# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents

## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents* 
*Since all legitimate authority of the government is derived by delegation from the governed; 

and since no one has moral right to force his neighbor not to use information or ideas, 

therefore he cannot delegate such authority to his government. 

Hence, all patent and copyright laws are hereby and henceforth abolished.*


*Explanation*:

Patents and copyrights violate a fundamental principle of liberty which I call The Benson Principle (please see the link), which basically says that if you have no moral right to force your neighbor to do or not to do something, you cannot delegate such authority to your government to force him for you, because the only legitimate authority the government can have is what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have. Since patents and copyright laws violate this fundamental principle of liberty they are in fact immoral. 

Patents are not only immoral, but also impose huge costs on society as a whole, stifling progress of entire industries.

Copyrights have been historically used, and actually were originated as tools of censorship. As such they are a serious danger to liberty.

For more insights please see this:

Stephan Kinsella: Rethinking IP Completely



The question then can be asked, how is the inventor or artist to benefit by his work? The answer is they can benefit by a wise use of contractual agreements with manufacturers or performers who will enjoy the benefit of FIRST use of the invention or of the art work.

To do anything else is to violate fundamental principles of liberty and thus to inevitably jeopardize the well being, and ultimately the survival of the entire society, and that is unacceptably too high price to pay for an immoral use of government force!



Understanding IP:


 Thank you for your efforts to be honest, to do your duty to defend Liberty, and to be a person of integrity. This is why I consider it worth while to share with you my views on IP. I do it with respect for you and with great desire for well-being of our beloved country. 

The question of IP (intellectual property) is key in preserving liberty. The current prevailing understanding of it is wrong and fundamentally incompatible with true principles of Liberty. If this error is unchecked all free speech (especially on the internet) will eventually be destroyed; as a result, Liberty will be destroyed; and with it, consequently, the society itself will be destroyed. This prompts me to lay out for you the correct understanding of IP, which is in harmony with the eternal principles of Liberty. Here we go:

The fundamental principle of Intellectual Property is this: _

To possess information IS to own it,_ _because, by its very nature,_ _e__very copy of information is a separate intellectual property, that is independently owned by each one who has it,_ _nor less than he owns his mind, his body, or the medium upon which the information is recorded._ 

This is the very nature of information that can be easily verified by simple observation.

Therefore, the creator of information owns it, but so does anyone who possesses a copy of the same information.

Thus, intellectual property cannot be stolen, unless it is erased from the memory of the owner.  Therefore copying information, in principle, cannot be stealing. You still have your copy. What is “stolen” is the ability to corner the market via an immoral grant of government monopoly on the use of information. Now, here is a key, the government has no right to grant such monopoly, because the only legitimate authority it has was delegated to it by the individuals governed, and no individual has moral right to use force on his neighbor to prevent him from using information or ideas, therefore he cannot delegate it to his government to do it in his behalf, because no one can delegate an authority he himself does not have.

You may ask then, how is the creator of information to profit by his labors? The answer is:
a) to secure a contract of first use, (in case of a movie studio, for example, it can contract with a movie theater chain, to show the movie first),

b) (in case of software) require a paid key to use,

c) In case of performing artist, most successful ones actually make more money by live performances than by CD sales. People come to see them in concert even though they already own their CD’s.

d) In case of inventors: 1) secure contract of first use, 2) be first to market, 3) keep the secret of know-how as longs as you can (which turns out to be much, much lesser impediment to general progress than the patent laws!)

e) use it yourself,

f) rely on donations of grateful users. 

Copyrights and patents have their origins in usurpations of kings to impose censorship. The so called “defenders” of intellectual property, are in fact violators of intellectual property of everyone else, because again: to possess information is to own it, just as much as you own your mind, your VCR, your paper, your hard drive or your camera. Since you own all these you have the right to arrange them in any way you wish. To prevent a man from arranging his property in any way he pleases, as long as he is not violating the property of others, is to violate his property (intellectual and tangible). And you are not violating another’s intellectual property by copying it. To argue that by copying it you are preventing him from collecting income he might have had if he was granted monopoly on the use of it, is to argue that by making bread you deprive your neighbor’s bakery from making more money if he had a monopoly. Again, no one can grant such monopoly, because no one has such authority individually, and therefore cannot delegate it to the government to do it in his behalf, because no one can delegate an authority he does not have.

These are fundamental principles of liberty, to violate which will lead to the destruction of Liberty, and if unchecked, to the destruction of the society itself. 

The fundamental principles of liberty cannot be made nor unmade by legislators any more than they can legislate away the laws of gravity or of electricity. These are eternal and natural principles, and they exist independent of our understanding of them. Our task, therefore, is to discover them and to live in harmony with them, which will result in maximum Liberty and Prosperity of the people. To ignore them is to gradually succumb to tyranny, and ultimately to destruction of the society itself.

For more information please see The Fundamental Principles of Liberty (it spells out the three fundamental principles without which Liberty, cannot exist, and must unavoidably be destroyed).


Thank you for all you do in the defense of Liberty!


God bless you.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is another take:

*Quick Summary of Correct Principles of IP*

On intellectual property:

This is a very important subject directly connected to the survival and prosperity of this nation, because it is directly connected to Liberty (without which any nation will inevitably self-destruct), which is directly connected to free speech, especially on the internet.

Here are the main points:

Intellectual property has a few major misconceptions in our society:

_1) “Information can be stolen even though the author still has his copy.”
_
That is false because to steal something you must deprive the owner of the use of the thing. To violate a property you must either:
a) alter it,

b) remove it from the possession of the owner, or

c) materially endanger a) or b) 

None of this takes place, when information is copied. What can be “stolen” is perhaps i) a secret, or ii) the ability to profit by having exclusive/controlled access to the information.  Neither one of these, however, constitute a violation of the authors property if neither (a), (b), nor (c) occurred with regards to the author’s tangible and intellectual property. And since no violation of property occurred, (and no contract has been broken, because there was no contract that the copier explicitly agreed to with the author), no force is justified by the author against the copier, either directly or via a third party such as government.

Here we will give the true definition of what Intellectual Property is:

*Intellectual Property is nothing more or less than a COPY of information in one's possession.*

Therefore, each copy of information constitutes a separate and independent intellectual property.
This definition is based in the reality and truth of what information IS.

The natural reality of any and all information is this:

*TO HAVE INFORMATION IS TO OWN IT*, just as much as you own your mind, your papers or your computer, etc.

The author owns it, but so does anyone who has a copy of the information. The author owns HIS copy, and the copier owns HIS copy. They are separate copies, and constitute TWO separate instances of intellectual property, even if it is the exact copy of the other. They are TWO properties, not one. This is the very nature of information, which can be ascertained by a simple and *irrefutable* observation: each copy of information exists *INDEPENDENT* of any other copy; even if you destroy one copy, the other copies do not cease to exist. Therefore, once they exist, they are independent. It is a fact. Each one who has a copy owns it just as much as he owns the medium on which it is recorded; he owns the information just as much as he owns his mind, his papers, his camera, or his computer. This is the very nature of information, to deny which is to deny reality of what information is, and to deny the truth easily established by irrefutable empirical evidence. 

TO HAVE INFORMATION IS TO OWN IT.

_2) “The creator of information cannot profit by his work without government forced monopoly on the use of the information he created.”
_
That is false, because there are multiple ways for the author to profit by his work without the immoral use of government force to impose a monopoly. They are (in part):
a)      Secure a contract of first use with a publisher, performer or manufacturer. Example: a movies studio may contract with a theater chain to show their movie first, etc.

b)      In case of an invention, keep the secret as long as you can and be first to market and thus gain economic advantage. (Generally it buys the inventor 6 month to 2 years of natural monopoly, before others can figure out how it was done and swing into production).

c)      In case of software, a paid key may be required to unlock the code.

d)     In case of a performer use your recordings as an advertisement for your live performances. Most famous artists make most of their money in live performances. People come to see them in concert even though they already own all of their CD’s. Also original paintings may cost millions, even though photographic copies of them are readily available for free. etc.

e)      Reap the benefits of using it yourself.

f)       Rely on donations of grateful users. For example, even if Stephanie Myers did not have a contract of first use with her publisher (which she does have), but even if she didn’t, most of her grateful fans would have gladly donated $1 each or more if she asked for it, which would probably amount to millions of dollars! 

The point here is that such a government monopoly is immoral, because no author has a moral right to use FORCE upon his neighbors to prevent them from using information in their possession, even if it is the exact copy of the information he created. And since he has no moral right to use such violence, he cannot delegate it to the government to do it in his behalf.

_3) “The author worked hard to create the information, he deserves remuneration if other people use it, and it will be immoral if they use it without compensating him, therefore force can be used to extract the payment.”
_
First of all, the author can and should benefit by his work. The proper ways to do so without violating the rights and property of others are listed in section (2).

