the plethora of arguments against IP found in this thread.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I'm just struck that there is this separate "logic" out there...


The only separate logic that is out there is to proclaim that an idea is property, or that copying, replicating, duplicating, or otherwise creating a new tangible good from an existing is thievery. I do not think the people whom use this rationalization understand the very reason property exists. Perhaps a refresher on Lockean property rights is in order?

Just curious -- how many IP advocates would jail and confiscate the property of another if today the Star-Trek replicator was realized? Imagine all the stealing!

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Repeatedly posting the same video and claiming it refutes everything does nothing to defend your positions. Please articulate how the video justifies IP and why it invalidates the plethora of arguments against IP found in this thread.


You sir, do not understand "fraud" or "fraudulent".

----------


## Mr Tansill

> The thing is, what if some thief put your song in my backyard? I never signed any contract with you, so I'm not restricted to use it any way I want. Sure, if you can figure out who the thief is and if he has a contract with you, he has to pay you for breaking the contract. But if _I_ didn't sign any contract, I can do as I wish with my replication of the waves of the song.


Fine, the CD is in your backyard - you insert it into your computer, and before you are able to play it, a script runs which states "use of this CD constitutes consent to the following terms (previously stated)."  Problem solved.

----------


## Mustang

> see the word "fraud".


See my post which already directly dealt with the claim of fraud, the one you ignored.



> I see the word "deception" in both official definitions of fraud, and since the mere act of copying is NOT a deception it cannot inherently be considered fraud without further analysis. In fact, you invented your own definition of fraud that conveniently supports your claim, but given that is clashes with the accepted and legal definition it cannot be taken as fact. Fraud is NOT failing to receive consent to [d]o a certain action with a product.
> 
> Example, I can buy an iPhone and make it clear my intention is to jailbreak it. Apple has no legal recourse and cannot stop me despite not having give consent, since I purchased the iPhone making it my private property. Under your definition that would be "fraud' when clearly no fraud has taken place.

----------


## low preference guy

> Fine, the CD is in your backyard - you insert it into your computer, and before you are able to play it, a script runs which states "use of this CD constitutes consent to the following terms (previously stated)."  Problem solved.


if the thief played the song and recorded it using a microphone and put it in just a regular tape, then there is no contract that binds me.

i happen to agree with everything else you said and in a free society intellectual "property" issues would be dealt with using contracts.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> They are ignoring the word "fraud" and "fraudulent" because it protects their "anti-intellectual property" fallacy.





> I see the word "deception" in both official definitions of fraud, and since the mere act of copying is NOT a deception it cannot inherently be considered fraud without further analysis. In fact, you invented your own definition of fraud that conveniently supports your claim, but given that is clashes with the accepted and legal definition it cannot be taken as fact. Fraud is NOT failing to receive consent to so a certain action with a product.
> 
> Example, I can buy an iPhone and make it clear my intention is to jailbreak it. Apple has no legal recourse and cannot stop me despite not having give consent, since I purchased the iPhone making it my private property. Under your definition that would be "fraud' when clearly no fraud has taken place.


No you just keep reasserting the same argument over and over and over as if repeating it makes it true.

It does not.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> The only separate logic that is out there is to proclaim that an idea is property, or that copying, replicating, duplicating, or otherwise creating a new tangible good from an existing is thievery. I do not think the people whom use this rationalization understand the very reason property exists. Perhaps a refresher on Lockean property rights is in order?


Tell me what is fraud?

----------


## Mr Tansill

> The only separate logic that is out there is to proclaim that an idea is property, or that copying, replicating, duplicating, or otherwise creating a new tangible good from an existing is thievery. I do not think the people whom use this rationalization understand the very reason property exists. Perhaps a refresher on Lockean property rights is in order?


I've acquiesced that it's not property in a previous post.

Your usage constitutes certain *actions/restrictions* on your part - a pretty simple contract and concept  - we save the venture into Lockean property rights, Kantian ethics, or any other non-starter you wish to chum the water with for another thread...does sound fun though.

The point is that you have no knowledge without your legitimate agreement to abide by the terms of the creator.  It is as simple as this.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Fine, the CD is in your backyard - you insert it into your computer, and before you are able to play it, a script runs which states "use of this CD constitutes consent to the following terms (previously stated)."  Problem solved.


 You can drive the nail in their coffin but they won't admit it.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Tell me what is fraud?


is it this statement?




> Can I have a cd of your band?I have a friend who wants to rewrite your music and resell it.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Fine, the CD is in your backyard - you insert it into your computer, and before you are able to play it, a script runs which states "use of this CD constitutes consent to the following terms (previously stated)."  Problem solved.


It doesn't solve anything. What happens if someone puts the song up on Youtube for instance which completely skips the script? The fact remains once it is out in the public domain it's antithetical to private property to restrict its use to people whom have no contractual obligation. Frankly, you would most likely go bankrupt if you tried to force this non-sense on consumers. If you are unfamiliar with PC gaming, then you would advocate such draconian non-sense. (Research DRM)

----------


## Mr Tansill

> if the thief played the song and recorded it using a microphone and put it in just a regular tape, then there is no contract that binds me.


WTF are you talking about...seriously?  I mentioned a "technical" solution that a creator could implement to protect his ideas...

If someone violated a contract, by taking my vehicle, and left it in your backyard with a couple parts missing, and maybe new tires and new wind shield wipers, it becomes yours?  You're not seriously advocating that are you?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> is it this?


 Not necessarily. In context I was referencing heavenlyboy34 when he said that he makes music and doesn't copyright protect it and distributes it freely. 

Now if he did allow me to rewrite his music and resell it that would not be fraud, but I was simply baiting him to see whether he would even happily allow someone else to do whatever they please with his music.  

So tell me what is fraud?

----------


## low preference guy

> WTF are you talking about...seriously?


1. You sell a person a CD with a contract that says he can't reproduce it.
2. He places a copy of the song but without any copyright statement in my backyard.
3. I have the song and since I don't have a contract with you, I can use it freely. Nothing binds me.

Point 2 is obviously a violation of the contract. If you happen to prove that the person who broke the contract broke it, then you can send him to jail or have him pay you money. But you can't do anything to restrict my use of the song because I have no contract with you.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Not necessarily. In context I was referencing heavenlyboy34 when he said that he makes music and doesn't copyright protect it and distributes it freely. 
> 
> Now if he did allow me to rewrite his music and resell it that would not be fraud, but I was simply baiting him to see whether he would even happily allow someone else to do whatever they please with his music.  
> 
> So tell me what is fraud?


I was referring to the fact that you lied for your own gain.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> WTF are you talking about...seriously?  I mentioned a "technical" solution that a creator could implement to protect his ideas...
> 
> If someone violated a contract, by taking my vehicle, and left it in your backyard with a couple parts missing, and maybe new tires and new wind shield wipers, it becomes yours?  You're not seriously advocating that are you?


You said earlier you understood that ideas are not property, I guess you do not.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> 1. You sell a person a CD with a contract that he can't reproduce it.
> 2. He places a copy of the song but without any copyright statement in my backyard.
> 3. I have the song and since I don't have a contract with you, I can use it freely. Nothing binds me.
> 
> If you happen to prove that the person who broke the contract broke it, then you can send him to jail or have him pay you money. But you can't do anything to restrict my use of the song because I have no contract with you.


 User is binded to said contract. Nice try though ,but you aren't that clever.

----------


## low preference guy

> If someone violated a contract, by taking my vehicle, and left it in your backyard with a couple parts missing, and maybe new tires and new wind shield wipers, it becomes yours?  You're not seriously advocating that are you?


What exactly are you missing when someone sings a song that you sang before? Nothing. You're mixing apples and oranges.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> User is binded to said contract. Nice try though ,but you aren't that clever.


How can you be bound to a contract you never agreed to? This is the same social contract non-sense.

----------


## Mustang

> I've acquiesced that it's not property in a previous post.
> 
> Your usage constitutes certain *actions/restrictions* on your part - a pretty simple contract and concept - we don't need to delve into Lockean property rights or Kantian ethics or any other non-starter you wish to chum the water with.


You still have not explained why a contract stating certain actions are prohibited after purchasing a product would be considered legal, it remains just an assumption that you keep repeating. Under your claim, there would be no limit to what could be prohibited when one buys a product as long as a case is made for why it will hurt the profits of the seller.

For example, a computer company could sell a PC with a contract stating all upgrades must be done by them, forcing the consumer to pay whatever prices they charge. A car manufacturer could sell a sedan with a contract stating all services must be done at the official dealership. In both of these cases, a breach of the contract would result in less profit for the company, which by your standards would make them completely legal in a libertarian society despite the apparent unconscionability.

You also have never addressed my counterpoint of Apple's adhesion contract prohibiting jailbreaking being voided, which is a perfect example of the types of contract you are claiming to be completely legal. Until your assumption is justified, it's safe to say that unreasonable and unenforceable adhesion contracts such as prohibiting copying of a music CD would be rejected in a libertarian society.

----------


## low preference guy

> How can you be bound to a contract you never agreed to?


Exactly. Pretty hilarious post by Captain America.

----------


## low preference guy

> You still have not explained why a contract stating certain actions are prohibited after purchasing a product would be considered legal, it remains just an assumption that you keep repeating.


I'm anti-IP but I disagree with what you're saying. The contract would be legal in a proper society. Otherwise that society violates the freedom of contract of its members if they can't set that condition as a part of the contract.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> You can drive the nail in their coffin but they won't admit it.


2 + 2 = 5, and not all positions/opinions are equal or relevant.  We can use words to no end to defend our positions and divert valid arguments - politicians do it all the time.

No amount of 2 + 2 = 5, no matter what form it takes...nothing anyone has stated in the anti-IP side has stepped around the basic fact that if there is an agreement that restricts your usage in exchange to your being shown its existence, that BINDS you.

----------


## low preference guy

> if there is an agreement that restricts your usage in exchange to your being shown its existence, that BINDS you.


If binds you if you agreed to it. But it's important to note that it doesn't bind any person who didn't sign the contract. That's the part you seem to be having difficulties with.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I'm anti-IP but I disagree with what you're saying. The contract would be legal in a proper society. Otherwise that society violates the freedom of contract of its members if they can't set that condition as a part of the contract.


The funny bit is that any company attempting such draconian measures would be quickly bankrupt and run out of the market. The evidence is right there in PC gaming today. So in trying to 'protect your profit' or which reasonable people realize is merely rent-seeking (not ownership) you destroy whatever consumer desire there was for your product. IP is a destructive concept all around -- to societies progress, to individual liberty and private property, and to the entities that try to enact such IP restrictions.

----------


## Mustang

> I'm anti-IP but I disagree with what you're saying. The contract would be legal in a proper society. Otherwise that society violates the freedom of contract of its members if they can't set that condition as a part of the contract.


Of course, I'm not claiming all contracts as part of a sale are unenforceable, just in particular ones that try to prevent a person from using their property in arbitrary ways long after the sale is complete. I also agree that contracts such as NDAs between two parties would be acceptable and entirely enforceable. I probably should have been more clear on that.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> It doesn't solve anything. What happens if someone puts the song up on Youtube for instance which completely skips the script? The fact remains once it is out in the public domain it's antithetical to private property to restrict its use to people whom have no contractual obligation. Frankly, you would most likely go bankrupt if you tried to force this non-sense on consumers. If you are unfamiliar with PC gaming, then you would advocate such draconian non-sense. (Research DRM)


The problem is that they don't have a solid understanding of property rights. If I own a CD I have the right to use it, and its content as I see fit. There IP approach is similar to the horror of the income tax. From their perspective your property is not fully yours, and they still have a certain hold over it. It's a total contradiction of private rights. 

Ideas CANNOT be owned, and neither are the methods that help manifest those ideas. It's similar to Newton, and his theory of gravity. The idea was gravity, and the method he used to manifest (or explain) his ideas was through his invention of calculus. Now we all know that another fellow by the name Leibniz invented calculus independently during that time. By Captain America's false reasoning Newton has the right to "his ideas", and the right to sue and imprison Leibniz . Complete foolishness.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> You still have not explained why a contract stating certain actions are prohibited after purchasing a product would be considered legal, it remains just an assumption that you keep repeating. Under your claim, there would be no limit to what could be prohibited when one buys a product as long as a case is made for why it will hurt the profits of the seller.


You're right, I didn't, I'm not going to, and it doesn't matter - if you don't like the terms of the contract, nothing obligates you to enter into it!!!  Hello???? McFly??? Anybody home???




> For example, a computer company could sell a PC with a contract stating all upgrades must be done by them, forcing the consumer to pay whatever prices they charge. A car manufacturer could sell a sedan with a contract stating all services must be done at the official dealership. In both of these cases, a breach of the contract would result in less profit for the company, which by your standards would make them completely legal in a libertarian society despite the apparent unconscionability.


Again, an apt example.  A computer company _could_ sell you a PC with those conditions...but then again, you might choose to take your business elsewhere...things that make you go "hmm."




> You also have never addressed my counterpoint of Apple's adhesion contract prohibiting jailbreaking being voided, which is a perfect example of the types of contract you are claiming to be completely legal. Until your assumption is justified, it's safe to say that unreasonable and unenforceable adhesion contracts such as prohibiting copying of a music CD would be rejected in a libertarian society.


That's because I don't know what adhesion contracts are - I'll standby and wait for your response detailing why that invalidates every other point I've made.  The point I think you're making is that if a contract is (in your terms) unenforceable, that invalidates it - a falsity.  An agreement is an agreement - or we resort to violence.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> The problem is that they don't have a solid understanding of property rights. If I own a CD I have the right to use it, and its content as I see fit. There IP approach is similar to the horror of the income tax. From their perspective your property is not fully yours, and they still have a certain hold over it. It's a total contradiction of private rights. 
> 
> Ideas CANNOT be owned, and neither are the methods that help manifest those ideas. It's similar to Newton, and his theory of gravity. The idea was gravity, and the method he used to manifest (or explain) his ideas was through his invention of calculus. Now we all know that another fellow by the name Leibniz invented calculus independently during that time. By Captain America's false reasoning Newton has the right to "his ideas", and the right to sue and imprison Leibniz . Complete foolishness.


Exactly. They promote rent-seeking not ownership. If they had their ways, we would own nothing. (I am assuming they know the proper definition of ownership and what it entails)

----------


## Mustang

> If binds you if you agreed to it. But it's important to note that it doesn't bind any person who didn't sign the contract. That's the part you seem to be having difficulties with.


It's also important to note that there are limits to how much one can be binded depending on the context and clauses of the contract. It's critical that contracts do not supersede private property by turning ownership into renting unless it's explicitly stated that the person is merely renting the product. Trying to claim that person A owns the product (assuming it's fully paid for) but must still do X and not do Y long after the sale to me seems unenforceable unless the very definition of private property is altered.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> 1. You sell a person a CD with a contract that says he can't reproduce it.
> 2. He places a copy of the song but without any copyright statement in my backyard.
> 3. I have the song and since I don't have a contract with you, I can use it freely. Nothing binds me.
> 
> Point 2 is obviously a violation of the contract. If you happen to prove that the person who broke the contract broke it, then you can send him to jail or have him pay you money. But you can't do anything to restrict my use of the song because I have no contract with you.


Here's the point I was trying to make boiled down:

Someday in the future, there will be the technical possibility to restrict the copying of information through whatever brainstorm you could come up with.  Pretend for a minute that you don't have the ability to use it without agreeing to a "copyright statement."  Use your imagination.  Your #2 can't happen...what now?  You're right, there's no contract between you and the producer, but you can't use it either.

----------


## Mustang

> You're right, I didn't, I'm not going to, and it doesn't matter - if you don't like the terms of the contract, nothing obligates you to enter into it!!!  Hello???? McFly??? Anybody home???





> That's because I don't know what adhesion contracts are - I'll standby and wait for your response detailing why that invalidates every other point I've made.  The point I think you're making is that if a contract is (in your terms) unenforceable, that invalidates it - a falsity.  An agreement is an agreement - or we resort to violence.


There's no need for the personal attack. Also, I have continued to point out that when private property conflicts with the terms of a contract, that private property must win out or else it's nothing more than a meaningless label. IMO, contracts that attempt to turn private property into a form of renting should be found unconscionable and I've been stating that all throughout my posts.

You also never addressed my counterpoint of a contract that forces someone to kill another person, which would also be found unconscionable despite it being a contract. Since there is no attempt at actual discussion here, I'll have to assume you will continue to disagree and I'll leave it at that.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Here's the point I was trying to make boiled down:
> 
> Someday in the future, there will be the technical possibility to restrict the copying of information through whatever brainstorm you could come up with.  Pretend for a minute that you don't have the ability to use it without agreeing to a "copyright statement."  Use your imagination.  Your #2 can't happen...what now?  You're right, there's no contract between you and the producer, but you can't use it either.


Not sure if you are arguing for this, or just as an esoteric point, but are you actually arguing for a society in which you rent and do not own? How exactly, is that desirable or in the spirit of private property? Obviously we know your point is impossible in reality, but for the sake of argument, I think we as individuals and society as a whole would be a decrepit hell if people actually supported universal renting over ownership....

----------


## Mr Tansill

> You said earlier you understood that ideas are not property, I guess you do not.


Yeah.  My point there being that you don't have to coin the abstract, ethereal concept of _intellectual property_.  When you frame the argument in terms of a legal contractual agreement, the supposed difficulties evaporate, we can get to the real meat of issue and have a real discussion.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Yeah.  My point there being that you don't have to coin the abstract, ethereal concept of _intellectual property_.  When you frame the argument in terms of a legal contractual agreement, the supposed difficulties evaporate, we can get to the real meat of issue and have a real discussion.


Discussions have merit if they pertain to the real world. It does no good to posit abstract esoteric points that will never, nor have ever had anything to do with reality. (Case in point with post #397)

Honestly, I do not have much of an idea what you are arguing about here as its near universal that anti-IP advocates support the right to restrict ones ideas in a market based fashion in regards to consenting parties in a contract vis a vis NDA for instance. The point we made is that a contract only binds consenting parties, and furthermore, that contracts are not universal in acceptance and that they can be reproached when they violate principles of private property or self-ownership. Saying a murder contract is valid, or that all contracts are valid approaches Nihilism which has nothing to do with private property or self-ownership.

----------


## Mustang

> Not sure if you are arguing for this, or just as an esoteric point, but are you actually arguing for a society in which you rent and do not own? How exactly, is that desirable or in the spirit of private property? Obviously we know your point is impossible in reality, but for the sake of argument, I think we as individuals and society as a whole would be a decrepit hell if people actually supported universal renting over ownership....


The problem is *Mr Tansill* believes contracts trump everything, even in a libertarian society with no exceptions (at least none he as admitted to yet, that could change). Based on the fact that he doesn't qualify this claim, I assume he's trolling us and it's best to move on.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> There's no need for the personal attack. Also, I have continued to point out that when private property conflicts with the terms of a contract, that private property must win out or else it's nothing more than a meaningless label. IMO, contracts that attempt to turn private property into a form of renting should be found unconscionable and I've been stating that all throughout my posts.
> 
> You also never addressed my* counterpoint of a contract that forces someone to kill another person, which would also be found unconscionable despite it being a contract.* Since there is no attempt at actual discussion here, I'll have to assume you will continue to disagree and I'll leave it at that.


It depends on who's enforcing the contract. If it's a US constitutional government, then its illegal. It's illegal, because you are infringing on another persons rights.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> There's no need for the personal attack. Also, I have continued to point out that when private property conflicts with the terms of a contract, that private property must win out or else it's nothing more than a meaningless label. IMO, contracts that attempt to turn private property into a form of renting should be found unconscionable and I've been stating that all throughout my posts.
> 
> You also never addressed my counterpoint of a contract that forces someone to kill another person, which would also be found unconscionable despite it being a contract. Since there is no attempt at actual discussion here, I'll have to assume you will continue to disagree and I'll leave it at that.


Sorry about the personal attack.  The point is that nothing is obligating you enter that agreement.  Why is it unconscionable?  Do you disagree with Ron and Rand Paul's position on certain injunctions the Civil Rights act of 1964 makes regarding what private businesses must do? i.e. serve customers they don't want to...

Regarding your counterpoint of a contract that *forces* one person to kill another...I honestly didn't even see it...I've been trying to keep up.  Would that be a valid contract if it was *forcing* someone else's action?  I'll simply say that a contract of that flavor would obviously violate the most basic rights of another individual (obviously their life) - how would that be a valid contract?

----------


## Mustang

> It depends on who's enforcing the contract. If it's a US constitutional government, then its illegal. It's illegal, because you are infringing on another persons rights.


I should have qualified my position. I assume we're discussing contracts in a libertarian society based on the nonaggression principle, which in that case would maintain the illegality of contracting someone to kill another innocent (key word I should have included) person.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Yeah.  My point there being that you don't have to coin the abstract, ethereal concept of _intellectual property_.  When you frame the argument in terms of a legal contractual agreement, the supposed difficulties evaporate, we can get to the real meat of issue and have a real discussion.


What you are saying is that right is not right unless its enforced. I agree.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> The problem is *Mr Tansill* believes contracts trump everything, even in a libertarian society with no exceptions (at least none he as admitted to yet, that could change). Based on the fact that he doesn't qualify this claim, I assume he's trolling us and it's best to move on.


Exactly. If you believe that any and all contracts are valid you advocate Nihilism, not private property, Natural Law, self-ownership, individual liberty, etc. They are incompatible.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> I should have qualified my position. I assume we're discussing contracts in a libertarian society based on the nonaggression principle, which in that case would maintain the illegality of contracting someone to kill another innocent (key word I should have included) person.


Interesting. But in this libertarian utopia,when does it become necessary to use violence? Or are we also assuming that people are inherently nonviolent?

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Not sure if you are arguing for this, or just as an esoteric point, but are you actually arguing for a society in which you rent and do not own? How exactly, is that desirable or in the spirit of private property? Obviously we know your point is impossible in reality, but for the sake of argument, I think we as individuals and society as a whole would be a decrepit hell if people actually supported universal renting over ownership....


Simply?  No.  I don't think renting would be a good way to run a society, and it's not in the spirit of private property.  Ownership is _inherent_ in human interaction.

Let's abstract your idea of universal renting...

Who are we all renting from?  Someone obviously owns something if they have the right to form a contract with which to charge you rent.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> It depends on who's enforcing the contract. If it's a US constitutional government, then its illegal. It's illegal, because you are infringing on another persons rights.


If I am to infer you are saying that our rights come from the US Government, or in the more abstract, that might makes rights. I'll sternly disagree.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Simply?  No.  I don't think renting would be a good way to run a society, and it's not in the spirit of private property.  Ownership is _inherent_ in human interaction.
> 
> Let's abstract your idea of universal renting...
> 
> Who are we all renting from?  Someone obviously owns something if they have the right to form a contract with which to charge you rent.


You can expand that even further, and claim that you are renting your skills to your employer. You don't have to own in order to rent.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Simply?  No.  I don't think renting would be a good way to run a society, and it's not in the spirit of private property.  Ownership is _inherent_ in human interaction.
> 
> Let's abstract your idea of universal renting...
> 
> Who are we all renting from?  Someone obviously owns something if they have the right to form a contract with which to charge you rent.


You would only own that which you have not traded for. All trade would be based on renting, not ownership. That would be a very poor society. It is essentially the Feudal system on steroids. Imagine never being able to own any land (and I sincerely doubt homesteading would be respected in a society of universal rentership). In any event, I think we've reached the end of the argument.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> If I am to infer you are saying that our rights come from the US Government, or in the more abstract, that might makes rights. I'll sternly disagree.


I don't. I believe rights come from our inherently selfish nature.

----------


## Mustang

> Sorry about the personal attack.  The point is that nothing is obligating you enter that agreement.  Why is it unconscionable?  Do you disagree with Ron and Rand Paul's position on certain injunctions the Civil Rights act of 1964 makes regarding what private businesses must do? i.e. serve customers they don't want to...
> 
> Regarding your counterpoint of a contract that *forces* one person to kill another...I honestly didn't even see it...I've been trying to keep up.  Would that be a valid contract if it was *forcing* someone else's action?  I'll simply say that a contract of that flavor would obviously violate the most basic rights of another individual (obviously their life) - how would that be a valid contract?


I appreciate the apology, and I apologize for suggesting you may have been trolling us in a previous post.

By unconscionability, I'm referring to the the examination of a contract to see if the provisions contained are considered excessively unfair and seen as unenforceable. When taken in a libertarian society, my position is that contracts that seek to minimize private property and turn it into a form of renting without explicitly calling it renting would be found to be invalid due to the language involved.

As for the point about a contract to kill an innocent, I was merely trying to show that not all contracts are automatically assumed to be valid. We do agree on the point that when basic rights are violated (such as life) that a contract (or at least the offending provision) would be voided. I extend that to include these excessive abridgments on private property, which I find unacceptable if a company attempts to control how you use a certain product long after you paid for it.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> You can expand that even further, and claim that you are renting your skills to your employer. You don't have to own in order to rent.


I'm confused...you don't _own_ your skills?  Your time, energy, etc?

----------


## Mustang

> Interesting. But in this libertarian utopia,when does it become necessary to use violence? Or are we also assuming that people are inherently nonviolent?


Once someone has committed aggression against you, you are free to use self-defense to protect yourself and your private property.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> I'm confused...you don't _own_ your skills?  Your time, energy, etc?


The last sentence was supposed to be attached to something else. It was supposed to mean that you can rent something that was rented to you. (Houses for example)

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Once someone has committed aggression against you, you are free to use self-defense to protect yourself and your private property.


OK

----------


## Mr Tansill

> I appreciate the apology, and I apologize for suggesting you may have been trolling us in a previous post.


Word. It was sincere - and I'm not trolling...but intentionally ignored that comment to prevent a downward spiral.




> By unconscionability, I'm referring to the the examination of a contract to see if the *provisions contained are considered excessively unfair* and seen as unenforceable. When taken in a libertarian society, my position is that contracts that seek to minimize private property and turn it into a form of renting without explicitly calling it renting would be found to be invalid due to the language involved.


I don't think there can *EVER* be anything unfair about a voluntary contract.  Ever.  Nothing.  No matter what.  I think it is tautological (logically speaking).  After reading the definition of "unconscionability," I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to demonstrate that a contract made between a music consumer and an artist would be unconscionable because it restricted the consumer's usage - I mean we're not talking about something like food or shelter here.




> As for the point about a contract to kill an innocent, I was merely trying to show that not all contracts are automatically assumed to be valid. We do agree on the point that when basic rights are violated (such as life) that a contract (or at least the offending provision) would be voided. I extend that to include these excessive abridgments on private property, which I find unacceptable if a company attempts to control how you use a certain product long after you paid for it.


I agree with the above, obviously.  My WHOLE point here is to wrestle away the concept that we consumers can dispose of someone else's work because it has now become so easy to replicate it - there are effectively no barriers.  My discussion of contracts was meant to show it is tenable that there is another construct completely separate from the idea of property that makes it so artists, idea-producers, whatever, can protect and sell their work.  Of course most arguments grow into the absurd when taken to the logical extremes - hence the concept of _intellectual_ property.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> The last sentence was supposed to be attached to something else. It was supposed to mean that you can rent something that was rented to you. (Houses for example)


Roger.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

still waiting for my reply an hour later.

What is fraud?

----------


## Bordillo

> Time,Energy,and Talent belong to a person who owns their own self. From that individual's TIME,ENERGY,and TALENT come a product. That product is property.


Are you against youtube?  As an artist would you not want your songs on youtube?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Are you against youtube?  As an artist would you not want your songs on youtube?


 youtube has a user agreement when you sign up and use their space to place videos/content on the website.

----------


## YumYum

> Are you against youtube?  As an artist would you not want your songs on youtube?


Twenty million people who are trying to promote their music put their stuff on youtube. Once they "make" it, they sue youtube to take it off.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Twenty million people who are trying to promote their music put their stuff on youtube. Once they "make" it, they sue youtube to take it off.


 is that your way of demonizing youtube?

----------


## YumYum

> is that your way of demonizing youtube?


No. I feel sorry for youtube. The are caught in the middle. I'm showing the hypocrisy of the so-called artist who have no problem sharing their music to get exposure, but once they have an audience and a following, they change their tune and forbid their "art" to be shared.

----------


## Bman

> Totally incorrect.  In order for something to be copyrighted/patented, it has to be captured in a tangible medium.  Anything captured in a tangible medium can be *reproduced infinitely.*


Impossible.

----------


## Bman

> I agree with the above, obviously.  My WHOLE point here is to wrestle away the concept that we consumers can dispose of someone else's work because it has now become so easy to replicate it - there are effectively no barriers.  My discussion of contracts was meant to show it is tenable that there is another construct completely separate from the idea of property that makes it so artists, idea-producers, whatever, can protect and sell their work.  Of course most arguments grow into the absurd when taken to the logical extremes - hence the concept of _intellectual_ property.


Understand the situation.  With no state there is no way to enforce contracts.  If someone breaks a contract there is no act of aggression.  Thus aggression can not be used because there is no need for self defense.  So long as there is a state there will be IP, without a state there will be no IP.

You have two choices in this argument, you either want a state or you do not want a state.  If you want a state there is no reason to argue why IP should exist, because it is going nowhere.  If you don't want a state there is no need to argue because IP won't exist.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Understand the situation.  With no state there is no way to enforce contracts.  If someone breaks a contract there is no act of aggression.  Thus aggression can not be used because there is no need for self defense.  So long as there is a state there will be IP, without a state there will be no IP.
> 
> You have two choices in this argument, you either want a state or you do not want a state.  If you want a state there is no reason to argue why IP should exist, because it is going nowhere.  If you don't want a state there is no need to argue because IP won't exist.


 I've been waiting over 3 hours for a reply to my question to others on this thread

"What is fraud?"

----------


## Bman

> I've been waiting over 3 hours for a reply to my question to others on this thread
> 
> "What is fraud?"


That would only matter to the legal authority and how they defined it, as such this would sum it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud#Elements_of_fraud


The people you are arguing with have thought a lot about their argument against IP.  They certainly can give you some food for thought.  I don't think they'll care too much how the current system interprets fraud.  I think they've demonstrated numerous times that the cost aspect means nothing to them in regards to the initial producer, but only to the consumer and how the consumer can benefit from the purchase even in a case where the consumer becomes a competing producer.  I'm not an AnCap so I've decided this IP argument is quite fruitless as I'm quite aware that so long as I want a state on any level, there will be forms of IP.

----------


## nobody's_hero

Holy hell, this thread just exploded since the time I looked away.

Safe to say that this is a controversial topic.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I think it is telling that you ignore our arguments and instead construct your own that you attack. To me this shows a lack of confidence in your position and your argument. Can you tell me how an idea which is infinitely reproducible which has no loss of property to the original owner -- that is, a good that is non-scarce in nature such as recipes, ideas, patterns, formulas, etc. can be property? How can I steal something that you still own? If I draw Mickey Mouse and then market him on my own, does not Disney still have the ability to draw and use Mickey Mouse themselves? 
> 
> Furthermore, I would presume that in the event a Star-Trek replicator was ever invented, that you would be in favor of artificial rents and would throw people in jail for infinitely replicating shelter, food, TVs, etc. even though the original owners have lost no property. When you take a scarce good, you take from one and give to another. When you reproduce you create an all new good. Nothing is lost by the original owner. 
> 
> Can you challenge this argument, or will you continue to avoid it?


Good luck with that, AED.   

People are generally thick...

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Holy hell, this thread just exploded since the time I looked away.
> 
> Safe to say that this is a controversial topic.


Only controversial in the same manner that advocating an End to the Fed would be at a Federal Reserve Bank meeting. It seems pretty overwhelming who has greater numbers and a more robust argument. Of course, I'm always open to new arguments from either side -- I wasn't always an advocate for ending IP, then again I am not blinded by such bias as those immediately profiting from the protectionism.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Holy hell, this thread just exploded since the time I looked away.
> 
> Safe to say that this is a controversial topic.


 I said it on the 1st page this is one nasty thread on DAILYPAUL

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> That would only matter to the legal authority and how they defined it, as such this would sum it up.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud#Elements_of_fraud
> 
> 
> The people you are arguing with have thought a lot about their argument against IP.  They certainly can give you some food for thought.  I don't think they'll care too much how the current system interprets fraud.  I think they've demonstrated numerous times that the cost aspect means nothing to them in regards to the initial producer, but only to the consumer and how the consumer can benefit from the purchase even in a case where the consumer becomes a competing producer.  I'm not an AnCap so I've decided this IP argument is quite fruitless as I'm quite aware that so long as I want a state on any level, there will be forms of IP.


 So now the validity of the english language is up for grabs . Fantastic.Then why are we even debating?

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Only controversial in the same manner that advocating an End to the Fed would be at a Federal Reserve Bank meeting. It seems pretty overwhelming who has greater numbers and a more robust argument. Of course, I'm always open to new arguments from either side -- I wasn't always an advocate for ending IP, then again I am not blinded by such bias as those immediately profiting from the protectionism.


Well, I don't think you're going to get any "new" arguments from either side, lol. We're 433 posts from the start and I doubt any minds have changed. 

I suppose could direct my efforts towards finding out where the anti-IP crowd started within the Ron Paul revolution. It wouldn't resolve differences but it might help me understand more about the debate itself. 

I'm curious as to when and how the pro-property rights people somehow broke off from the 'property' theme and became vehemently anti-IP. What caused this great schism? A Lew Rockwell article or something?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Well, I don't think you're going to get any "new" arguments from either side, lol. We're 433 posts from the start and I doubt anyone's minds have changed. 
> 
> I suppose could direct my efforts towards finding out where the anti-IP crowd started within the Ron Paul revolution. It wouldn't resolve differences but it might help me understand more about the debate itself. 
> 
> I'm curious as to when and how the pro-property rights people somehow broke off from the 'property' theme and became vehemently anti-IP. What caused this great schism? A Lew Rockwell article or something?


 I find it interesting that the "libertarians" abandon Ayn Rands philosophy completely on individual property.Very fascinating modern transitions when it comes to philosophy of "individual liberty" if you ask me.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Well, I don't think you're going to get any "new" arguments from either side, lol. We're 433 posts from the start and I doubt any minds have changed. 
> 
> I suppose could direct my efforts towards finding out where the anti-IP crowd started within the Ron Paul revolution. It wouldn't resolve differences but it might help me understand more about the debate itself. 
> 
> I'm curious as to when and how the pro-property rights people somehow broke off from the 'property' theme and became vehemently anti-IP. What caused this great schism? A Lew Rockwell article or something?


 For the most part sheeple of the Ron Paul movement have been following Russian Today news (go figure) and eat it up like it is the gospel of Christ.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I find it interesting that the "libertarians" abandon Ayn Rands philosophy completely on individual property.Very fascinating modern transitions when it comes to philosophy of "individual liberty" if you ask me.


Yeah, that's what I'm really curious to know.

EDIT: I like RT though, lol.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Well, I don't think you're going to get any "new" arguments from either side, lol. We're 433 posts from the start and I doubt any minds have changed. 
> 
> I suppose could direct my efforts towards finding out where the anti-IP crowd started within the Ron Paul revolution. It wouldn't resolve differences but it might help me understand more about the debate itself. 
> 
> I'm curious as to when and how the pro-property rights people somehow broke off from the 'property' theme and became vehemently anti-IP. What caused this great schism? A Lew Rockwell article or something?


IP is a rather new invention. It has no natural basis, that is to quote Bastiat:



> "Life, faculties, production, in other words, individuality, liberty, property, this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."


Simply put, IP is an artificial construct that has nothing to do with property. It's very essence is anti-property. Like I brought up earlier, we can go back to the Lockean-Rothbardian idea of property. Furthermore, IP is nothing more than rent-seeking, an idea opposed to ownership. IP denies the very reason property was conceived of in the first place. Without scarcity there is no such thing as property, except insofar as self-ownership is concerned. To own implies a set of rule-sets. If I were to own an idea, I would literally be owning the body of other individuals. If I am to own a certain configuration of property, and the use of force to prevent others from configuring their property in the same manner is that not an injunction of anothers property? Honestly, it's that simple. Furthermore, the fact that another individual creates an identical yet wholly new good does not detract from the original individual who assembled the first good in such a manner. You have lost nothing, but I have lost ownership of my property due to IP -- it is an imposition on the authority of me to choose how to use my own property. 

*IP is not property!*  If there was ever a misnomer, that would be it.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I find it interesting that the "libertarians" abandon Ayn Rands philosophy completely on individual property.Very fascinating modern transitions when it comes to philosophy of "individual liberty" if you ask me.


Ayn Rand wasn't even a libertarian and she called us abhorrent, furthermore for someone so adverse of emulating others ideas and profligating them she didn't have an original idea -- she took everything from two superior thinkers Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson (two actual libertarians). Besides, you act as if Ayn Rand was some originator. Individual Liberty, Natural Law, and self-ownership are ideas far older than the 20th Century. You have a lot of learning to do. As Jefferson said -- a book is capital. Best get to accumulating actual capital.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Yeah, that's what I'm really curious to know.
> 
> EDIT: I like RT though, lol.


 My honest opinion which people bash me for? RT NEWS subtly advocates marxist ideals such as anti-intellectual property which opens the doors wide open to exactly that mentality, except its wrapped in a beautiful packaging and labeled "individual liberty".

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Ayn Rand wasn't even a libertarian and she called us abhorrent, furthermore for someone so adverse of emulating others ideas and profligating them she didn't have an original idea -- she took everything from two superior thinkers Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson (two actual libertarians). Besides, you act as if Ayn Rand was some originator. Individual Liberty, Natural Law, and self-ownership are ideas far older than the 20th Century. You have a lot of learning to do. As Jefferson said -- a book is capital. Best get to accumulating actual capital.


 You really get off on yourself condescending on me as if I don't know what the dark ages were.

----------


## nobody's_hero

But, AED, 

Your quote from Bastiat does not mean that IP was not considered property before patent laws were made. 

You know what I mean? If IP wasn't widely considered property, then the laws of our Constitution which gave Congress the power of patent would never have been adopted by the states. 

This wasn't some instant government decree that made IP some 'new invention', as the anti-IP crowd seems to think.

This was government law being created to preserve something that already existed, which is how most laws in our nation's _early_ history came about.

This wasn't like the Federal Reserve Act that suddenly declared FRNs to be money. I could certainly see where the anti-IP crowd gets its fury if that were the case, since government decree alone does not make a thing true.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> But, AED, 
> 
> Your quote from Bastiat does not mean that IP was not considered property before patent laws were made. 
> 
> You know what I mean? If IP wasn't widely considered property, then the laws of our Constitution which gave Congress the power of patent would never have been adopted by the states. 
> 
> This wasn't some instant government decree that made IP some 'new invention', as the anti-IP crowd seems to think.
> 
> This was government law being created to preserve something that already existed, which is how most laws in our nation's _early_ history came about.
> ...


 stock trades had already existed before the ratification of the Articles of Confederation had even happened.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> But, AED, 
> 
> Your quote from Bastiat does not mean that IP was not considered property before patent laws were made. 
> 
> You know what I mean? If IP wasn't widely considered property, then the laws of our Constitution which gave Congress the power of patent would never have been adopted by the states. 
> 
> This wasn't some instant government decree that made IP some 'new invention', as the anti-IP crowd seems to think.
> 
> This was government law being created to preserve something that already existed, which is how most laws in our nation's _early_ history came about.
> ...


As has been demonstrated all ready, there is no where in IP law where it states that IP is property, and that copying or emulating IP constitutes thievery. The only reason IP was even put into the Constitution was because many of the Founders thought it necessary for innovation, or they themselves profited off the writ of monopoly. That is all IP is -- a writ of monopoly. It's about as protectionist and anti-property as you can get. IP is a rather new idea -- for most of human history it would have been laughable to even suggest such a thing and if you go back through Western Philosophy you will find nary a mention when it comes to property. It's a remnant of the Mercantilist age. A pox on that house. 

In any event, you should read the rest of my post and address that argument, which you seem to have skipped right over. Figures.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Well, I don't think you're going to get any "new" arguments from either side, lol. We're 433 posts from the start and I doubt any minds have changed.


Don't be so sure of that.  Prior to reading this thread, I was fairly disinterested in the topic and didn't really have a take.  The anti-IP side has made a sequential, logically consistent and reasoned case that I can't find any holes in.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Ayn Rand wasn't even a libertarian and she called us abhorrent, furthermore for someone so adverse of emulating others ideas and profligating them she didn't have an original idea -- she took everything from two superior thinkers Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson (two actual libertarians). Besides, you act as if Ayn Rand was some originator. Individual Liberty, Natural Law, and self-ownership are ideas far older than the 20th Century. You have a lot of learning to do. As Jefferson said -- a book is capital. Best get to accumulating actual capital.


Yeah, I'm not sure why we're expected to bow at the Ayn Rand altar.  That's Glenn Beck's shtick, I think.  Atlas Shrugged was moving to me, but she was kind of a kook, from what I know of her...

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Don't be so sure of that.  Prior to reading this thread, I was fairly disinterested in the topic and didn't really have a take.  The anti-IP side has made a sequential, logically consistent and reasoned case that I can't find any holes in.


what is fraud?

----------


## guitarlifter

> IP is a rather new invention. It has no natural basis, that is to quote Bastiat:
> 
> 
> Simply put, IP is an artificial construct that has nothing to do with property. It's very essence is anti-property. Like I brought up earlier, we can go back to the Lockean-Rothbardian idea of property. Furthermore, IP is nothing more than rent-seeking, an idea opposed to ownership. IP denies the very reason property was conceived of in the first place. Without scarcity there is no such thing as property, except insofar as self-ownership is concerned. To own implies a set of rule-sets. If I were to own an idea, I would literally be owning the body of other individuals. If I am to own a certain configuration of property, and the use of force to prevent others from configuring their property in the same manner is that not an injunction of anothers property? Honestly, it's that simple. Furthermore, the fact that another individual creates an identical yet wholly new good does not detract from the original individual who assembled the first good in such a manner. You have lost nothing, but I have lost ownership of my property due to IP -- it is an imposition on the authority of me to choose how to use my own property. 
> 
> *IP is not property!*  If there was ever a misnomer, that would be it.