Secondly, and this is key: Not everything that is immoral is right to forbid by government force, and not everything that is morally right is right to FORCE to perform. Giving money to the poor if you can is certainly morally right and good, but it is WRONG to take this money by force, for that would be theft and plunder. It maybe morally right and desirable to give flowers to one’s mother or wife on her birthday, but it is wrong to force such performance by violence. Also it may be morally bad to waste ones talents and to live below ones abilities, but it is WRONG to use violence against such a person, as long as he does not violate the property of others. What is the principle here? I call it The Benson Principle which is also equivalent to the Second Fundamental Principle of Liberty: If you INDIVIDUALLY have no moral right to use FORCE upon your neighbor or to violate his property, you cannot delegate such violence to any third party, including government. If you have no right to violate your neighbor’s property, you cannot rightly ask the government to do it for you either.

_4) “Implied contracts, i.e. contracts that do not require an explicit agreement, exist all over in the society; therefore copyrights are implied contracts, and thus can be enforced by government.”
_
That is false, because by their nature, implied contracts, i.e. contracts that do not have an explicit agreement from all the parties involved, can only be properly imposed upon things that you own, and nothing else. This is because with regards to YOUR own property you do not need an agreement from anyone as to what to do with it. Thus if you own a parking lot you can post a sign “No parking after 10 pm” and you have a right to enforce it without the car owner’s explicit agreement, because you OWN the lot, and you can impose any rules you want UPON IT, and a car owner would be violating YOUR property if he did not use the property as you prescribed. However, if you posted a sign saying: “No parking after 10 pm, but if you do, it will signify that you agree that I own your house, and that you are my slave for 50 years,” and someone leaves his car on your lot after 10pm, can you take his house and make him a slave for 50 years? No! Why? Because you do not own either him nor his house, therefore for such a contract to be binding you have to have an EXPLICIT agreement from him before you can enforce it. Without an explicit agreement, the best you can do is to tow his car, and perhaps charge a fee for your trouble to offset/rectify the violation of your property, and nothing more. Implied contracts do not require explicit agreements precisely because they apply only to the things you own and nothing else.

Copyrights cannot be enforced as an implied contract because you do not own the people who copy your work. You do not own their minds, you do not own their copy machines, you do not own their papers or their computers. Therefore, you cannot impose an implied contract upon these things because you have exactly zero authority/ownership over them. You can only impose an implied contract upon your copy of the information and limit or condition access to IT, because you own THAT COPY; but you have no right or say over the copies owned by others. This is the nature of information. To deny this is to deny reality and to violate both intellectual and tangible property of others, because they own that information no less than you, the author, do, and no less than they own their minds, their papers or their computers. That’s what information is: TO HAVE IT IS TO OWN IT.


This is a brief summary of correct principles of IP, violation of which will lead to the destruction of free speech (especially on the internet), and consequently destruction of Liberty, and consequently the destruction of the society itself.


=====================================
 This amendment is a part of 7 amendments that were designed to bring the Constitution into harmony with the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, without which Liberty cannot exist:
*Justice Constitutional Amendment (JCA)* The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment Honest Money Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation No Judicial Monopoly Constitutional Amendment (NJM) Nullification - Constitutional Amendment  Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents

----------


## heavenlyboy34

That's one thing about the Constitution I could support.   Really though, mass civil disobedience to the IP goons is more peaceful and more likely to work (as it hits the goons in the wallet).

----------


## Zippyjuan

Patent protection encourages innovation. Why invest in developing new ideas when you can steal somebody else's ideas?  Why invest in new ideas if somebody is just going to steal them from you?  The founders felt it was important enough to be included in the original document.  Article One Section 8:



> Congress shall have power . . . 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.

----------


## PeacePlan

> Patent protection encourages innovation. Why invest in developing new ideas when you can steal somebody else's ideas?  Why invest in new ideas if somebody is just going to steal them from you?  The founders felt it was important enough to be included in the original document.  Article One Section 8:


You notice it does say for limited times..............

----------


## bwlibertyman

> Patent protection encourages innovation. Why invest in developing new ideas when you can steal somebody else's ideas?  Why invest in new ideas if somebody is just going to steal them from you?  The founders felt it was important enough to be included in the original document.  Article One Section 8:


Yeah, I agree. I think they need to change the limit though.  There's no reason one group or person should have a monopoly on how something is made or used for 25 years.  That is way too long. Five years should be sufficient.  That would let someone have the product and be able to profit from it without competition for a short time period. After that the inventor must develop something better or just as good as his competitors.

----------


## Ninja Homer

> Yeah, I agree. I think they need to change the limit though.  There's no reason one group or person should have a monopoly on how something is made or used for 25 years.  That is way too long. Five years should be sufficient.  That would let someone have the product and be able to profit from it without competition for a short time period. After that the inventor must develop something better or just as good as his competitors.


I agree completely... the length needs to be shortened a lot.

Another thing that needs to be changed is that if something is patented, and the patent owner isn't using the patent, then it should be open for everybody to use.  Give them maybe 2 years of full protection to bring their invention to market, and then it's fair game to everybody.

For example, say somebody invents and patents something that improves gas mileage by 25%, then an oil company buys the patent and sits on it for 25 years.  How does that help anything?  The current patent system helps innovation and investment in new ideas, but it can stifle progress.

----------


## Acala

So the idea is that I could write a book and some company could buy a copy from me, copy it verbatim, publish it, sell a million copies, and not give me a penny?

Or I could write a song, perform it, record the performance on video, and some company could buy a copy of the video from me, copy it, publish the video, sell a million copies, and not pay me a penny?

Or I could borrow money, hire actors, set designers, etc, and film a movie at a cost of several million dollars, only to have a big company copy it and sell millions of copies and not give me a penny?

I'm having a hard time understanding how this would not crash the arts.  Perhaps someone can explain how the author can have a return on his investment.  And if he can't, how can he make a living at his art?  And if he can't why would he try?

I do agree that the length of copyright protection is ridiculous.

----------


## specsaregood

Count me out.  I'd actively work against such a stupid amendment.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Patent protection encourages innovation. Why invest in developing new ideas when you can steal somebody else's ideas?


First of all, Patents do NOT encourage innovation, but actually slow down the progress of a society.
Secondly, you cannot "steal" an idea. You can falsely claim that you got the idea first, but once known, you cannot exclusively own it, because to know an idea and to own it, are one and the same.

Stephan Kinsella: Rethinking IP Completely




> Why invest in new ideas if somebody is just going to steal them from you?


You invest in an idea because it makes your life better. Not because you want to prevent others from progress.




> The founders felt it was important enough to be included in the original document.  Article One Section 8:


The Founders were wrong about it, just like they were wrong about slavery. 

Most importantly, Patents and copyrights violate the fundamental law of liberty, I  call it the Benson Principle, without which liberty cannot exist: (http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewt...p?f=19&t=12347)

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Yeah, I agree. I think they need to change the limit though.  There's no reason one group or person should have a monopoly on how something is made or used for 25 years.  That is way too long. Five years should be sufficient.  That would let someone have the product and be able to profit from it without competition for a short time period. After that the inventor must develop something better or just as good as his competitors.


Yes the inventor can benefit from his invention exclusively, but that exclusivity should not be any longer than what it takes his competitor to copy it. Innovation will still happen, and in fact blossom, because patents are an enormous drain on and an impediment to the progress of an economy; and what is more important, patents and copyrights CANNOT be enforced without violating, natural, unalienable rights of an individual, which are the very foundation of liberty itself. Therefore, patents, are not only economically damaging to a society, they are in fact, IMMORAL.

----------


## Madly_Sane

1. I believe it should be made to where you can choose to buy a patent, but for different periods of time.  [1-5, 10, 15, etc]
2. There should be restrictions depending on what type of product.  [Music: 5 year patent maximum / Video: 10 max / etc]
Not in favor of abolishing it.
Am in favor of changing it.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> So the idea is that I could write a book and some company could buy a copy from me, copy it verbatim, publish it, sell a million copies, and not give me a penny?
> 
> Or I could write a song, perform it, record the performance on video, and some company could buy a copy of the video from me, copy it, publish the video, sell a million copies, and not pay me a penny?
> 
> Or I could borrow money, hire actors, set designers, etc, and film a movie at a cost of several million dollars, only to have a big company copy it and sell millions of copies and not give me a penny?
> 
> I'm having a hard time understanding how this would not crash the arts.  Perhaps someone can explain how the author can have a return on his investment.  And if he can't, how can he make a living at his art?  And if he can't why would he try?
> 
> I do agree that the length of copyright protection is ridiculous.


How did arts blossom before the copyrights? 

There are multiple ways for the artist to profit:

If you wrote a song, you can have a contractual agreement with a performer, who gets to perform your work first. And you get a percent of the performers revenue in a concert, for instance.

If you made a movie, you can have a contractual agreement with movie theaters to have a cut of their revenue. Why would the movie theater do that? Because they need new movies to stay in business.

etc.

Of course, the artist's revenues may not be as obscene as now is in some cases, but still a LOT of money can be made via contracts of first use.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> 1. I believe it should be made to where you can choose to buy a patent, but for different periods of time.  [1-5, 10, 15, etc]
> 2. There should be restrictions depending on what type of product.  [Music: 5 year patent maximum / Video: 10 max / etc]
> Not in favor of abolishing it.
> Am in favor of changing it.


You cannot enforce a patent without violating natural, unalienable rights of individual. Therefore patents are immoral.

You can still profit from your inventions enormously if you use contractual agreements with manufacturers properly. Manufacturer gets the benefit of the first use of your invention, for as long as he can keep the secret.

On the other hand, patents were used to deny progress to entire spheres of human endeavor for decades! 

Again, even if you say the patent is granted for a year or two, you still cannot enforce a patent, even for a minute without violating natural unalienable rights of individuals. In other words, enforcing a patent even for a minute is immoral, and is destructive of the principles of liberty itself!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

I added a sentence at the beginning of the amendment. Please see at the top of the thread.

Thank you.

----------


## FrankRep

This will NEVER happen. 

Too many people are making money from Copyrights and Patents.

----------


## Major_C_Natural

Suppose an inventor designed a complex hard drive that holds three times the amount of space. However, he makes sure the blueprint is a well-kept secret within his company. Other companies try to reverse engineer it but it takes many years (let us say about 10 or 20 years) to do so.

On the other hand, if the hard drive was patented and thus requiring public disclosure, then the company can enjoy the benefits of being a monopoly while the blueprint becomes public. What slows down progress now?

This is, of course, if the terms of the patents are about 5 years or less... (I really prefer 1 year or less, really)

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Only people who believe down is up and up is down will say that giving a monopoly increases innovation. It does the exact opposite -- not to mention, that first-to market is all the incentive you ever need. _Beyond that no one has a right to profit._  

*Plus you cannot steal an idea. It's literally impossible.

----------


## TheState

Count me in. It took me a long time to change my views on IP, but I know agree with it being abolished from the law. There no reason for the government to be involved in it (other than enforcing private contracts).

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Suppose an inventor designed a complex hard drive that holds three times the amount of space. However, he makes sure the blueprint is a well-kept secret within his company. Other companies try to reverse engineer it but it takes many years (let us say about 10 or 20 years) to do so.


Good, then he will have his profits. But I don't think it will take this long for the rest to figure it out!




> On the other hand, if the hard drive was patented and thus requiring public disclosure, then the company can enjoy the benefits of being a monopoly while the blueprint becomes public. What slows down progress now?


The patent slows down the progress, because it creates a government enforced monopoly via the patent law.




> This is, of course, if the terms of the patents are about 5 years or less... (I really prefer 1 year or less, really)


A year or less is what it would actually take for the competitors to catch up anyway without any patents. So you will get what you want without any government force! And that with the added benefit of preserving liberty and encouraging the progress of the industry as a whole!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Only people who believe down is up and up is down will say that giving a monopoly increases innovation. It does the exact opposite -- not to mention, that first-to market is all the incentive you ever need. _Beyond that no one has a right to profit._  
> 
> *Plus you cannot steal an idea. It's literally impossible.


Amen! Well said! Thank you!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Count me in. It took me a long time to change my views on IP, but I know agree with it being abolished from the law. There no reason for the government to be involved in it (other than enforcing private contracts).


Well said! And good point! Thank you!

----------


## virgil47

What a load of socialist, freeloading crap. Your ideas would simply be an extension of the well fare state. It promotes the "don't work ... just steal" mentality. If you do not like the fact that people can profit from their own ideas then you are a collectivist pure and simple. Those that wish to succeed financially must be willing to put forth the effort to come up with new and profitable ideas. They must be willing to put in the time, trial and error and investment necessary to return a profit. This does not happen overnight but may take many years. To take the ideas and inventions of those that are willing to put in the effort to make them a reality is thievery plain and simple.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> First of all, Ptents do NOT encourage innovation, but actually slow down the progress of a society.
> Secondly, you cannot "steal" an idea. You can falsely claim that you got the idea first, but you cannot OWN an idea. Ideas a free.
> 
> *You invest in an idea because it makes your life better. Not because you want to prevent others from progress.*


Oh really?  The Marxists thought much like that too and we all know how that turned out.  He thought everyone would keep on producing, even though they were not allowed to keep the fruits of their labors.  They didn't.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx 




> The Founders were wrong about it, just like they were wrong about slavery.


I can see that our government indoctrination centers (schools) have been succeeding in their effort.

----------


## FrankRep

> First of all, Patents do NOT encourage innovation, but actually slow down the progress of a society.


Make a better Patent. Technology is improving all the time.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> What a load of socialist, freeloading crap.


First of all socialism is to use government force where it has no right of being. My proposal is to remove improper government force, which is the OPPOSITE of socialism. You propose to use government force where no one has a right to use it, so you are the socialist here!




> Your ideas would simply be an extension of the well fare state. It promotes the "don't work ... just steal" mentality.


It is physically impossible to steal an idea. If something is stolen, then the other guy does not have it anymore. Not so with ideas. If someone copied your idea you still have it! So it cannot be stolen (unless they erased your memory).

To steal an idea you have to exclusively own it, and no one, rightly, can exclusively own an idea, after it is known!




> If you do not like the fact that people can profit from their own ideas then you are a collectivist pure and simple.


I do like the fact that people profit from their ideas. I am only against them using the force of government to prevent other people to do the same. Again, it is collectivism to use the force of government where it has no right of being. I propose to abolish this improper government force. You are the proponent of improper government force, so you are the collectivist here, not me.




> Those that wish to succeed financially must be willing to put forth the effort to come up with new and profitable ideas. They must be willing to put in the time, trial and error and investment necessary to return a profit. This does not happen overnight but may take many years. To take the ideas and inventions of those that are willing to put in the effort to make them a reality is thievery plain and simple.


You cannot "steal" an idea, because it does not belong to you exclusively once it is known. You have a right to keep it secret if you can, but you cannot properly prevent others from using ideas once they are known, unless they covenanted with you that they would not use it without your permission. Hence the value of contractual arrangements by which an inventor can secure profit to himself from the manufacturer who becomes the FIRST user of the idea.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Oh really?  The Marxists thought much like that too and we all know how that turned out.


Marxists proposed using government FORCE to redistribute (steal) wealth. I propose to ABOLISH improper government force. How does that make me a Marxist? My proposition is the OPPOSITE of Marx!




> He thought everyone would keep on producing, even though they were not allowed to keep the fruits of their labors.


You can keep the fruits of your labor, but you cannot keep ideas once they are known. 

Innovation will still happen without government force! Even more of it! The inventor will have the benefit of the FIRST use of his idea. And that's the only way how he should profit; NOT by using government FORCE to prevent others from using an idea! Ideas do NOT belong to you exclusively, at least no longer than you can keep them a secret! The only way you can prevent others from using an idea is if they covenanted with you that they won't. Short of that covenant, you have no claim, and have no right to use FORCE to stop others from using an idea that they know about.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Make a better Patent. Technology is improving all the time.


Patents i.e. the use of government force to prevent the use of an idea, are immoral, unless there was an explicit covenant between inventor and the user of the idea, in which the user agreed to pay for the idea. Short of that explicit covenant, inventor has no claim. 

Such covenants are a proper way for the inventor to secure profit from his ideas, in exchange for the FIRST use of his invention.

----------


## virgil47

> First of all socialism is to use government force where it has no right of being. My proposal is to remove improper government force, which is the OPPOSITE of socialism. You propose to use government force where no one has a right to use it, so you are the socialist here!
> 
> 
> It is physically impossible to steal an idea. To steal an idea you have to exclusively own it, and no one, rightly, can exclusively own an idea!
> 
> 
> I do like the fact that people profit from their ideas. I am only against them using the force of government to prevent other people to do the same. Again, it is collectivism to use the force of government where it has no right of being. I propose to abolish this improper government force. You are the proponent of improper government force, so you are the collectivist here, not me.
> 
> You cannot "steal" an idea, because it does not belong to you exclusively once it is known. You have a right to keep it secret if you can, but you cannot properly prevent others from using ideas once they are known, unless they covenanted with you that they would not use it without your permission. Hence the value of contractual arrangements by which an inventor can secure profit to himself from the manufacturer who becomes the FIRST user of the idea.


An original thought or idea is no different than a physical piece of property. It is known as an intangible. Just because you cannot touch or taste something does not mean it does not exist. Saying that an idea or invention can be the property of the person that came up with it for only as long as it takes others to find out about it is like saying if you own a piece of land that it can only be exclusively your own until others discover it. Ideas (inventions) have been historically considered real property since the founding of our country. I believe this was done so people would spend the time to innovate and invent. In a marxist society the government owns everything including the thoughts an individual has. These thoughts and inventions are then redistributed for the good of the collective. Because of this process the old Soviet Union encouraged workers to simply do as little as was required to get payed. Innovation required extra effort and the investment of time and sweat. The citizens were not willing to put forth any extra effort as they knew there would be no or minimal reward. What you and others here advocate is a Utopian form of society. A pure Utopian society is a pure communist society and hopefully humanity will not ever be ready to strive for mediocrity.