Repped for being the voice of reason and stating that not only is IP not for property protect, it's actually anti-property protection in that it violates the rights of those who have possessed an idea (regardless of the source) and own themselves, therefore have full control of themselves and anything contained within their minds.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Here's some quick reading for the IP folks. Chew on this for a bit. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623




> The Statute of Monopolies was an Act of the Parliament of England notable as the first statutory expression of English patent law. Patents evolved from letters patent, issued by the monarch to grant monopolies over particular industries to skilled individuals with new techniques. Originally intended to strengthen England's economy by making it self-sufficient and promoting new industries, the system gradually became seen as a way to raise money (through charging patent-holders) without having to incur the public unpopularity of a tax. Elizabeth I particularly was a great abuser of the system, issuing patents for common commodities such as starch and salt. Unrest eventually persuaded her to turn the administration of patents over to the common law courts, but her successor, James I, was even more abusive. Despite a committee established to investigate grievances and excesses, Parliament made several efforts to further curtail the monarch's power. The result was the Statute of Monopolies, passed on 25 May 1624.


Intellectual Property as we know it didn't even come to fruition until the mid to late 19th Century, and wasn't commonplace until well into the 20th.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> what is fraud?


Is there a point?  Why don't you just cut to the chase and call me a marxist, okay?

----------


## nobody's_hero

> As has been demonstrated all ready, there is no where in IP law where it states that IP is property, and that copying or emulating IP constitutes thievery. The only reason IP was even put into the Constitution was because many of the Founders thought it necessary for innovation, or they themselves profited off the writ of monopoly. That is all IP is -- a writ of monopoly. It's about as protectionist and anti-property as you can get. IP is a rather new idea -- for most of human history it would have been laughable to even suggest such a thing and if you go back through Western Philosophy you will find nary a mention when it comes to property. It's a remnant of the Mercantilist age. A pox on that house. 
> 
> In any event, you should read the rest of my post and address that argument, which you seem to have skipped right over. Figures.


Lol, I skipped over it because we're operating on two different planes of debate, which usually happens in the IP debate (among other controversial issues). Unless both parties come to some mutual fundamental agreement about what property is, it's quite difficult to address each other's points. It's like . . .  a foreign language.

But I don't understand the concept of how IP creates monopolies. To say that, you'd have to argue that only one person ever has the power to create a new thing, which is not true. If someone else creates invention A, then you can still create a totally different invention B. The possibilities are limitless. IP doesn't grant you exclusive access to a market. It grants you protection of a product you created to sell in that market. If I build a DVD player, it doesn't mean I own the entertainment electronics market. I own the design of my DVD player. Anyone else has the same exact right that I do to tap the entertainment electronics market, BUT with their _own_ inventions. 

Like I said, I'm still trying to figure out where this utter paradox came into play.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Is there a point?  Why don't you just cut to the chase and call me a marxist, okay?


 you said that you had seen no flaw in the anti-IP argument. So I just threw something at you and I expect an answer.
Tell me what is fraud?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Lol, I skipped over it because we're operating on two different planes of debate, which usually happens in the IP debate (among other controversial issues). Unless both parties come to some mutual fundamental agreement about what property is, it's quite difficult to address each other's points. It's like . . .  a foreign language.
> 
> But I don't understand the concept of how IP creates monopolies. To say that, you'd have to argue that only one person ever has the power to create a new thing, which is not true. If someone else creates invention A, then you can still create a totally different invention B. The possibilities are limitless. IP doesn't grant you exclusive access to a market. It grants you protection of a product you created to sell in that market. If I build a DVD player, it doesn't mean I own the entertainment electronics market. I own the design of my DVD player. Anyone else has the same exact right that I do to tap the entertainment electronics market, BUT with their _own_ inventions. 
> 
> Like I said, I'm still trying to figure out where this utter paradox came into play.


We can't get anywhere without the pro-IP folks knowing when and where IP originated from. This woeful ignorance of the issue at hand is a major reason for the disconnect. There is no paradox. Honestly, I do not know how people get so mixed up -- perhaps because you focus on the 'property' in IP, which I said was a misnomer because you cannot have ownership in such a concept. If you propose that you do, that means you contradict private property because having ownership in an idea, patent, configuration of property, means you own other individuals and their property. It's quite simple -- what is so hard to understand? IP is a goddamn Monarchical Mercantilist invention, and it had nothing to do with property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623

IP is such a contradictory notion in regards to property.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> We can't get anywhere without the pro-IP folks knowing when and where IP originated from. This woeful ignorance of the issue at hand is a major reason for the disconnect. There is no paradox. Honestly, I do not know how people get so mixed up -- perhaps because you focus on the 'property' in IP, which I said was a misnomer because you cannot have ownership in such a concept, and if you propose that you do, that means you contradict private property because having ownership in an idea, patent, configuration of property, means you own other individuals and their property. It's quite simple -- what is so hard to understand? IP is a goddamn Monarchical Mercantilist invention, and it had nothing to do with property.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623


 And in your theory "fraud" does not exist. touche

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> you said that you had seen no flaw in the anti-IP argument. So I just threw something at you and I expect an answer.
> Tell me what is fraud?


It's really not consequential to the case they're making.  

You can read what a person says, even if it is contrary to your viewpoint, synthesize it and respond to it, or you can take out your megaphone and shout the same thing over and over again.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> And in your theory "fraud" does not exist. touche


I only engage in conversation with people who exhibit an ability to understand the nature of a debate. In any event, you cannot point out where I ever said such a thing -- I've been ignoring you since you are ignoring all of my arguments. How about you continue to parrot your ad hominem. Obviously I'm a Marxist.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> We can't get anywhere without the pro-IP folks knowing when and where IP originated from. This woeful ignorance of the issue at hand is a major reason for the disconnect. There is no paradox. Honestly, I do not know how people get so mixed up -- perhaps because you focus on the 'property' in IP, which I said was a misnomer because you cannot have ownership in such a concept. If you propose that you do, that means you contradict private property because having ownership in an idea, patent, configuration of property, means you own other individuals and their property. It's quite simple -- what is so hard to understand? IP is a goddamn Monarchical Mercantilist invention, and it had nothing to do with property.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623
> 
> IP is such a contradictory notion in regards to property.


But it is not just the property itself, it is the time and effort to go along with it that are being protected. Why is that so hard to understand? 

Do we not believe that the fruits of one's labor should be protected? 

We don't just protect tangible things. I cannot touch your 'right to free speech', but yet we have laws protecting it. Should we do away with the laws then, because there is nothing physical to protect?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> But it is not just the property itself, it is the time and effort to go along with it that are being protected. Why is that so hard to understand? 
> 
> Do we not believe that the fruits of one's labor should be protected? 
> 
> We don't just protect tangible things. I cannot touch your 'right to free speech', but yet we have laws protecting it. Should we do away with the laws then, because there is nothing physical to protect?


Can you point out to me what property you have lost if I replicate one of your recipes or ideas? Please do not tell me you believe you have a right of monopoly and profit through the exclusion of the rest of society to do with their property as they wish -- and this means replicating their own property to be configured in a matter matching yours. It's simply astonishing how someone who says they grasp private property makes this fundamental and tragic leap. *IP has never been about property, period.* 

Think for a moment before you respond. No one is denying that the products of ones labor should not be protected, but another replicating an idea is no loss of property to yourself, or any other. To copy, emulate, replicate, duplicate, etc. is to create a new tangible good. Here I'll use math 1+1 = 2. If I take something from you it means a transfer of ONE good from one individual to another. It's quite simple really. You are at no loss if someone else replicates a configuration of property you originally thought of. You cannot own a discovery. It's ludicrous.

PS: Free speech is a Government construct. There is no such thing as Free Speech in regards to private property. It's only when you get into 'public' and State-owned property that the need for such a construct arises.

----------


## goldencane

So I've just spent a long time reading all of this... some interesting stuff.

Trying to convince a person who believes they need IP "protection" that IP "protection" should not exist is like trying to convince a person on welfare that welfare should not exist.

IP is without a doubt a horrible thing for society, especially for things like medicines, but most people here seem to be talking about the arts. In regards to things like lyrics, or subjects, or ideas, what if person B completely separate and unknowing of person A creates something very similar to that of person A, yet person A got the copyrights in right before person B was able. How is that fair? Idea's or knowledge are not exclusive to one person at one time, thus one person can not be granted the sole "rights" to those ideas or knowledge. The actual music we hear or painting we see is just a physical representation of the idea. It is nothing more than ridges and grooves on a record, digital code on a computer, globs of paint on a canvas. That physical representation is property, but if someone is able to replicate that actual physical representation it is theirs. All they did was carve grooves into vinyl so to speak and they didn't even do it in the same way the original artist did. Inventions do not really exist, people just discover that a certain combination of materials, words, colors, etc, that work well together. It does not matter who makes these discoveries, they are part of the natural world and once we know them, we know them. No one has sole ownership of Newton's laws, they are just facts of the universe.

----------


## goldencane

> But it is not just the property itself, it is the time and effort to go along with it that are being protected. Why is that so hard to understand? 
> 
> Do we not believe that the fruits of one's labor should be protected? 
> 
> We don't just protect tangible things. I cannot touch your 'right to free speech', but yet we have laws protecting it. Should we do away with the laws then, because there is nothing physical to protect?


Two people work equally hard and equally long on a similar idea. One gets the copyright right before the other is able too. One person is screwed. Idea's or knowledge are not exclusive to one person at one time, thus one person can not be granted the sole "rights" to those ideas or knowledge.

We protect the right to free speech. We should protect the right to free use of knowledge as well.

----------


## Revolution9

> Don't be so sure of that.  Prior to reading this thread, I was fairly disinterested in the topic and didn't really have a take.  The anti-IP side has made a sequential, logically consistent and reasoned case that I can't find any holes in.


Typical blindered view you hold to. Your stand is that artists can go do something else for a living as they have no compensation available for pursuing the exercise of their God given talents.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Two people work equally hard and equally long on a similar idea. One gets the copyright right before the other is able too. One person is screwed. Idea's or knowledge are not exclusive to one person at one time, thus one person can not be granted the sole "rights" to those ideas or knowledge.
> 
> We protect the right to free speech. We should protect the right to free use of knowledge as well.


Would not happen in copyright of an IP independently derived. The odds would be in the quadrillions to one category.

I have yet to see one anti_IP argument that does not rip the livelihood right away from the artist, makes appeals to totally fallacious real world situations or just plain assed ignores the cogent points made by the pro IP crowd. These same people will harp on and on about some form of society that will not exist in our lifetimes, if ever, then base their fragile arguments off that. They also like to present non-IP as IP and then proceed to pummel that strawman as though they are accomplishing something more than getting them selves worked into a tizzy.

Rev9

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Would not happen in copyright of an IP independently derived. The odds would be in the quadrillions to one category.
> 
> *I have yet to see one anti_IP argument that does not rip the livelihood right away from the artist*, makes appeals to totally fallacious real world situations or just plain assed ignores the cogent points made by the pro IP crowd. These same people will harp on and on about some form of society that will not exist in our lifetimes, if ever, then base their fragile arguments off that. They also like to present non-IP as IP and then proceed to pummel that strawman as though they are accomplishing something more than getting them selves worked into a tizzy.
> 
> Rev9


Besides all the other arguments, sense of entitlement much? What does this have to do with the definition and concept of property? Such cruelty to rip the livelihood away from the wagon-maker in favor of steam locomotion, or gas-powered vehicles. Such audacity to proclaim a right of profit and monopoly and espouse such notions as property, when they are the complete opposite. Furthermore, it hasn't even been established that having no IP is a net-negative, on the contrary all the evidence points to the opposite. I mean look at the Grateful Dead, Mozart, Da Vinci, etc.

----------


## DamianTV

Yeah, and Edgar Allen Poe.  He made a whole whopping $6 bucks from "The Raven".

----------


## libertyjam

Everyone here has been invited to Tom Waits Private Listening Party.  Give it a go, Tom has mulled over this issue and presents his solution, for himself at least.

----------


## Revolution9

> Obviously I'm a Marxist.


I agree with that assessment.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Besides all the other arguments, sense of entitlement much?


Seems that you are a hypocritical projection artist. You seem to feel entitled to products that the originator does not want you to have without regarding the stipulations imposed. This sounds suspiciously like theft. But you want to protect your "right" (criminal privilege self-granted by your philosophical fallacies) to steal the fruits of my labor and make up reams of garbage and philosophical fairy dust to pretend advocation of your sorry set of moral principles. Sense of entitlement much?

Yer a larf thinking your pseudo-intellectual fluff amounts to a hill of beans in the real world.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Yeah, and Edgar Allen Poe.  He made a whole whopping $6 bucks from "The Raven".


Which would have bought him 720 pounds of wheat in those days. At least he got paid something. 

Rev9

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I have yet to see one anti_IP argument that does not rip the livelihood right away from the artist, makes appeals to totally fallacious real world situations or just plain assed ignores the cogent points made by the pro IP crowd. 
> Rev9


Actually, you have-you just choose ignore them.

----------


## YumYum

Whoever recorded and stole this classical piece should be sued!




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUm8wtDQgTU

----------


## Lifesoup

> whoever recorded and stole this classical piece should be sued!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vum8wtdqgtu



send in the swat teams!!!

----------


## LibertyRevolution



----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> 


Classic.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 


LMAO!!!  $#@!ing brilliant, and sooooo true.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Only controversial in the same manner that advocating an End to the Fed would be at a Federal Reserve Bank meeting. It seems pretty overwhelming who has greater numbers and a more robust argument. Of course, I'm always open to new arguments from either side -- I wasn't always an advocate for ending IP, then again I am not blinded by such bias as those immediately profiting from the protectionism.


Is that a fact?  Seems we really need a poll to settle it...as if it would be anyway...

----------


## Mr Tansill

> IP is a rather new invention. It has no natural basis, that is to quote Bastiat:
> 
> 
> Simply put, IP is an artificial construct that has nothing to do with property. It's very essence is anti-property. Like I brought up earlier, we can go back to the Lockean-Rothbardian idea of property. Furthermore, IP is nothing more than rent-seeking, an idea opposed to ownership. IP denies the very reason property was conceived of in the first place. Without scarcity there is no such thing as property, except insofar as self-ownership is concerned. To own implies a set of rule-sets. If I were to own an idea, I would literally be owning the body of other individuals. If I am to own a certain configuration of property, and the use of force to prevent others from configuring their property in the same manner is that not an injunction of anothers property? Honestly, it's that simple. Furthermore, the fact that another individual creates an identical yet wholly new good does not detract from the original individual who assembled the first good in such a manner. You have lost nothing, but I have lost ownership of my property due to IP -- it is an imposition on the authority of me to choose how to use my own property. 
> 
> *IP is not property!*  If there was ever a misnomer, that would be it.


Ok fine...settled...*IP is NOT property*...

Can you address how the subject would play out if as a condition for your exposure to certain information that another individual created you were subject to certain _restrictions_ (i.e. keeping the information "secret")?  Trying to bring this back to the idea of a contract and break it free of the "artificial construct" that is IP.

I agree with you IP is not "property."  But I say again: Can you address this from a contractual viewpoint?

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Don't be so sure of that.  Prior to reading this thread, I was fairly disinterested in the topic and didn't really have a take.  The anti-IP side has made a sequential, logically consistent and reasoned case that I can't find any holes in.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Typical blindered view you hold to. Your stand is that artists can go do something else for a living as they have no compensation available for pursuing the exercise of their God given talents.
> 
> Rev9


They are not exclusively your talents, you just happen to reach them first. If by chance another individual with similar talents "steal" your fan base, then you are obviously doing something wrong, and perhaps you're not as talented as you lead your self to believe.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Here's some quick reading for the IP folks. Chew on this for a bit. 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectual Property as we know it didn't even come to fruition until the mid to late 19th Century, and wasn't commonplace until well into the 20th.


The internet didn't even come to fruition until the mid to late 20th Century, and wasn't commonplace until just into the 21st...

Arguments and statements like these mean absolutely nothing.  Yes, we exist in time, and as a consequence of that fact, some things happen before others, others happen _after_ others...

Certain Mathematics wasn't discovered/invented until the 20th century - does that invalidate them?  Do we know more or less now?

----------


## low preference guy

> Here's the point I was trying to make boiled down:
> 
> Someday in the future, there will be the technical possibility to restrict the copying of information through whatever brainstorm you could come up with.  Pretend for a minute that you don't have the ability to use it without agreeing to a "copyright statement."  Use your imagination.  Your #2 can't happen...what now?  You're right, there's no contract between you and the producer, but you can't use it either.


That'll be fine.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Lol, I skipped over it because we're operating on two different planes of debate, which usually happens in the IP debate (among other controversial issues). Unless both parties come to some mutual fundamental agreement about what property is, it's quite difficult to address each other's points. It's like . . .  a foreign language.
> 
> But I don't understand the concept of how IP creates monopolies. To say that, you'd have to argue that only one person ever has the power to create a new thing, which is not true. If someone else creates invention A, then you can still create a totally different invention B. The possibilities are limitless. IP doesn't grant you exclusive access to a market. It grants you protection of a product you created to sell in that market. If I build a DVD player, it doesn't mean I own the entertainment electronics market. I own the design of my DVD player. Anyone else has the same exact right that I do to tap the entertainment electronics market, BUT with their _own_ inventions. 
> 
> Like I said, I'm still trying to figure out where this utter paradox came into play.


A lot of people are operating on different planes here...

Most on the anti-IP side want to remain within the boundaries of discrediting IP as "property," defeat that _strawman_, and go forth and steal other people's work.

The point I've been trying to make is that the producers of certain items, be it music, computer games, software, or anything else that is an "idea" can get around the anti-IP argument by creating contractual restrictions on a user's license.  We've all seen these when we install software on our computers...they are called "EULAs."

There is no paradox...both Apple and IBM can create computers...

Both Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page can write music...

Neither one can market the unique products of each other's time and energy under their own name.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Do we not believe that the fruits of one's labor should be protected? 
> 
> We don't just protect tangible things. I cannot touch your 'right to free speech', but yet we have laws protecting it. Should we do away with the laws then, because there is nothing physical to protect?


Goddamn that's a good point.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> [facepalmpic]

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Typical blindered view you hold to. Your stand is that artists can go do something else for a living as they have no compensation available for pursuing the exercise of their God given talents.
> 
> Rev9


Oh look!  It's the ad hominem Avenger!

Are you gonna start telling us all how you're gonna start kicking our butts, now?!

----------


## KingRobbStark

> The internet didn't even come to fruition until the mid to late 20th Century, and wasn't commonplace until just into the 21st...
> 
> Arguments and statements like these mean absolutely nothing.  Yes, we exist in time, and as a consequence of that fact, some things happen before others, others happen _after_ others...
> 
> Certain Mathematics wasn't discovered/invented until the 20th century - does that invalidate them?  Do we know more or less now?


Mathematical achievements was build upon previous achievements. Mathematics doesn't magically appear into existence.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Can you point out to me what property you have lost if I replicate one of your recipes or ideas? Please do not tell me you believe you have a right of monopoly and profit through the exclusion of the rest of society to do with their property as they wish -- and this means replicating their own property to be configured in a matter matching yours. It's simply astonishing how someone who says they grasp private property makes this fundamental and tragic leap. *IP has never been about property, period.*


No, because like you *and* I have already pointed out, *IP is not property*.  Obviously no one loses "property" if you replicate a series of 0s and 1s on a CD and play it in your stereo...

Were you really waiting for someone to answer this to invalidate your position?  An unanswerable question set up to defend your position is not part of a logical argument - it's called begging the question...here's an example: Do your parents know you're gay?




> Think for a moment before you respond. No one is denying that the products of ones labor should not be protected, but another replicating an idea is no loss of property to yourself, or any other. To copy, emulate, replicate, duplicate, etc. is to create a new tangible good. Here I'll use math 1+1 = 2. If I take something from you it means a transfer of ONE good from one individual to another. It's quite simple really. You are at no loss if someone else replicates a configuration of property you originally thought of. *You cannot own a discovery*. It's ludicrous.


Whether or not you can own a discovery is a different topic altogether - I can "own" it as long _as I don't share it_.  And if I choose not to share something I discovered, what can you do to justly compel me to share it?

Also, do you really think that a song is an idea?  Or a song is discovered vice created?  Did Mozart turn over a rock one day and stumble upon a fundamental law of nature in symphonic form, which you, just as easily, and accidentally, could have stumbled upon?  Or did he _create_ all that through his effort?

Hint: those are rhetorical questions.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Seems that you are a hypocritical projection artist. You seem to feel entitled to products that the originator does not want you to have without regarding the stipulations imposed. This sounds suspiciously like theft. But you want to protect your "right" (criminal privilege self-granted by your philosophical fallacies) to steal the fruits of my labor and make up reams of garbage and philosophical fairy dust to pretend advocation of your sorry set of moral principles. Sense of entitlement much?
> 
> Yer a larf thinking your pseudo-intellectual fluff amounts to a hill of beans in the real world.
> 
> Rev9


Yeah...this^^^^

----------


## Wesker1982

> I cannot touch your 'right to free speech', but yet we have laws protecting it. Should we do away with the laws then, because there is nothing physical to protect?


There is no right to free speech. There are laws protecting property rights already, which is all that is needed.




> Take, for example, the human right of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate right to free speech; there is only a mans property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.
> 
> In short, a person does not have a right to freedom of speech; what he does have is the right to hire a hall and address the people who enter the premises. He does not have a right to freedom of the press; what he does have is the right to write or publish a pamphlet, and to sell that pamphlet to those who are willing to buy it (or to give it away to those who are willing to accept it). Thus, what he has in each of these cases is property rights, including the right of free contract and transfer which form a part of such rights of ownership. There is no extra right of free speech or free press beyond the property rights that a person may have in any given case.


Short read, highly recommended: "Human Rights" as Property Rights

----------


## Mr Tansill

> That'll be fine.


Yes!!! Finally! Buy in!

----------


## CCTelander

> Is there a point?  Why don't you just cut to the chase and call me a marxist, okay?



ROFL! 

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to A Son of Liberty again."

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Mathematical achievements was build upon previous achievements. Mathematics doesn't magically appear into existence.


Thank you.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Whether or not you can own a discovery is a different topic altogether - I can "own" it as long _as I don't share it_.  And if I choose not to share something I discovered, what can you do to justly compel me to share it?
> 
> Also, do you really think that a song is an idea?  Or a song is discovered vice created?  Did Mozart turn over a rock one day and stumble upon a fundamental law of nature in symphonic form, which you, just as easily, and accidentally have stumbled upon?  Or did he _create_ all that through his effort?
> 
> Hint: those are rhetorical questions.


Did Mozart create the notes, or merely rearrange them? I have 6 rocks (2 red, 2 blue, and 2 white). I arranged them into a pattern. Is that pattern an idea, or did I create (discover) that pattern?

----------


## Travlyr

Question. I have not been able to read through the entire thread, so if this has already been addressed I have not seen it.

Without IP protection, if I compose a unique book, then can anyone copy my works and sell them as if it were their works.

Could I for example copy "_Liberty Defined_" place my name as author and sell them as my own works?

----------


## low preference guy

> Yes!!! Finally! Buy in!


That was never a point of contention. The point was whether somebody not bound by a contract because he didn't sign it should be restricted legally.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Question. I have not been able to read through the entire thread, so if this has already been addressed I have not seen it.
> 
> Without IP protection, if I compose a unique book, then can anyone copy my works and sell them as if it were their works.
> 
> Could I for example copy "_Liberty Defined_" place my name as author and sell them as my own works?


If you wan't to lie, and claim you're Ron Paul. Trust me you won't get much sales. 

What we are debating in this thread is not only the book itself, but the ideas contained in that book. Some in this thread will argue that that anyone other than Paul don't have the right to those ideas. Others argue that if you signed a contract that forbid you from using those ideas, then that contracts policies are absolute.

----------


## Travlyr

> If you wan't to lie, and claim you're Ron Paul. Trust me you won't get much sales. 
> 
> What we are debating in this thread is not only the book itself, but the ideas contained in that book. Some in this thread will argue that that anyone other than Paul don't have the right to those ideas. Others argue that if you signed a contract that forbid you from using those ideas, then that contracts policies are absolute.


So, you are saying I can copy Ron Paul's works and claim them as my own if I want? The amount of profit I make is irrelevant.

----------


## CCTelander

> So, you are saying I can copy Ron Paul's works and claim them as my own if I want? The amount of profit I make is irrelevant.



No. That's not correct.

To copy RP's book and sell it AS YOUR OWN WORK, would be fraud.

To copy it and sell it as the work of RP, however, would be perfectly fine.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Did Mozart create the notes, or merely rearrange them? I have 6 rocks (2 red, 2 blue, and 2 white). I arranged them into a pattern. Is that pattern an idea, or did I create (discover) that pattern?


He rearranged them.

Did you create the banana?  Or did you plan the seed and let nature arrange all the atoms?  Did you pull the weeds that would have destroyed your crop?

I can address this in any terms you like - can you address the question?

----------


## Mr Tansill

> That was never a point of contention. The point was whether somebody not bound by a contract *because he didn't sign it should be restricted legally*.


No.

----------


## Travlyr

> No. That's not correct.
> 
> To copy RP's book and sell it AS YOUR OWN WORK, would be fraud.
> 
> To copy it and sell it as the work of RP, however, would be perfectly fine.


That makes sense, except why would Ron Paul bother researching, writing, publishing, and marketing his book if anyone with a high-tech copier can take his books sales from him without doing any of the research or writing?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I only engage in conversation with people who exhibit an ability to understand the nature of a debate. In any event, you cannot point out where I ever said such a thing -- I've been ignoring you since you are ignoring all of my arguments. How about you continue to parrot your ad hominem. Obviously I'm a Marxist.


 nature of the debate? You remove the word "fraud" from existing to prop up your anti-intellectual property as a legitimate platform which supports "individual liberty" . We will never agree because you remove "fraud" from existence of the debate and there is no purpose to debate. You either support complete anarchy or you support limited government.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> That makes sense, except why would Ron Paul bother researching, writing, publishing, and marketing his book if anyone with a high-tech copier can take his books sales from him without doing any of the research or writing?


You can say he did his research by reading Paul's book

----------


## Seraphim

Yes exactly.

Look at the number of books available online as PDF's. Both submitted by the author themselves and simple "black market" digital copies. How many of these books do you see being printed up word for work with a new authors named slapped onto it? NONE.

In the real world, no matter what the legal conditions, it DIFFICULT to take credit for someone else's work and not be punished. IP Laws don't protect $#@!. The same way that drunk driving laws don't stop drunk driving and do not safe guard the victims of drunk drivers AT ALL. 




> No. That's not correct.
> 
> To copy RP's book and sell it AS YOUR OWN WORK, would be fraud.
> 
> To copy it and sell it as the work of RP, however, would be perfectly fine.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> So I've just spent a long time reading all of this... some interesting stuff.
> 
> Trying to convince a person who believes they need IP "protection" that IP "protection" should not exist is like trying to convince a person on welfare that welfare should not exist.
> 
> IP is without a doubt a horrible thing for society, especially for things like medicines, but most people here seem to be talking about the arts. In regards to things like lyrics, or subjects, or ideas, what if person B completely separate and unknowing of person A creates something very similar to that of person A, yet person A got the copyrights in right before person B was able. How is that fair? Idea's or knowledge are not exclusive to one person at one time, thus one person can not be granted the sole "rights" to those ideas or knowledge. The actual music we hear or painting we see is just a physical representation of the idea. It is nothing more than ridges and grooves on a record, digital code on a computer, globs of paint on a canvas. That physical representation is property, but if someone is able to replicate that actual physical representation it is theirs. All they did was carve grooves into vinyl so to speak and they didn't even do it in the same way the original artist did. Inventions do not really exist, people just discover that a certain combination of materials, words, colors, etc, that work well together. It does not matter who makes these discoveries, they are part of the natural world and once we know them, we know them. No one has sole ownership of Newton's laws, they are just facts of the universe.


 Thomas Jefferson and James Madison supported patents and copyright protection specifically for the arts,and literary works as well as invention.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Besides all the other arguments, sense of entitlement much? What does this have to do with the definition and concept of property? Such cruelty to rip the livelihood away from the wagon-maker in favor of steam locomotion, or gas-powered vehicles. Such audacity to proclaim a right of profit and monopoly and espouse such notions as property, when they are the complete opposite. Furthermore, it hasn't even been established that having no IP is a net-negative, on the contrary all the evidence points to the opposite. I mean look at the Grateful Dead, Mozart, Da Vinci, etc.


 The irony that you would void the definition and existence of "Fraud" and the act of being "fraudulent" and you dare say that having an IP is an act of entitlement? The hypocrisy .

----------


## Travlyr

> You can say he did his research by reading Paul's book


If you cut out opportunity for compensation for research and development, then why would anybody research and develop?

----------


## KingRobbStark

> He rearranged them.
> 
> *Did you create the banana?  Or did you plan the seed and let nature arrange all the atoms?  Did you pull the weeds that would have destroyed your crop?*


wtf?




> I can address this in any terms you like - can you address the question?


Which one? The first one? 

No I can't compel you to share anything. That being said, we should define the meaning of sharing.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> If you cut out opportunity for compensation for research and development, then why would anybody research and develop?


Why would anyone research and develop if a third party will not build upon what has been done?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Also, do you really think that a song is an idea?  Or a song is discovered vice created?  Did Mozart turn over a rock one day and stumble upon a fundamental law of nature in symphonic form, which you, just as easily, and accidentally, could have stumbled upon?  Or did he _create_ all that through his effort?


Mozart, if you know anything about him, learned to write symphonies, quartets, etc. by copying other composers.  His father made him copy out scores and study them.   Like the pop music of today, Mozart followed templates long established.  Haydn, the father of the symphony, was a friend of his.  They both imitated each others' ideas.  IOW, he did put his own effort into playing around with old ideas, but none of them were entirely "new"-only old stuff re-imagined.  (that's why the difference in style between Haydn and Mozart is negligible)  Mozart also learned a lot from J.C. Bach, btw.

----------


## Travlyr

> Why would anyone research and develop if a third party will not build upon what has been done?


If protected, then the profit motive to compensate for research and development as well as profits from sales of goods and services will motivate to innovate. Third parties have to compete rather than just simply copy & produce without spending the research and development expenses.  

Without IP protections, third parties have the advantage because they do not have to invest any resources for research and development.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Mozart, if you know anything about him, learned to write symphonies, quartets, etc. by copying other composers.  His father made him copy out scores and study them.   Like the pop music of today, Mozart followed templates long established.  Haydn, the father of the symphony, was a friend of his.  They both imitated each others' ideas.  IOW, he did put his own effort into playing around with old ideas, but none of them were entirely "new"-only old stuff re-imagined.  (that's why the difference in style between Haydn and Mozart is negligible)  Mozart also learned a lot from J.C. Bach, btw.


 the classical period was unique because theocracy forced composers to sound like such and such artist and were forced to write music a certain way. Mozart tried to get away from that and many times named his compositions vulgarly in defiance. Beethoven was a true break through as a composer and artist because he had no obligation to a theocracy.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Thomas Jefferson and James Madison supported patents and copyright protection specifically for the arts,and literary works as well as invention.


This was the stated reason, but it was a protectionist measure.  Even if you accept your appeal to authority, Jefferson and Madison's idea of patents/copyrights only lasted a few years. (hence the use of "limited time" in the Constitution) Your idea of IP (derived from the Copyright act and similar IP laws) lasts longer than the lifetime of the creator.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> the classical period was unique because theocracy forced composers to sound like such and such artist and were forced to write music a certain way. Mozart tried to get away from that and many times named his compositions vulgarly in defiance. Beethoven was a true break through as a composer and artist because he had no obligation to a theocracy.


True, but my point still stands. (Mozart also mocked horn players in the scores for horn concertos btw, lol  )

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> This was the stated reason, but it was a protectionist measure.  Even if you accept your appeal to authority, Jefferson and Madison's idea of patents/copyrights only lasted a few years. (hence the use of "limited time" in the Constitution) Your idea of IP (derived from the Copyright act and similar IP laws) lasts longer than the lifetime of the creator.


 I do believe my property can be given through my will.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> True, but my point still stands. (Mozart also mocked horn players in the scores for horn concertos btw, lol  )


 Many of the compositions were forced by the theocracy/king

----------


## Mr Tansill

> The irony that you would void the definition and existence of "Fraud" and the act of being "fraudulent" and you dare say that having an IP is an act of entitlement? The hypocrisy .


Yeah seriously...the asymmetry of their beliefs is mystifying...

----------


## CaptainAmerica

Now the big question behind this debate is :

Who here is an anarchist?
and what kind of anarchist if so?

I am not an anarchist.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> wtf?


Point being that you don't create anything...if you are a farmer, by your logic (_by your terms..._), the farmer didn't create anything - all the matter and energy that ever was, ever will be, and the farmer merely creates a different arrangement of matter/energy...therefore (by your logic, _your terms_), the farmer doesn't own all the wheat (or whatever) he "rearranged."

Get it?






> Which one? The first one? 
> 
> No I can't compel you to share anything. That being said, we should define the meaning of sharing.


We can leave it undefined - I'm not sure there is disagreement on the concept.

----------


## Fulton for City Council

Wow, there's been a lot of activity in this thread.  Please forgive me for not reading it all, but IP is something I've thought about for a significant amount of time and have even written about.

I'm not convinced that there can be no ownership of ideas, but I also think, like Jefferson, how when one idea lights the candle of another's imagination, how can it be put out?  ...Which is my way of saying, (less eloquently than Jefferson of course) that once an idea is out there it's out there, and there's no way to put it back in.  It's pointless and counter-productive to try.

That's why I advocate something called "compulsory licensing."  It basically means that all ideas are up for grabs (and sale), but the original creator still retains some ownership in them, but not the ability to prevent others from using them.

For instance, under compulsory licensing someone could theoretically rewrite _Harry Potter_ as _Larry Potter_ and in my view they have contributed something new to it.  Perhaps that change represents .00001% of a modification from the original.  That amount can be decided upon by the two parties, or if they can't agree, by a court.

The second user then has the ability to vary the price, up or down, by the same amount that they contributed to the new product.  So, if the original price was $15, the second user would have the ability to sell their reworking of it from anywhere between $14.999999 to $15.0000001.  You get the idea.  This is obviously an absurd example, but the principle applies to everything.

This is the only idea that prohibits both a monopoly of ideas, and not rewarding intellectual creation, which despite what some people at Mises tell you (an org. that I love and have written for by the way) having no property rights in ideas does discourage creation.  People have committed suicide over it, people have been driven into poverty because they did not receive compensation for their ideas and the hard work that went into developing them.  Just take a brief look at _Piracy_ by Adrian Johns and you will see evidence of it, yet this evidence is never, that I know of, mentioned by the no-IP crowd.

For an essay I wrote on the history of IP and the possible solution of compulsory licensing (I know libertarians hate the word "compulsory," but someone else came up with it, not me), see here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=19959

----------


## KingRobbStark

> If protected, then the profit motive to compensate for research and development as well as profits from sales of goods and services will motivate to innovate. Third parties have to compete rather than just simply copy & produce without spending the research and development expenses.  
> 
> Without IP protections, third parties have the advantage because they do not have to invest any resources for research and development.


By protecting an idea you are monopolizing it. 

Protectionism and competition do not mix. How are you expected to compete if you are barred from a certain market? How are you supposed to build on idea if you are barred from using it? On the contrary, it stifles innovations.  

The person or organization in charge of the research and development have the *advantage*  over their competitors in the means of reaching the consumer. The other companies would have to do more in order to compete with it.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> By protecting an idea you are monopolizing it.


Jesus dude, are you serious?  Apple has it's operating system protected, Microsoft has theirs...is there a monopoly on computer operating systems?  Examples abound that stand in direct contradiction to your statement.  I actually feel bad for wasting the electrons it took to type this.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Now the big question behind this debate is :
> 
> Who here is an anarchist?
> and what kind of anarchist if so?
> 
> I am not an anarchist.


I'm not.  What does that have to do with the subject of the thread?

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Point being that you don't create anything...if you are a farmer, by your logic (_by your terms..._), the farmer didn't create anything - all the matter and energy that ever was, ever will be, and the farmer merely creates a different arrangement of matter/energy...therefore (by your logic, _your terms_), the farmer doesn't own all the wheat (or whatever) he "rearranged."
> 
> Get it?


I get it, but I'm afraid you didn't get my meaning. The banana itself belongs to the farmer, but the the concept behind the banana does not. He didn't create the banana, he planted the banana. 

That being said lets assume that before the farmer created the banana, there was nothing like it in the world. He mass produced it. What then?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Jesus dude, are you serious?  Apple has it's operating system protected, Microsoft has theirs...*is there a monopoly on computer operating systems*?  Examples abound that stand in direct contradiction to your statement.  I actually feel bad for wasting the electrons it took to type this.


No, there is a monopoly on specific OS's.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> I get it, but I'm afraid you didn't get my meaning. The banana itself belongs to the farmer, but the the concept behind the banana does not. He didn't create the banana, he planted the banana. 
> 
> That being said lets assume that before the farmer created the banana, there was nothing like it in the world. He mass produced it. What then?


Just like Jimmy Page doesn't own the concept behind 'Stairway to Heaven' (i.e. music), but does own his specific creation (the song), the result of his time and effort.  I get what you're saying.  Winning.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> No, there is a monopoly on specific OS's.


And your idea is that there shouldn't be?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Wow, there's been a lot of activity in this thread.  Please forgive me for not reading it all, but IP is something I've thought about for a significant amount of time and have even written about.
> 
> I'm not convinced that there can be no ownership of ideas, but I also think, like Jefferson, how when one idea lights the candle of another's imagination, how can it be put out?  ...Which is my way of saying, (less eloquently than Jefferson of course) that once an idea is out there it's out there, and there's no way to put it back in.  It's pointless and counter-productive to try.
> 
> That's why I advocate something called "compulsory licensing."*  It basically means that all ideas are up for grabs (and sale), but the original creator still retains some ownership in them, but not the ability to prevent others from using them.*
> 
> For instance, under compulsory licensing someone could theoretically rewrite _Harry Potter_ as _Larry Potter_ and in my view they have contributed something new to it.  Perhaps that change represents .00001% of a modification from the original.  That amount can be decided upon by the two parties, or if they can't agree, by a court.
> 
> The second user then has the ability to vary the price, up or down, by the same amount that they contributed to the new product.  So, if the original price was $15, the second user would have the ability to sell their reworking of it from anywhere between $14.999999 to $15.0000001.  You get the idea.  This is obviously an absurd example, but the principle applies to everything.
> ...


That's nothing new, though.  In legal parlance, it's called "derivative works".  I don't mind licensing-type arrangements (Floyd Rose licenses their tremelo design, for example), but that still doesn't justify IP in general.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And your idea is that there shouldn't be?


Correct.  When I buy a copy of Windows (for example), it is mine.  MS has no rightful claim to my property.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> A lot of people are operating on different planes here...
> 
> Most on the anti-IP side want to remain within the boundaries of discrediting IP as "property," defeat that _strawman_, and go forth and steal other people's work.
> 
> The point I've been trying to make is that the producers of certain items, be it music, computer games, software, or anything else that is an "idea" can get around the anti-IP argument by creating contractual restrictions on a user's license.  We've all seen these when we install software on our computers...they are called "EULAs."
> 
> There is no paradox...both Apple and IBM can create computers...
> 
> Both Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page can write music...
> ...



Again:




> IP AS CONTRACT
> The Limits of Contract
> The law, then, should protect individual rights to ones
> body, and to legitimately acquired scarce resources (property).
> There is not a natural right to ideal objectsto ones
> intellectual innovations or creationsbut only to scarce
> resources. Many opponents of IP rights typically support
> only contractual arrangements to protect ideas and innovations
> private contracts between property owners.80 Suppose,
> ...





> http://mises.org/books/against.pdf

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Jesus dude, are you serious?  Apple has it's operating system protected, Microsoft has theirs...is there a monopoly on computer operating systems?  Examples abound that stand in direct contradiction to your statement.  I actually feel bad for wasting the electrons it took to type this.


This brings us back to Mozart and the rearranging of notes. Aren't those operating systems merely a combinations of 0's and 1's? 

So do I

----------


## Travlyr

Without IP protections, my business plan would be to not invest in research or development. I would wait until I found a great product, give the inventor _"two-thumbs-up"_, and sell his invention at my cost +profit because the inventor is at a competitive disadvantage. I get free R&D at his expense.

----------


## goldencane

> Thomas Jefferson and James Madison supported patents and copyright protection specifically for the arts,and literary works as well as invention.


Yeah, because everything they did and thought was correct. I guess I should support slavery as well. 




> Jesus dude, are you serious?  Apple has it's operating system protected, Microsoft has theirs...is there a monopoly on computer operating systems?  Examples abound that stand in direct contradiction to your statement.  I actually feel bad for wasting the electrons it took to type this.


Pfizer owns a patent on a life saving drug. It costs $500 per week. It is easily reproducible by other companies, but they can't because of patents. It would save lives, but we want to protect the company.

If Microsoft was able to make the same OS as Apple, Apple would most likely come up with something even better. Technology progression would be faster and everyone would be better off. 