----------


## FrankRep

> Patents i.e. the use of government force to prevent the use of an idea, are immoral ...


According to whose Standards are Patents considered Immoral? 
On whose authority?

----------


## Madly_Sane

> *You cannot enforce a patent without violating natural, unalienable rights of individual. Therefore patents are immoral.*
> 
> You can still profit from your inventions enormously if you use contractual agreements with manufacturers properly. Manufacturer gets the benefit of the first use of your invention, for as long as he can keep the secret.
> 
> On the other hand, patents were used to deny progress to entire spheres of human endeavor for decades! 
> 
> Again, even if you say the patent is granted for a year or two, you still cannot enforce a patent, even for a minute without violating natural unalienable rights of individuals. In other words, enforcing a patent even for a minute is immoral, and is destructive of the principles of liberty itself!


Immoral to who? If someone creates an object or idea, then he/she should have the ability to restrict others from use without permission. Example: You create a way to make your farm more profitable than other farms, you don't want the other farms to become as profitable or as competitive using your idea. Since the other farmers cannot use your idea, they will try to come up with other methods/ideas to become as/more profitable as your farm. Therefore, patents encourage growth. 
Patents aren't immoral to anyone's rights; you have to view the idea as a physical object, you don't want someone stealing it, you want them to ask permission to use it. Without patents, someone could just take your idea without permission which could make you royally pissed. Someone might just get pissed enough to where they'll do some damage to someone or someone's property.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Cool a bucket- something I can use to slop the hogs with!   Or chill the champagne in. 
> 
> Thank you for playing.
> 
> Because you can steal something doesn't mean you should be allowed to do so- whether that is an idea or an object (all objects came from ideas and without the protection of patents many of the things you take for granted today may have never been invented).
> 
> Maybe we should just toss out the whole Constitution and start over again.


By definition thievery involves the expropriation of property (which is a theory to describe a moral philosophy and human interaction in a world of scarce resources) that one individual or group benefits by removing the ability of the original owner it's use, ownership, possession, etc. 

Ergo, by definition you cannot steal an idea, recipe, arrangements, etc. You are not deprived of any property if I copy, reproduce, or otherwise make another of with the use of my own property (CD's, VCR, DVD, Computer, Brain, etc.). Indeed, IP deprives others of the use of their property (CD's, Paper, Brains, etc. etc.) that the author or originator has no right over or to. 

Now, we haven't even delved into voluntary contractual agreements which are an entirely separate issue that as any contract only applies to the signers of and no EULA's do not constitute such agreements. State-IP is plain old monopoly grants which destroy economic incentive, productivity, and progress. Commerce would really shut down if folks didn't have 30+ year monopolies /snark /snark

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> If something is "unique" then law of supply and demand says the value goes up, not down.  This was the point I was trying to make.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't misunderstand the premise.  That's why I used a quantity of a million.  If you have more supply, price goes down.  I was trying to illustrate that identical widgets are not the same as unique ideas.  A million of one doesn't equal a million of the other because it's "same thing" vs. "each is unique."
> 
> 
> 
> But saying it's an obvious absurdity, and/or saying or implying that there is no good reason for such a legal precedent, is an ad hoc argument.  The reason IP laws exist is precisely because it IS possible to copy information (unlike a tangible good) and thereby deprive a creator of the ability to be compensated for the results of their work.  When the results of your work can simply be copied, without IP rights, you can work your butt off and someone else can profit from it, or get the fruits of your labor for free without your consent, and to me that is an obviously absurd situation.
> ...


Since when is that a right or has anything to do with property rights? You are arguing that competition should be banned because it may 'deprive someone of income opportunity'...Of course you haven't made the connection yet, but that is your argument and it's absurd on many levels. No one has a right to a monopoly period, nor has the right to deprive other's of the just use and disposition of their property. On what moral authority do you have to force me not to use my own property in ways you view as competition to you?

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Since when is that a right or has anything to do with property rights? You are arguing that competition should be banned because it may 'deprive someone of income opportunity'...Of course you haven't made the connection yet, but that is your argument and it's absurd on many levels. No one has a right to a monopoly period, nor has the right to deprive other's of the just use and disposition of their property. On what moral authority do you have to force me not to use my own property in ways you view as competition to you?



And that's what makes Intellectual Property different.  The fact that you purchased it doesn't make it your property in the same sense that purchasing a car or a table makes it your property.  Because, as previously noted, there are differences between tangible property and intangible (intellectual property).  One of those differences is that when you purchased it, by doing so you agreed to the terms under which it was sold to you, and those terms say you are NOT free to do anything you want with it.  You can enjoy it for your own use but not copy it or make money with it.  In the old days, on the record it would say "All rights reserved, Copyright __ __ __ Record Company, Unauthorized Reproduction is Prohibited" or something to that effect.  Books have a similar copyright message in them, telling you this.  These days it's in the terms of use agreement when you sign up for iTunes or Amazon or wherever.

So the "seller" is selling you ONE copy, under an agreement that you will only use that one copy for personal use.  Not to be copied, and not for commercial use.  If you want to turn around and sell that one copy at a garage sale, go right ahead.  That one copy is your property and selling it to someone else without retaining a copy yourself is not prohibited by the terms you bought it under.

But the seller did not sell it to you with the understanding that you are free to make as many copies as you want and/or do anything with those copies you want.  (Unless they specifically stated that in their terms of sale, which would make it a Creative Commons work, and there are lots and lots of creators out there giving their stuff away for free in this manner, and that is their choice just as someone who doesn't want to give it away also is free to make that choice.)

The fact that you don't agree with the terms something was sold to you under doesn't mean you are free to ignore those terms.  The seller is ONLY selling it to you under those terms, and by buying, you are agreeing to those terms, and otherwise you are not allowed to purchase your ONE copy.  That might seem bogus, but that's the deal.

Now, you can certainly buy something under different terms, allowing you to do anything you want with it (i.e. copy it over and over, and sell it or make money with it), but then instead of paying a dollar for a song, or a few dollars for a book, you will pay thousands of dollars.  That's a different type of ownership; it gives you license to copy and use it commercially.  It's easy to see why people charge a lot more before they will sell you something under that kind of an agreement instead of the standard one.

This isn't about me or anyone else claiming any moral authority; it is about the fact that you really aren't free to do anything you want with your property when that property was "sold" to you without that permission attached.  I used quotes because in a sense, you _don't_ fully own that property.  You own one copy of it, and with restricted permission for its use at that.  And that's why you were able to buy it so inexpensively.

Placing terms and conditions on a sale happens all the time.  When you buy a prescription drug, that is your property, but you are not legally allowed to give that drug to anyone you please.  It was sold to you under the agreement that it's for your personal use only.  That's just one example.

Here's another example.  You buy a house.  Now, the owner hates his next door neighbor.  The neighbor has been trying to buy the property forever, but the owner refuses to sell it to them because he hates the guy.  So when they sell to you, they put a clause in the purchase agreement saying "Buyer agrees he/she will NEVER sell the property to Mr. Farley next door, and agrees to place this same language in the contract of sale to any subsequent purchaser of the property."  Now, you bought the house, and you can do anything you want with it, except you cannot sell it to the next door neighbor, because those are the terms the house was sold to you under, and you agreed to it when you bought the house.

As far as your ideas of "competition," you are using a different definition of the word than I would.  Let's say you write and record a song, and make some money with it.  If I want to compete, then I should write my own song.  That is competition.  If I take your song and make money with it without your permission, that isn't "competition."  That is me profiting from your creativity and work, without your permission.  Copying someone else's work and profiting from it without their permission isn't much different from stealing some of my competitor's goods and selling them myself, without having worked to produce those products myself.  Is that really a fair model for "competition?"  I don't think it is.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And that's what makes Intellectual Property different.  The fact that you purchased it doesn't make it your property in the same sense that purchasing a car or a table makes it your property.  Because, as previously noted, there are differences between tangible property and intangible (intellectual property).  One of those differences is that when you purchased it, by doing so you agreed to the terms under which it was sold to you, and those terms say you are NOT free to do anything you want with it.  You can enjoy it for your own use but not copy it or make money with it.  In the old days, on the record it would say "All rights reserved, Copyright __ __ __ Record Company, Unauthorized Reproduction is Prohibited" or something to that effect.  Books have a similar copyright message in them, telling you this.  These days it's in the terms of use agreement when you sign up for iTunes or Amazon or wherever.
> 
> So the "seller" is selling you ONE copy, under an agreement that you will only use that one copy for personal use.  Not to be copied, and not for commercial use.  If you want to turn around and sell that one copy at a garage sale, go right ahead.  That one copy is your property and selling it to someone else without retaining a copy yourself is not prohibited by the terms you bought it under.
> 
> But the seller did not sell it to you with the understanding that you are free to make as many copies as you want and/or do anything with those copies you want.  (Unless they specifically stated that in their terms of sale, which would make it a Creative Commons work, and there are lots and lots of creators out there giving their stuff away for free in this manner, and that is their choice just as someone who doesn't want to give it away also is free to make that choice.)
> 
> The fact that you don't agree with the terms something was sold to you under doesn't mean you are free to ignore those terms.  The seller is ONLY selling it to you under those terms, and by buying, you are agreeing to those terms, and otherwise you are not allowed to purchase your ONE copy.  That might seem bogus, but that's the deal.
> 
> Now, you can certainly buy something under different terms, allowing you to do anything you want with it (i.e. copy it over and over, and sell it or make money with it), but then instead of paying a dollar for a song, or a few dollars for a book, you will pay thousands of dollars.  That's a different type of ownership; it gives you license to copy and use it commercially.  It's easy to see why people charge a lot more before they will sell you something under that kind of an agreement instead of the standard one.
> ...