IP is only good for the person who owns it. The consumer suffers. IP hurts innovation, it does not help it.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Correct.  When I buy a copy of Windows (for example), it is mine.  MS has no rightful claim to my property.


Cool...I can AGREE with that.

Now, how do you answer the mail if, as part of your condition to use that product, you agree to not distribute it, copy it, or otherwise give it away for free?  How do you answer that?  From a contractual standpoint?

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Just like Jimmy Page doesn't own the concept behind 'Stairway to Heaven' (i.e. music), but does own his specific creation (the song), the result of his time and effort.  I get what you're saying.  Winning.


#respect

Anyway. He has the right to his music, the same why I have the right to my property. But as soon as I sell it, it seizes to become my sole property. What you are implying is that I am not allowed to share my property with anyone else. Thats an abridgment of my rights.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> This brings us back to Mozart and the rearranging of notes. Aren't those operating systems merely a combinations of 0's and 1's?


Yes, they are.  So does Mozart own the arrangement of 0s and 1s?  Does Microsoft own the arrangement of 0s and 1s?  Does the farmer own the arrangement of 0s and 1s?

If you don't recognize the abstract of property, then you don't recognize it.  I can't get you to agree on something that is axiomatic - you either accept it as truth, and build a system upon it, or you don't, and you get a different system.  Both may be equally valid - I guess what we disagree on is something very fundamental.

I think people should have exclusive right to what they produce through their effort.  You think you have a right to the product of someone else's labor...contracts, agreements, promises, et al, be damned...I do what I want, and take what I want - power is master.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> #respect
> 
> Anyway. He has the right to his music, the same why I have the right to my property. But as soon as I sell it, it seizes to become my sole property. What you are implying is that I am not allowed to share my property with anyone else. Thats an abridgment of my rights.


I think you meant "ceases."  And yeah, JP = greatest guitarist of all time > ALL.

But again...lets assume that it is not property.

Imagine a world in which you have agreed to certain terms in order for you to use it.  I guess that means yeah, it's not your property with which you can do _anything_ you want.  I see no problem with that, and I think it's a completely valid way to protect someone's _intellectual property_ (if you care to use those terms).

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Wow, there's been a lot of activity in this thread.  Please forgive me for not reading it all, but IP is something I've thought about for a significant amount of time and have even written about.
> 
> I'm not convinced that there can be no ownership of ideas, but I also think, like Jefferson, how when one idea lights the candle of another's imagination, how can it be put out?  ...Which is my way of saying, (less eloquently than Jefferson of course) that once an idea is out there it's out there, and there's no way to put it back in.  It's pointless and counter-productive to try.
> 
> That's why I advocate something called "compulsory licensing."  It basically means that all ideas are up for grabs (and sale), but the original creator still retains some ownership in them, but not the ability to prevent others from using them.
> 
> For instance, under compulsory licensing someone could theoretically rewrite _Harry Potter_ as _Larry Potter_ and in my view they have contributed something new to it.  Perhaps that change represents .00001% of a modification from the original.  That amount can be decided upon by the two parties, or if they can't agree, by a court.
> 
> The second user then has the ability to vary the price, up or down, by the same amount that they contributed to the new product.  So, if the original price was $15, the second user would have the ability to sell their reworking of it from anywhere between $14.999999 to $15.0000001.  You get the idea.  This is obviously an absurd example, but the principle applies to everything.
> ...


That is how music licensing works for the most part. I have no problem with it currently. I do not believe corporations should be treated as individuals though, and that would remove lobbying which is a problem unto itself.

----------


## goldencane

> Without IP protections, my business plan would be to not invest in research or development. I would wait until I found a great product, give the inventor _"two-thumbs-up"_, and sell his invention at my cost +profit because the inventor is at a competitive disadvantage. I get free R&D at his expense.


If you are able to offer that competitive advantage, good for you and good for the consumer. But if you can't find good inventions (you are hinting people won't invent, right?)? You will start doing R&D yourself. Inventors will still invent. They can team up with large companies like yours to produce their product. If you make an agreement with them and screw them over, they won't come back to you when they have a new product. They will go somewhere else. The inventor still gets the benefits of being first to market. Depending on how complex the product it, it could also take you a while to reverse engineer.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Yes, they are.  So does Mozart own the arrangement of 0s and 1s?  Does Microsoft own the arrangement of 0s and 1s?  Does the farmer own the arrangement of 0s and 1s?
> 
> If you don't recognize the abstract of property, then you don't recognize it.  I can't get you to agree on something that is axiomatic - you either accept it as truth, and build a system upon it, or you don't, and you get a different system.  Both may be equally valid - I guess what we disagree on is something very fundamental.
> 
> I think people should have exclusive right to what they produce through their effort.  You think you have a right to the product of someone else's labor...contracts, agreements, promises, et al, be damned...I do what I want, and take what I want - power is master.


 either a person is anarchist or they are not.Laymans terms

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> If you are able to offer that competitive advantage, good for you and good for the consumer. But if you can't find good inventions (you are hinting people won't invent, right?)? You will start doing R&D yourself. Inventors will still invent. They can team up with large companies like yours to produce their product. If you make an agreement with them and screw them over, they won't come back to you when they have a new product. They will go somewhere else. The inventor still gets the benefits of being first to market. Depending on how complex the product it, it could also take you a while to reverse engineer.


 without IP what would stop them from being payed to develop an invention for his business then taking that information with them and using it against him as a competitor?

----------


## goldencane

> without IP what would stop them from being payed to develop an invention for his business then taking that information with them and using it against him as a competitor?


This:



> If you make an agreement with them and screw them over, they won't come back to you when they have a new product. They will go somewhere else. The inventor still gets the benefits of being first to market. Depending on how complex the product it, it could also take you a while to reverse engineer.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Wow, there's been a lot of activity in this thread.  Please forgive me for not reading it all, but IP is something I've thought about for a significant amount of time and have even written about.
> 
> I'm not convinced that there can be no ownership of ideas, but I also think, like Jefferson, how when one idea lights the candle of another's imagination, how can it be put out?  ...Which is my way of saying, (less eloquently than Jefferson of course) that once an idea is out there it's out there, and there's no way to put it back in.  It's pointless and counter-productive to try.
> 
> That's why I advocate something called "compulsory licensing."  It basically means that all ideas are up for grabs (and sale), but the original creator still retains some ownership in them, but not the ability to prevent others from using them.
> 
> For instance, under compulsory licensing someone could theoretically rewrite _Harry Potter_ as _Larry Potter_ and in my view they have contributed something new to it.  Perhaps that change represents .00001% of a modification from the original.  That amount can be decided upon by the two parties, or if they can't agree, by a court.
> 
> The second user then has the ability to vary the price, up or down, by the same amount that they contributed to the new product.  So, if the original price was $15, the second user would have the ability to sell their reworking of it from anywhere between $14.999999 to $15.0000001.  You get the idea.  This is obviously an absurd example, but the principle applies to everything.
> ...


I was thinking of something similar. I don't have a name for it.

Something like this would be a good way to allow for profit-sharing without the sense that someone else is swooping in and stealing another's ideas because they suck at coming up with something original.

You get +rep for a workable idea.

heavenly is right though, this idea exists in a similar form known as royalties.

----------


## Travlyr

> If you are able to offer that competitive advantage, good for you and good for the consumer.


And bad for the inventor and his R&D crew.




> But if you can't find good inventions (you are hinting people won't invent, right?)? You will start doing R&D yourself.


Why would I? I would invest my resources into finding good inventions, copying them, and marketing them. As a specialist who does not have to invest in R&D, I can save the most expensive costs in bringing a product to the market.




> Inventors will still invent.


But I wouldn't. I would use the money I save from R&D on vacations to tropical islands.




> They can team up with large companies like yours to produce their product. If you make an agreement with them and screw them over, they won't come back to you when they have a new product. They will go somewhere else.


I'm not screwing anybody over. Without IP laws I'm perfectly within my rights to copy the inventions of others.




> The inventor still gets the benefits of being first to market.


With expensive R&D overhead costs already incurred.




> Depending on how complex the product it, it could also take you a while to reverse engineer.


It is always easier to copy than create.

----------


## Revolution9

> They are not exclusively your talents, you just happen to reach them first.


Now that right there is an idiotic assertion that completely avoids or remains ignorant of the nature of talent.

Rev9

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Yes, they are.  So does Mozart own the arrangement of 0s and 1s?  Does Microsoft own the arrangement of 0s and 1s?  Does the farmer own the arrangement of 0s and 1s?
> 
> If you don't recognize the abstract of property, then you don't recognize it.  I can't get you to agree on something that is axiomatic - you either accept it as truth, and build a system upon it, or you don't, and you get a different system.  Both may be equally valid - I guess what we disagree on is something very fundamental.
> 
> I think people should have exclusive right to what they produce through their effort.  You think you have a right to the product of someone else's labor...contracts, agreements, promises, et al, be damned...I do what I want, and take what I want - power is master.


Before an axiom is considered, it has to be assumed. In physics and mathematics we sometimes use "axiomatic" approach to problems in order to measure or judge a possible outcome. Depending on the outcome, an "axiom" doesn't remain so for long. 

The same thing can be applied to an axiomatic approach to IP's laws. (In my opinion recognition is the ultimate reward.) From there we'll judge the outcome.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Jesus dude, are you serious?  Apple has it's operating system protected, Microsoft has theirs...is there a monopoly on computer operating systems?  Examples abound that stand in direct contradiction to your statement.  I actually feel bad for wasting the electrons it took to type this.


Exactly. The only people who get pissed off about [IP] monopolies are the ones who can't create a competing product. They just want to copy someone else's ideas and make a fortune for themselves while spitting on the original creators.

[and yet, those who support intellectual property are the ones with an 'entitlement' complex ]

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I was thinking of something similar. I don't have a name for it.
> 
> Something like this would be a good way to allow for profit-sharing without the sense that someone else is swooping in and stealing another's ideas because they suck at coming up with something original.
> 
> You get +rep for a workable idea.
> 
> heavenly is right though, this idea exists in a similar form known as royalties.


 This is what I advocate and it already exists in music copyright laws.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Now that right there is an idiotic assertion that completely avoids or remains ignorant of the nature of talent.
> 
> Rev9


 LOL I'd love for someone to tell me that I was not born with a gift and that I do not have talent after they hear my music.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Before an axiom is considered, it has to be assumed. In physics and mathematics we sometimes use "axiomatic" approach to problems in order to measure or judge a possible outcome. Depending on the outcome, an "axiom" doesn't remain so for long. 
> 
> The same thing can be applied to an axiomatic approach to IP's laws. (In my opinion recognition is the ultimate reward.) From there we'll judge the outcome.


You can use the word "assume," I use the word define - in truth though, it really doesn't matter, mathematically, whether or not you assume something or define it as true.  Euclidean geometry is based on certain axioms...hyperbolic geometry is based on others.  All logic and deduction within each of those systems is completely valid and "constructs" a certain type of universe.  One of these is, more or less, in greater correspondence with reality.

Axioms *always* remain axioms - it's what makes them so and is what is known as a logical truth.  It is true in all circumstances.  An axiom is an _unprovable_ statement.  It is so basic that it must be accepted as true.

How does this relate to what we are talking about?

If we assume that there are the three fundamental "rights" (or maybe axioms, if you like)...life, liberty, *property*...and all that makes up "property" (your time, energy, brain power, etc).  Then you cannot get to the position you hold through a valid argument.  If you deny the right to _IP_, you deny the right to regular property as well.  The actual system I think you are advocating is socialism, or community ownership.  Different axioms.  You're entitled to that world-view, and as a result of those socialistic axioms, a certain type of world forms...though not one I desire to live in.

All the recognition in the world won't put food on your table or a roof over your nugget.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> You can use the word "assume," I use the word define - in truth though, it really doesn't matter, mathematically, whether or not you assume something or define it as true.  Euclidean geometry is based on certain axioms...hyperbolic geometry is based on others.  All logic and deduction within each of those systems is completely valid and "constructs" a certain type of universe.  One of these is, more or less, in greater correspondence with reality.
> 
> Axioms *always* remain axioms - it's what makes them so and is what is known as a logical truth.  It is true in all circumstances.  An axiom is an _unprovable_ statement.  It is so basic that it must be accepted as true.
> 
> How does this relate to what we are talking about?
> 
> If we assume that there are the three fundamental "rights" (or maybe axioms, if you like)...life, liberty, *property*...and all that makes up "property" (your time, energy, brain power, etc).  Then you cannot get to the position you hold through a valid argument.  If you deny the right to _IP_, you deny the right to regular property as well.
> 
> All the recognition in the world won't put food on your table or a roof over your nugget.


 All science and mathematics are circumstantial in the sense that all is measured by consistency in a way of reverse engineering the structures of the known universe and its physics which have no end all equation. Life ,Liberty and property are based around the acknowledgement that you own yourself,and that you were endowed with self ownership and thus have the ability to own the product of your Time,Energy and Talents.

----------


## goldencane

> And bad for the inventor and his R&D crew.
> 
> 
> Why would I? I would invest my resources into finding good inventions, copying them, and marketing them. As a specialist who does not have to invest in R&D, I can save the most expensive costs in bringing a product to the market.
> 
> But I wouldn't. I would use the money I save from R&D on vacations to tropical islands.


Who cares what you would do? You are implying that people will not invent, which is not the case. If your competitive advantage is that you can produce more of the product, then you should be able to capitalize on that advantage. 




> I'm not screwing anybody over. Without IP laws I'm perfectly within my rights to copy the inventions of others.


Yeah, you are within your rights, but if you tell an inventor that if he works with you you will share the profits and you don't, he won't come back to you when he has a new idea. Your business model will be totally reliable on others. If that works, good for you. You are able to provide something the inventor can't.




> With expensive R&D overhead costs already incurred.
> 
> It is always easier to copy than create.


If the inventor is working for you, you have paid R&D. If he is not working for you and he spent all that money on R&D and did not have a production and distribution, that was poor planning on his part. Of course it is easier to copy, but the inventor will still benefit from being first to market. For a period of time he will be the only one with the product and he will always have the original product (which does count for quite a bit). He might not make as much money per invention or idea, but he will end up inventing more to stay on the cutting edge. In the end he will still make plenty of money if he is a good inventor.

----------


## Revolution9

> This brings us back to Mozart and the rearranging of notes. Aren't those operating systems merely a combinations of 0's and 1's?


To a mindless fool who does not understand the nature of those 0's and 1's and the amount of sheer intellectual effort to develop the chips, circuits and machine code to man code substrate, translation of data to the graphics world for display and the numerous clockwork driven parts, timers, syncronisers and others that make up the complexity of the computer that the OS lays over top of to allow human access it may just be ones and zeroes. But not to someone who understand the nature of computers in their current state.

I'll tell you what.. There are only 8 notes per octave in any given key in western music, outside of the pentatonic and blues scales. Why don't you just take those 8 notes and write us up one of yer famous Mozart sounding musical compositions anbd post it here about an hour from now.. After all, all you anti-IP folks are so effing talented that our jaws will drop with sheer unadulterated envy at the gifts of talent your knowledge of such things bestows. After all, if you know about a scale and Mozart then it is no sweat to recreate that style, just like rearranging 0's and 1's creates an OS. 

Let's up the ante on your stupid gambit..What is even cooler is that there are about 90 elements we can get a grip on or bottle up. Nearly everything in the Universe is made from those elements. Since that is so nobody should pay for anything as it is obvious those who have manipulated those elements into unique products aren't all that unique and do not deserve the fruits of that product. It is made of the same stuff everything is and like everything it should be free.

Frakkin' dimwitted philosophical stance this anti-IP marxism is. 

Rev9

----------


## CCTelander

> That makes sense, except why would Ron Paul bother researching, writing, publishing, and marketing his book if anyone with a high-tech copier can take his books sales from him without doing any of the research or writing?



When the von Mises Institute started offering ALL the books whose authors would allow it in PDF format, FOR FREE, their sales of dead tree versions increased dramatically.

Then there's the example of the fashion industry to consider:




Then there's this guy (and MANY others like him) who gives his books away:

http://craphound.com/littlebrother/about/#freedownload

Why would someone put forth the effort to produce a book, CD or whatever?

There's a decent amount of evidence to indicate that without IP they may actually be able to make MORE from the effort than they do with IP.

Even if that's not the case, they can still make more than enough to make it worth the effort.

In my own case, I've been a musician for my entire adult life, sometimes professionally, sometimes not. I STILL play, create music, and even share it with people who may be interested, even though I don't get paid for it anymore. Plenty of others would do the same.

While there's nothing at all wrong with wanting to profit from your efforts, that's CERTAINLY not the ONLY motivation to create.

----------


## goldencane

> LOL I'd love for someone to tell me that I was not born with a gift and that I do not have talent after they hear my music.


Then use that talent to continually make good music. If people rip you off, go after them like Joe Rogan did in the video posted earlier. People don't like rip offs, they like the original. If you make good music, people will buy your stuff and go see you live. If someone sings your lyrics better than you and they are more successful with them, become a better singer.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Yes, they are. So does Mozart own the arrangement of 0s and 1s? Does Microsoft own the arrangement of 0s and 1s? Does the farmer own the arrangement of 0s and 1s?


The farmer doesn't own the "arrangement" or "pattern" of matter. He owns the particular _instance_ of that arrangement matter which he manipulates and controls.

----------


## Revolution9

> Who cares what you would do? You are implying that people will not invent, which is not the case. If your competitive advantage is that you can produce more of the product, then you should be able to capitalize on that advantage. 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you are within your rights, but if you tell an inventor that if he works with you you will share the profits and you don't, he won't come back to you when he has a new idea. Your business model will be totally reliable on others. If that works, good for you. You are able to provide something the inventor can't.
> 
> 
> 
> If the inventor is working for you, you have paid R&D. If he is not working for you and he spent all that money on R&D and did not have a production and distribution, that was poor planning on his part. Of course it is easier to copy, but the inventor will still benefit from being first to market. For a period of time he will be the only one with the product and he will always have the original product (which does count for quite a bit). He might not make as much money per invention or idea, but he will end up inventing more to stay on the cutting edge. In the end he will still make plenty of money if he is a good inventor.


Let me guess. Yer a teenager or trustafarian. You do not understand how the real world works. What you say would not occur. The inventor would starve and resort to whatever work he could to eat and pay for lodgings. The stealer of his ideas would get wealthy in the meantime and wait for the next hapless inventor he could copy and get to market in quantity prior and kill that entrepreneur as well. This would lead to monopolies of all kinds.

Rev9

Rev9

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> To a mindless fool who does not understand the nature of those 0's and 1's and the amount of sheer intellectual effort to develop the chips, circuits and machine code to man code substrate, translation of data to the graphics world for display and the numerous clockwork driven parts, timers, syncronisers and others that make up the complexity of the computer that the OS lays over top of to allow human access it may just be ones and zeroes. But not to someone who understand the nature of computers in their current state.
> 
> I'll tell you what.. There are only 8 notes per octave in any given key in western music, outside of the pentatonic and blues scales. Why don't you just take those 8 notes and write us up one of yer famous Mozart sounding musical compositions anbd post it here about an hour from now.. After all, all you anti-IP folks are so effing talented that our jaws will drop with sheer unadulterated envy at the gifts of talent your knowledge of such things bestows. After all, if you know about a scale and Mozart then it is no sweat to recreate that style, just like rearranging 0's and 1's creates an OS. 
> 
> Let's up the ante on your stupid gambit..What is even cooler is that there are about 90 elements we can get a grip on or bottle up. Nearly everything in the Universe is made from those elements. Since that is so nobody should pay for anything as it is obvious those who have manipulated those elements into unique products aren't all that unique and do not deserve the fruits of that product. It is made of the same stuff everything is and like everything it should be free.
> 
> Frakkin' dimwitted philosophical stance this anti-IP marxism is. 
> 
> Rev9


 James Horner was amazing at plagiarizing Mozart.Even then it took skill to do and still James doesn't come close.Of course someone can always get away with copying if they just take an entire score and transpose it into a different key and call it their own.I HEAVILY despise James Horner, John Williams and Hans Zimmer most of all.Hans Zimmer is a POS lazy musician.

----------


## Revolution9

> Then use that talent to continually make good music. If people rip you off, go after them like Joe Rogan did in the video posted earlier. People don't like rip offs, they like the original. If you make good music, people will buy your stuff and go see you live. If someone sings your lyrics better than you and they are more successful with them, become a better singer.


I do not do live gigs anymore. The stress of setting up and tearing down and travel is not my cup of tea. Studio musicians able to keep the fruits of their labor could perform and record and make a living crafting music for the interested listener without playing live. There is alot of cost in playing live, both timewise, fuel-wise and euipment-wise.

Your view of this genre of artistry is immature in the extreme.

Rev9

----------


## Mr Tansill

> To a mindless fool who does not understand the nature of those 0's and 1's and the amount of sheer intellectual effort to develop the chips, circuits and machine code to man code substrate, translation of data to the graphics world for display and the numerous clockwork driven parts, timers, syncronisers and others that make up the complexity of the computer that the OS lays over top of to allow human access it may just be ones and zeroes. But not to someone who understand the nature of computers in their current state.
> 
> I'll tell you what.. There are only 8 notes per octave in any given key in western music, outside of the pentatonic and blues scales. Why don't you just take those 8 notes and write us up one of yer famous Mozart sounding musical compositions anbd post it here about an hour from now.. After all, all you anti-IP folks are so effing talented that our jaws will drop with sheer unadulterated envy at the gifts of talent your knowledge of such things bestows. After all, if you know about a scale and Mozart then it is no sweat to recreate that style, just like rearranging 0's and 1's creates an OS. 
> 
> Let's up the ante on your stupid gambit..What is even cooler is that there are about 90 elements we can get a grip on or bottle up. Nearly everything in the Universe is made from those elements. Since that is so nobody should pay for anything as it is obvious those who have manipulated those elements into unique products aren't all that unique and do not deserve the fruits of that product. It is made of the same stuff everything is and like everything it should be free.
> 
> Frakkin' dimwitted philosophical stance this anti-IP marxism is. 
> 
> Rev9


I'm on your side, that said...

Just to keep things factually correct, there are 12 notes per octave in the Western music scale...the pentatonic scale is a certain "pattern" of steps within it.  Jimmy Page is the pentatonic master.

Edit: I think I get what you mean...there are eight "whole" notes per octave...my B.

----------


## goldencane

> Let me guess. Yer a teenager or trustafarian. You do not understand how the real world works. What you say would not occur. The inventor would starve and resort to whatever work he could to eat and pay for lodgings. The stealer of his ideas would get wealthy in the meantime and wait for the next hapless inventor he could copy and get to market in quantity prior and kill that entrepreneur as well. This would lead to monopolies of all kinds.
> 
> Rev9
> 
> Rev9


Actually no, but you must not know how business actually works. The stealer could get rich, but he is offering what the market wants. More of the product at a cheaper price. Why should we save "hapless" inventors from their poor decision making. If they have a great idea, they can capitalize on it. If they are not able to continually come up with good ideas, they are not good inventors. An inventor's job is to continually come up with new ideas and if they can not do that they should not be inventors.

----------


## Revolution9

> When the von Mises Institute started offering ALL the books whose authors would allow it in PDF format, FOR FREE, their sales of dead tree versions increased dramatically.
> 
> Then there's the example of the fashion industry to consider:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there's this guy (and MANY others like him) who gives his books away:
> 
> http://craphound.com/littlebrother/about/#freedownload
> ...


Then there is http://www.hafpasthuman.com who makes his webbot reports available via pdf download. When noone gets a copy and tosses it onto bittorrent he makes enough to pay for the next round of data acquisition. This year his long ongoing operation was nearly shut down due to copying his pdf into free distribution channels disrespecting the licensing. Yer system fails in many real world cases. I do not care one fling for the Mises Institute as it has produced many of the stark raving lunatic minds on this thread who adhere to their anti-IP stuff like it is gospel nazi propaganda for the party or some combo of crap similar in effect..

Rev9

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Let me guess. Yer a teenager or trustafarian. You do not understand how the real world works. What you say would not occur. The inventor would starve and resort to whatever work he could to eat and pay for lodgings. The stealer of his ideas would get wealthy in the meantime and wait for the next hapless inventor he could copy and get to market in quantity prior and kill that entrepreneur as well. This would lead to monopolies of all kinds.
> 
> Rev9
> 
> Rev9


YES. _Without the name-calling, though._ 

Patenting is meant to *prevent* monopolies. Otherwise, whoever has the manufacturing capacity and no creativity whatsoever gets all the wealth, while the upstart inventor gets to live in a cardboard box under a bridge. 

Of course, we're supposed to believe that his ideas were not his own, and he should never have shared them with anyone if he really wanted them to be protected. Yet, his inventions will make the world a better place, so we don't really want him to keep his ideas to himself—oh but wait! When he shares them, we dogpile on him and strip him of everything. And he's also an altruist, which means he never wants to see any profit for his inventions and simply slaves away for the love of mankind, which we conveniently assume just so we can rationalize that our actions cannot be called theft.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Exactly. The only people who get pissed off about [IP] monopolies are the ones who can't create a competing product. They just want to copy someone else's ideas and make a fortune for themselves while spitting on the original creators.
> 
> [and yet, those who support intellectual property are the ones with an 'entitlement' complex ]


  Nonsense.  Copying and imitating have been around since creative work began.  Sometimes the copier can produce the product better and cheaper, perhaps distribute it better, etc.  More accurately, the only ones who get pissed off about IP infringement are people who just want to sit around collecting royalty checks instead of actually_ working_ and _creating_.    Ever since the beginning of creative work, it has been considered legitimate to copy others' work-it used to be considered flattery.

----------


## goldencane

> I do not do live gigs anymore. The stress of setting up and tearing down and travel is not my cup of tea. Studio musicians able to keep the fruits of their labor could perform and record and make a living crafting music for the interested listener without playing live. There is alot of cost in playing live, both timewise, fuel-wise and euipment-wise.
> 
> Your view of this genre of artistry is immature in the extreme.
> 
> Rev9


People aren't stupid. If they know you do this for a living and that you rely on cd or digital sales and they actually like you, they will pay for your stuff. If someone sings it better than you, they should be able to use that competitive advantage.

----------


## Revolution9

> I'm on your side, that said...
> 
> Just to keep things factually correct, there are 12 notes per octave in the Western music scale...the pentatonic scale is a certain "pattern" of steps within it.  Jimmy Page is the pentatonic master.
> 
> Edit: I think I get what you mean...there are eight "whole" notes per octave...my B.


I was speaking of being in key.

Best
Rev9

----------


## CCTelander

I find it hilarious that the ardent supporters of IP are continually labeling those of us who disagree as Marxists, yet with all their constant referrences to the time, energy, effort, and talent that goes into their product, they sure seem to be relying heavily on the labor theory of value.

For any who may not be aware of the fact, the labor theory of value serves as the very foundation of Marxism.

Carry on.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> More accurately, the only ones who get pissed off about IP infringement are people who just want to sit around collecting royalty checks instead of actually_ working_ and _creating_.   .


Oh come on, that makes no sense. They wouldn't be collecting royalty checks if they hadn't "worked and created" something in the first place. You're just trying to make it look like the crook who waits in the shadows to mug an inventor is the guy with awesome talents and up-standing work ethic, lol.

----------


## Revolution9

> Nonsense.  Copying and imitating have been around since creative work began.  Sometimes the copier can produce the product better and cheaper, perhaps distribute it better, etc.  More accurately, the only ones who get pissed off about IP infringement are people who just want to sit around collecting royalty checks instead of actually_ working_ and _creating_.    Ever since the beginning of creative work, it has been considered legitimate to copy others' work-it used to be considered flattery.


With your system there is no royalty cheque nor often even a first payment because the minute a version hits the market the unscrupulous will reproduce it and distribute it for free or for their profit. You kill the artist in favor of the consumer, who would have naught to consume were it not for said artist. All of these styles of anti-IP arguments are morally bereft.

Rev9

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Actually no, but you must not know how business actually works. The stealer could get rich, but he is offering what the market wants. More of the product at a cheaper price. Why should we save "hapless" inventors from their poor decision making. If they have a great idea, they can capitalize on it. If they are not able to continually come up with good ideas, they are not good inventors. An inventor's job is to continually come up with new ideas and if they can not do that they should not be inventors.


 you treat the "market" as if it is separate from any law. But to do so you must abolish all existence of the notion of "fraud". Like I said before there are those who are anarchists,and those who are not anarchists.

----------


## goldencane

> YES. _Without the name-calling, though._ 
> 
> Patenting is meant to *prevent* monopolies. Otherwise, whoever has the manufacturing capacity and no creativity whatsoever gets all the wealth, while the upstart inventor gets to live in a cardboard box under a bridge. 
> 
> Of course, we're supposed to believe that his ideas were not his own, and he should never have shared them with anyone if he really wanted them to be protected. Yet, his inventions will make the world a better place, so we don't really want him to keep his ideas to himselfoh but wait! When he shares them, we dogpile on him and strip him of everything. And he's also an altruist, which means he never wants to see any profit for his inventions and simply slaves away for the love of mankind, which we conveniently assume just so we can rationalize that our actions cannot be called theft.



Patenting creates monopolies. Y'all fail to see that if there are no inventors, the people who have that production and distribution advantage will not be able to produce and distribute. They need inventors to exist, thus they will make it so there is money to be made for the inventors. The inventors will not make as much per product, but they can create more products, thus more money overall. If I make product A, but another company comes in and produces it and distributes it better than me, I now create product B, which is even better. If patents are in place, the technological gain would not exist.

----------


## Revolution9

> I find it hilarious that the ardent supporters of IP are continually labeling those of us who disagree as Marxists, yet with all their constant referrences to the time, energy, effort, and talent that goes into their product, they sure seem to be relying heavily on the labor theory of value.
> 
> For any who may not be aware of the fact, the labor theory of value serves as the very foundation of Marxism.
> 
> Carry on.


That was a load of disingenuous hogwash and prevaricating deflection.

Next.

Rev9

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> With your system there is no royalty cheque nor often even a first payment because the minute a version hits the market the unscrupulous will reproduce it and distribute it for free or for their profit. You kill the artist in favor of the consumer, who would have naught to consume were it not for said artist. All of these styles of anti-IP arguments are morally bereft.
> 
> Rev9


 Exactly. Killing the artist and not the consumer seems to be the ongoing bias in the anti-IP side of debate. I actually believe in a balance of property rights.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> LOL I'd love for someone to tell me that I was not born with a gift and that I do not have talent after they hear my music.


"There is no such thing as talent. There is pressure."
Alfred Adler

----------


## CCTelander

> Blah, blah, blah
> 
> Rev9


Since you responded to my post within just a few minutes of my posting it, it's obvious that you didn't even bother to look over the evidence presented before attempting to "rebut" it.

You clearly have no intention of giving re4asonable consideration to any evidence that doesn't comport with your own pre-concieved ideas.

Therefore, attempting further discussion with you is obviously a waste of my own quite valuable time and other resources.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

If people are sovereign beings, then without contradiction I must assert that sovereign beings must make contractual agreements in concordance of each others sovereignty which includes the product of a sovereign being to another sovereign being. I do not disbelieve in contractual agreements,to do so is to believe there is no sovereign being in the first place.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

You don't understand how awesome I am at what I do, therefore my work is worth something, therefore I should have control of other people's property to make sure it's not like my awesome work so that only I can sell property in a similar arrangement.

^
Captain's argument in a nutshell.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> "There is no such thing as talent. There is pressure."
> Alfred Adler


 Really? Would you like to speak to the classical guitarist who gave me lessons at the age of 5 and how astonished he was when I watched him play an etude and instantly played it back at him without even reading the music?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Exactly. Killing the artist and not the consumer seems to be the ongoing bias in the anti-IP side of debate. I actually believe in a balance of property rights.


Killing the artist/consumer?   Nonsense.  Artists weren't dying for lack of IP laws before they existed.  There will always be a market for music as long as humans can hear it.  Artists who work for a living instead of sitting around collecting royalty checks will never starve.  Improvisers have always had to do this.  Ending the state-granted IP privilege would force all artists to do what Indie artists do-work their asses off like people in every other profession.

----------


## CCTelander

> If people are sovereign beings, then without contradiction I must assert that sovereign beings must make contractual agreements in concordance of each others sovereignty which includes the product of a sovereign being to another sovereign being. I do not disbelieve in contractual agreements,to do so is to believe there is no sovereign being in the first place.



And yet, NOBODY has argued in any way against legitimate contractual arrangements. So your post is nothing more than ANOTHER straw man.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> You don't understand how awesome I am at what I do, therefore my work is worth something, therefore I should have control of other people's property to make sure it's not like my awesome work so that only I can sell property in a similar arrangement.
> 
> ^
> Captain's argument in a nutshell.


 I love how every comment you make against me is condescending and unintelligent ,lacking in actual debate.

----------


## CCTelander

> Really? Would you like to speak to the classical guitarist who gave me lessons at the age of 5 and how astonished he was when I watched him play an etude and instantly played it back at him without even reading the music?



As a guitarist myself, I sit in awe at your obviously god-like talent. /sarcasm

Get over yourself.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> And yet, NOBODY has argued in any way against legitimate contractual arrangements. So your post is nothing more than ANOTHER straw man.


 Look back a few pages and see that "user" contract of property is disregarded . Once again, your side of the debate would advocate the removal of the existence of "fraud" and the action of being "fraudulent".

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I love how every comment you make against me is condescending and unintelligent ,lacking in actual debate.


I tried, but you avoided everything I and everyone else was saying and kept repeating your nonsense over and over and calling people Marxists.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> As a guitarist myself, I sit in awe at your obviously god-like talent. /sarcasm
> 
> Get over yourself.


 He said that talent comes under pressure, and I gave him a clear rebuttal.I could care less what you think of me, I am defending an idea.

----------


## CCTelander

> Look back a few pages and see that "user" contract of property is disregarded . Once again, your side of the debate would advocate the removal of the existence of "fraud" and the action of being "fraudulent".



You must have missed the qualifier "legitimate."

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Really? Would you like to speak to the classical guitarist who gave me lessons at the age of 5 and how astonished he was when I watched him play an etude and instantly played it back at him without even reading the music?


Sure.  I'd also tell it to my composition instructor was astonished that I could produce more an elaborate quartet in less than a week and to my Russian teacher who was astonished that I had taught myself everything she had originally planned to teach me.   "Talent" is just another name for a lot of work and discipline.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I tried, but you avoided everything I and everyone else was saying and kept repeating your nonsense over and over and calling people Marxists.


 What is your view on property when it is given to another person with user agreement/contract?  

What are your views on "fraud"?

----------


## CCTelander

> Sure.  I'd also tell it to my composition instructor was astonished that I could produce more an elaborate quartet in less than a week and to my Russian teacher who was astonished that I had taught myself everything she had originally planned to teach me.   "Talent" is just another name for a lot of work and discipline.



99% persperation
1% inspiration

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Sure.  I'd also tell it to my composition instructor was astonished that I could produce more an elaborate quartet in less than a week and to my Russian teacher who was astonished that I had taught myself everything she had originally planned to teach me.   "Talent" is just another name for a lot of work and discipline.


 Yes ,that explains why there are so many Mozart's and Beethovens in the world.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> "Talent" is just another name for a lot of work and discipline.


PRECISELY.

And an interest which drives it.

----------


## goldencane

> you treat the "market" as if it is separate from any law. But to do so you must abolish all existence of the notion of "fraud". Like I said before there are those who are anarchists,and those who are not anarchists.


I'm not an anarchist, but that does not matter. Your statement is false. Fraud would still exist. Fraud is intentional deception, we have already determined that. If you write a piece of music and I copy it then say it is mine, that is fraud. If I copy your lyrics and say they aren't mine, I broke IP laws, but I did not commit fraud. If I wrote the same lyrics as yours, unknowing of yours and claimed they were mine, I broke IP laws, but did not commit fraud.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> He said that talent comes under pressure, and I gave him a clear rebuttal.


Alfred Adler said that, not me.  And you didn't give me a rebuttal, you just stated your teacher's subjective opinion.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> PRECISELY.
> 
> And an interest which drives it.


Fallacy, you are radical because you dismiss actual natural born talent.
Talent:
1.a special natural ability or aptitude: a talent for drawing.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes ,that explains why there are so many Mozart's and Beethovens in the world.


No, it explains why there are so few-not many are willing to put the work in.  Mozart and Beethoven both worked their ASSES off.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Alfred Adler said that, not me.  And you didn't give me a rebuttal, you just stated your teacher's subjective opinion.


 And you also gave me an opinion  touche

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> No, it explains why there are so few-not many are willing to put the work in.  Mozart and Beethoven both worked their ASSES off.


 I thought you put a lot of work and effort into music, and you learned everything your teacher knew. Where is your 9th symphony sir beethoven jr?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Fallacy, you are radical because you dismiss actual natural born talent.
> Talent:
> 1.a special natural ability or aptitude: a talent for drawing.


Everyone has natural ability or aptitude to one degree or another.  Some simply take the time to develop it better than others.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I'm not an anarchist, but that does not matter. Your statement is false. Fraud would still exist. Fraud is intentional deception, we have already determined that. If you write a piece of music and I copy it then say it is mine, that is fraud. If I copy your lyrics and say they aren't mine, I broke IP laws, but I did not commit fraud. If I wrote the same lyrics as yours, unknowing of yours and claimed they were mine, I broke IP laws, but did not commit fraud.


So, I steal your vehicle and say that it is mine, it's fraud.

So, if I steal your vehicle, and say that it is not mine, everything is just fine. 

I realize this depends on what each side of this debate views as 'property', but that's what I was referring to in regard to different planes of debate several pages back. The IP debate always results in long threads with both sides speaking at each other like we're using different root words as the basis of our language. It's no wonder we can't understand each other, really. It's everyone's fault and no one's fault at the same time.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I thought you put a lot of work and effort into music, and you learned everything your teacher knew. Where is your 9th symphony sir beethoven jr?


You can hear my symphonies, concerti, etc. on my website-linked in my sig.  Beethoven was ~54 when the 9th was written.  I'll probably have at least that many done when I'm that old.  I've already done 2.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> What is your view on property when it is given to another person with user agreement/contract?  
> 
> What are your views on "fraud"?


This is a joke, right?

Why would I respond when you are just going to avoid everything I (and others) say and yell "fraud" and "marxist" over and over and post that YouTube.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

(Besides both of those have already been answered further back in this thread).

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Everyone has natural ability or aptitude to one degree or another.  Some simply take the time to develop it better than others.


 Really? What socialist school taught you that?

----------


## heavenlyboy34



----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Fallacy, you are radical because you dismiss actual natural born talent.
> Talent:
> 1.a special natural ability or aptitude: a talent for drawing.


No I don't.

"Natural born talent" is an interest in a topic which drives people to learn about how to be skillful. Some people are able to naturally learn faster than others about a skill. These people who combine drive and ease of learning are "naturally talented" people.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> No I don't.
> 
> "Natural born talent" is an interest in a topic which drives people to learn about how to be skillful. Some people are able to naturally learn faster than others about a skill. These people who combine drive and ease of learning are "naturally talented" people.


 Really haha. This is getting funny

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Really? What socialist school taught you that?


Socialist?   Enough the silly rhetoric, please.  Nobody "taught" me that-it's self-evident.  Even a person who has never played a note can become a virtuoso if they put in the time and effort.  I didn't touch an instrument till I was 16, and by the time I took composition lessons in college, I knew enough to get straight A's and was writing pieces too long for my teachers to grade for lack of time.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Really haha. This is getting funny


Yes you are.  lolz

----------


## CCTelander

> Really haha. This is getting funny



Perhaps.

Your arrogance, however, is no laughing matter.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Socialist?   Enough the silly rhetoric, please.  Nobody "taught" me that-it's self-evident.  Even a person who has never played a note can become a virtuoso if they put in the time and effort.  I didn't touch an instrument till I was 16, and by the time I took composition lessons in college, I knew enough to get straight A's.


no seriously you believe that all people are equal, and should be equal on every level. Not only in the ownership of property, but in the ownership of talents. You believe that all people are equally the same and thus make me laugh at your ideology.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Perhaps.
> 
> Your arrogance, however, is no laughing matter.


 Did I hurt your feelings,I'm sorry lol

----------


## CCTelander

> no seriously you believe that all people are equal, and should be equal on every level. Not only in the ownership of property, but in the ownership of talents. You believe that all people are equally the same and thus make me laugh at your ideology.



Wow.

You got ALL of that from just a few short posts on an internet forum?

You're not only a guitar GOD, you must also be psychic.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Wow.
> 
> You got ALL of that from just a few short posts on an internet forum?
> 
> You're not only a guitar GOD, you must also be psychic.


 I didn't call myself a guitar god, but if you'd like to say that then you must be psychic

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> no seriously you believe that all people are equal, and should be equal on every level. Not only in the ownership of property, but in the ownership of talents. You believe that all people are equally the same and thus make me laugh at your ideology.


I hope you're having fun ignorantly laughing to yourself about the strawmen you create.

----------


## goldencane

> So, I steal your vehicle and say that it is mine, it's fraud.
> 
> So, if I steal your vehicle, and say that it is not mine, everything is just fine. 
> 
> I realize this depends on what each side of this debate views as 'property', but that's what I was referring to in regard to different planes of debate several pages back. The IP debate always results in long threads with both sides speaking at each other like we're using different root words as the basis of our language. It's no wonder we can't understand each other, really. It's everyone's fault and no one's fault at the same time.


To me, property must be tangible. Ideas and knowledge are intangible and they are not limited by resources. Vehicles are tangible, so as we have discussed already, if I take your car, you no longer have a car. Ideas and knowledge are not exclusive to one person at one time, thus one person can not be granted sole ownership to those ideas or knowledge.

----------


## guitarlifter

> #respect
> 
> Anyway. He has the right to his music, the same why I have the right to my property. But as soon as I sell it, it seizes to become my sole property. What you are implying is that I am not allowed to share my property with anyone else. Thats an abridgment of my rights.


No, you are misconstruing what he means.  You can most certainly share your ideas with others.

----------


## r3volution

the DMCA is the only thing about IPR that i think is bull$#@! . IP crimes are a civil matter not criminal .

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I hope you're having fun ignorantly laughing to yourself about the strawmen you create.


 I am basking in the thought

----------


## noneedtoaggress

So you're a troll then. I see.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> So you're a troll then. I see.


 I advocate the protection of private property including the product of my TIME ,ENERGY,and TALENT. I find it highly entertaining that you guys take it so insulting when I put you on the same level of socialist because you perpetuate the idea of "talent" being equal to all people,and property being "equal" to all people.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

You don't know what property or talent is, and you don't understand the other side's argument at all.

You just arrogantly go along praising yourself, repeating nonsense which you ignore criticisms of, bleating about how the opposition is something it's not because that's the only way you know how to argue against it.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

... and then you giggle to yourself about how "awesome" you are.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> You don't know what property or talent is, and you don't understand the other side's argument at all.
> 
> You just arrogantly go along praising yourself, repeating nonsense which you ignore criticisms of, bleating about how the opposition is something it's not because that's the only way you know how to argue against it.


 Now that is grossly exaggerated. Our very debate is over property and you tell me that I don't know what property is as if you are absolute in telling the world what property is. I asked you to define fraud and you keep throwing a link at me. How simple a question it is ,Ive asked a few others and received an answer but yet I am still waiting to get your answer and opinion.

----------


## goldencane

> Now that is grossly exaggerated. Our very debate is over property and you tell me that I don't know what property is as if you are absolute in telling the world what property is. I asked you to define fraud and you keep throwing a link at me. How simple a question it is ,Ive asked a few others and received an answer but yet to get your answer and opinion.


Can you provide one common denominator or one definition that describes what property truly is? What must something contain for it to be considered property?

----------


## Revolution9

> Socialist?   Enough the silly rhetoric, please.  Nobody "taught" me that-it's self-evident.  Even a person who has never played a note can become a virtuoso if they put in the time and effort.  I didn't touch an instrument till I was 16, and by the time I took composition lessons in college, I knew enough to get straight A's and was writing pieces too long for my teachers to grade for lack of time.


This is a fallacy on your part. Many people cannot even understand music. I teach guitar and even the most diligent struggle along just to play a simple riff like Day Tripper. Yankee Doodle is even tougher. I will not even start on Bach violin concerto's to show them chord arpeggio windings until they can run all scale modes on the neck. Many folks would not even understand do-re-mi no matter how much you taught them. Others have no spatial transference talent and would be useless as visual artists no matter how many years of study they were fruitlessly forced to endure.

All anti-IP arguments originate in fallacy in this thread or abrogate definitions and replace them with custom constructions.

Rev9

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You don't know what property or talent is, and you don't understand the other side's argument at all.
> 
> You just arrogantly go along praising yourself, repeating nonsense which you ignore criticisms of, bleating about how the opposition is something it's not because that's the only way you know how to argue against it.


+rep

----------


## low preference guy

> Now the big question behind this debate is :
> 
> Who here is an anarchist?
> and what kind of anarchist if so?
> 
> I am not an anarchist.


That's not important. I'm not an anarchist.

----------


## BarryDonegan

Consumers will always prefer granting credibility to those who are first to market.

----------


## Revolution9

> Can you provide one common denominator or one definition that describes what property truly is? What must something contain for it to be considered property?


The first part of the word is prop. This is a constructed object. The second part -er- says energy in-tensed..and the final part -ty- indicates integration and strength as to why something is./ The inherent meaning is an object one has constructed and thereby has and retains ownership in.

Rev9

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Can you provide one common denominator or one definition that describes what property truly is? What must something contain for it to be considered property?


individual human being is sovereign = owns self
individual human being owns self= ownership of time,energy and talents
individual human being owning time,energy and talents= ownership of what is produced by time,energy,and talents
individual owns product=property 

property is mutually given, and with contractual agreement or agreements depending on the actual contract between 2 property owners.To say that no contract is legitimate between 2 property owners is to debase their sovereignty ,or to debase 1 or the other persons sovereignty.

fraud :
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> no seriously you believe that all people are equal, and should be equal on every level. Not only in the ownership of property, but in the ownership of talents. You believe that all people are equally the same and thus make me laugh at your ideology.


 I didn't say that.  You inferred it.  People are only equal before the law.  In every other regard, people are individuals.

I am the one arguing for private property rights here-you are not.  You are arguing for a form of serfdom-that is, one doesn't _really_ own the property, only the physical manifestation of it.  This is pretty much textbook mercantilism.  You really ought not laugh, as you are the joke here.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I didn't say that.  You inferred it.  People are only equal before the law.  In every other regard, people are individuals.
> 
> I am the one arguing for private property rights here-you are not.  You are arguing for a form of serfdom-that is, one doesn't _really_ own the property, only the physical manifestation of it.  This is pretty much textbook mercantilism.  You really ought not laugh, as you are the joke here.


 you clearly said everybody has the ability to achieve any talent. Don't back peddle

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> individual human being is sovereign = owns self
> individual human being owns self= ownership of time,energy and talents
> individual human being owning time,energy and talents= ownership of what is produced by time,energy,and talents
> individual owns product=property


Correct.  And when one sells or transmits/broadcasts his property, he no longer claims any right to it.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Correct.  And when one sells or transmits/broadcasts his property, he no longer claims any right to it.


 Wrong.

When a contractual agreement is made between 2 sovereign property owners that contractual agreement must be upheld for it to be consent. Otherwise it can become fraud. To debase the contractual agreement is to void the very existence of property and contradict the sovereignty.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Property is an institution humans use to reduce conflict in regards to use-rights for things which are economically scarce.

----------


## CCTelander

> You don't know what property or talent is, and you don't understand the other side's argument at all.
> 
> You just arrogantly go along praising yourself, repeating nonsense which you ignore criticisms of, bleating about how the opposition is something it's not because that's the only way you know how to argue against it.



That's pretty much my take on his behavior.

But hey, the arrogant, condescending, and insulting behavior displayed by Cap and Rev9 probably does as much, if not more to convince people that IP is bogus as any rational argument I could post. So I say let's hope they keep it up!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Wrong.
> 
> When a contractual agreement is made between 2 sovereign property owners that contractual agreement must be upheld for it to be consent. Otherwise it can become fraud. To debase the contractual agreement is to void the very existence of property and contradict the sovereignty.


Non sequitur.  There is no contract implied in simple exchange or consumption of creative work.  As was pointed out earlier in the thread, the "contract" argument is tenuous at best.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's pretty much my take on his behavior.
> 
> But hey, the arrogant, condescending, and insulting behavior displayed by Cap and Rev9 probably does as much, if not more to convince people that IP is bogus as any rational argument I could post. So I say let's hope they keep it up!


+1  I like your positive slant on it.

----------


## CCTelander

> +1  I like your positive slant on it.



Hey, I try to look at the bright side of everything!

----------


## KingRobbStark

> To a mindless fool who does not understand the nature of those 0's and 1's and the amount of sheer intellectual effort to develop the chips, circuits and machine code to man code substrate, translation of data to the graphics world for display and the numerous clockwork driven parts, timers, syncronisers and others that make up the complexity of the computer that the OS lays over top of to allow human access it may just be ones and zeroes. But not to someone who understand the nature of computers in their current state.
> 
> I'll tell you what.. There are only 8 notes per octave in any given key in western music, outside of the pentatonic and blues scales. Why don't you just take those 8 notes and write us up one of yer famous Mozart sounding musical compositions anbd post it here about an hour from now.. After all, all you anti-IP folks are so effing talented that our jaws will drop with sheer unadulterated envy at the gifts of talent your knowledge of such things bestows. After all, if you know about a scale and Mozart then it is no sweat to recreate that style, just like rearranging 0's and 1's creates an OS. 
> 
> Let's up the ante on your stupid gambit..What is even cooler is that there are about 90 elements we can get a grip on or bottle up. Nearly everything in the Universe is made from those elements. Since that is so nobody should pay for anything as it is obvious those who have manipulated those elements into unique products aren't all that unique and do not deserve the fruits of that product. It is made of the same stuff everything is and like everything it should be free.
> 
> Frakkin' dimwitted philosophical stance this anti-IP marxism is. 
> 
> Rev9


I'm a programmer. We were debating *fundamentals* . You should either have something constructive to say or *shut the $#@! up*.

----------


## Travlyr

> That's pretty much my take on his behavior.
> 
> But hey, the arrogant, condescending, and insulting behavior displayed by Cap and Rev9 probably does as much, if not more to convince people that IP is bogus as any rational argument I could post. So I say let's hope they keep it up!


Or maybe not. Stealing from innovation for R&D is not liberty oriented. The inconsistency of the Austrian school is interesting. Austrians pretend that ignoring important information is useful in winning converts. But it is not. Someday the Austrians will have to debate honestly. I'm not holding my breath.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> That's pretty much my take on his behavior.
> 
> But hey, the arrogant, condescending, and insulting behavior displayed by Cap and Rev9 probably does as much, if not more to convince people that IP is bogus as any rational argument I could post. So I say let's hope they keep it up!


 Irony of arrogance in your statement.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Non sequitur.  There is no contract implied in simple exchange or consumption of creative work.  As was pointed out earlier in the thread, the "contract" argument is tenuous at best.


 Yes you are very good at endorsing "contract" between property owners until it involves an actual contract that you dislike.Nobody is forcing you into a contract and if you don't like the property simply don't buy or agree to the contract of it from another property owner.

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm a programmer. We were debating *fundamentals* . You should either have something constructive to say or *shut the $#@! up*.


Don't you just love this tactic. If only the opposition would STFU, then we would be the winners! Rev is actually talking about reality in the real world. I completely understand his position. A little self-refection would do you good.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Don't you just love this tactic. If only the opposition would STFU, then we would be the winners! Rev is actually talking about reality in the real world. I completely understand his position. A little self-refection would do you good.


Insulting people is hardly constructive. If his argument is sound like you claim, then he wouldn't result in calling people idiots after every word.

----------


## CCTelander

You know, I remember back in the early to mid 70s, when cassette tapes and tape players were becoming really popular. The record companies were all screaming like Chicken Little that the sky was falling, the "allowing" people to freely record LPs onto cassette so they could play them in their cars, or share them with friends, would spell the end of the recording industry.

All the same old arguments were trotted out. Nobody would actually buy LPs any more, they'd just record them from friends. Record company profits would take such a hit that no new music would be made, it just wouldn't be profitable. etc. etc.

What actually happened was quite the reverse. Profits actually went up as a result of people using cassettes to record and share music.

These guys arguing for IP have that same Chicken Little attitude as the record companies back then. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

Well, it's not. And IP is STILL bogus!

----------


## CaptainAmerica

If I really wanted to be arrogant I would just say this :
If you hate contractual agreements so much to the point that a person cannot enter a contract with user agreements then what is stopping you from creating your own economy and own nation somewhere else? Simply put, anarchism fails and does not work.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I'm a programmer. We were debating *fundamentals* . You should either have something constructive to say or *shut the $#@! up*.


Dude, we have been contributing many sound arguments against your anti-ip position.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> You know, I remember back in the early to mid 70s, when cassette tapes and tape players were becoming really popular. The record companies were all screaming like Chicken Little that the sky was falling, the "allowing" people to freely record LPs onto cassette so they could play them in their cars, or share them with friends, would spell the end of the recording industry.
> 
> All the same old arguments were trotted out. Nobody would actually buy LPs any more, they'd just record them from friends. Record company profits would take such a hit that no new music would be made, it just wouldn't be profitable. etc. etc.
> 
> What actually happened was quite the reverse. Profits actually went up as a result of people using cassettes to record and share music.
> 
> These guys arguing for IP have that same Chicken Little attitude as the record companies back then. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
> 
> Well, it's not. And IP is STILL bogus!


 Clearly you are sidestepping the issue I bring to the table. You ignore the subject of fraud just like the others who keep dismissing "fraud" as a non-relating topic.

----------


## CCTelander

> Or maybe not. Stealing from innovation for R&D is not liberty oriented. The inconsistency of the Austrian school is interesting. Austrians pretend that ignoring important information is useful in winning converts. But it is not. Someday the Austrians will have to debate honestly. I'm not holding my breath.



There is no theft. The original "owner" is not, in any way, deprived of his use of his innovation.

The rest of your comments are the same bull$#@! ad hominem that you've been peddling a lot around here lately.

Save it for the rubes. Nobody with 2 functioning brain cells is buying.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> You know, I remember back in the early to mid 70s, when cassette tapes and tape players were becoming really popular. The record companies were all screaming like Chicken Little that the sky was falling, the "allowing" people to freely record LPs onto cassette so they could play them in their cars, or share them with friends, would spell the end of the recording industry.
> 
> All the same old arguments were trotted out. Nobody would actually buy LPs any more, they'd just record them from friends. Record company profits would take such a hit that no new music would be made, it just wouldn't be profitable. etc. etc.
> 
> What actually happened was quite the reverse. Profits actually went up as a result of people using cassettes to record and share music.
> 
> These guys arguing for IP have that same Chicken Little attitude as the record companies back then. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
> 
> Well, it's not. And IP is STILL bogus!


 Clearly you are sidestepping the issue I bring to the table. You ignore the subject of fraud just like the others who keep dismissing "fraud" as a non-relating topic.

----------


## CCTelander

> Clearly you are sidestepping the issue I bring to the table. You ignore the subject of fraud just like the others who keep dismissing "fraud" as a non-relating topic.



I haven't ignored the issue of fraud. You're simply defining it incorrectly. There is no fraud in what I'm actually advocating.

----------


## Travlyr

> Insulting people is hardly constructive. If his argument is sound like you claim, then he wouldn't result in calling people idiots after every word.


Oh, you are not the first to try and shut-up opposing views. The First Amendment specifically. Your opposition has very valid points. I don't blame you for wanting to shut them up, but open minds want to know why you want to shut down the debate.

----------


## low preference guy

> Clearly you are sidestepping the issue I bring to the table. You ignore the subject of fraud just like the others who keep dismissing "fraud" as a non-relating topic.


No, you're ignoring people when they show you why you're wrong. I've already replied to your points about fraud many pages before.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Dude, we have been contributing many sound arguments against your anti-ip position.


His reply didn't address the issue, then followed with his usual ad hominem attacks.

----------


## CCTelander

> His reply didn't address the issue, then followed with his usual ad hominem attacks.



Well, when ad hominem's all you've really got...

----------


## Revolution9

> I'm a programmer. We were debating *fundamentals* . You should either have something constructive to say or *shut the $#@! up*.


Don't like your intrepid little whitewashes to be nailed to the wall like the balderdash it is is what I get from your lashing out. I created this thread that you are drooldonkeying in. You must be a really good programmer to have pulled your computer OS analogy out of your lower fundament.

Rev9

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Oh, you are not the first to try and shut-up opposing views. The First Amendment specifically. Your opposition has very valid points. I don't blame you for wanting to shut them up, but open minds want to know why you want to shut down the debate.


I didn't want him to shut down the debate. Why would I? I'm having fun. What I want to shut down are his ad hominem attacks. Even if he had valid arguments, those attacks hamper their effectiveness.

----------


## Travlyr

> There is no theft. The original "owner" is not, in any way, deprived of his use of his innovation.
> 
> The rest of your comments are the same bull$#@! ad hominem that you've been peddling a lot around here lately.
> 
> Save it for the rubes. Nobody with 2 functioning brain cells is buying.


 What are you talking about? When have I used an ad hominem?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I completely understand his position. A little self-refection would do you good.


The problem with his argument is that he's saying putting labor into something is sufficient enough to define it as property.

It's not.

----------


## Travlyr

> I didn't want him to shut down the debate. Why would I? I'm having fun. What I want to shut down are his ad hominem attacks. Even if he had valid arguments, those attacks hamper their effectiveness.


His points are valid. Ignoring them is silly.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Well, when ad hominem's all you've really got...


 when attacking other people and calling them arrogant is all you got.....So far I have pointed out your hypocrisy over and over.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Don't like your intrepid little whitewashes to be nailed to the wall like the balderdash it is is what I get from your lashing out. I created this thread that you are drooldonkeying in. You must be a really good programmer to have pulled your computer OS analogy out of your lower fundament.
> 
> Rev9


You must be proud. Are you going to patent that too? 

I can say that I will be better than you will ever be, but that would be an understatement.

----------


## Revolution9

> His reply didn't address the issue, then followed with his usual ad hominem attacks.


I doubt my rebuttal to your retarded analogy of what an OS is is hardly non-topical nor ad hominem. If the shoe fit your foot in my spiel then wear it. But don't blame me you tried it on.

You can pretend all you want that IP advocates have not made points, including myself. The issue is I refuse to repeat myself ad nauseum or play in your dead end alleys where the counterpoint is not recognized when you anti-IP folks launch into your next set of fallacious shots.



Rev9

----------


## Travlyr

> The problem with his argument is that he's saying putting labor into something is sufficient enough to define it as property.
> 
> It's not.


All he is asking for is compensation for his effort and talent. It is justified.

----------


## CCTelander

> What are you talking about? When have I used an ad hominem?



Constantly implying that anarchists, and now Austrians are being intellectually dishonest is, in fact, ad hominem. You embody it in phrases like "Someday the Austrians will have to debate honestly. I'm not holding my breath."

Now, let's see how intellectually honest YOU actually are. Gonna own up to it THIS time?

*I'M* not holding *MY* breath, but I've been surprised before.

----------


## low preference guy

> All he is asking for is compensation for his effort and talent. It is justified.


It's not justified if it violates other people's rights.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

I protest this thread

----------


## KingRobbStark

> His points are valid. Ignoring them is silly.


No one is ignoring them, but when someone addresses them he refuses to follow them up. That should tell you something.

----------


## CCTelander

> All he is asking for is compensation for his effort and talent. It is justified.



There's that labor theory of value rearing its ugly head again.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> I doubt my rebuttal to your retarded analogy of what an OS is is hardly non-topical nor ad hominem. If the shoe fit your foot in my spiel then wear it. But don't blame me you tried it on.
> 
> You can pretend all you want that IP advocates have not made points, including myself. The issue is I refuse to repeat myself ad nauseum or play in your dead end alleys where the counterpoint is not recognized when you anti-IP folks launch into your next set of fallacious shots.
> 
> 
> 
> Rev9


The foundation of an OS is exactly like I described. 

I've never said you haven't made any points. It doesn't mean they are right.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> All he is asking for is compensation for his effort and talent. It is justified.


Great. I think people should be compensated for their efforts as well.

Is "IP" necessary for that to happen? No.

Does "IP" infringe on _real_ property rights? Yes.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Originally Posted by goldencane 
> Can you provide one common denominator or one definition that describes what property truly is? What must something contain for it to be considered property?


individual human being is sovereign = owns self
individual human being owns self= ownership of time,energy and talents
individual human being owning time,energy and talents= ownership of what is produced by time,energy,and talents
individual owns product=property

property is mutually given, and with contractual agreement or agreements depending on the actual contract between 2 property owners.To say that no contract is legitimate between 2 property owners is to debase their sovereignty ,or to debase 1 or the other persons sovereignty.

fraud :
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities. 




> heavenlyboy34 said:And when one sells or transmits/broadcasts his property, he no longer claims any right to it.


Wrong.

When a contractual agreement is made between 2 sovereign property owners that contractual agreement must be upheld for it to be consent. Otherwise it can become fraud. To debase the contractual agreement is to void the very existence of property and contradict the sovereignty. 




> heavenlyboy34 replies:Non sequitur. There is no contract implied in simple exchange or consumption of creative work. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, the "contract" argument is tenuous at best.


See the pattern?

----------


## Revolution9

> You must be proud. Are you going to patent that too? 
> 
> I can say that I will be better than you will ever be, but that would be an understatement.


Bring it on smart ass. I have a ton of projects I can stack against anything you have for complexity and professionality. Whatcha got? I am not one to shoot my mouth off about accomplishments unless challenged in such and then I go all in. You got games? You got apps? You got 3D game engine scripting? PhysX? Maybe shaders? Can you create procedural animations? AI programming? pathfinding?

Whatcha got smartass? Got a link?

Rev9

----------


## low preference guy

> Bring it on smart ass. I have a ton of projects I can stack against anything you have for complexity and professionality. Whatcha got? I am not one to shoot my mouth off about accomplishments unless challenged in such and then I go all in. You got games? You got apps? You got 3D game engine scripting? PhysX? Maybe shaders? Can you create procedural animations? AI programming? pathfinding?
> 
> Whatcha got smartass? Got a link?
> 
> Rev9


come on guys, who has the bigger dick between you two is off topic.

----------


## CCTelander

> individual human being is sovereign = owns self
> individual human being owns self= ownership of time,energy and talents
> individual human being owning time,energy and talents= ownership of what is produced by time,energy,and talents
> individual owns product=property
> 
> property is mutually given, and with contractual agreement or agreements depending on the actual contract between 2 property owners.To say that no contract is legitimate between 2 property owners is to debase their sovereignty ,or to debase 1 or the other persons sovereignty.
> 
> fraud :
> 1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
> ...



Once again you misuse the term "fraud."

To fail to live up to the terms of a VALID contract constitutes breach of contract, NOT fraud.

Fraud is to profit unjustly at the expense of another BY MEANS OF DECEIT.

Two completely different things.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Once again you misuse the term "fraud."
> 
> To fail to live up to the terms of a VALID contract constitutes breach of contract, NOT fraud.
> 
> Fraud is to profit unjustly at the expense of another BY MEANS OF DECEIT.
> 
> Two completely different things.


*fraudNoun/frôd/
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

fraud·u·lentAdjective/ˈfrôjələnt/
1. Obtained, done by, or involving deception, esp. criminal deception: "the fraudulent copying of American software".
2. Unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities. 
*
You break the contractual agreement and you have become fraudulent in your obtaining of property.

----------


## Travlyr

> Great. I think people should be compensated for their efforts as well.


I would like to know how you would compensate an inventor for R&D. Please share.



> Is "IP" necessary for that to happen? No.


Perhaps. Share your idea on how an inventor/creator will receive just compensation for their efforts if not for IP.




> Does "IP" infringe on _real_ property rights? Yes.


Baloney.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

[QUOTE=CaptainAmerica;3510989]individual human being is sovereign = owns self
individual human being owns self= ownership of time,energy and talents
individual human being owning time,energy and talents= ownership of what is produced by time,energy,and talents
individual owns product=property

property is mutually given, and with contractual agreement or agreements depending on the actual contract between 2 property owners.To say that no contract is legitimate between 2 property owners is to debase their sovereignty ,or to debase 1 or the other persons sovereignty.

fraud :
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities. 


Wrong.

When a contractual agreement is made between 2 sovereign property owners that contractual agreement must be upheld for it to be consent. Otherwise it can become fraud. To debase the contractual agreement is to void the very existence of property and contradict the sovereignty. 



*See the pattern?[*/QUOTE]
Yes.  You keep making factually incorrect and logically faulty statements, and I keep correcting you.  How many more pages would you like to do this?

----------


## Travlyr

> There's that labor theory of value rearing its ugly head again.


To quote the great Austrians --- STRAW MAN!

----------


## CCTelander

[QUOTE=heavenlyboy34;3511003]


> individual human being is sovereign = owns self
> individual human being owns self= ownership of time,energy and talents
> individual human being owning time,energy and talents= ownership of what is produced by time,energy,and talents
> individual owns product=property
> 
> property is mutually given, and with contractual agreement or agreements depending on the actual contract between 2 property owners.To say that no contract is legitimate between 2 property owners is to debase their sovereignty ,or to debase 1 or the other persons sovereignty.
> 
> fraud :
> 1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
> ...



I'm betting he'll keep it forever.

For my part, it's already getting a bit tiresome.

----------


## CCTelander

> To quote the great Austrians --- STRAW MAN!



Except, of course, that it isn't.

Better luck next time.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Bring it on smart ass. I have a ton of projects I can stack against anything you have for complexity and professionality. Whatcha got? I am not one to shoot my mouth off about accomplishments unless challenged in such and then I go all in. You got games? You got apps? You got 3D game engine scripting? PhysX? Maybe shaders? Can you create procedural animations? AI programming? pathfinding?
> 
> Whatcha got smartass? Got a link?
> 
> Rev9


WOW. Its like reading the ramblings of a clown. I'm currently on my 3rd semester in MIT with a major in Physics, and a minor in computer science. As for programs, and apps. No, I have not created any, but unlike you I do know the basic building blocks of every program. But you seem to disagree. What do you have? I don't want to brag either, but it doesn't mean I dont like it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Perhaps. Share your idea on how an inventor/creator will receive just compensation for their efforts if not for IP.


The old fashioned way-bring things to market and sell them.  Continue innovating.  Garner loyal customers.  Earn $.  In the performing arts, play concerts, plays, etc.  Sell recordings of live shows after the show.  IOW, CREATE and add VALUE instead of resting on your laurels and getting mechanicals checks.  Everyone else in the private sector has to work for a living.  Why should you get an exception just because you fancy yourself an _artiste_?

----------


## CCTelander

> *WOW. Its like reading the ramblings of a clown.* I'm currently on my 3rd semester in MIT with a major in Physics, and a minor in computer science. As for programs, and apps. No, I have not created any, but unlike you I do know the basic building blocks of every program. But you seem to disagree. What do you have? I don't want to brag either, but it doesn't mean I dont like it.



I insist, sir, that you recant the statement I've bolded above.

It's an insult to self-respecting clowns everywhere.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> WOW. Its like reading the ramblings of a clown. I'm currently on my 3rd semester in MIT with a major in Physics, and a minor in computer science. As for programs, and apps. No, I have not created any, but unlike you I do know the basic building blocks of every program. But you seem to disagree. What do you have? I don't want to brag either, but it doesn't mean I dont like it.


 too bad you can't get a refund

----------


## Travlyr

> The old fashioned way-bring things to market and sell them.  Continue innovating.  Garner loyal customers.  Earn $.  In the performing arts, play concerts, plays, etc.  Sell recordings of live shows after the show.  IOW, CREATE and add VALUE instead of resting on your laurels and getting mechanicals checks.


That is ONLY possible in an honest system. As long as counterfeiters are allowed to rule... forget it.

----------


## Travlyr

> too bad you can't get a refund


No doubt.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

Hey KingRobbStark can I have a copy of all your work and research and development? I want the market to decide between us

----------


## KingRobbStark

> too bad you can't get a refund


Good one...$#@!.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Hey KingRobbStark can I have a copy of all your work and research and development? I want the market to decide between us


My first research program is this summer, but I'll definitely take a look at yours to raise my self esteem.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> I insist, sir, that you recant the statement I've bolded above.
> 
> It's an insult to self-respecting clowns everywhere.


lol +rep

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> My first research program is this summer, but I'll definitely take a look at yours to raise my self esteem.


 Why can't I have a copy of your unpublished work? Don't you want the market to decide between us?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I would like to know how you would compensate an inventor for R&D. Please share.


Pay him?




> Perhaps. Share your idea on how an inventor/creator will receive just compensation for their efforts if not for IP.


What is "just" compensation? Are we basing value on his labor?
You're just asking me to _centrally plan_ the market into a scenario that meets your satisfaction.

Who will feed the poor if we don't have a robust state welfare system?




> Baloney.


If I claim ownership over a pattern, IP says that someone can't use their own physical property to assemble in it in that pattern.
How is that baloney?

----------


## low preference guy

> Why can't I have a copy of your unpublished work? Don't you want the market to decide between us?


He'll probably ask you to pay him money before giving it to you. You see how he can profit without IP?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That is ONLY possible in an honest system. As long as counterfeiters are allowed to rule... forget it.


What "counterfeiters"?  Let's get the dictionary-
*coun·ter·feit*   [koun-ter-fit]  Show IPA 
adjective 1. made in imitation so as to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as genuine; not genuine; forged: counterfeit dollar bills.

A person who copies a piece of created material is not "counterfeiting".  He is simply copying a piece of his property.  Even if he sells it, it isn't counterfeit, because, as you can see, that wouldn't meet the definition of the word.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> i insist, sir, that you recant the statement i've bolded above.
> 
> It's an insult to self-respecting clowns everywhere.


lmao!!! :d

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Why can't I have a copy of your unpublished work? Don't you want the market to decide between us?


I don't have any. But do mind sharing yours?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I don't have any. But do mind sharing yours?


of course I wont share it,its my IP,unless I do decide to donate charity.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> of course I wont share it,its my IP,unless I do decide to donate charity.


Typical.

----------


## Travlyr

> Pay him?


Pay him how... by cheating him out of his R&D?




> What is "just" compensation?


Fair pay for an honest day's work. Whatever the artist asks.



> Are we basing value on his labor?


He is. Pay him for his talents.



> You're just asking me to _centrally plan_ the market into a scenario that meets your satisfaction.


I am not asking anything of the sort.



> Who will feed the poor if we don't have a robust state welfare system?


Huh? The welfare system has enslaved many since LBJ initiated the program. Welfare is a system of dependency. What are you talking about?



> If I claim ownership over a pattern, IP says that someone can't use their own physical property to assemble in it in that pattern.
> How is that baloney?


I have no idea what you are complaining about.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> of course I wont share it,its my IP,unless I do decide to donate charity.


Why did you create it if it's just going to sit around collecting dust?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Pay him how... by cheating him out of his R&D?
> Fair pay for an honest day's work. Whatever the artist asks.
> He is. Pay him for his talents.


Ok. I pay him what he asks for. Are you satisfied?

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Ok. I pay him what he asks for. Are you satisfied?


According to him the contents are still his regardless of the sale.

----------


## Revolution9

[QUOTE=heavenlyboy34;3511003]


> individual human being is sovereign = owns self
> individual human being owns self= ownership of time,energy and talents
> individual human being owning time,energy and talents= ownership of what is produced by time,energy,and talents
> individual owns product=property
> 
> property is mutually given, and with contractual agreement or agreements depending on the actual contract between 2 property owners.To say that no contract is legitimate between 2 property owners is to debase their sovereignty ,or to debase 1 or the other persons sovereignty.
> 
> fraud :
> 1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
> ...


He supplied definitions that the world accepts as valid. Furthermore these definitions apply to real world acts that the community has decided they should have remedy for by either fines or incarceration/probation to attempt to subdue such behavior. How can you expect the anti-IP argument to be taken seriously when this level of intellectual fraud based around ad hoc intellectualized slippery definitions is constantly induced into their thinking.

Rev9

----------


## Travlyr

> According to him the contents are still his regardless of the sale.


Bull$#@!. You struggle to understand the conversation... let alone what I say. His talents and effort are his. Don't steal.

----------


## Revolution9

> According to him the contents are still his regardless of the sale.


You can use them then, as you have met the producers contractual terms. They undoubtedly do not include the right or privelege of making a profit from reproducing the IP unless specifically stated in the contractual agreement. They have all kinds of Open Source licenses for folks who do not wish to make a profit after distribution. In fact, many state specifically that you cannot make a profit or convert it to cash and that it must always retain an open source modality. It is however the IP producers perogative and not the consumers as to what kind of licensing occurs.

Rev9

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Bull$#@!. You struggle to understand the conversation... let alone what I say. His talents and effort are his. Don't steal.


His talent and effort created the product. He sold the product. I bought the product. The product becomes my property. I do with my property as I please. I managed to reverse engineer my property. I created a product with similar functions and a cheaper price. He still has his talent and effort. The consumer is satisfied. 

#winning

----------


## Travlyr

> Ok. I pay him what he asks for. Are you satisfied?


Yes, because he earned his compensation.

----------


## Travlyr

> #winning


All he needs now is a cheerleader. heavenlyboy34... now is the time to + rep this boy.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> You can use them then, as you have met the producers contractual terms. They undoubtedly do not include the right or privelege of making a profit from reproducing the IP unless specifically stated in the contractual agreement. They have all kinds of Open Source licenses for folks who do not wish to make a profit after distribution. In fact, many state specifically that you cannot make a profit or convert it to cash and that it must always retain an open source modality. It is however the IP producers perogative and not the consumers as to what kind of licensing occurs.
> 
> Rev9


THANK YOU! A post with no hint of condescension. It feels great to be respected, and it feels even better to offer respect in turn.  

The idea behind the product is the result of previous ideas. If all ideas are patented how is it possible to innovate and improve a product? If two individuals thought of the same idea is it fair for one to restrict the other from using his IP?

----------


## Son of Detroit

There's no way I can get through this whole thread.  I'm done after page 18.  

Oh you guys.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> All he needs now is a cheerleader. Honeyboy... now is the time to + rep this boy.


There are 2 spots sill open. You are welcome to one of them.

----------


## Revolution9

> Why did you create it if it's just going to sit around collecting dust?


Probably because he enjoyed it as his creation and may wish to nurture it by only allowing its unveiling in a manner that would bring favorable light onto the work and him as the artist behind the work. If brought to the public in a good manner and having the work well received either leads to more work and monetary compensation for people who would consider themselves wealthier or happier to own one of his products. Having properly attempted to monetize his work to pay down his debts accumulated during the work done to complete the project, he can decide by the reaction to the work whether to pursue more work in the same venue or perhaps may consider a whole new profession due to the inability to monetize his work in that chosen venue. Take Frank Frazetta as an example. Most of his IP as due to the dynamism inherent in his paintings. He wokred on others IP in the comics industry but really came into his own painting in oils. They got licensed to umpteen poster companies and were used on album covers and magazine covers and he was able to be comfortable in his old age due to the IP licensing. His works also profitted from the IP licensing as you could have bought an original Frazetta in the 70's for 10K-30K USD. His works climbed in value, especially as he got older and collectors knew there were less and less new works to be added to his IP. By 1984 his oils would fetch a cool million a canvas in Japan. Thank you to IP and licensing for allowing this brilliant talent to focus his efforts on a legacy that is sure to enrich and give rise to many new artists in generations to come. IP enriches mankind when viewed from this perspective.

Rev9

----------


## noneedtoaggress

The USSR created the conditions that gave us Tetris, therefore Communism enriches humankind.

----------


## Travlyr

> The USSR gave us Tetris, therefore Communism enriches humankind.


Dumb.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

I agree.

----------


## Revolution9

> THANK YOU! A post with no hint of condescension. It feels great to be respected, and it feels even better to offer respect in turn.  
> 
> The idea behind the product is the result of previous ideas. If all ideas are patented how is it possible to innovate and improve a product? If two individuals thought of the same idea is it fair for one to restrict the other from using his IP?


IP is not an idea. It is a set of objects (even in the abstract as in ideas) placed together in a unique and identifiable manner and constituting a product. A product is something tangible. A movie, a visual artwork, a musical score transmitted on a medium, a book, Royal Rife's microscope, a software application, and others meeting the above criteria.

On the condescension issue. Check back in the thread and count how many insults were hurled this way and the other artists in this thread defending their livelihood. This is not academic to many of us but a bread and butter issue. I don't take kindly to them and can fire off some scathing rejoinders myself if they want to play in that mudpit. I don't like it but I won't put up with it. If they rejoin the debate with a civil attitude the get response in kind. It is always my policy here.

Rev9

----------


## Travlyr

> I agree.


Then let's move forward.

----------


## Revolution9

> The USSR created the conditions that gave us Tetris, therefore Communism enriches humankind.


If you know the story he created it on his own time. Not the states. Bogified response BTW. And there is wonder why this thread goes to hell every few posts.

Rev9

----------


## noneedtoaggress

His time belongs to the state, comrade.

----------


## Revolution9

> His talent and effort created the product. He sold the product. I bought the product. The product becomes my property. I do with my property as I please. I managed to reverse engineer my property. I created a product with similar functions and a cheaper price. He still has his talent and effort. The consumer is satisfied. 
> 
> #winning


If it was reverse engineered against the contractual agreement at purchase then you now have a lawsuit on your hands and are liable up to three time the value of the others loss of business IIRC. If it was a publically known configuration of readily available parts then you may or may not do so, usually may. However, a toaster when assembled by you from off the shelf parts would cost you nearly 800 bucks. You can buy one for 10 bucks from a specialist in producing such. 

You are aware if I copy a Dali and sell it as such I will go to jail...but I can do it and hang it on my wall..no sweat. There is a difference.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> His time belongs to the state, comrade.


There was no memo from the Duma or KGB directing him to do such for the state. Ergo it was his own time. Lousy troll.

Rev9

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Why did you create it if it's just going to sit around collecting dust?


 ah now you challenge the use of my property. Interesting

----------


## CCTelander

> ah now you challenge the use of my property. Interesting



Since when is asking a simple question any kind of a "challenge"? Maybe he's just curious as to your motives?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Since when is asking a simple question any kind of a "challenge"? Maybe he's just curious as to your motives?


  motives are irrelevant to private property.

----------


## CCTelander

> motives are irrelevant to private property.



Which, as I've come to expect from you guys, does NOTHING to answer my questions or address my actual point.

Whatever.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> captainamerica said: of course I wont share it,its my IP,unless I do decide to donate charity.





> kingrobbstark said:Typical.






> heavenlyboy34 said:Why did you create it if it's just going to sit around collecting dust?





> Probably because he enjoyed it as his creation and may wish to nurture it by only allowing its unveiling in a manner that would bring favorable light onto the work and him as the artist behind the work. If brought to the public in a good manner and having the work well received either leads to more work and monetary compensation for people who would consider themselves wealthier or happier to own one of his products. Having properly attempted to monetize his work to pay down his debts accumulated during the work done to complete the project, he can decide by the reaction to the work whether to pursue more work in the same venue or perhaps may consider a whole new profession due to the inability to monetize his work in that chosen venue. Take Frank Frazetta as an example. Most of his IP as due to the dynamism inherent in his paintings. He wokred on others IP in the comics industry but really came into his own painting in oils. They got licensed to umpteen poster companies and were used on album covers and magazine covers and he was able to be comfortable in his old age due to the IP licensing. His works also profitted from the IP licensing as you could have bought an original Frazetta in the 70's for 10K-30K USD. His works climbed in value, especially as he got older and collectors knew there were less and less new works to be added to his IP. By 1984 his oils would fetch a cool million a canvas in Japan. Thank you to IP and licensing for allowing this brilliant talent to focus his efforts on a legacy that is sure to enrich and give rise to many new artists in generations to come. IP enriches mankind when viewed from this perspective.
> 
> Rev9



There is why property owners have no obligation to society in regards to what they do with their property.

----------


## CCTelander

> There is why property owners have no obligation to society in regards to what they do with their property.



And yet, NOBODY has claimed that property owners have some kind of obligation to society in regards to what they do with their property. This is just ANOTHER straw man.

Come on. Pull the friggin stick out of your ass, get down here with the rest of us regular people, and have a civil conversation sans condescension, calling people Marxists, or resorting to logical fallacies.

Bet you can't.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> And yet, NOBODY has claimed that property owners have some kind of obligation to society in regards to what they do with their property. This is just ANOTHER straw man.
> 
> Come on. Pull the friggin stick out of your ass, get down here with the rest of us normal people, and have a civil conversation sans condescension and calling people Marxists.
> 
> Bet you can't.


 Well it certainly is insinuated by certain people in the debate that property owners owe something to the "great good" of society.

----------


## CCTelander

> Well it certainly is insinuated by certain people in the debate that property owners owe something to the "great good" of society.



No, it isn't implied anywhere. You inferred it based solely upon your own pre-conceived ideas.

Why not just try reading the actual words posted and respond to them, NOT to the ones you imagine they posted?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> No, it isn't implied anywhere. You inferred it based solely upon your own pre-conceived ideas.
> 
> Why not just try reading the actual words posted and respond to them, NOT to the ones you imagine they posted?


 do you consider yourself an anarchist?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

No it wasn't. Again you DON'T understand our side of the debate, you only see things the way you want to see it cause you're completely and utterly biased due to the fact that you're convinced you couldn't survive without IP.

You don't even _want_ to look at the debate clearly at all.




> Which, as I've come to expect from you guys, does NOTHING to answer my questions or address my actual point.
> 
> Whatever.


Yeah I'm pretty much done here. They're ignoring anything that doesn't conform to their worldview. I can understand it, it took me a while to wrap my head around it too, considering I come from a creative background.




> Only controversial in the same manner that advocating an End to the Fed would be at a Federal Reserve Bank meeting. It seems pretty overwhelming who has greater numbers and a more robust argument. Of course, I'm always open to new arguments from either side -- I wasn't always an advocate for ending IP, then again I am not blinded by such bias as those immediately profiting from the protectionism.


Yep.

----------


## CCTelander

> do you consider yourself an anarchist?



Completely irrelevant, but it's no secret that I am, in fact, an anarcho-capitalist.

So what?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Completely irrelevant, but it's no secret that I am, in fact, an anarcho-capitalist.
> 
> So what?


Obviously that makes you a radical marxist and a fraud.

----------


## CCTelander

> Obviously that makes you a radical marxist and a fraud.



Clearly. What ever shall I do with myself?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

I dunno, wanna go play some tetris?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Completely irrelevant, but it's no secret that I am, in fact, an anarcho-capitalist.
> 
> So what?