Your argument rests on the assumption of legitimacy of tacit contracts.  This doesn't exist.  By your reasoning, used media stores like Zia records(videos, music, books, etc) couldn't exist legally, as parties who did not originally purchase the book gain access to it.  Copying is entirely different than theft.  Not even the law considers them the same.  The notion that copying=theft comes to us primarily from the creator worship beginning in the late 18th century and continues to this day (though it's entirely irrational).  

It's all Mercantilist delusion.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> And that's what makes Intellectual Property different.  The fact that you purchased it doesn't make it your property in the same sense that purchasing a car or a table makes it your property.  Because, as previously noted, there are differences between tangible property and intangible (intellectual property).  One of those differences is that when you purchased it, by doing so you agreed to the terms under which it was sold to you, and those terms say you are NOT free to do anything you want with it.  You can enjoy it for your own use but not copy it or make money with it.  In the old days, on the record it would say "All rights reserved, Copyright __ __ __ Record Company, Unauthorized Reproduction is Prohibited" or something to that effect.  Books have a similar copyright message in them, telling you this.  These days it's in the terms of use agreement when you sign up for iTunes or Amazon or wherever.
> 
> So the "seller" is selling you ONE copy, under an agreement that you will only use that one copy for personal use.  Not to be copied, and not for commercial use.  If you want to turn around and sell that one copy at a garage sale, go right ahead.  That one copy is your property and selling it to someone else without retaining a copy yourself is not prohibited by the terms you bought it under.
> 
> But the seller did not sell it to you with the understanding that you are free to make as many copies as you want and/or do anything with those copies you want.  (Unless they specifically stated that in their terms of sale, which would make it a Creative Commons work, and there are lots and lots of creators out there giving their stuff away for free in this manner, and that is their choice just as someone who doesn't want to give it away also is free to make that choice.)
> 
> The fact that you don't agree with the terms something was sold to you under doesn't mean you are free to ignore those terms.  The seller is ONLY selling it to you under those terms, and by buying, you are agreeing to those terms, and otherwise you are not allowed to purchase your ONE copy.  That might seem bogus, but that's the deal.
> 
> Now, you can certainly buy something under different terms, allowing you to do anything you want with it (i.e. copy it over and over, and sell it or make money with it), but then instead of paying a dollar for a song, or a few dollars for a book, you will pay thousands of dollars.  That's a different type of ownership; it gives you license to copy and use it commercially.  It's easy to see why people charge a lot more before they will sell you something under that kind of an agreement instead of the standard one.
> ...


You just described contractual IP, and I have no problem with that as long as it is made crystal clear before purchase, and no, little tiny print or 100 page long EULA's do not constitute such agreements as the parties involved are not properly informed. It is the sellers responsibility to make sure that their terms are not vague or obfuscated and or intentionally deceiving people through these 'terms'. As long as that is agreed upon, we have no disagreement _in that particular situation_.

However, remember you cannot bind someone to a contract who was never a party to it in the first place. Which means your contractual IP means nothing once it is sold to a party who was not a member (e.g. I bought a CD from a company who made clear IP, but never prohibited me from selling it to anyone else.). Thus, the party I sell it to is not bound by contractual IP, that I would be considering I didn't include such a stipulation upon my sell of it. See, this is the crux of the issue. Contractual IP is not nearly as strong or restrictive as State-writ IP_ monopolization which is and does violate property rights_.

Never mind the fact that defending a position which constitutes a rentership society is pretty suspect (Return to Serfdom anyone? 'Private' serfdom isn't any better than 'ublic' serfdom). That's another point that many IP advocates really hate about contractual IP - it does not prevent simultaneous breakthroughs. In other words, independent entities can come up with the same idea at the same time and just because you didn't make it first down to the local State-monopoly center you can still compete because you've never signed a contract that restricts your activities. 

A world of contractual IP is vastly different than State-IP. In the end, it is futile. We are made better off through the abolishment of State-IP and most IP in general. Oh, sure, some producers may not become Bill Gates, but then again, markets and capitalism is a moral and economic system that empowers the consumer's, not the producers. If you want a producer-based society you can go back to Monarchical 15th Century Mercantilist England. Unless you were part of the aristocratic elite, or the brown-nosed merchant class you were SOL and lived a life of squalor. Not exactly a pretty picture.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> You just described contractual IP, and I have no problem with that as long as it is made crystal clear before purchase, and no, little tiny print or 100 page long EULA's do not constitute such agreements as the parties involved are not properly informed. It is the sellers responsibility to make sure that their terms are not vague or obfuscated and or intentionally deceiving people through these 'terms'. As long as that is agreed upon, we have no disagreement _in that particular situation_.
> 
> However, remember you cannot bind someone to a contract who was never a party to it in the first place. Which means your contractual IP means nothing once it is sold to a party who was not a member (e.g. I bought a CD from a company who made clear IP, but never prohibited me from selling it to anyone else.). Thus, the party I sell it to is not bound by contractual IP, that I would be considering I didn't include such a stipulation upon my sell of it. See, this is the crux of the issue. Contractual IP is not nearly as strong or restrictive as State-writ IP_ monopolization which is and does violate property rights_.
> 
> Never mind the fact that defending a position which constitutes a rentership society is pretty suspect (Return to Serfdom anyone? 'Private' serfdom isn't any better than 'ublic' serfdom). That's another point that many IP advocates really hate about contractual IP - it does not prevent simultaneous breakthroughs. In other words, independent entities can come up with the same idea at the same time and just because you didn't make it first down to the local State-monopoly center you can still compete because you've never signed a contract that restricts your activities. 
> 
> A world of contractual IP is vastly different than State-IP. In the end, it is futile. We are made better off through the abolishment of State-IP and most IP in general. Oh, sure, some producers may not become Bill Gates, but then again, markets and capitalism is a moral and economic system that empowers the consumer's, not the producers. If you want a producer-based society you can go back to Monarchical 15th Century Mercantilist England. Unless you were part of the aristocratic elite, or the brown-nosed merchant class you were SOL and lived a life of squalor. Not exactly a pretty picture.


You make some good points.

I still don't know all the answers, I just think that people should be able to decide whether they are going to be able to make money from their work or not, and with IP it becomes tricky if there is not IP protection of any kind.  I create music, and I don't think people should just be able to copy it and hardly anyone ever pay for it, because I put a lot of effort into producing it and it's my unique creation.  I'll probably never become well known enough to make money touring or playing live gigs, but if I did, I don't think anyone has the right to decide that should be my only source of income from my music except me.  That's my decision to make if I wanted to give away my recordings basically for free, and just make money on live performances.  So that's where I have a problem with the idea of abolishing IP.  I don't think it's fair that some people would not be given the choice of whether they can make money from certain types of efforts (creative endeavors) if there wasn't such a thing as copyright.

Everyone else gets paid for the products of their work, so why not musicians, authors, film producers, etc.?  I think creators should also be able to get paid for the products of their work, and I don't think that's evil, I think that's capitalism.  I know a lot of people who are opposed to IP think it infringes their freedoms, but they have to look at the flip side of the coin and ask, is it fair and reasonable if the shoe were on the other foot?  If you are the creator, then should someone else be able to dictate to you whether you have any chance at all to make money from your work?  Or should that be your decision?

I guess that's where I'm coming from in the whole debate.  Like I said, I don't have all the answers, I am just trying to approach it from a standpoint of fairness to those who come up with ideas and bring them to market.

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Your argument rests on the assumption of legitimacy of tacit contracts.  This doesn't exist.  By your reasoning, used media stores like Zia records(videos, music, books, etc) couldn't exist legally, as parties who did not originally purchase the book gain access to it.  Copying is entirely different than theft.  Not even the law considers them the same.  The notion that copying=theft comes to us primarily from the creator worship beginning in the late 18th century and continues to this day (though it's entirely irrational).  
> 
> It's all Mercantilist delusion.