 I was just curious what you consider yourself as an anti-intellectual property advocate that is all. I gave clear outlines of what property consists of ,but when I get to the part about contractual agreement the anti-ip advocates throw their hands up and say "You can't make a contractual agreement"......but to say that a contractual agreement between 2 property owners is not permitted is to say that 2 property owners are not sovereign beings. To say that 1 property owner can obtain property from the other property owner without contractual agreement being upheld would debase the very notion of "sovereign" being and thus remove the entire existence of "property".

----------


## CCTelander

All right, look. All snarkiness aside, you guys arguing in favor of IP REALLY NEED to watch this video and take the lesson it offers to heart. Not because it proves either side right or wrong, but because it shows a practical alternative that actually deals with the REAL LIFE SITUATION AS IT ACTUALLY EXISTS.

Whether IP is a moral abomination as I believe, or the height of property protection as IP proponents seem to think, the real life fact is that technology has rendered it IMPOSSIBLE to effectively protect IP "rights" as they've been protected in the past.

Therefore, if you're serious about actually prteserving your ability to profit from your creative talent, you'd better find a way to deal with the situation as it exists in real life.

This is purely pragmatic. All morality questions aside, if you don't change your business models right now, you're going to lose out. Then you'll be sitting there whining that those damn "pirates" destroyed your ability to profit from your efforts when, in truth, YOU simply failed to adapt to the constantly changing nature of the market.

Wouldn't you rather just learn, adapt, and continue to profit from your efforts? Or, is your hubris and laziness such that you'd rather just bitch and moan about those damned "pirates"?

The choice is yours.






> Maybe you are seeking protection via monopoly because your business model isn't good? How about you follow Trent Reznor from Nine Inch Nails?  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better yet, go check out all the videos in this *intellectual property playlist*.
> 
> /thread

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> All right, look. All snarkiness aside, you guys arguing in favor of IP REALLY NEED to watch this video and take the lesson it offers to heart. Not because it proves either side right or wrong, but because it shows a practical alternative that actually deals with the REAL LIFE SITUATION AS IT ACTUALLY EXISTS.
> 
> Whether IP is a moral abomination as I believe, or the height of property protection as IP proponents seem to think, the real life fact is that technology has rendered it IMPOSSIBLE to effectively protect IP "rights" as they've been protected in the past.
> 
> Therefore, if you're serious about actually prteserving your ability to profit from your creative talent, you'd better find a way to deal with the situation as it exists in real life.
> 
> This is purely pragmatic. All morality questions aside, if you don't change your business models right now, you're going to lose out. Then you'll be sitting there whining that those damn "pirates" destroyed your ability to profit from your efforts when, in truth, YOU simply failed to adapt to the constantly changing nature of the market.
> 
> Wouldn't you rather just learn, adapt, and continue to profit from your efforts? Or, is your hubris and laziness such that you'd rather just bitch and moan about those damned "pirates"?
> ...


 I have not advocated an extreme position as the anti-intellectual property advocates have. I advocate a balance.

----------


## low preference guy

> I have not advocated an extreme position as the anti-intellectual property advocates have. I advocate a balance.


lol. so calling something "extreme" is now an argument. a 5-year old can argue better than you.

----------


## CCTelander

> I was just curious what you consider yourself as an anti-intellectual property advocate that is all.



Fair enough. Curiosity is certainly an acceptable reason to ask a question.





> I gave clear outlines of what property consists of ,but when I get to the part about contractual agreement the anti-ip advocates throw their hands up and say "You can't make a contractual agreement"......but to say that a contractual agreement between 2 property owners is not permitted is to say that 2 property owners are not sovereign beings. To say that 1 property owner can obtain property from the other property owner without contractual agreement being upheld would debase the very notion of "sovereign" being and thus remove the entire existence of "property".



See, here's where you keep going off track. Nobody is saying that you can't make a LEGITIMATE contractual arrangement. Of course, you can.

However, what many IP proponents offer up as a "contract," specifically things like the EULAs that exist in music and software today, are anything BUT legitimate. I don't remember exactly where, but some info on this has already been posted in this thread. Suffice it to say here that EULAs don't constitute a legitimate contract because they fail utterly to meet several of the recognized requirements of a legitimate, enforceable agreement.

----------


## CCTelander

> I have not advocated an extreme position as the anti-intellectual property advocates have. I advocate a balance.



From a PRAGMATIC standpoint what you advocate, and how extreme it may be, is IRRELEVANT.

Technology has already rendered IP protection as we know it OBSOLETE. It's only going to get worse.

Either adapt or die, figuratively speaking.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If it was reverse engineered against the contractual agreement at purchase then you now have a lawsuit on your hands and are liable up to three time the value of the others loss of business IIRC. If it was a publically known configuration of readily available parts then you may or may not do so, usually may. However, a toaster when assembled by you from off the shelf parts would cost you nearly 800 bucks. You can buy one for 10 bucks from a specialist in producing such. 
> 
> *You are aware if I copy a Dali and sell it as such I will go to jail...but I can do it and hang it on my wall..no sweat.* There is a difference.
> 
> Rev9


Red herring.  You're describing fraud, which is beyond the scope of this discussion. (except to the extent that pro-IPers incorrectly call it such)  My using a piece of "IP" as I want does not take anything from the creator, unlike your scenario above.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> lol. so calling something "extreme" is now an argument. a 5-year old can argue better than you.


 It is extreme when you look at the current debate and how anti-IP advocates respond to the topic of "fraud". I have numerous times brought the topic up and the extreme is that "fraud" is irrelevant to the debate.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Red herring.  You're describing fraud, which is beyond the scope of this discussion. (except to the extent that pro-IPers incorrectly call it such)  My using a piece of "IP" as I want does not take anything from the creator, unlike your scenario above.


 How difficult is it to look at the definition of "fraud"?Welcome to the real world where people use the english language.

----------


## low preference guy

> I have numerous times brought the topic up


yeah, and i responded you as have many others and you pretend it didn't happen. like a distracted 5-year old.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> yeah, and i responded you as have many others and you pretend it didn't happen. like a distracted 5-year old.


 I am sorry that I am good at logically dismantling your fallacy of anti-ip and its contradictions do you want me to present my side of it again?

----------


## low preference guy

> I am sorry that I am good at logically dismantling your fallacy of anti-ip and its contradictions do you want me to present my side of it again?


ignoring an argument and not responding =\= dismantling

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I gave clear outlines of what property consists of ,but when I get to the part about contractual agreement the anti-ip advocates throw their hands up and say "You can't make a contractual agreement"......but to say that a contractual agreement between 2 property owners is not permitted is to say that 2 property owners are not sovereign beings. To say that 1 property owner can obtain property from the other property owner without contractual agreement being upheld would debase the very notion of "sovereign" being and thus remove the entire existence of "property".


Here is my argument again for you

----------


## low preference guy

> Here is my argument again for you


a straw man because it doesn't have anything to do with my responses to your posts about fraud, which you falsely claimed were ignored.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I am sorry that I am good at logically dismantling your fallacy of anti-ip and its contradictions do you want me to present my side of it again?


//

----------


## Kludge

Hate to get in this so late... 

I lean toward the "no rights" argument... Not just for IP. - But that doesn't mean we can't respect each other. That said, I think respect must be earned. -- I'm just trying to say where I'm coming from, because I'm sure there're probably 3 or 4 hyper-focused arguments going on.

I don't like the idea of contracts or force. I'm MUCH more likely to pay for IP which is made public or is offered on a "pay what you want" model. That's pretty much all I have to say this late in. Generosity begets generosity, and it's been proven time and time again that individuals offering their IP for free and asking for donations will receive those donations. It's always, in the end, about the community. IP will be infringed even if it's illegal, so I think the best thing to do is make your community as happy (and generous) as possible. We can get mad at people who pirate and otherwise infringe, but there doesn't appear to be any reasonable way to enforce it. Though... there've lately been unprecedented moves for the sake of anti-piracy. Games & software always requiring an internet connection and constant server authentication is one major example. Companies can choose to reduce the people experiencing their IP for the possibility of more sales.... Their choice. Good for them if it's successful, but I'll never pay such a distrusting and controlling corporation.

Communities with people who like each other - or just want the recognition - will release what their passion (or the desire for a solution to solve a problem) creates for others. If people like it and have disposable income, they'll pay.... usually.


You know -- Panera Bread took the above ideas and put them into practice not too long ago. They decided to open restaurants and not explicitly charge customers. They had a pay-what-you-want scheme. Pay nothing, or pay 2x -- your choice. The idea of trusting customers paid off. The community appreciated the gesture. It's a financial success, and a successful charity.  There will be non-paying dicks, but the majority of people aren't. Treating everyone like a dick will only make them think of you as a dick. http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...-you-can_n.htm

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Hate to get in this so late... 
> 
> I lean toward the "no rights" argument... Not just for IP. - But that doesn't mean we can't respect each other. That said, I think respect must be earned. -- I'm just trying to say where I'm coming from, because I'm sure there're probably 3 or 4 hyper-focused arguments going on.
> 
> I don't like the idea of contracts or force. I'm MUCH more likely to pay for IP which is made public or is offered on a "pay what you want" model. That's pretty much all I have to say this late in. Generosity begets generosity, and it's been proven time and time again that individuals offering their IP for free and asking for donations will receive those donations. It's always, in the end, about the community. IP will be infringed even if it's illegal, so I think the best thing to do is make your community as happy (and generous) as possible. We can get mad at people who pirate and otherwise infringe, but there doesn't appear to be any reasonable way to enforce it. Though... there've lately been unprecedented moves for the sake of anti-piracy. Games & software always requiring an internet connection and constant server authentication is one major example. Companies can choose to reduce the people experiencing their IP for the possibility of more sales.... Their choice. Good for them if it's successful, but I'll never pay such a distrusting and controlling corporation.
> 
> Communities with people who like each other - or just want the recognition - will release what their passion (or the desire for a solution to solve a problem) creates for others. If people like it and have disposable income, they'll pay.... usually.
> 
> 
> You know -- Panera Bread took the above ideas and put them into practice not too long ago. They decided to open restaurants and not explicitly charge customers. They had a pay-what-you-want scheme. Pay nothing, or pay 2x -- your choice. The idea of trusting customers paid off. The community appreciated the gesture. It's a financial success, and a successful charity.  There will be non-paying dicks, but the majority of people aren't. Treating everyone like a dick will only make them think of you as a dick. http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...-you-can_n.htm


 You definitely did jump into the debate without any prior reading. The debate is not framed around whether or not people think you are a jerk or not a jerk (emotion is irrelevant to property rights). The debate is framed around whether or not an artist/musician/writer has property rights over what they produce from their TIME,ENERGY and TALENT.

----------


## CCTelander

> You definitely did jump into the debate without any prior reading. The debate is not framed around whether or not people think you are a jerk or not a jerk (emotion is irrelevant to property rights). The debate is framed around whether or not an artist/musician/writer has property rights over what they produce from their TIME,ENERGY and TALENT.



There's that labor theory of value again.

Once again, a friendly, pragmatic warning. IP, as we've known it, is a giant dinosaur that's already dead. Technology has killed it. The message just hasn't reached its tiny little brain yet.

Adapt or die, figuratively speaking.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> IP is not an idea. It is a set of objects (even in the abstract as in ideas) placed together in a unique and identifiable manner and constituting a product. A product is something tangible. A movie, a visual artwork, a musical score transmitted on a medium, a book, Royal Rife's microscope, a software application, and others meeting the above criteria.


So what do you mean exactly. Is IP a method or a pattern?

----------


## KingRobbStark

> If it was reverse engineered against the contractual agreement at purchase then you now have a lawsuit on your hands and are liable up to three time the value of the others loss of business IIRC. If it was a publically known configuration of readily available parts then you may or may not do so, usually may. However, a toaster when assembled by you from off the shelf parts would cost you nearly 800 bucks. You can buy one for 10 bucks from a specialist in producing such. 
> 
> You are aware if I copy a Dali and sell it as such I will go to jail...but I can do it and hang it on my wall..no sweat. There is a difference.


If a certain method of building a house is patented, and I decide to build a house on my property using a similar method, then that person has the right to infringe on what I can do on my property if I don't ask permission first? 

That's the problem. If I choose to build my own toaster, then there is a probability that I will get sued from some random toaster company claiming IP. 

That would be fraud.

----------


## Revolution9

> Red herring.  You're describing fraud, which is beyond the scope of this discussion. (except to the extent that pro-IPers incorrectly call it such)  My using a piece of "IP" as I want does not take anything from the creator, unlike your scenario above.


According to some on this thread I have committed no offense by signing a print with "Dali" that looked like a Dali and selling it for profit. I can even claim under their obfuscatory banner that the signature is not a signature but simply a scribble and not the mark of the original Dali. The only thing preventing this occurrence of fraud through misrepresentation from happening is laws dealing with protection of IP. Note that an exchange of substantial consideration must happen and rights have to be pre-established contractually for jurisdiction to be established.

In the same manner if one were to create a dungeon crawler and use the assets extracted from a copy of Quake and call it Quaked, with the same gameplay, weapons and scoring system and played it in a private community with no fees or ads then you are well within your rights. The moment you try to monetize it you will be issued paperwork to cease and desist and barring that you will get sued for three times the monetary damages the lawyers have figured out. It just isn't your IP to do that with. It would be fraud and IP theft.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> If a certain method of building a house is patented, and I decide to build a house on my property using a similar method, then that person has the right to infringe on what I can do on my property if I don't ask permission first? 
> 
> That's the problem. If I choose to build my own toaster, then there is a probability that I will get sued from some random toaster company claiming IP. 
> 
> That would be fraud.


You can build your house with a copy of the patented system. The moment you copy the patented system and try to sell it is the moment you crossed the legalistic line.

You can build your toaster and sell it. Everybody knows how toasters work. You cannot put Braun or KitchenMaid for example on the toasters you made to sell unless you licensed those marks from them. You can however put KRS Toasters or whatever trips your fancy and that is fine.

Rev9

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> According to some on this thread I have committed no offense by signing a print with "Dali" that looked like a Dali and selling it for profit. I can even claim under their obfuscatory banner that the signature is not a signature but simply a scribble and not the mark of the original Dali. The only thing preventing this occurrence of fraud through misrepresentation from happening is laws dealing with protection of IP. Note that an exchange of substantial consideration must happen and rights have to be pre-established contractually for jurisdiction to be established.
> 
> In the same manner if one were to create a dungeon crawler and use the assets extracted from a copy of Quake and call it Quaked, with the same gameplay, weapons and scoring system and played it in a private community with no fees or ads then you are well within your rights. The moment you try to monetize it you will be issued paperwork to cease and desist and barring that you will get sued for three times the monetary damages the lawyers have figured out. It just isn't your IP to do that with. It would be fraud and IP theft.
> 
> Rev9


 I thought about taking the debate there, but its no use when the anti-ip advocates don't recognize what fraud is.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> According to some on this thread I have committed no offense by signing a print with "Dali" that looked like a Dali and selling it for profit. I can even claim under their obfuscatory banner that the signature is not a signature but simply a scribble and not the mark of the original Dali. The only thing preventing this occurrence of fraud through misrepresentation from happening is laws dealing with protection of IP. Note that an exchange of substantial consideration must happen and rights have to be pre-established contractually for jurisdiction to be established.
> 
> In the same manner if one were to create a dungeon crawler and use the assets extracted from a copy of Quake and call it Quaked, with the same gameplay, weapons and scoring system and played it in a private community with no fees or ads then you are well within your rights. The moment you try to monetize it you will be issued paperwork to cease and desist and barring that you will get sued for three times the monetary damages the lawyers have figured out. It just isn't your IP to do that with. *It would be fraud and IP theft.*
> 
> Rev9


Fraud to an extent, but not theft.  Not even the law uses the word "theft".  Again, read the law before you try to argue about it, please.  

Now, let's examine your scenario about the video game.  Just the act of copying and distributing that game is not theft.  That action, in fact, adds value to the economy by creating more products for consumption.  (it's also free advertising for id software)  Since you've abandoned your claim to the product by selling it, the owner can do whatever he wants with it-copy it, burn it, use it, etc.  

Let's again examine the dictionary definition of theft.  (I know you like dictionaries) 
*theft*   [theft]  Show IPA 

noun 1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny. 

2. an instance of this. 



Since you cannot point to a physical loss in the event of copying a piece of "IP", it cannot logically be "theft".

----------


## CCTelander

> Fraud to an extent, but not theft.  Not even the law uses the word "theft".  Again, read the law before you try to argue about it, please.  
> 
> Now, let's examine your scenario about the video game.  Just the act of copying and distributing that game is not theft.  That action, in fact, adds value to the economy by creating more products for consumption.  (it's also free advertising for id software)  Since you've abandoned your claim to the product by selling it, the owner can do whatever he wants with it-copy it, burn it, use it, etc.  
> 
> Let's again examine the dictionary definition of theft.  (I know you like dictionaries) 
> *theft*   [theft]  Show IPA 
> 
> noun 1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny. 
> 
> ...



But, but, but, if that's true, they can't continue calling us a bunch of Marxist thieves!

Oh the humanity!

----------


## CCTelander

> Yes, it's just a shame they are completely short sighted and that if the monopoly on ideas was abolished, everyone - including the user currently benefiting would be far better off in terms of wealth etc. 
> 
> This author gets it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They'd actually make more money...!*



Reposted in the hope that our pro-IP friends will actually watch it and learn something from the pragmatic message it offers.

Again, there's NOTHING here about which side is "right" or "wrong," just some pragmatic advice about the actual, REAL WORLD situation.

Adapt or die, my friends.

----------


## Conza88

> Reposted in the hope that our pro-IP friends will actually watch it and learn something from the pragmatic message it offers.
> 
> Again, there's NOTHING here about which side is "right" or "wrong," just some pragmatic advice about the actual, REAL WORLD situation.
> 
> Adapt or die, my friends.





_Excerpts from my talk "Sita Sings the Blues: a Free Culture Success Story" at The Next H.O.P.E. (Hackers On Planet Earth) conference, July 16 2010 in New York City. Includes: why I insisted on authentic songs, what is and is not property, software is culture, the difference between Share Alike (copyleft) and other Creative Commons licenses, why I paid to legally license the old songs, how noncommercial copyright infringement is still illegal, legal costs, benefits of audience sharing & decentralized distribution, the Sita Sings the Blues Merchandise Empire (sitasingstheblues.com/store), open-licensed merch, audience goodwill, how fans support artists, rivalrous vs. non-rivalrous goods, the Creator Endorsed Mark, migrating Flash files to open formats, gift income, commerce without monopolies, why I encourage legal sharing, and more!_

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Reposted in the hope that our pro-IP friends will actually watch it and learn something from the pragmatic message it offers.
> 
> Again, there's NOTHING here about which side is "right" or "wrong," just some pragmatic advice about the actual, REAL WORLD situation.
> 
> Adapt or die, my friends.


 This video does not touch the subject of fraud, and it touches the emotional aspect of having stuff given away for free without consent and actually makes me laugh because the author who speaks is not even on a business plan yet he expects to receive back "charity" for his works LOL. This is such a joke.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> But, but, but, if that's true, they can't continue calling us a bunch of Marxist thieves!
> 
> Oh the humanity!


 +rep

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This video does not touch the subject of fraud, and it touches the emotional aspect of having stuff given away for free without consent and actually makes me laugh because the author who speaks is not even on a business plan yet he expects to receive back "charity" for his works LOL. This is such a joke.


It's because copying/sharing ARE NOT ACTS OF FRAUD.  Let's have another look at the dictionary.
*fraud*   [frawd]  Show IPA 

noun 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. 

2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds. 

3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time. 

4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

----------


## CCTelander

> It's because copying/sharing ARE NOT ACTS OF FRAUD.  Let's have another look at the dictionary.
> *fraud*   [frawd]  Show IPA 
> 
> noun 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. 
> 
> 2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds. 
> 
> 3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time. 
> 
> 4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.



How long do you think it'll take before he actually "gets it"? I've got March of 2027 in the pool.

----------


## CCTelander

> This video does not touch the subject of fraud, and it touches the emotional aspect of having stuff given away for free without consent and actually makes me laugh because the author who speaks is not even on a business plan yet he expects to receive back "charity" for his works LOL. This is such a joke.



Did you even bother to actually watch the video? Or, to actually PAY ATTENTION while you were?

I ask because absolutely NOTHING you posted above has even the tiniest little bit of relevance as to the POINT of the friggin' video.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How long do you think it'll take before he actually "gets it"? I've got March of 2027 in the pool.


Put me down for September 2050.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

don't expect me to adopt the drivel as my personal ideals

----------


## CCTelander

> don't expect me to adopt the drivel as my personal ideals



Adapt or die, my friend.

If you can't swallow your pride long enough to accept the truth of the anti-IP position, at least learn from the stuff posted already and adapt your business model to insure your own survival in the market.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> don't expect me to adopt the drivel as my personal ideals


You already have.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> But, but, but, if that's true, they can't continue calling us a bunch of Marxist thieves!
> 
> Oh the humanity!


No, we're just Marxist now.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

I dont like what you're saying so it's just drivel.

You can't make me accept it.

You can't.

I'm too awesome to let people use their stuff the way they want.

But... I'm so... awesome.

----------


## CCTelander

> No, we're just Marxist now.



Da, comrade!

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Adapt or die, my friend.
> 
> If you can't swallow your pride long enough to accept the truth of the anti-IP position, at least learn from the stuff posted already and adapt your business model to insure your own survival in the market.


 Seriously, telling me to "adapt or die" is not friendly. You tell me to swallow pride when it is actually a perspective in debate. You tell me how to run my own "business model" to insure my own "survival" ..................................................  .......

----------


## CCTelander

> I dont like what you're saying so it's just drivel.
> 
> You can't make me accept it.
> 
> You can't.
> 
> I'm too awesome to let people use their stuff the way they want.
> 
> But... I'm so... awesome.



ROTFLMAO!

Is that a waaaambulance I hear coming to fix someone's butthurt?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> ROTFLMAO!
> 
> Is that a waaaambulance I hear coming to fix someone's butthurt?


 ridiculous. unimpressed with your anti-intellectual property arguments

----------


## CCTelander

> Seriously, telling me to "adapt or die" is not friendly. You tell me to swallow pride when it is actually a perspective in debate. You tell me how to run my own "business model" to insure my own "survival" ..................................................  .......



You take things WAY too seriously. I can't really "tell" you much of anything. This is just a message board. I have no power whatever to compell your compliance in any way.

What I CAN do is make suggestions. And I respectfully suggest that you adapt NOW, or face the VERY REAL probability of losing BIG in the REAL WORLD market.

You are, of course, perfectly free to just ignore everything I say. Your choice.

But don't expect any tears from me if you do. You've been warned.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> You can build your house with a copy of the patented system. The moment you copy the patented system and try to sell it is the moment you crossed the legalistic line.
> 
> You can build your toaster and sell it. Everybody knows how toasters work. You cannot put Braun or KitchenMaid for example on the toasters you made to sell unless you licensed those marks from them. You can however put KRS Toasters or whatever trips your fancy and that is fine.


In year from then, I'm not allowed to sell my house? 

By your logic if everyone knows how a specific OS works, then they have right to recreate it and sell it. Great. We finally agree on something.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> You take things WAY too seriously. I can't really "tell" you much of anything. This is just a message board. I have no power whatever to compell your compliance in any way.
> 
> What I CAN do is make suggestions. And I respectfully suggest that you adapt NOW, or face the VERY REAL probability of losing BIG in the REAL WORLD market.
> 
> You are, of course, perfectly free to just ignore everything I say. Your choice.
> 
> But don't expect any tears from me if you do. You've been warned.


I don't know about you, but I'll be laughing my ass off.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> ridiculous. unimpressed with your anti-intellectual property arguments


hahahahhahahahah that was actually pretty fitting.

----------


## eOs

how about getting a population of humans to agree upon imaginary constructs is not a foundation that can be possibly agreed upon let alone objectively verified as truth, most things aren't, which is why there are endless battles on teh internets about such things. so now I say, whatever you can get another human to agree upon so that he may pay you or respect a line drawn in the sand, have at it! good day sirs




and don't forget to have fun playing The Game!

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> hahahahhahahahah that was actually pretty fitting.


 it is fitting and if the property owner asks me to take it down I would

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> it is fitting and if the property owner asks me to take it down I would


It's fitting because that character was equally as obtuse as you've been acting throughout this thread.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> It's fitting because that character was equally as obtuse as you've been acting throughout this thread.


 You have an obsession with obtuse angles... just saying . LOL and stop attacking me on a personal level if you have nothing to say intelligently with it in regards to fraud,and property and how they correlate.

----------


## CCTelander

> it is fitting and if the property owner asks me to take it down I would



Wait a minute here. You mean I only have to respect someone else's property rights (allowing the term simply for the sake of argument. IP is NOT property.) if they specifically request or demand that I do?

Does that mean I can bring my dog along to crap in your yard until you ask or demand that I don't?

Just curious.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Wait a minute here. You mean I only have to respect someone else's property rights (allowing the term simply for the sake of argument. IP is NOT property.) if they specifically request or demand that I do?
> 
> Does that mean I can bring my dog along to crap in your yard until you ask or demand that I don't?
> 
> Just curious.


 different kind of property. I am not crapping on someones yard, but if the property owner of the picture doesn't like me using it then I will take it down.

----------


## CCTelander

> You have an obsession with obtuse angles... just saying . LOL *and stop attacking me on a personal level* if you have nothing to say intelligently with it in regards to fraud,and property and how they correlate.



This from the guy who spent the first half of the thread calling everyone who disagreed with him a Marxist? Seems just a tad hypocritical.

But I DO appreciate that you haven't been doing that more recently. Thanks for that, at least.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> You have an obsession with obtuse angles... just saying . LOL and stop attacking me on a personal level if you have nothing to say intelligently with it in regards to fraud,and property and how they correlate.


I said you've been acting obtuse.

If you want me not to say that then stop ignoring arguments you don't want to confront and repeating the same tired mess over and over.

There's already been pages upon pages of me and many others attempting to have reasonable discourse with you. Obviously that's not going to be possible until you stop acting in the manner you have.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> This from the guy who spent the first half of the thread calling everyone who disagreed with him a Marxist? Seems just a tad hypocritical.
> 
> But I DO appreciate that you haven't been doing that more recently. Thanks for that, at least.


 there is nothing hypocritical about it. I am not claiming to be the creator of that art or to resell it

----------


## CCTelander

> there is nothing hypocritical about it. I am not claiming to be the creator of that art or to resell it



I was addressing your complaint that he was attacking you on a personal level. The part in bold.

----------


## CCTelander

> I said you've been acting obtuse.
> 
> If you want me not to say that then stop ignoring arguments you don't want to confront and repeating the same tired mess over and over.
> 
> There's already been pages upon pages of me and many others attempting to have reasonable discourse with you. Obviously that's not going to be possible until you stop acting in the manner you have.



Hubris will have that effect on people.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

well ,it surely has been fun debating you guys...obviously the debate has degraded. Maybe when you are ready to answer me about fraud and its correlation to property we can continue the debate.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Maybe you should go to bed and let some of the arguments made here sink in instead of trying to save face.

----------


## low preference guy

> well ,it surely has been fun debating you guys...obviously the debate has degraded. Maybe when you are ready to answer me about fraud and its correlation to property we can continue the debate.


that was answered several times. you ignored the answers.

----------


## CCTelander

> well ,it surely has been fun debating you guys...obviously the debate has degraded. Maybe when you are ready to answer me about fraud and its correlation to property we can continue the debate.



Wow. Obtuse certainly is the right word.

That "issue" has only been dealt with maybe, what, a dozen times in this thread already? You're just butthurt because you didn't like the answer.

Get over it.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Wow. Obtuse certainly is the right word.
> 
> That "issue" has only been dealt with maybe, what, a dozen times in this thread already? You're just butthurt because you didn't like the answer.
> 
> Get over it.


 say goodnight to karl marx for me

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> say goodnight to karl marx for me


//

----------


## CCTelander

> that was answered several times. you ignored the answers.



Ignoring any evidence he disagrees with seems to be SOP for Cap. Too bad, really.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Ignoring any evidence he disagrees with seems to be SOP for Cap. Too bad, really.


 yes when I present an argument you immediately throw your hands up and say "YOU CANT SAY THAT" lol because in your world "fraud " and "fraudulent" do not exist. say goodnight to karl marx

----------


## SpicyTurkey

> yes when I present an argument you immediately throw your hands up and say "YOU CANT SAY THAT" lol because in your world "fraud " and "fraudulent" do not exist. say goodnight to karl marx


Go to sleep already. hahaha

----------


## CCTelander

It's all moot anyway. At least so far as movies, music, software, any printed material, etc. are concerned, IP is already dead. Technology has killed it and it's only going to get worse.

So, those of us opposed to IP have, in effect, already won by default.

Adapt or die.

----------


## Xenophage

> I, as an artist and musician and owning a gaming company am concerned about IP. I see many posts where folks call down the idea of IP. If we have no IP alot of stories will go untold. Folks making a movie with characters can be pre-empted and ripped off by lessor productions capitalising on any buzz the production has created. Folks could just recompile The Beatles recordings and sell them. How do I stop folks from ripping my artwork off from within my games, using publicly available tools and a bit of savvy and making their own game using my art chops and even my code? These are just a few examples. I can come up with dozens. I think this will kill an entire section of the economy. Prove me wrong. If you are taking the course of proving me wrong then explain to me why i should stay in a business where my work can be ripped and kill my profits and my ability to grow my IP into movie, music, character and other franchises.
> 
> Rev9


I have had this argument with Rothbardian IP-haters on here for years.  It's gotten quite heated at some times.

They want to be able to profit for free off the intellectual effort of people more creative than them.  That's intellectual slavery.  And they claim to love freedom?  It's an unbelievable contradiction in their general philosophy - but Rothbardian libertarians generally do not have a cohesive philosophy from which their political ideas flow.  For a more rational, consistent defense of liberty look to Ayn Rand.  She and I agree: intellectual property exists, it is just as essential to human beings as any other form of property, and needs to be protected.

A lot of people on this thread think musicians ought to be selfless charities, donating the fruits of their hard work for free to any $#@! who thinks he deserves to have a good time.  $#@!.  That.  I don't give two $#@!s about anyone who wants to rip me off.  Just as bad as a $#@!ing liberal, except maybe worse, since these "libertarians" masquerade as defenders of freedom.  I'll die before I give up my rights to my intellectual property.

Or, more likely, I'll simply stop producing or sharing my work.

----------


## Xenophage

Thankfully Ron Paul is not anti-IP, despite his association with lowlifes from the Mises Institute.  At least, he's never come across that way.  If he was, I'd drop him in a heartbeat.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Thankfully Ron Paul is not anti-IP, despite his association with lowlifes from the Mises Institute.  At least, he's never come across that way.  If he was, I'd drop him in a heartbeat.


 agreed fully.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I have had this argument with Rothbardian IP-haters on here for years.  It's gotten quite heated at some times.
> 
> They want to be able to profit for free off the intellectual effort of people more creative than them.  That's intellectual slavery.  And they claim to love freedom?  It's an unbelievable contradiction in their general philosophy - but Rothbardian libertarians generally do not have a cohesive philosophy from which their political ideas flow.  For a more rational, consistent defense of liberty look to Ayn Rand.  She and I agree: intellectual property exists, it is just as essential to human beings as any other form of property, and needs to be protected.
> 
> A lot of people on this thread think musicians ought to be selfless charities, donating the fruits of their hard work for free to any $#@! who thinks he deserves to have a good time.  $#@!.  That.  I don't give two $#@!s about anyone who wants to rip me off.  Just as bad as a $#@!ing liberal, except maybe worse, since these "libertarians" masquerade as defenders of freedom.  I'll die before I give up my rights to my intellectual property.
> 
> Or, more likely, I'll simply stop producing or sharing my work.


I think you're safe, this piece of fiction you made up is pretty much worthless.

----------


## low preference guy

> I have had this argument with Rothbardian IP-haters on here for years.  It's gotten quite heated at some times.
> 
> They want to be able to profit for free off the intellectual effort of people more creative than them.  That's intellectual slavery.  And they claim to love freedom?  It's an unbelievable contradiction in their general philosophy - but Rothbardian libertarians generally do not have a cohesive philosophy from which their political ideas flow.  For a more rational, consistent defense of liberty look to Ayn Rand.  She and I agree: intellectual property exists, it is just as essential to human beings as any other form of property, and needs to be protected.
> 
> A lot of people on this thread think musicians ought to be selfless charities, donating the fruits of their hard work for free to any $#@! who thinks he deserves to have a good time.  $#@!.  That.  I don't give two $#@!s about anyone who wants to rip me off.  Just as bad as a $#@!ing liberal, except maybe worse, since these "libertarians" masquerade as defenders of freedom.  I'll die before I give up my rights to my intellectual property.
> 
> Or, more likely, I'll simply stop producing or sharing my work.


huge straw man. i consider it proven that one should be able to used scarce goods as property, so I want that form of property to be protected (which i consider the only form of property but i digress). to have more laws than those which protect this form of property, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate for "intellectual property", and they simply haven't been able to produce convincing arguments. moreover, IP laws impose arbitrary obligations on people who never agreed to them, while at the same time violating their property rights.

my position has nothing to do with wanting to live free off of others. in fact, the goods i produce could be protected by IP laws, but i manage to live fine without them, as many others. the fact that you attack people's motives and outright invent things about them shows that you don't have a good case and resort to desperate strategies.

----------


## CCTelander

> I have had this argument with Rothbardian IP-haters on here for years.  It's gotten quite heated at some times.
> 
> They want to be able to profit for free off the intellectual effort of people more creative than them.  That's intellectual slavery.  And they claim to love freedom?  It's an unbelievable contradiction in their general philosophy - but Rothbardian libertarians generally do not have a cohesive philosophy from which their political ideas flow.  For a more rational, consistent defense of liberty look to Ayn Rand.  She and I agree: intellectual property exists, it is just as essential to human beings as any other form of property, and needs to be protected.
> 
> A lot of people on this thread think musicians ought to be selfless charities, donating the fruits of their hard work for free to any $#@! who thinks he deserves to have a good time.  $#@!.  That.  I don't give two $#@!s about anyone who wants to rip me off.  Just as bad as a $#@!ing liberal, except maybe worse, since these "libertarians" masquerade as defenders of freedom.  *I'll die before I give up my rights to my intellectual property.*
> 
> Or, more likely, I'll simply stop producing or sharing my work.



"I'll die before I give up my rights to my intellectual property."

I call bull$#@!. I seriously doubt that you'd risk your own personal safety defending your so-called IP "rights" for even one second. Much more likely that you'd send a state sanctioned thug out to risk THEIR personal safety enforcing your imaginary "rights" by killing or caging some poor schmuck for the horrendous crime of downloading an MP3.

Regardless, the whole thing is moot anyway.

The battle is over. You guys got to the field too late. The market has spoken.

IP is dead. Technology killed it.

Adapt or die.

----------


## Mr Tansill

Wow. Just, $#@!ing wow...I left this thread about 8 hours ago and it was overgrown then...now I check it briefly and it's nearly DOUBLED in size to become behemoth in stature...

Of course (after skimming the last 8 hours of enlightened discussion), no one on the anti-IP side has actually ANSWERED my previous critique that artists and anyone else (software engineers, et al) can execute a valid way to protect the fruits of their labor through contractual agreement with their consumers/customers.  The *reason* for this is precisely because it provides a VALID solution to a problem _they_ *wish and desire* to remain unsolved.  That problem being they can no longer find "moral" justification for stealing another's work.  A justification existing in the current paradigm which supports _intellectual_ property.

Now that I realize this _fact_, I recognize what's really going on here.  There are a few, possibly many, interlopers, infiltrating the liberty movement on this board spreading their socialist agenda *with the precise purpose* of engaging me in an open-ended argument whose function is to distract myself and others from supporting the Presidential Campaign of my man Ron Paul.  It won't work, this is a critical time in our campaign, and now I see that the other side is going to great lengths to undermine it - no sane, liberty-believing individual could possibly support such a naive world-view that all people are _entitled_ to the results of someone else's time, energy, and money.  It cannot be reconciled with a libertarian conscience - the two are mutually exclusive.  2 + 2 = 4, not 5.

My message to you socialists/feudalists/fascists is this: place both hands around your neck and squeeze.  Take your "liberty" elsewhere.

----------


## low preference guy

> Wow. Just, $#@!ing wow...I left this thread about 8 hours ago and it was overgrown then...now I check it briefly and it's nearly DOUBLED in size to become behemoth in stature...
> 
> Of course (after skimming the last 8 hours of enlightened discussion), no one on the anti-IP side has actually ANSWERED my previous critique that artists and anyone else (software engineers, et al) can execute a valid way to protect the fruits of their labor through contractual agreement with their consumers/customers.


I already showed you that contractual agreement to prevent copies is not the same as IP-law, because IP law binds everyone even those who didn't agree to anything, unlike a contract that binds only those who agreed to it. No matter how hard you close your eyes and put your hands to your ears, the holes in your argument won't go away.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> I already showed you that contractual agreement to prevent copies is not the same as IP-law, because IP law binds everyone even those who didn't agreed to anything, unlike a contract that binds only those who agreed to it. No matter how hard you close your eyes and put your hands in your ears, the holes in your argument won't go away.


I said choke yourself.

----------


## CCTelander

> I already showed you that contractual agreement to prevent copies is not the same as IP-law, because IP law binds everyone even those who didn't agree to anything, unlike a contract that binds only those who agreed to it. No matter how hard you close your eyes and put your hands to your ears, the holes in your argument won't go away.



Amazing how the pro-IP crowd consistently do exactly that (ignore valid arguments), isn't it?

----------


## CCTelander

> I said choke yourself.



We love you too Mr. T.

Adapt or face the same fate as did the buggy manufacturers.

----------


## low preference guy

> I said choke yourself.


Wow, that convinced me! I'm pro-IP now!

----------


## Xenophage

> Wow, that convinced me! I'm pro-IP now!


You'll rationalize just about any way you can to continue profiting from the intellectual efforts of other people.  No matter how you slice it, that is the root of what you seek: to be a parasite.

"What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the minds contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.

An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the objects value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.

It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for itbut he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in naturean object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed.

The government does not grant a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures iti.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owners exclusive right of use and disposal."

Ayn Rand, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> You'll rationalize just about any way you can to continue profiting from the intellectual efforts of other people.  No matter how you slice it, that is the root of what you seek: to be a parasite.
> 
> "What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.
> 
> An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.
> 
> It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it—but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in nature—an object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed.
> 
> The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal."
> ...


Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property.  ~Ayn Rand

They will never compute this quote.

----------


## Xenophage

> "I'll die before I give up my rights to my intellectual property."
> 
> The battle is over. You guys got to the field too late. The market has spoken.
> 
> IP is dead. Technology killed it.
> 
> Adapt or die.


The market has spoken?  Laughable!

The "market was speaking" during the African slave trade.  Is that supposed to be some sort of defense?  Hey, technology improved then, too!  The Europeans had rifles!

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> The market has spoken?  Laughable!
> 
> The "market was speaking" during the African slave trade.  Is that supposed to be some sort of defense?  Hey, technology improved then, too!  The Europeans had rifles!


 In other words they perpetuate the mob rule vs individual right. "for the greater good" even if the market decides to rape and pillage an artist against the artists will.

----------


## CCTelander

> The market has spoken?  Laughable!
> 
> The "market was speaking" during the African slave trade.  Is that supposed to be some sort of defense?  Hey, technology improved then, too!  The Europeans had rifles!



Sorry chief, but it's not meant as a justification of anything. Just a pragmatic fact.

Regardless of whether you're "right" or I am re the IP issue, the fact is that technology and human action have rendered the entire debate moot.

IP is already dead.

Either you adapt your business model to this fact of life, or you will suffer the same fate as the buggy manufacturers did with the advent of the automobile.

Adapt or die.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Sorry chief, but it's not meant as a justification of anything. Just a pragmatic fact.
> 
> Regardless of whether you're "right" or I am re the IP issue, the fact is that technology and human action have rendered the entire debate moot.
> 
> IP is already dead.
> 
> Either you adapt your business model to this fact of life, or you will suffer the same fate as the buggy manufacturers did with the advent of the automobile.
> 
> Adapt or die.


  "adapt and die" has been repeated a few times, let me give you a reminder.Your "facts" are not facts. They are contradictions.


individual human being is sovereign = owns self
individual human being owns self= ownership of time,energy and talents
individual human being owning time,energy and talents= ownership of what is produced by time,energy,and talents
individual owns product=property

property is mutually given, and with contractual agreement or agreements depending on the actual contract between 2 property owners.To say that no contract is legitimate between 2 property owners is to debase their sovereignty ,or to debase 1 or the other persons sovereignty.

fraud :
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities. 


When a contractual agreement is made between 2 sovereign property owners that contractual agreement must be upheld for it to be consent. Otherwise it can become fraud. To debase the contractual agreement is to void the very existence of property and contradict the sovereignty.

----------


## low preference guy

> You'll rationalize just about any way you can to continue profiting from the intellectual efforts of other people.  No matter how you slice it, that is the root of what you seek: *to be a parasite*.


no. in fact, the goods i produce could be protected by IP laws, but i manage to live fine without them, as many others. the fact that you attack people's motives and outright invent things about them shows that you don't have a good case and resort to desperate strategies.




> You'll rationalize just about any way you can to continue profiting from the intellectual efforts of other people.


actually, no. i'm the type of guy who buys books even if i can get them online for free because i like books better. for music i use mostly pandora. so no, you're making false attacks against me. your lies definitely make your case stronger. lol.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> no. in fact, the goods i produce could be protected by IP laws, but i manage to live fine without them, as many others. the fact that you attack people's motives and outright invent things about them shows that you don't have a good case and resort to desperate strategies.