I didn't say people can't sell used books, used media.  If you own a copy of something, you should be able to sell that copy.  I've bought and sold used books and used CDs.  (And used records and/or tapes way back in the day.)  What I haven't done is copied any of them and then sold the copies, or copied them and then sold the one I copied from.  Used book stores or used record stores aren't copying the used stuff they're selling.  They're not doing anything wrong.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> You make some good points.
> 
> I still don't know all the answers, I just think that people should be able to decide whether they are going to be able to make money from their work or not, and with IP it becomes tricky if there is not IP protection of any kind.  I create music, and I don't think people should just be able to copy it and hardly anyone ever pay for it, because I put a lot of effort into producing it and it's my unique creation.  I'll probably never become well known enough to make money touring or playing live gigs, but if I did, I don't think anyone has the right to decide that should be my only source of income from my music except me.  That's my decision to make if I wanted to give away my recordings basically for free, and just make money on live performances.  So that's where I have a problem with the idea of abolishing IP.  I don't think it's fair that some people would not be given the choice of whether they can make money from certain types of efforts (creative endeavors) if there wasn't such a thing as copyright.
> 
> Everyone else gets paid for the products of their work, so why not musicians, authors, film producers, etc.?  I think creators should also be able to get paid for the products of their work, and I don't think that's evil, I think that's capitalism.  I know a lot of people who are opposed to IP think it infringes their freedoms, but they have to look at the flip side of the coin and ask, is it fair and reasonable if the shoe were on the other foot?  If you are the creator, then should someone else be able to dictate to you whether you have any chance at all to make money from your work?  Or should that be your decision?
> 
> I guess that's where I'm coming from in the whole debate.  Like I said, I don't have all the answers, I am just trying to approach it from a standpoint of fairness to those who come up with ideas and bring them to market.


Fairness is subjective, and besides, it isn't like the creator of a product doesn't have any advantage. There is a massive advantage to being first to market. You become well known, start with a good reputation (as long as your product isn't a POS), etc. that mere copiers do not have. This is enough incentive in the first place to want to create something and trade it, never mind the fact that survival necessitates trade. You can keep your creation to yourself if you want, that is your right, but you have to ask yourself if it is really worth it...what are you gaining if you never trade it? You would rather make zero money instead of hundreds of thousands, or millions, or perhaps even more? 

Now, I don't know a better system of JUSTICE (I could care less about 'fairness') than property rights, and property rights being well-defined is a very rigid moral philosophy. It is simply unjust and immoral for State-IP to exist. Life isn't fair, but life should be _just_. Is it fair I am not born with the mind of Einstein? Is it fair some people are born with natural talents that allow them to make millions and same people are born looking like the Cavemen dudes with little to no natural talents? Your argumentation would seem to necessitate, or at least, provide cover for force to be used to intervene against our natural rights of property and liberty. 

I also have no objection for people getting paid when they trade, what I have a problem with is when they believe they have some entitlement to profit, or money, and use force to obtain it, which is what State-IP is. If you have an inferior product why should you have a right to monopoly profit just because you originated the idea? Do you think no one else would have ever come up with the idea you did? Now, every other single person in society is precluded from using this idea in any productive manner, and we all know what happens to prices when monopolies are introduced. 

Also, just to answer your question why other folks get paid for the products of their work...perhaps because their work is scarce and thus economic (limited...). When something can be infinitely reproducible it's value becomes closer to zero, indeed, there would be no need for economics or property rights if we lived in a world of non-scarcity. This is the situation when it comes to the electronic world. Computers allow us to almost infinitely reproduce within it's world, and the costs to do so are a product of the _scarce_ resources to create this world (e.g. Rare-Earth Elements, Metal, Silicon, etc.). The same goes with music. Ideas are infinitely reproducible. Why do you argue that people can own particular arrangements of musical notes, but not musical notes themselves? Surely someone, sometime had to invent, or discover this idea first, no? Furthermore, if I own something, it is not limited by time. Why is IP time limited if it is property? Why can I not pass this title down to my progeny? What would be the consequences if IP actually was _property_? 

I suppose I'd have to pay to even speak. Just think for a second what that means for property rights and how contradictory IP is to property rights. IP is not property, never has been, never will be. It has no characteristics of property whatsoever.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I didn't say people can't sell used books, used media.  *If you own a copy of something, you should be able to sell that copy.*  I've bought and sold used books and used CDs.  (And used records and/or tapes way back in the day.)  What I haven't done is copied any of them and then sold the copies, or copied them and then sold the one I copied from.  Used book stores or used record stores aren't copying the used stuff they're selling.  They're not doing anything wrong.


Then you shouldn't mind_ any_ copying.  Either way, the "creator" sees no profit-only the seller.  More copies will exist in the world, but this clearly doesn't detract from the value of any other copies.  (which is why you couldn't sell a copy of an antique for the same price as the antique)

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> But that's contradictory... If possessing information is owning it, then why should I compensate Dr. Paul for it if I copy his book and sell it?  He still owns his copy, and now that I have his book I own it too, and I haven't deprived him of his copy, I'm making new copies and selling them.  Why is that immoral to sell the book he wrote without compensating him, if there is no ownership right over knowledge or over an intellectual creation?


First of all, there is ownership right over knowledge. If someone erased your memory without your permission they would be guilty of theft and violence, and force definitely can be used against them.

Secondly, there is no contradiction here at all: to possess information is to own it, but you came into that ownership because of the efforts of the author. It is yours now, but it might be morally right to compensate him for his efforts, and it might be morally wrong to use the knowledge contrary to his wishes. The analogy: your parents gave you your body, it is yours, but that does not cancel your gratitude, and it might be morally wrong to waste your life, etc. Yes it is yours, but moral obligations still exist, though they are NOT enforceable by government force. 

But even though it might be morally wrong, it is also IMMORAL for him to use force upon you to prevent you from using the information in your possession if you made no explicit contract with him. And since he has no moral right to use such force upon you, he cannot rightly ask the government to do it in his behalf, because he cannot delegate an authority he does not have.  Again: not everything that is morally wrong is right to forbid by government force. It is a key principle. What is the principle here? The Benson Principle: If you have no moral right to use force upon your neighbor, neither does the government. 





> I'm not disagreeing that there are obvious differences between tangible property and intangible property, and I'm not disagreeing that the immoral use of force is unacceptable in enforcing intellectual property rights.
> 
> But I disagree with the basic premise that people should not have the right to control who uses, copies, and profits from their own creations that they put their work into.


That is NOT my basic premise! In fact I asserted the opposite. People SHOULD have the right to control who uses, copies, and profits from their creations, but they must do so without violating the rights and property of others. Copyright and patents violate the rights and property of everyone to “protect” the property of the author. How do they violate the rights and property of everyone? Through IMMORAL use of government force. (Immoral use of force is the definition of property violation.) How is that government force immoral? Because of the Benson Principle. You, INDIVIDUALLY, have no moral right to use such force upon your neighbor, therefore you cannot ask the government to do it in your behalf, because you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.




> I would never copy Ron Paul's book and sell it without his permission, because he wrote it.  He took the time to put his ideas into form, to edit it, to craft it, to make it an enjoyable creation that imparts wisdom and knowledge.  I didn't do any of that work and I didn't think of those ideas on my own.  So why should I be able to take his ten dollar book, and copy it without his permission, and go and sell it for eight dollars all day long, and profit from it?  I shouldn't.  It's not my creation, it is his.


And these are very honorable sentiments, but they are NOT enforceable via government force, because _NOT everything that is morally right is right to FORCE to perform_. What is the principle here? The Benson Principle. It determines the proper use of government force if Liberty is to exist. It is also morally right to help the poor; not to eat too much Kentucky Fried Chicken (so you don't get fat), and to give flowers to your Mom on her birthday. It is all morally right, but is NOT enforceable by government. What is the principle here? The Benson Principle: if you, individually, have no moral right to force your neighbor to do or not to do something, you cannot ask the government to do it for you, because you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.




> Believing in intellectual property rights does not mean I don't believe in Liberty.  On the contrary--It means I respect Liberty.  In the example above, I am respecting Ron Paul's Liberty.  And if I write my own book, then I would expect others to respect my Liberty by not violating my copyright, and not undermine my ability to be compensated for selling the results of my work.  Not all work results in a tangible product, but that doesn't mean the product isn't real or that it's OK to deprive one of the ability to be compensated for selling the result of their work.


I just answered that. There are myriads of ways to profit from IP without violating the rights and property of others, and that do not require immoral use of government force.  (See the first post in the thread).

Thanks.

----------


## WhistlinDave

OK, well I have to say, I think you guys have convinced me.  All of you have made some really good points and I keep thinking this over and the more I do, the more what you're saying makes sense.  (And I definitely agree with the Benson Principle, that is a perfect description of what the limitation on government use of force should be.)