 That is your choice to live without IP, now if an individual who is NOT you wants to protect their property they can and should be able to do so.

----------


## low preference guy

> That is your choice to live without IP, now if an individual who is NOT you wants to protect their property they can and should be able to do so.


yeah, they can protect their property, i.e., scarce goods, all they want. i'm a big fan of private property.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> yeah, they can protect their property, i.e., scarce goods, all they want. i'm a big fan of private property.


 haha the irony. its killing me.

----------


## Xenophage

> Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property.  ~Ayn Rand
> 
> They will never compute this quote.


You want to know a secret?  I used to be anti-IP back in high school, and for a while thereafter.  Yes, people are hard headed, but sometimes logic can get through.  For me, however, it took a systematic tearing down and building-up of my entire philosophy, driven entirely by introspection and lots of self-education.

I finally recognized that I could not be a creative person while simultaneously denouncing my mind as the source of my values.  A lot of libertarians do not 'get' it, and I used to be one of them.  I even proclaimed myself an anarcho-capitalist for a few years after reading some L. Neil Smith.

I get emotional over this issue but I really don't feel my mental energies are fruitfully spent arguing with these guys.  If we can build a coalition to tear down the Fed, end the wars, and get back to a constitutional government then it's a win for everybody.  I'd rather have "low preference guy" to argue with than the Obama Girl.

But, you know, libertarians are usually in dire need of more friends and fewer enemies.

And, to low preference guy: I may have said that you 'seek to be a parasite', but I don't know you and I don't assume you *want* to be a parasite, but your position on IP will get you there.  I want you to recognize that, and get back to questioning your fundamentals and where your philosophy of liberty should *really* lead you, if you're being logically consistent.

----------


## Xenophage

> no. in fact, the goods i produce could be protected by IP laws, but i manage to live fine without them, as many others. the fact that you attack people's motives and outright invent things about them shows that you don't have a good case and resort to desperate strategies.
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no. i'm the type of guy who buys books even if i can get them online for free because i like books better. for music i use mostly pandora. so no, you're making false attacks against me. your lies definitely make your case stronger. lol.


I didn't mean to attack you personally or imply that you WANT to be a parasite, but your position IS that of a parasite.  The sooner you recognize your contradiction the sooner you can begin to question your underlying philosophy.

----------


## low preference guy

> And, to low preference guy: I may have said that you 'seek to be a parasite', but I don't know you and I don't assume you *want* to be a parasite, but your position on IP will get you there.  I want you to recognize that, and get back to questioning your fundamentals and where your philosophy of liberty should *really* lead you, if you're being logically consistent.


lol! as a hard worker and very productive guy throughout all my life. i just can't. stop. laughing.

i'm not in favor of IP laws because the burden of proof is on those who want those laws, and they haven't made a good case. all you distractions and personal attacks are probably making it even for those in the pro-IP camp to sell their bull$#@!.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> You want to know a secret?  I used to be anti-IP back in high school, and for a while thereafter.  Yes, people are hard headed, but sometimes logic can get through.  For me, however, it took a systematic tearing down and building-up of my entire philosophy, driven entirely by introspection and lots of self-education.
> 
> I finally recognized that I could not be a creative person while simultaneously denouncing my mind as the source of my values.  A lot of libertarians do not 'get' it, and I used to be one of them.  I even proclaimed myself an anarcho-capitalist for a few years after reading some L. Neil Smith.
> 
> I get emotional over this issue but I really don't feel my mental energies are fruitfully spent arguing with these guys.  If we can build a coalition to tear down the Fed, end the wars, and get back to a constitutional government then it's a win for everybody.  I'd rather have "low preference guy" to argue with than the Obama Girl.
> 
> But, you know, libertarians are usually in dire need of more friends and fewer enemies.
> 
> And, to low preference guy: I may have said that you 'seek to be a parasite', but I don't know you and I don't assume you *want* to be a parasite, but your position on IP will get you there.  I want you to recognize that, and get back to questioning your fundamentals and where your philosophy of liberty should *really* lead you, if you're being logically consistent.


 I believe that all human beings are sovereign beings and that contracts of consent and mutual agreement recognize that naturally endowed sovereignty of being individuals who own themselves. To debase any consented contract between 2 people on either part is an obstruction to the sovereignty of another. The harm is done with fraud.I see a danger in the contradictions which pose as "liberty" and "freedom fighters". They seek to liberate me of my art,music,writings and product for their own self gain through fraud.

----------


## low preference guy

> but your position on IP will get you there


that's like saying that if you oppose government welfare you want to poor to die and are opposed to charity. it's absolutely ridiculous. i'm in favor of rewarding the creators on moral grounds and not just copy their stuff, but i don't want to use the government to force everyone to do the same, which doesn't work anyway. it's much better to make a moral case about the importance of rewarding creators.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> that's like saying that if you oppose government welfare you want to poor to die and are opposed to charity. it's absolutely ridiculous. i'm in favor in rewarding the creators on moral grounds and not just copy their stuff, but i don't want to use the government to force everyone to do the same, which doesn't work anyway. it's much better to make a moral case about the importance of rewarding creators.


 you view the product as charity.contradiction number 1.

----------


## low preference guy

> you view the product as charity


wrong. they can sell it if they want to. so it's not necessarily charity.

----------


## Xenophage

> yeah, they can protect their property, i.e., scarce goods, all they want. i'm a big fan of private property.


Property does not have to be scarce for it to be property.  Rocks are not scarce, but I can own a rock.

Beyond that, however, the real value in any produced good lies less in the physical object itself and more in the idea that fashioned it.  The root cause of all human values is the rational exercise of the *mind*.  You don't get a house by brute labor.  You can't smash some $#@! together randomly and create a piano!  Without the mind, without the *idea,* there is nothing.  All meaningful human action begins with a thought, an idea.

Property rights have a purpose: to support human life, to allow us to be civilized rather than tribal.  We don't have 'property' just because it sounds nice.  By betraying the mind as the creator of value, you're betraying the very core of the root of what is property.  You cannot defend property intellectually without also defending intellectual property.

----------


## low preference guy

> You cannot defend property intellectually without also defending intellectual property.


of course i can. i can prove the necessity of using material goods as property. and life can go on fine and with great progress with just that protection.

----------


## Xenophage

> that's like saying that if you oppose government welfare you want to poor to die and are opposed to charity. it's absolutely ridiculous. i'm in favor of rewarding the creators on moral grounds and not just copy their stuff, but i don't want to use the government to force everyone to do the same, which doesn't work anyway. it's much better to make a moral case about the importance of rewarding creators.


You're recognizing the deeper contradictions in your general philosophy, and if you allow this train of thought to develop, you'll realize that you are not actually an anarcho-capitalist.  I have hope for you.

----------


## Xenophage

> of course i can. i can prove the necessity of using material goods as property. and life can go on fine and with great progress with just that protection.


And where do material goods come from?

----------


## low preference guy

> You're recognizing the deeper contradictions in your general philosophy, and if you allow this train of thought to develop, you'll realize that you are not actually an anarcho-capitalist.  I have hope for you.


you're mistaken. i'm showing YOUR fallacies. and i'm not an anarcho-capitalist. on the other hand, i don't have much hope for you. maybe i'll have when you stop playing psychologist (and failing miserably).

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Property does not have to be scarce for it to be property.  Rocks are not scarce, but I can own a rock.


Is the rock you claim ownership over scarce?

----------


## CCTelander

> you're mistaken. i'm showing YOUR fallacies. and i'm not an anarcho-capitalist. on the other hand, i don't have much hope for you. maybe i'll have when you stop playing psychologist.



Oh, this is getting good! LOL

----------


## low preference guy

> And where do material goods come from?


from the big bang, i suppose.

----------


## Xenophage

> from the big bang, i suppose.


The computer you're using didn't come from the big bang.  The molecules did, I suppose.

----------


## Xenophage

> you're mistaken. i'm showing YOUR fallacies. and i'm not an anarcho-capitalist. on the other hand, i don't have much hope for you. maybe i'll have when you stop playing psychologist (and failing miserably).


I'm not playing psychologist, but we're both playing philosopher.  There's nothing wrong with that.

If you're not an anarcho-capitalist, then your argument about using the government to retaliate against criminals makes little sense.  Do you think there's a need for a criminal justice system?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Property does not have to be scarce for it to be property.  Rocks are not scarce, but I can own a rock.





> Is the rock you claim ownership over scarce?


...

----------


## Xenophage

> ...


I think I said, "rocks are not scarce," so your question is just confusing.

So, you think that because it is unique among all rocks, that it is now considered scarce?  With that logic, everything in the Universe possesses infinite scarcity.  Is there anything that is not 'scarce'?

----------


## Mustang

The thread has doubled in size since I last posted in it, and yet all I see are the same exact points in favor of IP still being tossed around while all of the counterpoints explained by myself and many others against IP continue to be ignored. There's absolutely nothing gained by this thread since there's no attempt to hold a discussion by the pro-IP side, and hopefully others will see this as well and let this topic die out.

----------


## Xenophage

There are many things that are not scarce, like the Earth's atmosphere, for example.  But you could bottle some air and own it.  Now, the bottled air is scarce, because there is a finite amount of bottled air in the world, but what about the air itself?  You can still own it, but it's entirely replaceable and not scarce in the least.

Relating this to IP, there is nothing more scarce in the entire cosmos than an original idea.  If scarcity is some measure of whether or not you can own something...

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I think I said, "rocks are not scarce," so your question is just confusing.
> 
> So, you think that because it is unique among all rocks, that it is now considered scarce?  With that logic, everything in the Universe possesses infinite scarcity.  Is there anything that is not 'scarce'?


ding ding ding.

There is infinite scarcity in the universe, which is why we have property rights to reduce conflict in regards to the use-rights of that material.

Property = the right to use that particular scarce material.

Air is economically abundant to humans, but if you bring an air tank into space, it's now economically scarce to humans and property should delineate who has use rights to the air.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Relating this to IP, there is nothing more scarce in the entire cosmos than an original idea.  If scarcity is some measure of whether or not you can own something...


Ideas can be replicated without loss to the original. It is not scarce.

Patterns are not scarce.

----------


## Xenophage

> The thread has doubled in size since I last posted in it, and yet all I see are the same exact points in favor of IP still being tossed around while all of the counterpoints explained by myself and many others against IP continue to be ignored. There's absolutely nothing gained by this thread since there's no attempt to hold a discussion by the pro-IP side, and hopefully others will see this as well and let this topic die out.


Mustang, the fundamental disagreements are:

What is property?
Why do we have property?

We do not agree on the answers, and these are essential questions.

----------


## Xenophage

> Ideas can be replicated without loss to the original. It is not scarce.
> 
> Patterns are not scarce.


And scarcity is not necessary for ownership.

To extend your logic:
- Patterns cannot be property
---------------------------------
You are a pattern of matter and energy.
You cannot be property
---------------------------------
You cannot own yourself.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

No I cannot own "human body".

I can own _my_ body of scarce material. It is a _material instance_ of the concept "human body".

----------


## Xenophage

> ding ding ding.
> 
> There is infinite scarcity in the universe, which is why we have property rights to reduce conflict in regards to the use-rights of that material.
> 
> Property = the right to use that particular scarce material.
> 
> Air is economically abundant to humans, but if you bring an air tank into space, it's now economically scarce to humans and property should delineate who has use rights to the air.


Scarcity is dependent on the environment, obviously.  But if everything is always scarce all the time, then the entire concept of scarcity is null and useless.  In other words:  If there is no way to distinguish between what is and what is not scarce, then why even talk about it?

----------


## CCTelander

> Mustang, the fundamental disagreements are:
> 
> What is property?
> Why do we have property?
> 
> We do not agree on the answers, and these are essential questions.



Would you agree that one proper definition of "property" would be: Something which the owner has the absolute right to decide the disposition of?

----------


## Xenophage

> No I cannot own "human body".
> 
> I can own _my_ body of scarce material. It is a _material instance_ of the concept "human body".


Your specific body is what I refer to.  Not 'human body.'  Your specific body is a pattern in the Universe.  In fact, everything is just patterns.  Patterns of matter and energy.

----------


## Xenophage

> Would you agree that one proper definition of "property" would be: Something which the owner has the absolute right to decide the disposition of?


I'd say that's an incomplete definition and begs the question, "What does someone have the absolute right to decide the disposition of?"

----------


## noneedtoaggress

You're conflating _material scarcity in the universe_ with a good being _economically scarce to humans_.

If a good is not economically scarce to humans they likely won't delineate property in it because they don't have to.

Of course, as you said I could homestead some air into a bottle.

I don't think anyone would buy it though cause they could get some very similar air by breathing in.

----------


## CCTelander

> I'd say that's an incomplete definition and begs the question, "What does someone have the absolute right to decide the disposition of?"



I'll concede that it may well be an incomplete definition. Will you agree that it is a truism, that the owner of any property does, in fact, have an absolute right to decide the disposition of that property?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Your specific body is what I refer to.  Not 'human body.'  Your specific body is a pattern in the Universe.  In fact, everything is just patterns.  Patterns of matter and energy.


Great. I own the [pattern of matter and energy] that I control. If the universe wants to clone me, I don't own my clone.

----------


## Xenophage

> You're conflating _scarcity in the universe_ with material being _economically scarce to humans_.
> 
> If material is not economically scarce to humans they likely won't delineate property in it because they don't have to.
> 
> Of course, as you said I could homestead some air into a bottle.
> 
> I don't think anyone would buy it though cause they could get some very similar air by breathing in.



But if you own it, you own it.  Where's the moral principle?  Or is property a moral principle to you at all?  I am not conflating scarcity in the universe to economic scarcity.  I'm trying to point out that you are.  Everything is 'scarce' in the sense of the universe and the law of identity and all that, but not everything you own is scarce.  You tried to say so.

With economic scarcity, there's an obvious delineation between what is and what is not scarce.  Rocks are not scarce, and because everyone can find a rock then why bother with property rights over rocks?  Or the air inside a jar?  Just because you can't find a buyer to sell it, doesn't mean it isn't yours.

----------


## Xenophage

> I'll concede that it may well be an incomplete definition. Will you agree that it is a truism, that the owner of any property does, in fact, have an absolute right to decide the disposition of that property?


Yes, and I'll point out that a right to do something does not equal the ability to do it.

----------


## Xenophage

> Great. I own the [pattern of matter and energy] that I control. If the universe wants to clone me, I don't own my clone.


The Universe probably won't clone you as the Universe is not a volatile consciousness capable of reasoned action (as far as we know!).  What if a scientist wanted to clone you from a hair you left in a public bathroom?

----------


## CCTelander

> Yes, and I'll point out that a right to do something does not equal the ability to do it.



Fine.

So, for example, let's say you write a song. You are then claiming that that particular abstract arrangement of notes is your property, and you have the absolute right to decide its disposition. Correct?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Just because you can't find a buyer to sell it, doesn't mean it isn't yours.


Of course the air in the bottle is mine, I never said it wasn't. And if someone wanted the specific air in my bottle they could pay me for it, unless I was really attached or wanted to consume it myself or whatever.

----------


## Xenophage

> Yes, and I'll point out that a right to do something does not equal the ability to do it.


I'd like to revise:  There are also limits on what you can or cannot do with your property, and you do not have an absolute right to its disposition.  You cannot, for instance, use your property to deprive another of his property without consent.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> The Universe probably won't clone you as the Universe is not a volatile consciousness capable of reasoned action (as far as we know!).  What if a scientist wanted to clone you from a hair you left in a public bathroom?


Are you implying that if a scientist cloned me I would own my clone?

----------


## Xenophage

> Fine.
> 
> So, for example, let's say you write a song. You are then claiming that that particular abstract arrangement of notes is your property, and you have the absolute right to decide its disposition. Correct?


As long as I'm alive.  When you're dead, you don't have rights.

----------


## Xenophage

> Are you implying that if a scientist cloned me I would own my clone?


No, I'm saying the scientist used your DNA without your consent.  This is just an interesting thought experiment, but it doesn't have much to do with my view of property rights, as I don't think you can own your DNA.

----------


## CCTelander

> I'd like to revise:  There are also limits on what you can or cannot do with your property, and you do not have an absolute right to its disposition.  You cannot, for instance, use your property to deprive another of his property without consent.





> As long as I'm alive.  When you're dead, you don't have rights.



Then you have a serious conflict to resolve before your theory of intellectual property can be correct.

Let's say someone sends me a copy of your song as an MP3, and I DL it to my computer.

Or, someone who "legitimately" bought your CD is listening to your song with their window open. I happen to walk by and overhear your song.

Exactly where, when and how did you JUSTLY acquire any level of ownership over MY computer, or my very brain? And yet your theory of IP demands that you lay claim to the right to decide their disposition, at least so far as forceably removing, or forcing me to remove your song from them.

Sorry, but you have no such right.

The enforcement of your imaginary IP "rights" REQUIRES the wholesale violation of the VERY REAL property rights of innumerable other people, the overwhelming majority of whom could not possibly have entered any contract with you, legitimate or otherwise.

----------


## Xenophage

> Then you have a serious conflict to resolve before your theory of intellectual property can be correct.
> 
> Let's say someone sends me a copy of your song as an MP3, and I DL it to my computer.
> 
> Or, someone who "legitimately" bought your CD is listening to your song with their window open. I happen to walk by and overhear your song.
> 
> Exactly where, when and how did you JUSTLY acquire any level of ownership over MY computer, or my very brain? And yet your theory of IP demands that you lay claim to the right to decide their disposition, at least so far as forceably removing, or forcing me to remove your song from them.


Negative.  I cannot remove my song from your brain.  Brains are the whole issue here.  If the idea is never given material form - if it is just floating around inside your cranium as an abstract thought, I can't do anything about that and it doesn't matter anyhow, because IP does not exist until or unless an idea has been given physical form.  As you correctly point out, I do not have any right to your brain.  I can't force you to unlearn something.

Also, the act of experiencing a work of art is not the same as the act of copying it in *physical form*.  Sure, a crude copy is stored somehow in your neurons, but to experience a work of art takes no meaningful action on the part of the listener or viewer.  It is automatic.  The recipient of the experience is engaged passively.  If no action has taken place, no crime has taken place either.  You cannot help that light goes into your eyes, or sound goes into your ears, and once its there it gets processed by your brain.  

However, if you were to write the song down as sheet music, or record it, or generate a digital copy, *then* you would be engaged in IP theft, unless I had given you permission to do so.  In that case I have every right to forcibly remove the copies from your possession.

----------


## Xenophage

To pontificate further:  Inaction cannot be criminal.  Okay, you could plug your ears and refuse to hear my music, but you should not have to expect to take some action on your own part to prevent the art from being experienced.  I hear this argument all the time - that somehow experiencing something creates a copy of it.  Well, yes, in a way, it does.  But that doesn't mean you've stolen it.

Heading to a file sharing website to download the song is quite different.

----------


## guitarlifter

The OP really should make a poll for this thread so we can see the spread of people for and against IP.

----------


## Kludge

> You definitely did jump into the debate without any prior reading. The debate is not framed around whether or not people think you are a jerk or not a jerk (emotion is irrelevant to property rights). The debate is framed around whether or not an artist/musician/writer has property rights over what they produce from their TIME,ENERGY and TALENT.


Alright, then.

No.

----------


## Conza88

LOL @ 88 pages... 

PM me if anyone actually addresses my Hoppe quote on the first page, or the videos...

Cheers.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Is the rock you claim ownership over scarce?


He's wrong anyway.  Rocks ARE scarce... they're just not VERY scarce... and their value on the market is set accordingly; "rocks" in general are inexpensive.  Shale, for instance sells at a pretty low price in this area, because shale is abundant.  Limestone rocks, however, are a bit more expensive because they are less abundant...

There's a fundamental misunderstanding of some simple economic precepts on the other side of the debate, making it almost not worth engaging in...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> As long as I'm alive.  When you're dead, you don't have rights.


You could bequeth the rights to that which you view as your property.

----------


## Fulton for City Council

> That is how music licensing works for the most part. I have no problem with it currently.


You're absolutely right that's how music licensing currently works (but the rate is set by Congress, not individuals.)  The reason they did that was practical, because they all knew that if they stifled people from covering people's music it would be a huge loss for our culture.

If it applies to music, why can't a market-based (not government-run) licensing system work for everything?

----------


## CCTelander

> Negative.  I cannot remove my song from your brain.  Brains are the whole issue here.  If the idea is never given material form - if it is just floating around inside your cranium as an abstract thought, I can't do anything about that and it doesn't matter anyhow, because IP does not exist until or unless an idea has been given physical form.  As you correctly point out, I do not have any right to your brain.  I can't force you to unlearn something.
> 
> Also, the act of experiencing a work of art is not the same as the act of copying it in *physical form*.  Sure, a crude copy is stored somehow in your neurons, but to experience a work of art takes no meaningful action on the part of the listener or viewer.  It is automatic.  The recipient of the experience is engaged passively.  If no action has taken place, no crime has taken place either.  You cannot help that light goes into your eyes, or sound goes into your ears, and once its there it gets processed by your brain.  
> 
> However, if you were to write the song down as sheet music, or record it, or generate a digital copy, *then* you would be engaged in IP theft, unless I had given you permission to do so.  In that case I have every right to forcibly remove the copies from your possession.



Well, you dance really well, but all you're doing in actuality is dodging the issue.

Whether we're talking about the neurons of my brain, my hard drive, or the paper and ink I use to write out a score, the PRINCIPLE is EXACTLY the same. These are ALL MY PERSONAL PROPERTY, justly acquired.

Exactly where, when and how did you JUSTLY acquire ANY LEVEL of ownership over any of these items of MY personal property?

Until you can provide a satisfactory answer to that question, your theory of IP fails.

----------


## Travlyr

> I have had this argument with Rothbardian IP-haters on here for years.  It's gotten quite heated at some times.
> 
> They want to be able to profit for free off the intellectual effort of people more creative than them.  That's intellectual slavery.  And they claim to love freedom?  It's an unbelievable contradiction in their general philosophy - but Rothbardian libertarians generally do not have a cohesive philosophy from which their political ideas flow.  For a more rational, consistent defense of liberty look to Ayn Rand.  She and I agree: intellectual property exists, it is just as essential to human beings as any other form of property, and needs to be protected.
> 
> A lot of people on this thread think musicians ought to be selfless charities, donating the fruits of their hard work for free to any $#@! who thinks he deserves to have a good time.  $#@!.  That.  I don't give two $#@!s about anyone who wants to rip me off.  Just as bad as a $#@!ing liberal, except maybe worse, since these "libertarians" masquerade as defenders of freedom.  I'll die before I give up my rights to my intellectual property.
> 
> Or, more likely, I'll simply stop producing or sharing my work.


+ rep for this.

It used to be an unbelievable contradiction for me too. But these guys don't have consistency or deep thinking skills. Take a look at this debate where Walter Block is arguing for getting a PhD in Keynesian Economics and the liberty loving an-caps & anarchist cheerleaders who think he won the debate.  It is disgustingly sad because Keynesianism is the root of the problem. How anyone in the liberty movement could argue for a counterfeiting cabal to rule is beyond me... but Walter Block? Man oh man how sad. A lot of us have been saying exactly this for years. Ron Paul's books, interviews, and discussions almost always refer to the merchantilsit's cabal as the liberty thieves. 

But these guys have been taught that,
Hate the StateAll Taxes are TheftAnarchy does not mean chaosExplicit is ImplicitThe Constitution is a Social Contract designed to increase the size of the government rather than limit it.Rule of Law is better without the State.
All the while ignoring some basic facts of life.
Self-ownership is only 1/2 of the equation. Self-dependency is the other 1/2 but is never addressed by them.The State provides valuable benefits as well as coercion and can be amended for a best fit. (For example, amended to no penalty for avoiding paying taxes).If taxes are defined as receiving less than 100% of the fruits of one's labor, then death and taxes are unavoidable facts of life.
The rest of us will keep fighting for freedom. When counterfeiting is finally made illegal for everybody, then liberty, peace, and prosperity will abound. But instead Stefan and many others have made it a popular fad to _"Hate the State_", so the gamers would rather fight liberty than fight for liberty.

Debate: It is Smart to Get a PhD in Economics? Walter Block vs Gary North



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwWoY...layer_embedded

----------


## CCTelander

> Negative.  I cannot remove my song from your brain.  Brains are the whole issue here.  If the idea is never given material form - if it is just floating around inside your cranium as an abstract thought, I can't do anything about that and it doesn't matter anyhow, because IP does not exist until or unless an idea has been given physical form.  As you correctly point out, I do not have any right to your brain.  I can't force you to unlearn something.
> 
> Also, the act of experiencing a work of art is not the same as the act of copying it in *physical form*.  Sure, a crude copy is stored somehow in your neurons, but to experience a work of art takes no meaningful action on the part of the listener or viewer.  It is automatic.  The recipient of the experience is engaged passively.  If no action has taken place, no crime has taken place either.  You cannot help that light goes into your eyes, or sound goes into your ears, and once its there it gets processed by your brain.  
> 
> However, if you were to write the song down as sheet music, or record it, or generate a digital copy, *then* you would be engaged in IP theft, unless I had given you permission to do so.  In that case I have every right to forcibly remove the copies from your possession.



Well, you dance really well, but all you're doing in actuality is dodging the issue.

Whether we're talking about the neurons of my brain, my hard drive, or the paper and ink I use to write out a score, the PRINCIPLE is EXACTLY the same. These are ALL MY PERSONAL PROPERTY, justly acquired.

Exactly where, when and how did you JUSTLY acquire ANY LEVEL of ownership over any of these items of MY personal property?

Until you can provide a satisfactory answer to that question, your theory of IP fails.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> *The thread has doubled in size since I last posted in it, and yet all I see are the same exact points in favor of IP still being tossed around while all of the counterpoints explained by myself and many others against IP continue to be ignored.*.


I'm sure that's how the pro-IP crowd sees it as well, just vice versa.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I have had this argument with Rothbardian IP-haters on here for years.  It's gotten quite heated at some times.
> 
> They want to be able to profit for free off the intellectual effort of people more creative than them.  That's intellectual slavery.  And they claim to love freedom?  It's an unbelievable contradiction in their general philosophy - but Rothbardian libertarians generally do not have a cohesive philosophy from which their political ideas flow.  For a more rational, consistent defense of liberty look to Ayn Rand.  She and I agree: intellectual property exists, it is just as essential to human beings as any other form of property, and needs to be protected.
> 
> A lot of people on this thread think musicians ought to be selfless charities, donating the fruits of their hard work for free to any $#@! who thinks he deserves to have a good time.  $#@!.  That.  I don't give two $#@!s about anyone who wants to rip me off.  Just as bad as a $#@!ing liberal, except maybe worse, since these "libertarians" masquerade as defenders of freedom.  I'll die before I give up my rights to my intellectual property.
> 
> Or, more likely, I'll simply stop producing or sharing my work.


Bingo.

----------


## goldencane

Pro IP'ers, answer me this. If two people come up with the same product or same idea, completely independent and unknowing of eachother (which happens fairly often), but one person gets the IP protection just before the other person is able to. The second person put in just as much time, just as much effort, has just as much talent. How is it fair that he can not use his product or idea for profit? 

What if it is the same premise, but the guy is from another country and does not know about IP laws. He still came up with his idea or product completely independently and unknowing of the person in the US that has the same idea. How is it fair that he can not use the "product" of his time, effort, and talent for profit?

Once again, because ideas and knowledge are not exclusive to one person at one time, one person can not be granted sole ownership to those ideas or knowledge.

----------


## goldencane

edit: double post

----------


## YumYum

"Who" is ripping off "who"?




> Recently, *the RIAA announced their intention to sue LimeWire for $75 trillion in damage*s - a sum greater than the current GDP of the entire global economy. There are currently around 11,000 songs on LimeWire that have been tagged as copyright-infringed, and the RIAA estimates that each one has been downloaded thousands of times, the penalties accruing to the above sum.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LimeWire

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Property rights have a purpose: to support human life, to allow us to be civilized rather than tribal.  We don't have 'property' just because it sounds nice.  By betraying the mind as the creator of value, you're betraying the very core of the root of what is property.  You cannot defend property intellectually without also defending intellectual property.


It says I can't give you any more rep at the moment. PM me so I'll remember to give you some for this later.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> "Who" is ripping off "who"?


Limewire should have contracted with musicians who were willingly interested in spreading their music for free. Instead, it helped itself to the artwork of musicians who valued their work (and the record labels that those musicians signed licenses with), so it got sued.

People aren't going to get what they sue for, but they'll get something. This happens all the time. They'll probably get what each copy of each song is worth as sold in an album in a store multiplied by the number of downloads that occurred, plus litigation fees. It sucks to be limewire, but they could easily have avoided the whole fiasco by asking permission from artists to redistribute their songs.

----------


## Conza88



----------


## low preference guy

> I'm not playing psychologist, but we're both playing philosopher.  There's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> If you're not an anarcho-capitalist, then your argument about using the government to retaliate against criminals makes little sense.  Do you think there's a need for a criminal justice system?


what's the connection between being an anarcho-capitalist and IP? how does not being in favor of anarcho-capitalism implies one is in favor of IP?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Dear lord is this thread still going?

There isn't even anything new in here, just Pro-IP'ers complaining about the opposition and patting each others back over it. Not even an argument.

----------


## CCTelander

> Dear lord is this thread still going?
> 
> There isn't even anything new in here, just Pro-IP'ers complaining about the opposition and patting each others back over it. Not even an argument.



Not even a straight answer to direct questions. Just the usual dodging and ignoring.

Kind of telling, don't you think?

----------


## josh b

This thread is making me depressed about the fate of the liberty movement.

----------


## Travlyr

I think most people are in awe that you guys argue for theft from others.

A man devotes years of his life researching and developing a motor that runs on hydrogen and exhausts water. He brings his invention to market, and you guys would allow anyone _(an established factory owner who already has the equipment that can be modified to produce this man's invention bought and paid for so he has total advantage to produce the engines immediately)_ can copy his invention without paying just compensation for the man's R&D. 

No thanks.

----------


## CCTelander

> I think most people are in awe that you guys argue for theft from others.
> 
> A man devotes years of his life researching and developing a motor that runs on hydrogen and exhausts water. He brings his invention to market, and you guys would allow anyone _(an established factory owner who already has the equipment that can be modified to produce this man's invention bought and paid for so he has total advantage to produce the engines immediately)_ can copy his invention without paying just compensation for the man's R&D. 
> 
> No thanks.



The whole of human civilization is firmly based upon copying and improving upon the innovations of others.

"We stand on the shoulders of giants."

There is NO theft involved. The original innovator is still free to use his innovation as he sees fit. NOTHING has been taken from him.

And, yet once again, that Marxist labor theory of value pops up.

----------


## Mr Tansill

Question:

Does the anti-IP side believe in the right to trademark?

Simple Yes or No.

----------


## goldencane

Travlyr, Xenophage, CaptainAmerica, Revolution9, Mr Tansill, and other IP'ers:




> Pro IP'ers, answer me this. If two people come up with the same product or same idea, completely independent and unknowing of eachother (which happens fairly often), but one person gets the IP protection just before the other person is able to. The second person put in just as much time, just as much effort, has just as much talent. How is it fair that he can not use his product or idea for profit? 
> 
> What if it is the same premise, but the guy is from another country and does not know about IP laws. He still came up with his idea or product completely independently and unknowing of the person in the US that has the same idea. How is it fair that he can not use the "product" of his time, effort, and talent for profit?
> 
> Once again, because ideas and knowledge are not exclusive to one person at one time, one person can not be granted sole ownership to those ideas or knowledge.

----------


## Travlyr

> The whole of human civilization is firmly based upon copying and improving upon the innovations of others.
> 
> "We stand on the shoulders of giants."
> 
> *There is NO theft involved.* The original innovator is still free to use his innovation as he sees fit. NOTHING has been taken from him.
> 
> And, yet once again, that Marxist labor theory of value pops up.


No theft? What about the years of labor expended in research and development that the factory owner got for free? That is theft.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I think most people are in awe that you guys argue for theft from others.
> 
> A man devotes years of his life researching and developing a motor that runs on hydrogen and exhausts water. He brings his invention to market, and you guys would allow anyone _(an established factory owner who already has the equipment that can be modified to produce this man's invention bought and paid for so he has total advantage to produce the engines immediately)_ can copy his invention without paying just compensation for the man's R&D. 
> 
> No thanks.


The amazing thing is that you keep throwing around the word "theft" in the vain hope that repeating it will make it true.  I'll repeat this again-not even the law as it is uses the word "theft" or any synonym or related term.  That is just empty rhetoric thrown around by pro-IPers in hopes of making the issue emotional rather than logical.

----------


## Travlyr

> The amazing thing is that you keep throwing around the word "theft" in the vain hope that repeating it will make it true.  I'll repeat this again-not even the law as it is uses the word "theft" or any synonym or related term.  That is just empty rhetoric thrown around by pro-IPers in hopes of making the issue emotional rather than logical.


No it is not an emotional issue. If a man spends years upon years working on a project using his own resources that is a serious investment. R&D is valid work that deserves compensation. Stealing the R&D investment from the man is theft in my book.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> 


That's fantastic...really.

But I LOL'd when I heard the narrator acknowledge that if the producer of knowledge or any product wants to keep it secret they can *do so by contractual agreement!!!*

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

He later qualified his position by it by calling it "highly demanding" and "nonsensical"  blah, blah, blah...that's the decision of each individual to make.

DAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!

Once the anti-IP side removes itself from the "abstract" realm of "intellectual" property, the problem becomes completely solvent, and the previously supposed difficulties evaporate.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein

----------


## CCTelander

> No it is not an emotional issue. If a man spends years upon years working on a project using his own resources that is a serious investment. R&D is valid work that deserves compensation. Stealing the R&D investment from the man is theft in my book.



So what? His labor doesn't ENTITLE him to anything. Like everyone else he's free to ATTEMPT to profit from his efforts in the free market. He gets NO GUARANTEE of success.

I can (and HAVE) spend years upon years building up my own business. Then, a competitor comes along and does what I do better, or more efficiently, or improves upon my product making theirs more desirable to the general public. I go out of business due to lost market share.

Did my competitor "steal" my profits? Of course not.

EVERYONE who enters the market is subject to market forces. Period. You don't get a guarantee of profit just because you invested significant resources in your attempt.

----------


## CCTelander

> That's fantastic...really.
> 
> But I LOL'd when I heard the narrator acknowledge that if the producer of knowledge or any product wants to keep it secret they can *do so by contractual agreement!!!*
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> 
> He later qualified his position by it by calling it "highly demanding" and "nonsensical"  blah, blah, blah...that's the decision of each individual to make.
> 
> DAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!
> ...



One wonders why you appear to be gloating so since NOBODY has argued that innovators do not have the right to ATTEMPT to protect their innovations through the use of LEGITIMATE contractual agreements. NDAs for example.

Better luck next time.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> No theft? What about the years of labor expended in research and development that the factory owner got for free? That is theft.


Exactly.  The issue is that the anti-IP side will not delineate between an abstract idea that is the computer, car, airplane, music, or whatever, and the specific cases of those "abstractions" such as Dell/Visio, Ford/Toyota, Boeing/Airbus, Microsoft/Apple, Wolfram/Maple, Led Zeppelin/Lady Gaga, you name it...

No one owns the abstraction of the "computer" or "music" or "airplane" - no one on the IP side denies this.  What the anti-IP side is doing is improperly extending the inability to own these "ideas/abstractions" to specific instances as well.  "Oh, because no one can own "music," that means no one can own a specific arrangement of notes..."  "because no one can own a computer," translates in their world to "no one can own Windows 7."

----------


## Mr Tansill

> One wonders why you appear to be gloating so since NOBODY has argued that innovators do not have the right to ATTEMPT to protect their innovations through the use of LEGITIMATE contractual agreements. NDAs for example.
> 
> Better luck next time.


Dude, if you acquiesce that...it's all I was after - a legitimate acknowledgement that voluntary contractual agreements are a way for artists and other innovators to protect their specific work.

----------


## CCTelander

> Dude, if you acquiesce that...it's all I was after - a legitimate acknowledgement that voluntary contractual agreements are a way for artists and other innovators to protect their specific work.



Once again, LEGITIMATE contracts are indeed a way for them to ATTEMPT to do so.

I think, however, that the results would turn out to be significantly different than you seem to be imagining.

----------


## Travlyr

> So what? His labor doesn't ENTITLE him to anything. Like everyone else he's free to ATTEMPT to profit from his efforts in the free market. He gets NO GUARANTEE of success.
> 
> I can (and HAVE) spend years upon years building up my own business. Then, a competitor comes along and does what I do better, or more efficiently, or improves upon my product making theirs more desirable to the general public. I go out of business due to lost market share.
> 
> EVERYONE who enters the market is subject to market forces. Period. You don't get a guarantee of profit just because you invested significant resources in your attempt.


Nobody is guaranteeing anybody anything. IP laws allow the original creator an opportunity to recover previous costs of research and development because those costs are real. IP laws promote innovation for profit. Anti-IP laws stifle original innovation by making it nearly impossible for inventors to recoup the costs of the original R&D.

----------


## CCTelander

> Nobody is guaranteeing anybody anything. IP laws allow the original creator an opportunity to recover previous costs of research and development because those costs are real. IP laws promote innovation for profit. Anti-IP laws stifle original innovation by making it nearly impossible for inventors to recoup the costs of the original R&D.



Bull$#@! from start to finish.

You ARE attempting to guarantee the innovator the RIGHT to PROFIT from his innovation by excluding anyone else from such an attempt, by granting him a monopoly. He has no such right. He has ONLY the right to TRY to profit.

The costs of building and improving my business are very real as well. Am I then guaranteed a right to recover those? Of course not, merely the right to ATTEMPT to recover them by entering the market and competing to the best of my ability.

IP laws DO NOT promote innovation. They stifle it and gradually centralize the ownership of ideas in the hands of major multi-national corporations like Disney, granting these corps an unfair advantage in the market. IP laws usually do NO GOOD WHATEVER for the small creator or innovator.

I really, REALLY wish that people would actually spend some time learning about a topic before they jump in and start arguing about it. Virtually everything you said is factually incorrect, yet you, and others persist in asserting these same erroneous claims. It gets tiresome.

----------


## Travlyr

If any of you creators out there believe that you should be compensated for your devotion, your skills, and hard earned efforts then certain IP laws may start to make sense. 

If so PM Conza because he knows everything. This bull$#@! is in his signature.



> _Intellectually dishonest trolls on my ignore list: Travlyr, Jake Halston, newbitech. 
> If you consider a response of there's convincing (highly unlikely) & want a rebuttal: pm me for enlightenment._

----------


## Travlyr

> Bull$#@! from start to finish.
> 
> You ARE attempting to guarantee the innovator the RIGHT to PROFIT from his innovation by excluding anyone else from such an attempt, by granting him a monopoly. He has no such right. He has ONLY the right to TRY to profit.
> 
> The costs of building and improving my business are very real as well. Am I then guaranteed a right to recover those? Of course not, merely the right to ATTEMPT to recover them by entering the market and competing to the best of my ability.
> 
> IP laws DO NOT promote innovation. They stifle it and gradually centralize the ownership of ideas in the hands of major multi-national corporations like Disney, granting these corps an unfair advantage in the market. IP laws usually do NO GOOD WHATEVER for the small creator or innovator.
> 
> I really, REALLY wish that people would actually spend some time learning about a topic before they jump in and start arguing about it. Virtually everything you said is factually incorrect, yet you, and others persist in asserting these same erroneous claims. It gets tiresome.


Not all IP laws are the same.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Once again, LEGITIMATE contracts are indeed a way for them to ATTEMPT to do so.
> 
> I think, however, that the results would turn out to be significantly different than you seem to be imagining.


Legitimate = Voluntary

Attempt = Enforceable in court

I'm not imagining anything really...probably wouldn't look much different than right now.

Murder is against the law, and it still occurs.  The whole point of a body of law is to provide a common agreement a society can form upon.  An agreement between a producer of an idea and the consumer of an idea would be voluntary.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No it is not an emotional issue. If a man spends years upon years working on a project using his own resources that is a serious investment. R&D is valid work that deserves compensation. Stealing the R&D investment from the man is theft in my book.


R&D people do get paid.  They get paychecks.  You're conflating residuals (an unjust transfer of wealth) with compensation.  As has been reiterated over and over, you're perfectly free to sell your product and profit from it.  But once it's out there, you've lost control of it.  The owners can do whatever they want with it.  If you _really_ believe that this eats into your profit, don't sell it at all.  Keep your IP to yourself or someplace where others can't (theoretically) copy it.  Only play your music in concert halls, only display your paintings in galleries, etc., so people have to pay every time they observe your work.  But, even if you do this, you risk someone like me who can remember melodies, images, words, etc. and copy them down after the show.  

Do you pay the person who made your door every time you use it?  Of course not.  Even if you were good enough with woodwork and could copy the door, the craftsman would be foolish to try and claim you "stole" it from him.

Go back to where I posted the definition of "theft" and review it a few times so you understand it.  That way you can stop using this sort of fallacious reasoning.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Bull$#@! from start to finish.
> 
> You ARE attempting to guarantee the innovator the RIGHT to PROFIT from his innovation by excluding anyone else from such an attempt, by granting him a monopoly. He has no such right. He has ONLY the right to TRY to profit.
> 
> The costs of building and improving my business are very real as well. Am I then guaranteed a right to recover those? Of course not, merely the right to ATTEMPT to recover them by entering the market and competing to the best of my ability.
> 
> IP laws DO NOT promote innovation. They stifle it and gradually centralize the ownership of ideas in the hands of major multi-national corporations like Disney, granting these corps an unfair advantage in the market. IP laws usually do NO GOOD WHATEVER for the small creator or innovator.
> 
> I really, REALLY wish that people would actually spend some time learning about a topic before they jump in and start arguing about it. Virtually everything you said is factually incorrect, yet you, and others persist in asserting these same erroneous claims. It gets tiresome.


This^^ +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Do you pay the person who made your door every time you use it?  Of course not.  Even if you were good enough with woodwork and could copy the door, the craftsman would be foolish to try and claim you "stole" it from him.


No dumbass, but neither do you, the purchaser of the door, once you own it, replicate it 50,000,000 times and give it away for free!!!!!

----------


## low preference guy

> R&D people do get paid.  They get paychecks.  You're conflating residuals (an unjust transfer of wealth) with compensation.  As has been reiterated over and over, you're perfectly free to sell your product and profit from it.  But once it's out there, you've lost control of it.  *The owners can do whatever they want with it. *


I disagree with this. If there is a contract involved, the owner can be restricted.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I'm not playing psychologist, but we're both playing philosopher.  There's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> If you're not an anarcho-capitalist, then your argument about using the government to retaliate against criminals makes little sense.  Do you think there's a need for a criminal justice system?


 If I was to take them to court to dispute property, they would call it "government violence". The irony is that the anti-ip advocates believe in a hocus pocus form of economy in which no civil government exists because no matter how you put it, they view civil government as "use of violence" when disputing property .

----------


## Travlyr

> R&D people do get paid.  They get paychecks.  You're conflating residuals (an unjust transfer of wealth) with compensation.  As has been reiterated over and over, you're perfectly free to sell your product and profit from it.  But once it's out there, you've lost control of it.  The owners can do whatever they want with it.  If you _really_ believe that this eats into your profit, don't sell it at all.  Keep your IP to yourself or someplace where others can't (theoretically) copy it.  Only play your music in concert halls, only display your paintings in galleries, etc., so people have to pay every time they observe your work.  But, even if you do this, you risk someone like me who can remember melodies, images, words, etc. and copy them down after the show.  
> 
> Do you pay the person who made your door every time you use it?  Of course not.  Even if you were good enough with woodwork and could copy the door, the craftsman would be foolish to try and claim you "stole" it from him.
> 
> Go back to where I posted the definition of "theft" and review it a few times so you understand it.  That way you can stop using this sort of fallacious reasoning.


Total false argument. I'm not saying IP laws have to extend indefinitely. I'm claiming that IP laws level the playing field for innovators.

A man INVESTS time and money into a project. Another man comes along and says, "Hey nice machine" I think I'll copy it and sell them. The man who did not make the investment of time and money has the competitive advantage because he has no R&D investment. That's theft and bull$#@!.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Mustang, the fundamental disagreements are:
> 
> What is property?
> Why do we have property?
> 
> We do not agree on the answers, and these are essential questions.


 and also

What constitutes fraud?

----------


## low preference guy

> A man INVESTS time and money into a project. Another man comes along and says, *"Hey nice machine" I think I'll copy it and sell them*. The man who did not make the investment of time and money has the competitive advantage because he has no R&D investment. That's theft and bull$#@!.


That's only if the creator CHOOSES to give somebody else access to his machine. If somebody breaks his door to access the machine of course we are opposed to that and the criminal should go to jail.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Your specific body is what I refer to.  Not 'human body.'  Your specific body is a pattern in the Universe.  In fact, everything is just patterns.  Patterns of matter and energy.


 anti-ip got pwned.

----------


## Travlyr

> That's only if the creator CHOOSES to give somebody else access to his machine.


No, not without IP laws. Without IP protection as soon as the machine goes to market bigger fish with deep banker pockets will replicate it and put the original inventor out of business before he can get his factory off the ground. The investment of time and money creating a new invention can be huge. Creators should be rewarded for innovation by IP laws which can level the playing field.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I disagree with this. If there is a contract involved, the owner can be restricted.


Yes, but with the subject at hand (IP), there is no contract involved.  Only an exchange of money for ideas.

----------


## goldencane

For the 3rd time, any IP'ers have answers?




> Pro IP'ers, answer me this. If two people come up with the same product or same idea, completely independent and unknowing of eachother (which happens fairly often), but one person gets the IP protection just before the other person is able to. The second person put in just as much time, just as much effort, has just as much talent. How is it fair that he can not use his product or idea for profit? 
> 
> What if it is the same premise, but the guy is from another country and does not know about IP laws. He still came up with his idea or product completely independently and unknowing of the person in the US that has the same idea. How is it fair that he can not use the "product" of his time, effort, and talent for profit?
> 
> Once again, because ideas and knowledge are not exclusive to one person at one time, one person can not be granted sole ownership to those ideas or knowledge.

----------


## low preference guy

> Yes, but with the subject at hand (IP), there is no contract involved.  Only an exchange of money for ideas.


Nothing prevents a sell to occur with a contract involved, so it is not true that in all cases the owner could do as he wishes. That could be true only if the seller chooses to do the sell without using a restricting contract.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> This thread is making me depressed about the fate of the liberty movement.


 It is a can of worms because there are people masquerading as individual liberty advocates, but so extreme that they would advocate an ideal that contradicts the very philosophy of individuality. Of course the anti-ip crowd will claim that they have a right to do whatever they want with someone elses art/music/and literary works and that it constitutes "liberty"

----------


## low preference guy

> No, not without IP laws. Without IP protection as soon as the machine goes to market bigger fish with deep banker pockets will replicate it and put the original inventor out of business before he can get his factory off the ground. The investment of time and money creating a new invention can be huge. Creators should be rewarded for innovation by IP laws which can level the playing field.


If the creator doesn't want others to replicate his work, he can make each buyer sign a contract in which the buyers agree to not replicate or show the machine to anybody.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *No dumbass*, but neither do you, the purchaser of the door, once you own it, replicate it 50,000,000 times and give it away for free!!!!!


Ah, ad hominem.  The last resort of the man with no argument.  You're right, the owner of the door can purchase it and replicate it for free.  Craftsmen have been doing this for centuries.  This way, people can own furniture of similar make to antiques at a fraction of the cost.  Ever watch "This Old House" or a similar show?  It's common for those guys to observe old (and sometimes new) designs and copy them in the workshop.

----------


## Travlyr

> If the creator doesn't want others to replicate his work, he can make each buyer sign a contract in which the buyers agree to not replicate or show the machine to anybody.


That seems inefficient for the 21st century.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> This thread is making me depressed about the fate of the liberty movement.


+1

Too many people thinking like politicians instead of entrepreneurs.

----------


## CCTelander

> Total false argument. I'm not saying IP laws have to extend indefinitely. I'm claiming that IP laws level the playing field for innovators.
> 
> A man INVESTS time and money into a project. Another man comes along and says, "Hey nice machine" I think I'll copy it and sell them. The man who did not make the investment of time and money has the competitive advantage because he has no R&D investment. That's theft and bull$#@!.



Once again, your scenario is bull$#@!.

I invest time and money in building my business. A competitor comes along and does it better, more efficiently, or just cheaper. He has a competitive advantage since I've already spent the time, money and effort in breaking the trail so he doesn't have to.

SO WHAT? That's how the market works. Deal.

And you're DEAD WRONG anyway in saying that somebody could EASILY duplicate the innovation without the cost of R & D. If the innovator is smart, he won't be releasing his innovation to the market until he's ready to hit hard and fast. Then HE will have a HUGE competitive advantage over everyone else because he will be able to position himself as the ORIGINAL. People LIKE dealing with the original creator and this alone will guarantee him that HUGE market advantage for MANY MANY years to come.

You're just pulling the usual parade of horribles out of your ass and hoping they'll stick.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *It is a can of worms because there are people masquerading as individual liberty advocates,* but so extreme that they would advocate an ideal that contradicts the very philosophy of individuality. Of course the anti-ip crowd will claim that they have a right to do whatever they want with someone elses art/music/and literary works and that it constitutes "liberty"


Yes, you pro-IP folks are indeed "masquerading as individual liberty advocates".  What kind of "liberty advocate" would deny that a person can do what he wishes with his rightly acquired property (providing he does not harm others, of course)?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> If the creator doesn't want others to replicate his work, he can make each buyer sign a contract in which the buyers agree to not replicate or show the machine to anybody.


 the anti-ip crowd already argued that "contractual agreements" are not allowed and not valid.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Yes, you pro-IP folks are indeed "masquerading as individual liberty advocates".  What kind of "liberty advocate" would deny that a person can do what he wishes with his rightly acquired property (providing he does not harm others, of course)?


 touche. When you say you have the right to control what I have created it is you who advocates a distorted perversion of "individual liberty".

----------


## low preference guy

> the anti-ip crowd already argued that "cointractual agreements" are not allowed and not valid.


idiotic smear. one person is not "the anti-ip crowd". what a moron.

----------


## CCTelander

> touche. When you say you have the right to control what I have created it is you who advocates a distorted perversion of "individual liberty".



"I know you are but what am I?"

Puhlease.

Now tell me, EXACTLY where, when, and how did you manage to JUSTLY acquire any level of ownership interest in MY personal property, such as my hard drive, paper and ink, even the very neurons of my brain, so as to be able to JUSTLY dictate the disposition of that property?

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Travlyr, Xenophage, CaptainAmerica, Revolution9, Mr Tansill, and other IP'ers:
> 
> 
> Pro IP'ers, answer me this. If two people come up with the same product or same idea, completely independent and unknowing of each other (which happens fairly often), but one person gets the IP protection just before the other person is able to. The second person put in just as much time, just as much effort, has just as much talent. How is it fair that he can not use his product or idea for profit?
> 
> What if it is the same premise, but the guy is from another country and does not know about IP laws. He still came up with his idea or product completely independently and unknowing of the person in the US that has the same idea. How is it fair that he can not use the "product" of his time, effort, and talent for profit?
> 
> Once again, because ideas and knowledge are not exclusive to one person at one time, one person can not be granted sole ownership to those ideas or knowledge.


OK.

First, I would challenge your premise that two people "often" come up with the same idea.  Were the Rolling Stones right on the verge of finishing "Stairway to Heaven," and three days prior to them filing copyright, Led Zeppelin swooped in and claimed sole ownership?  I don't think so.

Two instances I _can_ think of though are Newton/Leibnitz and the discovery of Calculus (or invention depending on your persuasion), and Einstein/Hilbert on the discovery/formulation of General Relativity.  In both these cases, individuals were working on theories independent of one another and shortly before one completed it, the other published their results - granted these are physical theories, but I think it would fit the description of an 'idea' or 'intellectual' property - at least potentially.

Anyway, in a case like this, I think the person who filed the claim first would have the right to it; however, I think the person who was right on the other's heels would have a very legitimate court case in which he could argue to "share" the copyright - obviously this is theoretical, but it's what you get when you ask a hypothetical that, in my opinion, is so extraordinarily improbable that it is effectively impossible.

And I agree that knowledge is not exclusive to one person at one time - nobody owns Calculus or the theory of General Relativity.  Where I diverge from the anti-IP side is where they classify _ALL_ information as knowledge - it is the core of my earlier critique that this definition would encompass ALL material things - strings of 0s and 1s are knowledge when etched on a CD, as are bananas that are a certain configuration of electrons and protons.  It's when we get into these (honestly _semantic_), disagreements about what property is that we confuse the situation.

I don't know the specifics, so forgive me, but something similar happened when some bio company attempted to copyright the human gene or something - a ridiculous premise.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Travlyr, Xenophage, CaptainAmerica, Revolution9, Mr Tansill, and other IP'ers:





> If the creator doesn't want others to replicate his work, he can make each buyer sign a contract in which the buyers agree to not replicate or show the machine to anybody.


...I think I'm finally getting through...

----------


## robert68

> Question:
> 
> Does the anti-IP side believe in the right to trademark?
> 
> Simple Yes or No.


For the most part, I believe, yes.

----------


## Travlyr

> Once again, your scenario is bull$#@!.
> 
> I invest time and money in building my *business.* A competitor comes along and does it better, more efficiently, or just cheaper. He has a competitive advantage since I've already spent the time, money and effort in breaking the trail so he doesn't have to.
> 
> SO WHAT? That's how the market works. Deal.
> 
> *And you're DEAD WRONG anyway in saying that somebody could EASILY duplicate the innovation without the cost of R & D. If the innovator is smart, he won't be releasing his innovation to the market until he's ready to hit hard and fast. Then HE will have a HUGE competitive advantage over everyone else because he will be able to position himself as the ORIGINAL. People LIKE dealing with the original creator and this alone will guarantee him that HUGE market advantage for MANY MANY years to come.*
> 
> You're just pulling the usual parade of horribles out of your ass and hoping they'll stick.


Lol...

Such a vicious reply. Are you sure you subscribe to the NAP?

IP does not protect the business. IP levels the playing field by compensating for the R&D of creation by innovation ... real costs.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Travlyr, Xenophage, CaptainAmerica, Revolution9, Mr Tansill, and other IP'ers:





> the anti-ip crowd already argued that "contractual agreements" are not allowed and not valid.


Not recently...in the last few pages, a few have acknowledged they are legitimate...

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> ...I think I'm finally getting through...



they ignore what I wrote earlier and dismissed it as invalid:



> captainamerica said:When a contractual agreement is made between 2 sovereign property owners that contractual agreement must be upheld for it to be consent. Otherwise it can become fraud. To debase the contractual agreement is to void the very existence of property and contradict the sovereignty.

----------


## low preference guy

> Anyway, in a case like this, I think the person who filed the claim first would have the right to it; however, I think the person who was right on the other's heels would have a very legitimate court case in which he could argue to "share" the copyright


lol! so basically a person who created something can use it only after some court gives him permission. this shows the insanity of the pro intellectual "property" position.

----------


## CCTelander

> Lol...
> 
> Such a vicious reply. Are you sure you subscribe to the NAP?
> 
> IP does not protect the business. IP levels the playing field by compensating for the R&D of creation by innovation ... real costs.



Once again you utterly failed to even confront, let alone rebut, any of the substantive points rasied by your opponents and just continue to make the same provably false assertions over and over again.

And you wonder why we consider "discussion" with you a complete waste of time.

Carry on.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Lol...
> 
> Such a vicious reply. Are you sure you subscribe to the NAP?
> 
> IP does not protect the business. IP levels the playing field by compensating for the R&D of creation by innovation ... real costs.


he told me at least 5 times "adapt or die" ....

----------


## noneedtoaggress

There hasn't been anything new here in many pages.

This thread really should just be locked.

----------


## low preference guy

> IP does not protect the business. IP levels the playing field by compensating for the R&D of creation by innovation ... real costs.


real costs? wtf? real costs don't determine the price of anything. it's supply and demand. do you believe in the labor theory of value?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> lol! so basically a person who created something can use it only after some court gives him permission. this shows the insanity of the pro intellectual "property" position.


 there is no insanity in having civil government. Civil government was established to recognize sovereign bodies in the first place and you will never have utopia, especially in anarchy.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> For the most part, I believe, yes.


Good, because in my opinion, if you don't then anyone could produce an Apple computer and sell it as such...

----------


## Mr Tansill

> lol! so basically a person who created something can use it only after some court gives him permission. this shows the insanity of the pro intellectual "property" position.


LOL...I know right???!?!  He asked a ridiculous hypothetical!!!!

You latch on to a small point in my response, but gloss over the rest??? Why?

----------


## CCTelander

> he told me at least 5 times "adapt or die" ....



Figuratively speaking.

Face reality. IP as we've known it IS DEAD. Right or wrong, technology has killed it.

So, either you nadapt to the REAL WORLD market conditions, AS THEY ACTUALLY EXIST, or you'll die the same kind of market death that the buggy manufacturers did with the advent of the automobile.

Adapt of die.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> touche. When you say you have the right to control what I have created it is you who advocates a distorted perversion of "individual liberty".


Except that's not the argument.  I said I have the right to control what I've rightly acquired.  You completely ignored the content of my post to erect this strawman.

----------


## low preference guy

> LOL...I know right???!?!  He asked a ridiculous hypothetical!!!!


something that happened in reality is not a ridiculous hypothetical.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

CCtelander ,if you were a telemarketer and obtained consented name and number of other people, could you then take it upon yourself to imposter them with that obtained information? After all, they consented for you to use it in a transaction but since it is now in your hands, according to anti-ip it belongs to you to do whatever you wish including fraud.Is this correct?

----------


## Travlyr

> real costs? wtf? real costs don't determine the price of anything. it's supply and demand. do you believe in the labor theory of value?


Real costs determine prices. If corn costs $5 per bushel to grow, and it sells for $4 per bushel... you'll run out of corn. The cost to grow it is calculated into the price.

If one manufacturer does not have to pay R&D costs, then he can sell his product for less money than the manufacturer who does pay the R&D costs.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> something that happened in reality is not a ridiculous hypothetical.


Wait...what?

What was the instance when two people came up with the same idea???

Did he provide an example?  No.

Did you?  No.

Comment invalid.

Both the examples I provided were examples of physical theories which no one owns...

No example was provided showing how two people came up with the same song in isolation from each other - that is his ridiculous hypothetical...

----------


## low preference guy

> *Real costs determine prices*. If corn costs $5 per bushel to grow, then and it sells for $4 per bushel... you'll run out of corn. The cost to grow it is calculated into the price.


wrong. google labor theory of value.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> he told me at least 5 times "adapt or die" ....


In terms of a business model and free markets he's absolutely correct.  You either adapt or die, unless of course you run to mommy and daddy (the government) and beg them to use violence to protect you from people who know how to provide your product/service better, faster and/or cheaper than you do.

----------


## CCTelander

> CCtelander ,if you were a telemarketer and obtained consented name and number of other people, could you then take it upon yourself to imposter them with that obtained information? After all, they consented for you to use it in a transaction but since it is now in your hands, according to anti-ip it belongs to you to do whatever you wish including fraud.Is this correct?



I have no idea what you're asking me here. Nor does what you appear to be asking have any relevance whatever to the current debate.

----------


## CCTelander

> Real costs determine prices. If corn costs $5 per bushel to grow, and it sells for $4 per bushel... you'll run out of corn. The cost to grow it is calculated into the price.
> 
> If one manufacturer does not have to pay R&D costs, then he can sell his product for less money than the manufacturer who does pay the R&D costs.



Cost do not determine price. That's based in the Marxist labor theory of value.

Supply and demand, what the market will bear determines prices.

----------


## CCTelander

> In terms of a business model and free markets he's absolutely correct.  You either adapt or die, unless of course you run to mommy and daddy (the government) and beg them to use violence to protect you from people who know how to provide your product/service better, faster and/or cheaper than you do.



It seemed so simple the half dozen or so times I've tried to make the point.

Seems to hit a brick wall every time though.

----------


## goldencane

> OK.
> 
> First, I would challenge your premise that two people "often" come up with the same idea.  Were the Rolling Stones right on the verge of finishing "Stairway to Heaven," and three days prior to them filing copyright, Led Zeppelin swooped in and claimed sole ownership?  I don't think so.
> 
> Two instances I _can_ think of though are Newton/Leibnitz and the discovery of Calculus (or invention depending on your persuasion), and Einstein/Hilbert on the discovery/formulation of General Relativity.  In both these cases, individuals were working on theories independent of one another and shortly before one completed it, the other published their results - granted these are physical theories, but I think it would fit the description of an 'idea' or 'intellectual' property - at least potentially.
> 
> Anyway, in a case like this, I think the person who filed the claim first would have the right to it; however, I think the person who was right on the other's heels would have a very legitimate court case in which he could argue to "share" the copyright - obviously this is theoretical, but it's what you get when you ask a hypothetical that, in my opinion, is so extraordinarily improbable that it is effectively impossible.
> 
> And I agree that knowledge is not exclusive to one person at one time - nobody owns Calculus or the theory of General Relativity.  Where I diverge from the anti-IP side is where we classify _ALL_ information as knowledge - it is the core of my earlier critique that this definition would encompass ALL material things - strings of 0s and 1s are knowledge when etched on a CD, as are bananas that are a certain configuration of electrons and protons.  It's when we get into these (honestly _semantic_), disagreements about what property is that we confuse the situation.



When it is about something complex like calculus, it may be rare for two people to have the same idea at once, but for simpler things I would argue that it happens quite often. How many people do you think had the idea to use "Seal Team 6" in their products after Bin Laden was killed? I'm betting a lot, but Disney swooped in and got a government imposed monopoly on it. 

Even if it is not at the same time, it is wrong. I am not an inventor, but I personally have come up with many ideas for products, only to find out that someone came up with the idea ten years before I was born. That product can not be found anywhere, but it is protected "IP". If someone today comes up with an idea completely independently and unknowing of someone who came up with it before them, why should they not be able to use that idea that they developed with their time, energy, and talents?

And sharing a copyright would not work. First of all, millions of people could have come up with the same idea on their own. Do they all get to share it? What if not all of them came up with it on their own, how would the government prove they didn't?

Knowledge is just what we know. If we know a piece of information then it is knowledge.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> wrong. google labor theory of value.


 we obviously do not advocate the radical labor of theory value you speak of. I already made clear that I advocate contractual agreements in which an artist/writer/musician has control over their product in contractual agreement upon mutual exchange . I believe for property to be exchanged there must be a consent and followed with agreement if it is mutually decided between 2 property owners.

----------


## Travlyr

> wrong. google labor theory of value.


That's not wrong. I don't need theory to prove that.
Two manufactures of automobiles.
One pays cheap labor and uses cheap materials, and the other pays union wages and expensive materials. The car with the less costs can be sold more cheaply than the car with the more expensive costs. Real costs are factored into prices.

----------


## Travlyr

> Cost do not determine price. That's based in the Marxist labor theory of value.
> 
> Supply and demand, what the market will bear determines prices.


Wow. Time to get out of your Mom's basement and go outside. In the real world costs of production are factored into prices.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Real costs determine prices.


Wow, epic face palm moment.  

Dude, that's straight up labor theory of value. Aka Marxist economics.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Wondering if anyone is willing to answer this question:

I do not own a single CD that informs me that I have entered a contract without having to open up the packaging first. How can this be considered a contract if I do not have the ability to consent to the terms before buying the product?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> In terms of a business model and free markets he's absolutely correct.  You either adapt or die, unless of course you run to mommy and daddy (the government) and beg them to use violence to protect you from people who know how to provide your product/service better, faster and/or cheaper than you do.


 is the government always referred to as "use of violence"? I believe in having a civil limited government. There is nothing violent about taking a person to court and disputing whether or not they are the original author of an idea manifested into product .

----------


## CCTelander

> Wow, epic face palm moment.  
> 
> Dude, that's straight up labor theory of value. Aka Marxist economics.



I know. This kind of ignorance is shocking, isn't it?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Wondering if anyone is willing to answer this question:
> 
> I do not own a single CD that informs me that I have entered a contract without having to open up the packaging first. How can this be considered a contract if I do not have the ability to consent to the terms before buying the product?


 Call the studio and ask before purchasing and take responsibility for your own purchases.

----------


## CCTelander

> Wondering if anyone is willing to answer this question:
> 
> I do not own a single CD that informs me that I have entered a contract without having to open up the packaging first. How can this be considered a contract if I do not have the ability to consent to the terms before buying the product?



It can't.

Just one of the MANY, epic failures of EULAs as they currently exist.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> In the real world costs of production are factored into prices.


Something tells me you don't run a business.  Costs and prices are factors in determining the profitability, but costs do not determine price in a market, the laws of supply and demand do.

----------


## CCTelander

> Call the studio and ask before purchasing and take responsibility for your own purchases.



Ridiculous.

Next.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> When it is about something complex like calculus, it may be rare for two people to have the same idea at once, but for simpler things I would argue that it happens quite often. How many people do you think had the idea to use "Seal Team 6" in their products after Bin Laden was killed? I'm betting a lot, but Disney swooped in and got a government imposed monopoly on it.


I bet a lot too, but that's not innovation...oh, and Disney attempted to, but was blocked by the government...because the government rightfully owns it already!




> Even if it is not at the same time, it is wrong. I am not an inventor, but I personally have come up with many ideas for products, only to find out that someone came up with the idea ten years before I was born. That product can not be found anywhere, but it is protected "IP". If someone today comes up with an idea completely independently and unknowing of someone who came up with it before them, why should they not be able to use that idea that they developed with their time, energy, and talents?


I think that you should be able to use the idea to profit and make the market better...but you better give me an example of what you're talking about.  Are some of these ideas you've had extraordinarily general, like the idea for a car?  Because I doubt there is something so generic as a car that is protected as IP.  If it is something "specific" like a song - well, you could just rewrite the song using the same four chords and market it as a different song!!!




> And sharing a copyright would not work. First of all, millions of people could have come up with the same idea on their own. Do they all get to share it? What if not all of them came up with it on their own, how would the government prove they didn't?


Thanks for pointing that out - it was, however, a response to _your_ hypothetical that stated some people come up with the _same_ idea - I'll ask again for an example of what you're talking about.




> Knowledge is just what we know. If we know a piece of information then it is knowledge.


Fine.  I'll accept this, but what comes with it is the acknowledgement that a banana is information, is therefore knowledge, and thus, by the anti-IP side, cannot be property...you see the trouble here though, right?

----------


## low preference guy

> There is nothing violent about taking a person to court and disputing whether or not they are the original author of an idea manifested into product .


there is nothing wrong with that if you favor a police state.

----------


## low preference guy

> Call the studio and ask before purchasing and take responsibility for your own purchases.


rotfl!

Captain America is obviously an anti-IP guy who is pretending to favor the other position to make them look ridiculous.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> there is nothing wrong with that if you favor a police state.


 I understand that you absolutely hate government no matter how small it is.

----------


## low preference guy

> I understand that you absolutely hate government no matter how small it is.


your "understanding" is wrong. i favor a small government that protects life, liberty, and real property (which does not include intellectual "property").

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> rotfl!
> 
> Captain America is obviously an anti-IP guy who is pretending to favor the other position to make them look ridiculous.


 I am not anti-IP . I have stated my argument many times and ripped your contradictions apart but you just can't handle it.

----------


## CCTelander

> rotfl!
> 
> Captain America is obviously an anti-IP guy who is pretending to favor the other position to make them look ridiculous.



And doing an EXCELLENT job of it! ROTFL!

----------


## Mr Tansill

> your "understanding" is wrong. i favor a small government that protects life, liberty, and real property (which does not include intellectual "property").


Lets get somewhere...

Is a song intellectual property, real property, neither, somewhere in between or what?  What is Led Zeppelin's song "Stairway to Heaven?"

In your eyes, seriously.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> captainamerica said :individual human being is sovereign = owns self
> individual human being owns self= ownership of time,energy and talents
> individual human being owning time,energy and talents= ownership of what is produced by time,energy,and talents
> individual owns product=property
> 
> property is mutually given, and with contractual agreement or agreements depending on the actual contract between 2 property owners.To say that no contract is legitimate between 2 property owners is to debase their sovereignty ,or to debase 1 or the other persons sovereignty.
> 
> fraud :
> 1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
> ...


So with that said, what is wrong with my stance?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

So close guys!

Only one more page!!!

You can do it!!!!!

----------


## Mr Tansill

> so close guys!
> 
> Only one more page!!!
> 
> You can do it!!!!!


lol

+1

----------


## goldencane

> I bet a lot too, but that's not innovation...


Why not? They came up with an idea that would appeal to the market and make money. An idea does not need to be complex to be innovative. The wheel is simple, but it was innovative when first used. 




> I think that you should be able to use the idea to profit and make the market better...but you better give me an example of what you're talking about.  Are some of these ideas you've had extraordinarily general, like the idea for a car?  Because I doubt there is something so generic as a car that is protected as IP.  If it is something "specific" like a song - well, you could just rewrite the song using the same four chords and market it as a different song!!!


So we just set an arbitrary level of detail and say that the product must meet that to be copyrighted? There may not be IP protections for the idea of the car, but there is for mechanisms that improve gas mileage. This is why large companies that do engineering have patent lawyers. They come up with many of the same specific ideas that others also came up with, but they can't use them.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Why not? They came up with an idea that would appeal to the market and make money. An idea does not need to be complex to be innovative. The wheel is simple, but it was innovative when first used. 
> 
> 
> 
> So we just set an arbitrary level of detail and say that the product must meet that to be copyrighted? There may not be IP protections for the idea of the car, but there is for mechanisms that improve gas mileage. This is why large companies that do engineering have patent lawyers. They come up with many of the same specific ideas that others also came up with, but they can't use them.


Sorry dude, I'm not going to type another thoughtful response unless I get one from you.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Wondering if anyone is willing to answer this question:
> 
> I do not own a single CD that informs me that I have entered a contract without having to open up the packaging first. How can this be considered a contract if I do not have the ability to consent to the terms before buying the product?


Buying the product _is_ consenting. If you don't like that, buy products that don't have EULAs or copyrights. You don't *have* to buy the product at all.

----------


## goldencane

> Sorry dude, I'm not going to type another thoughtful response unless I get one from you.


Yeah, because saying something is not innovation and that you doubt something generic like a car is protected is a thoughtful response. My responses have been thoughtful, yours have not. Asking why something that is simple can not be innovative is a thoughtful question. Asking why arbitrary levels of detail should be set is a thoughtful question. But whatever, if you don't want to explain yourself, that's cool.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Buying the product _is_ consenting. If you don't like that, buy products that don't have EULAs or copyrights. You don't *have* to buy the product at all.


 I told him to call the studio first and ask, and he laughed at me.I told him to take responsibility for his own purchases,he laughed at me.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I told him to call the studio first and ask, and he laughed at me.I told him to take responsibility for his own purchases,he laughed at me.


Yeah, there's actually a lot of things that people "buy" and they think they can do whatever they want with them. There's a very simple way around this though, which is to create your _very own stuff_ with your own efforts, and give it away if that's what you want to do. Everyone is happy, pro-IPers and anti-IPers alike.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Yeah, because saying something is not innovation and that you doubt something generic like a car is protected is a thoughtful response. My responses have been thoughtful, yours have not. Asking why something that is simple can not be innovative is a thoughtful question. Asking why arbitrary levels of detail should be set is a thoughtful question. But whatever, if you don't want to explain yourself, that's cool.


Dude, I'm not going to progress past this point unless you can give me an example:

There is no copyright in the world for something generic like a computer or a car.  Intellectual property doesn't protect things like this.

There are copyrights for certain specific instances of these items like Apple and Ford.

Show me something that has a copyright protection, which gives the owner of that copyright, the power to control the entire class of those products.

Hint, there isn't one and this is why you have an invalid premise and your whole argument is this:

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> the anti-ip crowd already argued that "contractual agreements" are not allowed and not valid.


Incorrect.  The argument is that the purchase or transfer of IP is not a contract (real or implied), and that the creator surrenders the right of copying to any given piece he distributes to others.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Buying the product _is_ consenting. If you don't like that, buy products that don't have EULAs or copyrights. You don't *have* to buy the product at all.


Incorrect.  Buying a product is merely a transfer of ownership.  If you don't like that, don't distribute IP.  You don't *have* to produce or distribute IP.  These "agreements" you are describing are varieties of adhesion contracts.  These are almost never considered valid contracts, even under the prevailing legal system.  The "contract" argument is weak, at best.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Incorrect.  The argument is that the purchase or transfer of IP is not a contract (real or implied), and that the creator surrenders the right of copying to any given piece he distributes to others.


 Yeah, and you debase the sovereignty of another being by saying that the contract is not to be upheld.

----------


## noneedtoaggress



----------


## nobody's_hero

> Incorrect.  Buying a product is merely a transfer of ownership.  If you don't like that, don't distribute IP.  You don't *have* to produce or distribute IP.


Incorrect. As the seller, I may choose to sell a product with a license agreement. You may just want the product, without the EULA, but I will not sell them separately. So, you buy my product with EULA, but you cover your eyes because you don't like that nasty EULA and you think if you just ignore it the thing will go away, but that's your fault. You should have known exactly what you were buying, and if you didn't like it, just remember that I did not force you to buy it.  

You can, however, produce your own different product and try to put me out of business by giving yours away for free.

Somehow, though, I'm not sure that'll happen.

----------


## Xenophage

> Pro IP'ers, answer me this. If two people come up with the same product or same idea, completely independent and unknowing of eachother (which happens fairly often), but one person gets the IP protection just before the other person is able to. The second person put in just as much time, just as much effort, has just as much talent. How is it fair that he can not use his product or idea for profit? 
> 
> What if it is the same premise, but the guy is from another country and does not know about IP laws. He still came up with his idea or product completely independently and unknowing of the person in the US that has the same idea. How is it fair that he can not use the "product" of his time, effort, and talent for profit?
> 
> Once again, because ideas and knowledge are not exclusive to one person at one time, one person can not be granted sole ownership to those ideas or knowledge.


That's the nature of competition, isn't it?  The short answer is: too bad.  The longer answer is that anyone who engages in competition in a free market has to be willing to accept the risk of losing.  The problem is equating the potential with the actual.  Just because someone *could* have invented something first, does not mean that he *did.*

----------


## dannno

> Yeah, and you debase the sovereignty of another being by saying that the contract is not to be upheld.


Well, at LEAST we are talking about contracts now and have gotten past all of that government edict nonsense (I hope).

----------


## goldencane

> Dude, I'm not going to progress past this point unless you can give me an example:
> 
> There is no copyright in the world for something generic like a computer or a car.  Intellectual property doesn't protect things like this.
> 
> There are copyrights for certain specific instances of these items like Apple and Ford.
> 
> Show me something that has a copyright protection, which gives the owner of that copyright, the power to control the entire class of those products.
> 
> Hint, there isn't one and this is why you have an invalid premise and your whole argument is this:


I never said there was IP protection for general ideas and that is not my argument:




> There may not be IP protections for the idea of the car, but there is for mechanisms that improve gas mileage.


There are more detailed ideas than a generic class that people think of independently and unknowing of the other. You are avoiding my actual argument. People can develop the same idea independent an unknowing of each other. Obviously more people will have the same idea if that idea is simple and less people will have the same idea if it is complex. Regardless of if something is simple or complex, it is still possible (and happens often) that two people independent and unknowing of each other use their own time, their own effort, and their own talent to create the same thing. Thus, allowing the government to uses force to say who can and can not use the idea that they came up with to make money is wrong.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Well, at LEAST we are talking about contracts now and have gotten past all of that government edict nonsense (I hope).


It was always about contracts. People just enlist government to enforce them. It really makes no difference. I could just as soon hire a group of anarchistic thugs to enforce my contracts, but I honestly doubt that would please the an-caps any more than the government doing so.

----------


## YumYum

Have you guys determined whether pharmaceuticals (medications) come under the protection of IP laws?

----------


## Xenophage

> Well, you dance really well, but all you're doing in actuality is dodging the issue.
> 
> Whether we're talking about the neurons of my brain, my hard drive, or the paper and ink I use to write out a score, the PRINCIPLE is EXACTLY the same. These are ALL MY PERSONAL PROPERTY, justly acquired.
> 
> Exactly where, when and how did you JUSTLY acquire ANY LEVEL of ownership over any of these items of MY personal property?
> 
> Until you can provide a satisfactory answer to that question, your theory of IP fails.


I think I answered you.  I don't require ownership of your computer in order to have the right to remove my song from your harddrive.  If you had fashioned something into a more or less permanent copy, then I would own it outright, as the principle of ownership dictates: you own that which you create, unless you're under contract or using stolen materials or ideas.  The idea that fashioned a design is by far more important to a physical item's worth and usefulness than is the material it was constructed with, or the physical labor required to create it.

----------


## Xenophage

These threads are full of false attacks by both sides: the idea that one side or another is not arguing, that they are merely rehashing old platitudes.  The real problem is that its now 101 pages in length and nobody is reading everything that everybody wrote and keeping track.  Internet message board fail.

----------


## goldencane

> That's the nature of competition, isn't it?  The short answer is: too bad.  The longer answer is that anyone who engages in competition in a free market has to be willing to accept the risk of losing.  The problem is equating the potential with the actual.  Just because someone *could* have invented something first, does not mean that he *did.*


It is a government imposed competition that deters true competition. The true competition would be for people who create this IP to best present it, produce it, distribute it, etc. The "IP" is not the only part of the package. If they fail to offer it at the price and quantity that the market demands, they are failing.  The true competition would additionally be for creators of "IP" to continually create new "IP" and have a competitive advantage by being on the cutting edge.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> I never said there was IP protection for general ideas and that is not my argument:
> 
> 
> 
> There are more detailed ideas than a generic class that people think of independently and unknowing of the other. You are avoiding my actual argument. People can develop the same idea independent an unknowing of each other. Obviously more people will have the same idea if that idea is simple and less people will have the same idea if it is complex. Regardless of if something is simple or complex, it is still possible (and happens often) that two people independent and unknowing of each other use their own time, their own effort, and their own talent to create the same thing. Thus, allowing the government to uses force to say who can and can not use the idea that they came up with to make money is wrong.


STILL waiting for an actual specific example - you're engaging in hypotheticals still...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> These threads are full of false attacks by both sides: the idea that one side or another is not arguing, that they are merely rehashing old platitudes.  The real problem is that its now 101 pages in length and nobody is reading everything that everybody wrote and keeping track.  Internet message board fail.


Not true.  I've countered every argument made by the opposition.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> It is a government imposed competition that deters true competition. The true competition would be for people who create this IP to best present it, produce it, distribute it, etc. The "IP" is not the only part of the package. If they fail to offer it at the price and quantity that the market demands, they are failing.  The true competition would additionally be for creators of "IP" to continually create new "IP" and have a competitive advantage by being on the cutting edge.


That "failure" is THEIRS to choose.

----------


## Xenophage

> what's the connection between being an anarcho-capitalist and IP? how does not being in favor of anarcho-capitalism implies one is in favor of IP?


You're right, it doesn't.  I just assumed, because I've never met or spoken with anyone else who was ever anti-IP.  Sorry for the ASSumption.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> STILL waiting for an actual specific example - you're engaging in hypotheticals still...


It happens in pop/rock/jazz music all the time.  It just rarely becomes an issue because pop is so formulaic.  In the renaissance/early classical period, several artists throughout Europe figured out linear perspective without ever meeting or seeing each others' work.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> These threads are full of false attacks by both sides: the idea that one side or another is not arguing, that they are merely rehashing old platitudes.  The real problem is that its now 101 pages in length and nobody is reading everything that everybody wrote and keeping track.  Internet message board fail.


Yes. And I still cannot give you rep. People usually stick with the ideas that have been engrained with them since birth. It takes a tremendous epiphany sometimes for a person to change their beliefs. Mine was Ron Paul, and it's because of Ron Paul and the ideas of property ownership that I arrived at a position of support for IP. Perhaps, if I had spent more time at Lew Rockwell's site or whomever, I could have easily ended up at a position of being anti-IP. In either case, pro-IP or anti-IP, it sounds more like it would be due to fate and circumstances, rather than reasoning, though. 

We are all reflections of the minds that molded us. Sometimes, we mold our own, and if we do, we copyright that $#@!.

----------


## YumYum

> These threads are full of false attacks by both sides: the idea that one side or another is not arguing, that they are merely rehashing old platitudes.  The real problem is that its now 101 pages in length and nobody is reading everything that everybody wrote and keeping track.  Internet message board fail.


Instead of having lurkers read all 1,000+ replies on this thread, maybe someone could give a "summary" of where the anti-IPers versus the pro-IPers are on this issue. Just an unbiased summerization of where both sides stand, and the main points of their arguments.

----------


## goldencane

> STILL waiting for an actual specific example - you're engaging in hypotheticals still...


Why do I need a specific example? Am I supposed to go to the engineers at GM and ask what ideas they came up with but couldn't use because of IP laws?
I'm not going to put in the time an effort for that, but I think most people here could tell you an idea that came up with, but later found out it was patented. I'll give you a personal example. Way back in middle school I had to to an invention product. I developed a mechanism that made it possible for kids to turn on and off light switched they could not reach. I never heard of any thing that did that function, much less that used the mechanism I used. I created this independently and unknowing other product that was similar. Years later I found the item in my closet and decided to see if anything like this exists out there. It turns out there was IP protection for basically the same thing. It was not for the idea of making it possible for kids to turn switched on and off, but for the mechanism itself. 

Does the example help illustrate my point for you? I created a mechanism with my own time, effort, and talent, but could not do anything with it because someone else completely independent from me had the same idea and got the government to say he is the only one who can use that idea.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> It happens in pop/rock/jazz music all the time.  It just rarely becomes an issue because pop is so formulaic.  In the renaissance/early classical period, several artists throughout Europe figured out linear perspective without ever meeting or seeing each others' work.


Sorry, let me be more specific for what I'm looking for - A band wrote B song on C date...D band wrote E song on F date.

You fill in A, B, C, D, E, and F.

A should not equal D.

B should equal E.

C and F should be within an arbitrarily close time frame - I'll let you determine it.

Saying "it" happens all the time is again general.

----------


## goldencane

> That "failure" is THEIRS to choose.


Yes, but for anyone else who had the same idea, the government is forcing them to fail.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Instead of having lurkers read all 1,000+ replies on this thread, maybe someone could give a "summary" of where the anti-IPers versus the pro-IPers are on this issue. Just an unbiased summerization of where both sides stand, and the main points of their arguments.


anti-ip advocates do not believe in contractual agreements when purchasing a product (they do not believe in sovereign beings making mutual agreement/contract)

pro-IP advocates believe that contractual agreements between 2 property owners must be upheld on both parts for the property to be obtained and owned from consent .

I favor pro-IP

----------


## nobody's_hero

> It is a government imposed competition that deters true competition. The true competition would be for people who create this IP to best present it, produce it, distribute it, etc. The "IP" is not the only part of the package. If they fail to offer it at the price and quantity that the market demands, they are failing.  The true competition would additionally be for creators of "IP" to continually create new "IP" and have a competitive advantage by being on the cutting edge.