I don't think abolishing patent and copyright laws will happen in our lifetimes.  Too many entrenched interests there who I think will fight it with big money.  (Big Pharma being one of the biggest, but also Hollywood, ASCAP, etc.)  But maybe it's possible to get the escalation of the penalties to start going in the other direction.

So now I have somewhat of a moral quandary, and I think I know the answer but let me run this by you because I'd like your thoughts on it.

If I make music, and I find someone else using it without my permission, do you think it would be wrong of me to use a DMCA takedown notice, for example?  I haven't ever had to before, and I have given many people on YouTube my permission to use my music in their videos for free, so I don't know if or when this might come up, but let's just say it did.  Let's say somebody used my music in a video promoting Mitt Romney or Obama (or racism or anything else I disagree with on moral grounds) and I did not give them permission to use my music in this way.  Do you think there is anything morally wrong with me issuing a DMCA notice to YouTube to have that video deleted?  Thoughts...?

Even though I think I agree in principle now, I still have "skin in the IP game" as someone put it, and I still want to be able to have some control over my creations, because, well, I still see them as "mine" to an extent.  And I certainly don't want my creations used for evil purposes.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> OK, well I have to say, I think you guys have convinced me.  All of you have made some really good points and I keep thinking this over and the more I do, the more what you're saying makes sense.  (And I definitely agree with the Benson Principle, that is a perfect description of what the limitation on government use of force should be.)


Bravo! This is why RonPaulForums.com exists! It is always a pleasure to talk to an intellectually honest person!




> I don't think abolishing patent and copyright laws will happen in our lifetimes.  Too many entrenched interests there who I think will fight it with big money.  (Big Pharma being one of the biggest, but also Hollywood, ASCAP, etc.)  But maybe it's possible to get the escalation of the penalties to start going in the other direction.


It may happen faster if you started educating your friends. 




> So now I have somewhat of a moral quandary, and I think I know the answer but let me run this by you because I'd like your thoughts on it.
> 
> If I make music, and I find someone else using it without my permission, do you think it would be wrong of me to use a DMCA takedown notice, for example?  I haven't ever had to before, and I have given many people on YouTube my permission to use my music in their videos for free, so I don't know if or when this might come up, but let's just say it did.  Let's say somebody used my music in a video promoting Mitt Romney or Obama (or racism or anything else I disagree with on moral grounds) and I did not give them permission to use my music in this way.  Do you think there is anything morally wrong with me issuing a DMCA notice to YouTube to have that video deleted?  Thoughts...?


You can and should request take down, but I wouldn't use DMCA as it is a wicked and evil legislation. 




> Even though I think I agree in principle now, I still have "skin in the IP game" as someone put it, and I still want to be able to have some control over my creations, because, well, I still see them as "mine" to an extent.  And I certainly don't want my creations used for evil purposes.


They are yours, and you should exert your influence in righteous ways that do not violate rights and property of others. Good luck and God bless you!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> So I, as a full time musician, have no right to protect my own creation and I should hope that I can be as successful as U2 because some kids want to just copy my music instead of buy it?  So, in your world, the fruit of my labor really belongs to the community to copy and distribute as each sees fit?  Because of my ability, all of those who don't have that ability should be able to freely take my productivity and use it out of their own need?  I believe it was Karl Marx who said "Art should be free". 
> 
> I am mostly disturbed how many people here seem to think this is a good idea.


Nothing of the sort! You should protect your IP, but you have no moral right to violate the property of others to do it. As I said, copyrights and patents violate the rights and property of everyone else to give you your protection, and it is IMMORAL that way.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I would also like to add that in terms of copyright violations, it is not the government 'protecting your work by immoral force' as you put it. Most copyright violations are handled in the court system in front of a jury of one's peers or through a mutual agreement between the two parties. (settlement). The government isn't protecting your work through immoral force, but upholding the legal decision of the citizens of this country based on a jury's decision. The citizens, your peers, decided in the case it was your property to protect and you should be compensated for the theft of your property. The government is just protecting the judicial system where contract litigation is either a mutual agreement or enforced through jury.


You are wrong. Since YOU have no moral right to use FORCE upon your neighbor (and ultimately deadly force if he resists) to prevent him from making a copy of a copy of your music in his possession, if he made no contract with you, you cannot authorize the government, jury, or ANYONE ELSE to do it in your behalf, because you cannot delegate an authority YOU do not have. It is called the Benson Principle. Learn it. It is a true principle without which Liberty cannot exist. (And I assure you, you do not want Liberty gone because of your mistake! It is NOT in your best interest!)

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> You have the right to protect your creation in a number of ways.  But it's never going to work perfectly.  As I mentioned, even if your song is only heard in live venues or on totally copy-proof CDs, I can sit and write it out on paper and perform it myself if I'm so inclined.  If you want to be as famous as U2, just selling records won't cut it.  You have to do numerous worldwide tours, performing music that people actually want to hear. I don't like U2's arrogance regarding IP, but they do have a great business model in that they rely more on live performances than record sales.
> 
> Like in any other area of production, you can create all you want and still not profit if there's no demand.


 Excellent! Thank you!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> By definition thievery involves the expropriation of property (which is a theory to describe a moral philosophy and human interaction in a world of scarce resources) that one individual or group benefits by removing the ability of the original owner it's use, ownership, possession, etc. 
> 
> Ergo, by definition you cannot steal an idea, recipe, arrangements, etc. You are not deprived of any property if I copy, reproduce, or otherwise make another of with the use of my own property (CD's, VCR, DVD, Computer, Brain, etc.). Indeed, IP deprives others of the use of their property (CD's, Paper, Brains, etc. etc.) that the author or originator has no right over or to. 
> 
> Now, we haven't even delved into voluntary contractual agreements which are an entirely separate issue that as any contract only applies to the signers of and no EULA's do not constitute such agreements. State-IP is plain old monopoly grants which destroy economic incentive, productivity, and progress. Commerce would really shut down if folks didn't have 30+ year monopolies /snark /snark


 Excellent! Thank you!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Fairness is subjective, and besides, it isn't like the creator of a product doesn't have any advantage. There is a massive advantage to being first to market. You become well known, start with a good reputation (as long as your product isn't a POS), etc. that mere copiers do not have. This is enough incentive in the first place to want to create something and trade it, never mind the fact that survival necessitates trade. You can keep your creation to yourself if you want, that is your right, but you have to ask yourself if it is really worth it...what are you gaining if you never trade it? You would rather make zero money instead of hundreds of thousands, or millions, or perhaps even more? 
> 
> Now, I don't know a better system of JUSTICE (I could care less about 'fairness') than property rights, and property rights being well-defined is a very rigid moral philosophy. It is simply unjust and immoral for State-IP to exist. Life isn't fair, but life should be _just_. Is it fair I am not born with the mind of Einstein? Is it fair some people are born with natural talents that allow them to make millions and same people are born looking like the Cavemen dudes with little to no natural talents? Your argumentation would seem to necessitate, or at least, provide cover for force to be used to intervene against our natural rights of property and liberty. 
> 
> I also have no objection for people getting paid when they trade, what I have a problem with is when they believe they have some entitlement to profit, or money, and use force to obtain it, which is what State-IP is. If you have an inferior product why should you have a right to monopoly profit just because you originated the idea? Do you think no one else would have ever come up with the idea you did? Now, every other single person in society is precluded from using this idea in any productive manner, and we all know what happens to prices when monopolies are introduced. 
> 
> Also, just to answer your question why other folks get paid for the products of their work...perhaps because their work is scarce and thus economic (limited...). When something can be infinitely reproducible it's value becomes closer to zero, indeed, there would be no need for economics or property rights if we lived in a world of non-scarcity. This is the situation when it comes to the electronic world. Computers allow us to almost infinitely reproduce within it's world, and the costs to do so are a product of the _scarce_ resources to create this world (e.g. Rare-Earth Elements, Metal, Silicon, etc.). The same goes with music. Ideas are infinitely reproducible. Why do you argue that people can own particular arrangements of musical notes, but not musical notes themselves? Surely someone, sometime had to invent, or discover this idea first, no? Furthermore, if I own something, it is not limited by time. Why is IP time limited if it is property? Why can I not pass this title down to my progeny? What would be the consequences if IP actually was _property_? 
> 
> I suppose I'd have to pay to even speak. Just think for a second what that means for property rights and how contradictory IP is to property rights. IP is not property, never has been, never will be. It has no characteristics of property whatsoever.


Brilliant!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If something is "unique" then law of supply and demand says the value goes up, not down.  This was the point I was trying to make.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't misunderstand the premise.  That's why I used a quantity of a million.  If you have more supply, price goes down.  I was trying to illustrate that identical widgets are not the same as unique ideas.  A million of one doesn't equal a million of the other because it's "same thing" vs. "each is unique."
> 
> 
> 
> But saying it's an obvious absurdity, and/or saying or implying that there is no good reason for such a legal precedent, is an ad hoc argument.  The reason IP laws exist is precisely because it IS possible to copy information (unlike a tangible good) and thereby deprive a creator of the ability to be compensated for the results of their work.  When the results of your work can simply be copied, without IP rights, you can work your butt off and someone else can profit from it, or get the fruits of your labor for free without your consent, and to me that is an obviously absurd situation.
> ...