I still do not understand how any of this restricts competition. If someone else beats you to an idea, come up with another one. The possibilities are endless. Furthermore, if someone fails to market their idea successfully, there's no problem if someone else offers to buy the owner's design itself from the owner, and try to do better.

A savvy inventor could make a profitable living by creating designs and selling them (but, again, buyer beware, that he should know exactly what he's buying from the inventor).

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Why do I need a specific example? Am I supposed to go to the engineers at GM and ask what ideas they came up with but couldn't use because of IP laws?


Because you are positing something and using that to formulate an argument!  It's kind of like when Ron Paul uses our overthrow of Iran's government in 1953 to formulate an intelligent response to Santorum, and then Santorum refuses to acknowledge certain actual historical facts in his response (or more appropriately facial expression)...we get pissed when he does that, right?  Why?  Because it shows either a lack of depth of knowledge or _something else_ that can't be reconciled with those facts - such as the neocon foreign policy.




> I'm not going to put in the time an effort for that, but I think most people here could tell you an idea that came up with, but later found out it was patented. I'll give you a personal example. Way back in middle school I had to to an invention product. I developed a mechanism that made it possible for kids to turn on and off light switched they could not reach. I never heard of any thing that did that function, much less that used the mechanism I used. I created this independently and unknowing other product that was similar. Years later I found the item in my closet and decided to see if anything like this exists out there. It turns out there was IP protection for basically the same thing. It was not for the idea of making it possible for kids to turn switched on and off, but for the mechanism itself.


Now that IS a specific example, and thank you.

I think you would have an argument for marketing a similar product.  Here's an another example - my parents used to hang a tennis ball in their garage to serve to let them know how far to pull in.  That was an "abstract" idea that exists out in the world, but which other people sell in the market place.  No one owns that "idea."  People out there do own their specific instance of it however - just like in music or software.

http://www.amazon.com/PZ-1900-Platin...pr_product_top

http://www.amazon.com/DUAL-GARAGE-LA...=pd_sim_auto_3

There are two products that do the same thing, but have different companies that "own" them...




> Does the example help illustrate my point for you? I created a mechanism with my own time, effort, and talent, but could not do anything with it because someone else completely independent from me had the same idea and got the government to say he is the only one who can use that idea.


Yes, the example does help.  I think you're wrong though in that you WOULD be able to go out into the market place and sell a similar product.  See above...

----------


## goldencane

> I still do not understand how any of this restricts competition. If someone else beats you to an idea, come up with another one. The possibilities are endless. Furthermore, if someone fails to market their idea successfully, there's no problem if someone else offers to buy the owner's design itself from the owner, and try to do better.
> 
> A savvy inventor could make a profitable living by creating designs and selling them (but, again, buyer beware, that he should know exactly what he's buying from the inventor).


...If someone uses the same idea better than you, come up with another one. The possibilities are endless. 

I already have the idea, why should I pay someone to repeat the idea to me? Not all inventors are savvy, someone else with the same idea could possibly use it much more successfully, but the government won't let them.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Instead of having lurkers read all 1,000+ replies on this thread, maybe someone could give a "summary" of where the anti-IPers versus the pro-IPers are on this issue. Just an unbiased summerization of where both sides stand, and the main points of their arguments.


Nah, it's been the same issues for the vast majority of pages.

This thread just needs to be locked.

----------


## Travlyr

> Instead of having lurkers read all 1,000+ replies on this thread, maybe someone could give a "summary" of where the anti-IPers versus the pro-IPers are on this issue. Just an unbiased summerization of where both sides stand, and the main points of their arguments.


The OP makes a valid point. If people are allowed to take someone's work without paying for it, then why should he stay in that business. Innovation is stifled by allowing people to take property without paying the rightful owner his/her just compensation. As far as I can tell no one has justified their reason for stealing from him, but they argue that it is not really stealing because they do not recognize the work that goes into a product behind the scenes before it comes to market ... creation, innovation, time, and resources ... the R&D, the hours upon hours of practice, or the failed attempts prior to achieving a successful marketable product.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> ...If someone uses the same idea better than you, come up with another one. The possibilities are endless. 
> 
> I already have the idea, why should I pay someone to repeat the idea to me? Not all inventors are savvy, someone else with the same idea could possibly use it much more successfully, but the government won't let them.


Could you prove that you came up with the idea first? Currently, there's only one way to do this and it isn't all that efficient at the moment, I admit, by getting a patent. But if anyone else has ideas as to how the market could handle that issue without involving government, I'd be interested to hear them.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *I still do not understand how any of this restricts competition*. If someone else beats you to an idea, come up with another one. The possibilities are endless. Furthermore, if someone fails to market their idea successfully, there's no problem if someone else offers to buy the owner's design itself from the owner, and try to do better.


By artificially restricting production through IP protectionism, product  prices can be held artificially high and supply artificially low.  If  there weren't IP restrictions, market forces would drive prices down and  new innovation to occur.




> A savvy inventor could make a profitable living by creating designs and selling them (but, again, buyer beware, that he should know exactly what he's buying from the inventor).


  You're right.  That's why inventors should continue to innovate instead of sitting around and collecting royalties from the government.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Nah, it's been the same issues for the vast majority of pages.
> 
> This thread just needs to be locked.


I agree, actually. It would reduce the temptation to check back in and see if anything new has been said.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I agree, actually. It would reduce the temptation to check back in and see if anything new has been said.


 I knew this entire post would blow up like this. Dailypaul had a few anti-ip advocates who posted non-stop about it and that post is a monstrosity.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> By artificially restricting production through IP protectionism, product prices can be held artificially high and supply artificially low.  If there weren't IP restrictions, market forces would drive prices down and new innovation to occur.


Market forces would determine that a manufacturer who charges too much for his product is not going to be able to sell anything and will go out of business. If people want something bad enough, they'll pay for it. If they don't want it bad enough, they won't buy it. And if they want it because they feel they deserve it ,even though they don't want to pay for it, they'll steal it. 

I could put my home on the market for $5 trillion dollars, but no one will buy it. It won't stop others from designing homes and selling them at a price that people can afford. Competition has not been hurt.

----------


## goldencane

> Now that IS a specific example, and thank you.
> 
> I think you would have an argument for marketing a similar product.  Here's an another example - my parents used to hang a tennis ball in their garage to serve to let them know how far to pull in.  That was an "abstract" idea that exists out in the world, but which other people sell in the market place.  No one owns that "idea."  People out there do own their specific instance of it however - just like in music or software.
> 
> Yes, the example does help.  I think you're wrong though in that you WOULD be able to go out into the market place and sell a similar product.


Because the actual mechanism I used was the same, not just the idea, the patent office would not let me use it (at least according to a lawyer friend). If your parents tried to market a mechanism that was the same as one out there, IP laws would be broken. 




> Could you prove that you came up with the idea first? Currently, there's only one way to do this and it isn't all that efficient at the moment, I admit, by getting a patent. But if anyone else has ideas as to how the market could handle that issue without involving government, I'd be interested to hear them.


Well, it shouldn't matter who came up with the idea first, such as with my example about the mechanism that allowed kids to turn switches on and off. Knowledge is knowledge, and people should be able to use that knowledge how they see fit as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others (no one has a right to profit from their knowledge and when someone shares their knowledge, they do not lose theirs). 


I've had enough with this topic. Feel free to have the last words in regards to the discussions with me.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I knew this entire post would blow up like this. Dailypaul had a few anti-ip advocates who posted non-stop about it and that post is a monstrosity.


Like I said a few posts back, I'm not so sure this debate has as much to do with reasoning as it does to do with what people had been taught first about intellectual property and what they adopted. Perhaps someone probably made a decision based on the ideas presented here, but those who entered this thread with their minds already made probably aren't looking to change them. That goes for both sides, I mean.

I mean, why do we say the sky is blue? We've been told that all our life. If someone had told us that the sky is green, all our life, we'd believe it. —eh, Maybe that's too deep into philosophy for a thread that already has spilled cans of worms everywhere.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I've had enough with this topic. Feel free to have the last words in regards to the discussions with me.


Maybe we can both just agree not to have the last word and leave it at that. Although, by posting this, I'm not sure how to manage that, so please accept a +rep for a spirited and mutually long-winded debate.

EDIT: In fact, everyone in this thread up until this point gets a +rep. +rep for everybody. 

Eh, It'll take a minute or so, five, maybe an hour or day or something.

EDIT 2: It says I've given out too much rep in 24 hours, so sorry if you posted after page 3. So, everyone gets an 'honorable mention' in this post, lol.

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Because the actual mechanism I used was the same, not just the idea, the patent office would not let me use it (at least according to a lawyer friend). If your parents tried to market a mechanism that was the same as one out there, IP laws would be broken.


There were two examples in my previous post...

If you're that entrepreneurial I wouldn't take the advice of one lawyer; I encourage you to get out there and fight to get your product on the market.  Good luck.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sorry, let me be more specific for what I'm looking for - A band wrote B song on C date...D band wrote E song on F date.
> 
> You fill in A, B, C, D, E, and F.
> 
> A should not equal D.
> 
> B should equal E.
> 
> C and F should be within an arbitrarily close time frame - I'll let you determine it.
> ...


Michelangelo and Donatello both created extremely similar "David" statues without beware of each other's work.  (similar enough that a lawsuit could be filed by modern IP standards)  In music, the story of Dido and Aneaus was turned into sung drama by multiple composers.  Numerous artists have depicted practically the same bible scenes, such as the resurrection of Christ.  Just go to an art museum and you'll see that it looks like people were copying each other.  Some were, but others were just responding to demand from audiences or patrons.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

This thread failed on two accounts, in my opinion - first, definitions were not provided and agreed to in advance.  Second, the ad hominems were launched very early on, setting personalities over positions.  

We disagree about this topic.  That doesn't mean we're not still on the same side of the overall fight.  That gets lost in threads like this because people get called Marxists and morons.  

At church today, the pastor admonished us to "hear quickly, but speak slowly".    That's a difficult thing to do sometimes...

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> This thread failed on two accounts, in my opinion - first, definitions were not provided and agreed to in advance.  Second, the ad hominems were launched very early on, setting personalities over positions.  
> 
> We disagree about this topic.  That doesn't mean we're not still on the same side of the overall fight.  That gets lost in threads like this because people get called Marxists and morons.  
> 
> At church today, the pastor admonished us to "hear quickly, but speak slowly".    That's a difficult thing to do sometimes...


 coming from a dude who swoops in to add another cheerleader opinion rather than actual substance.The overall fight surrounds the very essence of what property is and the right to property as well as sovereign beings. If you cannot understand that concept then you have failed.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> coming from a dude who swoops in to add another cheerleader opinion rather than actual substance.


I didn't say I wasn't guilty of contributing to the downfall of the thread, CA.  

Way to take the high-road...

----------


## Travlyr

> coming from a dude who swoops in to add another cheerleader opinion rather than actual substance.


Now you went and did it. Time for HB to + rep 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 the Son of Liberty.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I didn't say I wasn't guilty of contributing to the downfall of the thread, CA.  
> 
> Way to take the high-road...


 No , you fail to understand what defines 2 opposing views and why it is counterpoint to the foundation of "liberty" and how "individual liberty" is retained.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Hey guys, I was just offering my post-mortem on an obviously failed thread.  

We all can let emotions get the better of us, and get in the way of a discussion.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Hey guys, I was just offering my post-mortem on an obviously failed thread.  
> 
> We all can let emotions get the better of us, and get in the way of a discussion.


 The thread quite nicely displays the contradictions of certain people ,now as far as calling it a "failed" thread would be the same as calling every question a stupid question.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> No , you fail to understand what defines 2 opposing views and why it is counterpoint to the foundation of "liberty" and how "individual liberty" is retained.


There very clearly are two pretty compelling stands on this issue, CA.  There's been some interesting points made on either side of the debate.  I happen have found a more compelling case made by the anti-IP side.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The thread quite nicely displays the contradictions of certain people ,now as far as calling it a "failed" thread would be the same as calling every question a stupid question.


Ya know, ya try to make a decent gesture...

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> There very clearly are two pretty compelling stands on this issue, CA.  There's been some interesting points made on either side of the debate.  I happen have found a more compelling case made by the anti-IP side.


 instead of asserting that you find them to be compelling, defend your own belief.

----------


## CCTelander

> Ya know, ya try to make a decent gesture...



That's why I seldom bother even trying to extend an olive branch anymore. You usually just wind up getting whipped with it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> instead of asserting that you find them to be compelling, defend your own belief.


As I stated in that post, I don't really know enough about the topic.  That was kind of the point of my post... I lurked the thread, reading each post, learning as I went.  I found the anti-IP argument to be more compelling.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> As I stated in that post, I don't really know enough about the topic.  That was kind of the point of my post... I lurked the thread, reading each post, learning as I went.  I found the anti-IP argument to be more compelling.


 If you are going to cheerlead,offer some information about what compelled you.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> That's why I seldom bother even trying to extend an olive branch anymore. You usually just wind up getting whipped with it.


Seems that way, I guess.  I was trying to taking a look at the bigger picture, about how we're all here in one capacity or another to support Ron Paul's efforts... 

The amount of in-fighting around here can be really frustrating.  Seems as though there's a tendency to assume that if someone doesn't see things just the other way that another does, one or the other must be some kind of socialist...

----------


## Travlyr

> If you are going to cheerlead,offer some information about what compelled you.


Because on Mises.org they say that anti-IP is better.

----------


## CCTelander

> Seems that way, I guess.  I was trying to taking a look at the bigger picture, about how we're all here in one capacity or another to support Ron Paul's efforts... 
> 
> The amount of in-fighting around here can be really frustrating.  Seems as though there's a tendency to assume that if someone doesn't see things just the other way that another does, one or the other must be some kind of socialist...



Only some kind of socialist would say such a thing!

I kid! I kid!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> If you are going to cheerlead,offer some information about what compelled you.


I can respect your opinion on that.  

While we're offering each other advice, take a moment before you call those with whom you merely disagree on a particular topic a "Marxist".

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Seems that way, I guess.  I was trying to taking a look at the bigger picture, about how we're all here in one capacity or another to support Ron Paul's efforts... 
> 
> The amount of in-fighting around here can be really frustrating.  Seems as though there's a tendency to assume that if someone doesn't see things just the other way that another does, one or the other must be some kind of socialist...


 Now you call it "in-fighting" lol what a troll

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Because on Mises.org they say that anti-IP is better.


That's a shame, Travlyr...

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I can respect your opinion on that.  
> 
> While we're offering each other advice, take a moment before you call those with whom you merely disagree on a particular topic a "Marxist".


 I referenced "marxism" because that is what a person advocates in the sense that they have full control over the product that someone else produced.

----------


## Travlyr

> That's a shame, Travlyr...


Because it is the truth?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Now you call it "in-fighting" lol what a troll


What do you call a dispute between two factions within a particular movement?  

By the way, I think it's becoming clear here who amongst us are able to be civil and who isn't.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Because on Mises.org they say that anti-IP is better.


The implication being, people who disagree with you on this topic can't possibly think for themselves?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Because it is the truth?


Wow!  You must know me so well... 

No, because you just can't seem to help yourself from being snide.  

Take care.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Because it is the truth?


I think you may have a slight problem differentiating opinion from fact. Don't worry, keep trying, you'll figure it out one of these days.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Only some kind of socialist would say such a thing!
> 
> I kid! I kid!

----------


## CCTelander

> The implication being, people who disagree with you on this topic can't possibly think for themselves?



Clearly we parasitic Marxist bastards can't possibly be thinking for ourselves, considering we disagree with the intellectual giants on the opposing side of the debate.

/sarcasm

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> What do you call a dispute between two factions within a particular movement?  
> 
> By the way, I think it's becoming clear here who amongst us are able to be civil and who isn't.


 I don't see the liberty movement as factions. What purpose is there to advocate liberty if you don't even know the definition of it?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

I don't know how this thread hasn't been locked or moved by this point.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I referenced "marxism" because that is what a person advocates in the sense that they have full control over the product that someone else produced.


First, it's inaccurate to call those who disagree with IP a marxist, if one knows anything about marxism at all.  Second, it was obviously, and probably intentionally, inflammatory.  It's a poor debate tactic.

----------


## CCTelander

> I don't know how this thread hasn't been locked or moved by this point.



Just roll with it man and have some fun!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I don't see the liberty movement as factions. What purpose is there to advocate liberty if you don't even know the definition of it?


Perhaps you haven't been in it very long, then.  There have been many schools of thought and disagreements amongst their adherents, and even within those schools of thought, for as long as there's been a movement...

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> First, it's inaccurate to call those who disagree with IP a marxist, if one knows anything about marxism at all.  Second, it was obviously, and probably intentionally, inflammatory.  It's a poor debate tactic.


 clearly we see things very differently and nothing is going to change that because anti-ip advocates do not actually believe in individual sovereignty.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

This might be a bad idea...

Buy why don't we start a new thread about the relation of scarcity to property (if any), rather than getting bogged down in the specific IP debate?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I don't know how this thread hasn't been locked or moved by this point.


I'd have a lot more to contribute to it if it were moved to the philosophy forum.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> clearly we see things very differently and nothing is going to change that because anti-ip advocates do not actually believe in individual sovereignty.


As I see it, you don't understand individual sovereignty.  But at this point in this thread, I doubt anyone is really open to a compelling argument.

----------


## Travlyr

> I think you may have a slight problem differentiating opinion from fact. Don't worry, keep trying, you'll figure it out one of these days.


And I think you have a problem with understanding the real world. You claim that all taxes are theft by governments and so it is immoral while you advocate theft from individuals as just fine. 

Me, I claim that theft by governments can be limited by law, and individual theft is abhorrent. 

Give me another - rep there Clay. You are still under a dozen.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> clearly we see things very differently and nothing is going to change that because anti-ip advocates do not actually believe in individual sovereignty.


_clearly_

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> As I see it, you don't understand individual sovereignty.  But at this point in this thread, I doubt anyone is really open to a compelling argument.


What is there not to understand about this :

When a contractual agreement is made between 2 sovereign property owners that contractual agreement must be upheld for it to be consent. Otherwise it can become fraud. To debase the contractual agreement is to void the very existence of property and contradict the sovereignty.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> And I think you have a problem with understanding the real world. You claim that all taxes are theft by governments and so it is immoral while you advocate theft from individuals as just fine. 
> 
> Me, I claim that theft by governments can be limited by law, and individual theft is abhorrent. 
> 
> Give me another - rep there Clay. You are still under a dozen.


Again, the problem here is definitions...

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Now you call it "in-fighting" lol what a troll


Man, just let it go, please. _From one pro-IPer to another_. 

These threads pop up at least once every 3 months and sometimes they take off into oblivion like this one did. I doubt this will be the last one to ever show up on the internet. It's a controversial topic. 

It's like, abortion, free trade, banking models, etc. threads.

Minefields. They're all minefields. Everyone races through them hoping to win the argument and then proverbial body parts go flying through the air. Everyone starts lobbing analogies like artillery shells. Ad hominems rip through flesh, which are counterattacked by people who point out ad hominems, hoping to recover lost ground in the eyes of the spectators [perhaps the wisest of all], who sit on the other side of the barbed-wire sipping tea. 

Just let it go.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Perhaps you haven't been in it very long, then.  There have been many schools of thought and disagreements amongst their adherents, and even within those schools of thought, for as long as there's been a movement...


 Subversion is everywhere I am aware. I do not wish to destroy your idea of "anti-ip" simply dismantle it as the contradiction it is to individuality.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> What is there not to understand about this :
> 
> When a contractual agreement is made between 2 sovereign property owners that contractual agreement must be upheld for it to be consent. Otherwise it can become fraud. To debase the contractual agreement is to void the very existence of property and contradict the sovereignty.


There are many problems with it, as has been evidenced within the thread.  Both sides don't agree on the definitions and concepts... it would be like trying to discuss calculus without agreeing on the arithmetic.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Minefields. They're all minefields. Everyone races through them hoping to win the argument and then proverbial body parts go flying through the air. Everyone start lobbing analogies like artillery shells. Ad hominems rip through flesh, which are counterattacked by people who point out ad hominems, hoping to recover lost ground in the eyes of the spectators, who sit on the other side of the barbed-wire sipping tea. 
> 
> Just let it go.


Agreed.  The actual substance of the discussion is utterly destroyed because people almost automatically get emotionally tied to it...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Subversion is everywhere I am aware. I do not wish to destroy your idea of "anti-ip" simply dismantle it as the contradiction it is to individuality.


It's not subversion, for crying out loud.  It's a difference of opinion.  It's not at all uncommon.  Ron and Rand don't even seem to agree on everything.

Those on the anti-IP could make the exact same statement ("...simply dismantle it...") and provide an argument from that point of view.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...er-Mises-VIDEO

?

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> There are many problems with it, as has been evidenced within the thread.  Both sides don't agree on the definitions and concepts... it would be like trying to discuss calculus without agreeing on the arithmetic.


 Dismantle my argument by all means then

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Dismantle my argument by all means then


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...er-Mises-VIDEO

This is _fundamentally_ related.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> And I think you have a problem with understanding the real world.


Coming from the guy who was arguing that...




> Real costs determine prices.


I consider that a compliment. 




> You claim that all taxes are theft by governments and so it is immoral while you advocate theft from individuals as just fine.


Ugh, no.  Theft is theft, whether it's done by an individual or a group.  I simply imply that Copying and theft are not the same thing. 







> Me, I claim that theft by governments can be limited by law, and individual theft is abhorrent.


Individuals run the government, and you advocate for taxation.  Therefore, you advocate individual theft.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And I think you have a problem with understanding the real world. You claim that all taxes are theft by governments and so it is immoral while* you advocate theft from individuals as just fine. 
> *
> Me, I claim that theft by governments can be limited by law, and individual theft is abhorrent. 
> 
> Give me another - rep there Clay. You are still under a dozen.


Copying IP is NOT THEFT!  Go back read the dictionary definition of theft again.  You're making up new definitions and concepts as you go to fit your opinion-which has nothing to do with the real world.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Dismantle my argument by all means then


1.  I've stated at least 3 times I'm a relative new-comer to this particular topic.  I wouldn't be able to make a better case than what has been laid out here by others, based on that lack of reading.

2. Within the context of this particular thread, do really think that's at all practical?

3. I do not think you're open to it, and wouldn't be worth my time even if I thought I could make the case.  But that is merely my opinion.

----------


## Travlyr

It is much much more than a difference in opinion. Why would Thomas Edison have spent countless hours and valuable personal resources to learn how to light the world with electricity if not for the potential profit? He would have given up or never even started. IP Laws promote innovation.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> 1.  I've stated at least 3 times I'm a relative new-comer to this particular topic.  I wouldn't be able to make a better case than what has been laid out here by others, based on that lack of reading.
> 
> 2. Within the context of this particular thread, do really think that's at all practical?
> 
> 3. I do not think you're open to it, and wouldn't be worth my time even if I thought I could make the case.  But that is merely my opinion.


 You just summed up that my argument was equal to the opposition and now you can't even back up your statement. Ironic.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Seriously, this thread is useless at this point.

If we want to resolve _anything_, *we need to address this*:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...er-Mises-VIDEO

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Subversion is everywhere I am aware. I do not wish to destroy your idea of "anti-ip" *simply dismantle it as the contradiction it is to individuality*.


I've already dismantled that opinion.  How many more times do I need to do so?

----------


## Travlyr

> Copying IP is NOT THEFT!  Go back read the dictionary definition of theft again.  You're making up new definitions and concepts as you go to fit your opinion-which has nothing to do with the real world.


Baloney. A man spends countless hours working and investing his resources to come up with a valuable product or service. Another man takes his product and sells it as his own invention without investing in any research or development ... that's theft.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You just summed up that my argument was equal to the opposition and now you can't even back up your statement. Ironic.


When did I say that your argument is equal to the opposition?  What?  I said that I couldn't make a better case than the likes of CCTelander, Clay, etc, because I'm not as well read as they are on the topic.  I found their argument to be more compelling than yours.  Then I stated that I didn't think that, within this actual thread, with emotions and egos being what they are, it would be very practical.  Then I stated that I don't think you're intellectually open to the argument anyway... 

What?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Baloney. A man spends countless hours working and investing his resources to come up with a valuable product or service. Another man takes his product and sells it as his own invention without investing in any research or development ... that's theft.


Define theft.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> When did I say that your argument is equal to the opposition?  What?  I said that I couldn't make a better case than the likes of CCTelander, Clay, etc, because I'm not as well read as they are on the topic.  I found their argument to be more compelling than yours.  Then I stated that I didn't think that, within this actual thread, with emotions and egos being what they are, it would be very practical.  Then I stated that I don't think you're intellectually open to the argument anyway... 
> 
> What?


 by saying that "concepts " and "definitions" are interpreted differently. Good sidestep in perpetuating your straw-man fallacy of calling both arguments equal yet you lay claim that anti-ip is more compelling and I have yet to hear you make your case.

----------


## Travlyr

> Define theft.


Taking something that does not belong to you.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It is much much more than a difference in opinion. Why would Thomas Edison have spent countless hours and valuable personal resources to learn how to light the world with electricity if not for the potential profit? He would have given up or never even started. IP Laws promote innovation.


This idea has been successfully countered in this thread both in theory and by providing actual, real-world examples.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/he...conditions.jsp take a moment to read this page

----------


## Travlyr

> This idea has been successfully countered in this thread both in theory and by providing actual, real-world examples.


Under the environment of IP laws. If IP law is abandoned, then your results may be quite different. It is not a success story. The counter arguments fail under current conditions.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> by saying that "concepts " and "definitions" are interpreted differently. Good sidestep in perpetuating your straw-man fallacy of calling both arguments equal yet you lay claim that anti-ip is more compelling and I have yet to hear you make your case.


Concepts were not defined and agreed to (a fundamental problem), so people were arguing past each other.  

How many times do you want me to say that I'm not up to making a case on this topic?  You won't take yes for an answer, will you?  

I came back to this thread this evening to make a few observations about what I thought occurred in this thread.  It was an obviously failed attempt to find some common-ground, before we all move on.  I'm not interested in continuing this argument with you or anyone else.  You seem to me to still be interested in the fight that broke out here.  Carry on, by all means.  Enjoy yourself.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Under the environment of IP laws. If IP law is abandoned, then your results may be quite different. It is not a success story. The counter arguments fail under current conditions.


I'm not entirely sure what this paragraph means.  The real-world cases were provided for cases both before and after IP laws.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Under the environment of IP laws. If IP law is abandoned, then your results may be quite different. It is not a success story. The counter arguments fail under current conditions.


http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intell...4574428&sr=8-1

You should check this out. It's probably what you're looking for if you want to see a case against pretty much all the 'conventional wisdom' about IP you've been reiterating through the thread.

I'm just posting it as something for you to look into to get answers to the questions you've been bringing up that may be more satisfactory to you.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Taking something that does not belong to you.


And so we come back to the question of property.

This is fundamental. If we're going to get anywhere we need to clear this up.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Thus ends my failed attempt at bridge-building.   

Good night, gang.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> And so we come back to the question of property.
> 
> This is fundamental. If we're going to get anywhere we need to clear this up.


Good call - there are a ton of things that should be worked out before IP should even be discussed, I think.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...er-Mises-VIDEO

If anyone actually wants to continue this it should be here, and it should be about the fundamental nature of property.

Otherwise this thread is going absolutely nowhere.

And with that, I'm done with this particular thread.

----------


## Travlyr

> And so we come back to the question of property.
> 
> This is fundamental. If we're going to get anywhere we need to clear this up.


Property is an asset owned. A cheeseburger is property. Silver is property. Land is property. Labor is property. Investment of property is a legitimate use of resources. For example, if Thomas Edison used his silver to purchase a building and materials and his time to research and develop a lightbulb, then he put his resources to use for the betterment of the world. His work is rightfully his. It would be easy to duplicate his work after he spent his fortune and devoted his time to develop the lightbulb. But rightfully a compassionate world would let him earn some compensation for his R&D efforts without first giving it to a better marketer.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Property is an asset owned. A cheeseburger is property. Silver is property. Land is property. Labor is property. Investment of property is a legitimate use of resources. For example, if Thomas Edison used his silver to purchase a building and materials and his time to research and develop a lightbulb, then he put his resources to use for the betterment of the world. His work is rightfully his. It would be easy to duplicate his work after he spent his fortune and devoted his time to develop the lightbulb. But rightfully a compassionate world would let him earn some compensation for his R&D efforts without first giving it to a better marketer.


What part of *I'm done with this thread* and *let's not get into IP before dealing with property (coming to some sort of an agreement)* did you not understand?

Seriously?

----------


## Travlyr

> What part of *I'm done with this thread* and *let's not get into IP before dealing with property (coming to some sort of an agreement)* did you not understand?
> 
> Seriously?


Well I don't give a flying $#@! about you. I'm saying that theft is abhorrent. Don't steal.

----------


## osan

> I, as an artist and musician and owning a gaming company am concerned about IP. I see many posts where folks call down the idea of IP. If we have no IP alot of stories will go untold. Folks making a movie with characters can be pre-empted and ripped off by lessor productions capitalising on any buzz the production has created. Folks could just recompile The Beatles recordings and sell them. How do I stop folks from ripping my artwork off from within my games, using publicly available tools and a bit of savvy and making their own game using my art chops and even my code? These are just a few examples. I can come up with dozens. I think this will kill an entire section of the economy. Prove me wrong. If you are taking the course of proving me wrong then explain to me why i should stay in a business where my work can be ripped and kill my profits and my ability to grow my IP into movie, music, character and other franchises.
> 
> Rev9


An idea is not IP.  A work based on an idea, however, is.

If someone makes public a theory for faster than light travel, anyone should be free to develop it into a real application.  The application, however, is very definitely IP.

If I write a song, the pattern of notes, orchestrations, and syncopations may not be IP _per se_​, but any work derived from them, such as sheet music and specific recordings most certainly are.

----------


## TexanRudeBoy

Can anyone who supports IP explain why I can't patent a recipe?

----------


## low preference guy

> That's the nature of competition, isn't it?  The short answer is: too bad.  The longer answer is that anyone who engages in competition in a free market has to be willing to accept the risk of losing.  The problem is equating the potential with the actual.  Just because someone *could* have invented something first, does not mean that he *did.*


In other words, people don't have a right to use the products of their own mind. Thanks for clarifying the IP-position.

----------


## CCTelander

> Thus ends my failed attempt at bridge-building.   
> 
> Good night, gang.



I admire your effort. I wouldn't have bothered trying.

----------


## low preference guy

> Because on Mises.org they say that anti-IP is better.


LOL. I don't even read Mises.org. It's common sense. A few examples where people who came up with an idea on their own were not able to use it thanks to IP law can send anyone quickly on the right track. There's no need to read advanced treaties.

----------


## Travlyr

> Can anyone who supports IP explain why I can't patent a recipe?


You can.




> Yes you can. However, your recipe must be new, which means that no equal recipe should have been ever published or seen before wordwide (The patent authority is in charge to perform said review). Further, your recipe must have an inventive level, which means that if the same is similar to another one, it should involve advantages or improvements over every other recipe directed to produce the same product. It is very advisable that prior to present a patent application, a patent search is carried out, which will allow you to find out whether any similar inventions are already disclosed that would not permit the granting of your patent. The most cost/effective way to carry out all of these steps, is to hire a patent lawyer. if you are in the states, the biggest company and the one that i would recommend is Jones Day. They have a lot of experience in the matter.
> 
> Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_pa...#ixzz1WNJAVGDe

----------


## YumYum

> Can anyone who supports IP explain why I can't patent a recipe?


That is a very good question, and it brings to light a situation of how IP protectionism can be detrimental. 

There is a product my family takes that is known by various names; Compound X, Indian Herb and Black Salve. It is a black, tar like substance that cures cancer. My dad had cancer on his nose and it ate it away. You can take it internally with food, or put it on your skin. It is an incredible, natural remedy for all types of cancer. This stuff has saved thousands of lives. It is also forbidden by the FDA to manufacture and sell.

It is made by following a recipe that includes "blood-root" and a mixture of other herbs and minerals. Many people know how to make it, and the recipe I was told is on the internet. But I have heard many stories of the Feds arresting people and fining people who have made this stuff and sold it. This stuff saves lives, this is a fact, and yet, because it is a simple recipe that can't be "patented", or "copyrighted", the FDA makes it illegal to distribute.

The pharmaceutical companies are behind this. They can't control this natural remedy (which is harmless) by controlling its production and distribution with IP laws, so they put pressure on our government to make it illegal. If this stuff could be distributed with no interference from the government, millions of lives could be saved, which would also mean billions of dollars would be lost by cancer researchers and by the pharmaceutical companies. Cancer is big, big business. So, here you have an example of IP laws bottle-necking any innovation through a very few selected individuals who decide the fate of millions of people. Its all about the buck.

----------


## specsaregood

LOL @ you guys still arguing about this.   The vast majority of producers support IP; the vast majority of leeches don't.     It is gonna be tough to get the 2 groups to see eye to eye.

----------


## Travlyr

> LOL @ you guys still arguing about this.   The vast majority of producers support IP; the vast majority of leeches don't.     It is gonna be tough to get the 2 groups to see eye to eye.


Very good point. Those who produce are again demonized as evil.

----------


## low preference guy

> LOL @ you guys still arguing about this.   The vast majority of producers support IP; the vast majority of leeches don't.     It is gonna be tough to get the 2 groups to see eye to eye.


Not sure about that. All my work is production of stuff that could be protected with IP but it still seems like an arbitrary interference of the government in the economy. There needs to be a poll.

Of course, the answer is going to change depending if you ask musicians, programmers, etc. So a poll for each group would be interesting.

----------


## Travlyr

> Not sure about that. All my work is production of stuff that could be protected with IP but it still seems like an arbitrary interference of the government in the economy. There needs to be a poll.
> 
> Of course, the answer is going to change depending if you ask musicians, programmers, etc. So a poll for each group would be interesting.


Are your products original creations?

----------


## SwooshOU

As I think about this, I don't like the government being the ones responsible to "protect" Intellectual Propery. I think a free market solution to IP protection is possible depending on the medium. Of course, some content creators would opt out of IP protection altogether.  What does a non-government, free market solution to protecting various media look like?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> LOL @ you guys still arguing about this.   The vast majority of producers support IP; the vast majority of leeches don't.     It is gonna be tough to get the 2 groups to see eye to eye.


$#@!, I bet at least half of the producers who are "pro-ip" are also leechers, and at least half of the leeches who are anti-ip are also producers.

----------


## CCTelander

> $#@!, I bet at least half of the producers who are "pro-ip" are also leechers, and at least half of the leeches who are anti-ip are also producers.



Probably best to simply ignore their constant ad hominem attacks. They just make them look bad anyway.

----------


## Travlyr

> As I think about this, I don't like the government being the ones responsible to "protect" Intellectual Propery. I think a free market solution to IP protection is possible depending on the medium. Of course, some content creators would opt out of IP protection altogether.  What does a non-government, free market solution to protecting various media look like?


Selling every product with a contract attached saying, _"Do not copy my work or I'll sue you."_

----------


## Travlyr

> Selling every product with a contract attached saying, _"Do not copy my work or I'll sue you."_


Literally a signed contract with each purchase even for food.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> As I think about this, I don't like the government being the ones responsible to "protect" Intellectual Propery. I think a free market solution to IP protection is possible depending on the medium. Of course, some content creators would opt out of IP protection altogether.  What does a non-government, free market solution to protecting various media look like?


Good question!  It would likely differ greatly from market to market, but for example...

The original xbox had a very big problem with people modding it and copying games for free.  It was very easy to do, and there was nothing to disincentivize anybody from doing it, so it became very popular, which had a pretty negative effect on their sales figures for software.

When the xbox 360 came out, microsoft learned a bit of a lesson.  They started integrating everything through their xbox live network, which is constantly being updated.  You have to pay for a subscription to be able to play online, and as soon as they detect someone using a non-legit version of their game or a modded xbox, they ban their account from xbox-live and disable them from ever playing online with that account.  The risk of losing your paid account is enough to curtail many people from modding their xboxs.

Hackers are always finding workarounds, but the fact is, if Microsoft finds a way to tell if you`re playing copied games or not they can simply prevent you from using their network to play them, which greatly devalues the games.  It doesnt completely stop people from copying games, of course (there is no perfect solution), but it does further encourage people to buy the software.

Thats just one way though.  Im sure theres many others that have and will arise in the market.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

I want to hear a person scream bloody murder again about court cases and broken contracts of agreement. "BLOODY MURDER" ,because its sooo "violent" as the anti-ip advocates have claimed.

----------


## SwooshOU

> Literally a signed contract with each purchase even for food.


That's one way. Surely there are others. Maybe the content itself is created in a way to be protected via the media on which it is created. I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud here.

----------


## Travlyr

> That's one way. *Surely there are others.* Maybe the content itself is created in a way to be protected via the media on which it is created. I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud here.


There may be other ways. My ears are open.

----------


## SwooshOU

> There may be other ways. My ears are open.





> Good question!  It would likely differ greatly from market to market, but for example...
> 
> The original xbox had a very big problem with people modding it and copying games for free.  It was very easy to do, and there was nothing to disincentivize anybody from doing it, so it became very popular, which had a pretty negative effect on their sales figures for software.
> 
> When the xbox 360 came out, microsoft learned a bit of a lesson.  They started integrating everything through their xbox live network, which is constantly being updated.  You have to pay for a subscription to be able to play online, and as soon as they detect someone using a non-legit version of their game or a modded xbox, they ban their account from xbox-live and disable them from ever playing online with that account.  The risk of losing your paid account is enough to curtail many people from modding their xboxs.
> 
> Hackers are always finding workarounds, but the fact is, if Microsoft finds a way to tell if you`re playing copied games or not they can simply prevent you from using their network to play them, which greatly devalues the games.  It doesnt completely stop people from copying games, of course (there is no perfect solution), but it does further encourage people to buy the software.
> 
> Thats just one way though.  Im sure theres many others that have and will arise in the market.


This is one for video game protection.

I'm guessing there are as creative ways to protect other types of content.

----------


## Conza88

> Dude, if you acquiesce that...it's all I was after - a legitimate acknowledgement that voluntary contractual agreements are a way for artists and other innovators to protect their specific work.


With another specific individual who signed the contract. Things called non-disclosure agreements etc exist now, and would in a free market... 

SHOULD that person violate the agreement, by all means they are subject to punishment / consequences... however, if the content manages to get into the "public realm" - the individuals who have NOT SIGNED a contract to keep it quiet, are not liable at all. They haven't violate any agreement etc.

Torrents, p2p away we go! 

That you somehow think every person who hasn't violated a contract should be subject to punishment is monstrous. You do not OWN the value of something... marxists contend that you do; hence the insane irony of the IPers calling others "marxists"... THEY'RE THE ONES SUPPORTING A VERSION OF THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> With another specific individual who signed the contract. Things called non-disclosure agreements etc exist now, and would in a free market... 
> 
> SHOULD that person violate the agreement, by all means they are subject to punishment / consequences... however, if the content manages to get into the "public realm" - the individuals who have NOT SIGNED a contract to keep it quiet, are not liable at all. They haven't violate any agreement etc.
> 
> Torrents, p2p away we go! 
> 
> That you somehow think every person who hasn't violated a contract should be subject to punishment is monstrous. You do not OWN the value of something... marxists contend that you do; *hence the insane irony of the IPers calling others "marxists"... THEY'RE THE ONES SUPPORTING A VERSION OF THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE.*


Indeed!  Another irony-Marxists traditionally believe that the Means Of production belong to the workers because the workers supply the labor, and thus the products of production belong to the workers, not to the capitalist who employs them.  The pro-IP argument just is a nicer-sounding way of stating it.  They believe that they should continue to "own" products they've already sold and noone else can "use" it without permission.  _"Workers of the world, unite!"_

----------


## KingRobbStark

> I want to hear a person scream bloody murder again about court cases and broken contracts of agreement. "BLOODY MURDER" ,because its sooo "violent" as the anti-ip advocates have claimed.


Claiming something is yours through a contract doesn't make it so. An idea is not limited to a single person, and by claiming you own that idea you are essentially claiming what they can and should think. This despotic approach to something as arbitrary as an idea should give everyone pause.

----------


## silverhandorder

Technology makes IP impossible to protect with force. Whether you agree with this or not this is the reality.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Technology makes IP impossible to protect with force. Whether you agree with this or not this is the reality.


 what a fallacy that is.

----------


## DamianTV



----------


## fisharmor

> what a fallacy that is.


I skipped pages 10-25, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that this is still the the pro-IP argument in a nutshell.
I actually am very interested in finding out what part of silverhandorder's post you think is fallacious.
Is it a fallacy that force is needed to protect IP, or is it a fallacy that this is reality whether or not you agree with it?

----------


## osan

> Technology makes IP impossible to protect with force. Whether you agree with this or not this is the reality.


Please explain.

----------


## osan

> Is it a fallacy that force is needed to protect IP, or is it a fallacy that this is reality whether or not you agree with it?


Not sure of your point.  Are you suggesting that the use of force to protect private property is not legitimate?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 


AWESOME!!  That^ is a must-watch!
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DamianTV again.   IOU a +rep.  This IOU is not redeemable in gold or anything else.

----------


## rp4prez

So I have an opportunity to meet U.S. Senator John Cornyn and U.S. Representative Lamar Smith for a "Patent Innovation Celebration" and I was wondering what you all think I should say about patent laws etc.  Would love to hear what you all would say so I can go and let them hear what I have to say b/c I'm not a big fan of IP laws.

----------