I'm an artist, and I can tell you that it is reasonable for me to expect a profit for work.  Someone copying my work is no more "stealing" than me reciting a poem you just read to me.  Your profit as an artist is related to how much labor you put out.  If you produce 100 CDs, you are entitled to the profits from the sale of those CDs. Some kid copying your CDs doesn't interfere with your profit in any way.  Just because you feel entitled to profit from other people using your work does not make it so.  If you want to make a living in a creative field, adopt the philosophy of scholars-"publish or perish".  That is, don't expect to be able to rest on your laurels and make royalties.  Work for your money.  Paint, perform, write, whatever it is you do.  Human culture will be much richer for it.

----------


## PierzStyx

> If after first use contract with the printer/publisher your book is not good enough to elicit donations from grateful readers, than maybe you should not write for profit at all, because you are not good enough!
> 
> Whatever it is, it does not justify the immoral use of government force, which ultimately leads to censorship, destruction of liberty, and consequently to the destruction of the country itself. Too high a price to pay for one's fascination with copyrights, a.k.a. immoral use of government force, -- because it violates the Benson Principle. Do you see my point?
> 
> Thanks.


No, I don't see your point because it makes no sense. Why should someone who produces something be forced to rely on the charity of others for maintenance of their livelihood instead of enjoying the fruits of their labor in the market? This whole idea that everyone has a right to own a work I make without paying me, the producer for it, seems pretty collectivist/socialist to me. If you have no paid the producer (i.e. me) for my work, but take it anyway, then that is thievery. And while no one can own an idea, a book is _NOT_ an idea. It is a physical work, produced by the labor of a writer or writers. You can hold it, feel it, smell it, see it, hear it on audio, and if you really want, taste it. It is the writer's physical property. To take that property without said writer's permission, either by consent or purchase, is morally wrong. You talk about the Benson Principle but I'm pretty sure President Benson believed the government had the moral authority to prevent thievery. In fact the protection of property is one of the three legitimate reasons he gave for the existence of government all together.

And obviously you have no idea how anything other than mass produced fiction works. Most of the important books, journals, scholarly papers, medical papers, scientific papers, works of art, literature, and science, are all niche works. They do not appeal to the masses, but only to their specific small groups. Yet shouldn't their work be protected so they can reap the just rewards for their works? That they should rely on donations instead of reaping the fruits of their labors seems immoral to me.

----------


## PierzStyx

> So?  If I copy your piece of IP, I combined my labor with the materials and own the copies.  I can do what I want with them.  Even now it's possible for a talented woodworker (for example) to copy a chair and make a profit that the original designer won't get.  So?


A book is not intellectual property. It is not an "Idea". It is an actual physical property. and if you take that property without paying for it, then it is stealing, a violation of my property rights no more wrong than if I walked into your house and took your television.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> A book is not intellectual property. It is not an "Idea". It is an actual physical property. and if you take that property without paying for it, then it is stealing, a violation of my property rights no more wrong than if I walked into your house and took your television.


Do you strawman enough? Lol. No one said that someone depriving one the use of a scarce resource that they justly acquired is not stealing. Do you even read our arguments? From the looks of your response it seems you haven't. How about you address our argument's and my posts specifically? 

Now, let's imagine someone bought your book from you, and then decided he wanted to sell reproduced works of the book. Under our current State-IP monopolization system he would be DEPRIVED the DISPOSITION of his property. It is a monopoly precisely for that reason that the State intervenes in the business of commerce to eliminate competition on the behalf of one individual or group. That is immoral, that is what we object to.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Do you strawman enough? Lol. No one said that someone depriving one the use of a scarce resource that they justly acquired is not stealing. Do you even read our arguments? From the looks of your response it seems you haven't. How about you address our argument's and my posts specifically? 
> 
> Now, let's imagine someone bought your book from you, and then decided he wanted to sell reproduced works of the book. Under our current State-IP monopolization system he would be DEPRIVED the DISPOSITION of his property. It is a monopoly precisely for that reason that the State intervenes in the business of commerce to eliminate competition on the behalf of one individual or group. That is immoral, that is what we object to.


It is obvious to me you did not read any of my other posts either. Or the post my response was to.

If a person is making copies of someone elses work without their permission then it is thievery. When you pay for a book you pay for the right to own a copy of it, i.e. that specific copy of that work. If you want more copies, you have to pay for them. To take, or make, more copies without permission is to steal the profits the creator has a right to as the producer of said product. Now with your copy, the original you made, you have a right to enjoy, resale, or destroy that copy. But not to produce more unpaid for copies. It is not your right to steal.

Also it is not tyranny for the state to protect the property rights of the producer of said product. And why shouldn't I have a monopoly on the thing I created? I created it! Unless you buy it, it is mine! Just because I authorize someone else to act and sale it for me, and they put it on a store shelf does not mean it ceases to be mine. You have no right to it. And just because you bought a copy of it doesn't mean you have the right to reproduce it. you didn't buy the rights to the work, you bought the rights to own a copy of my work, not the work itself. This idea that I don't have a right to own what is my creation is collectivist/communistic bullcrap.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> It is obvious to me you did not read any of my other posts either. Or the post my response was to.
> 
> If a person is making copies of someone elses work without their permission then it is thievery. When you pay for a book you pay for the right to own a copy of it, i.e. that specific copy of that work. If you want more copies, you have to pay for them. To take, or make, more copies without permission is to steal the profits the creator has a right to as the producer of said product. Now with your copy, the original you made, you have a right to enjoy, resale, or destroy that copy. But not to produce more unpaid for copies. It is not your right to steal.


You can't steal if the the person you are presupposing has been stolen from has not been deprived of any possession, ownership, or use of what is said to be stolen. In other words, using my own property to copy, emulate, reproduce, or otherwise make another of has not deprived you of the same of your own property. To say you own an idea or recipe is to say you own the bodies of every other individual in society who is now under threat of violence, precluded from the use of their faculties and property to make the same. In other words, a monopoly is created and enforced through the State. 

If you are arguing for contractual IP, then the sell of my book I bought from you does not in any way bind the party I am selling to because he never agreed to your terms. Ergo, he has no obligation to abide by whatever contract was between you and who you sold it to (me). In other words, he is free to reproduce the work as much as he wants limited only by his ownership of scarce resources (e.g. computer, paper, etc.). 

You are arguing for artificial rents backed by violent monopolization through the State. Everything antithetical to liberty and property rights. Never mind the fact no one has the right to profit, only the right of profit, which means, you can trade your property titles for more than what you paid to obtain them in the first place. In other words, individuals are free to transact in whatever mutually agreed upon prices they decide fit their subjective valuations. You have no authority to deprive my disposition of property. In any event, I've said before that the proponents of IP argue for a rentership society where we are all serfs. If you were logically consistent then you would apply the same principles of property to IP, but you don't because even ardent IP proponents realize what that means and how absurd and tyrannical it would be and is. 

You should be paying royalties for even speaking, to the folks who invented the English Language. How free you would be!

----------


## PierzStyx

> You can't steal if the the person you are presupposing has been stolen from has not been deprived of any possession, ownership, or use of what is said to be stolen. In other words, using my own property to copy, emulate, reproduce, or otherwise make another of has not deprived you of the same of your own property. To say you own an idea or recipe is to say you own the bodies of every other individual in society who is now under threat of violence, precluded from the use of their faculties and property to make the same. In other words, a monopoly is created and enforced through the State. 
> 
> If you are arguing for contractual IP, then the sell of my book I bought from you does not in any way bind the party I am selling to because he never agreed to your terms. Ergo, he has no obligation to abide by whatever contract was between you and who you sold it to (me). In other words, he is free to reproduce the work as much as he wants limited only by his ownership of scarce resources (e.g. computer, paper, etc.). 
> 
> You are arguing for artificial rents backed by violent monopolization through the State. Everything antithetical to liberty and property rights. Never mind the fact no one has the right to profit, only the right of profit, which means, you can trade your property titles for more than what you paid to obtain them in the first place. In other words, individuals are free to transact in whatever mutually agreed upon prices they decide fit their subjective valuations. You have no authority to deprive my disposition of property. In any event, I've said before that the proponents of IP argue for a rentership society where we are all serfs. If you were logically consistent then you would apply the same principles of property to IP, but you don't because even ardent IP proponents realize what that means and how absurd and tyrannical it would be and is. 
> 
> You should be paying royalties for even speaking, to the folks who invented the English Language. How free you would be!


When you buy a book you buy that copy of that book. You do not buy the entirety of the work itself. You do not buy the right to that work. You simply buy a copy of it. What you do with that copy is up to you, as long as you do not try and steal that work by making copies of the book. It has nothing to do with owning an idea. A book, a story, is a specific work. You do not buy the right to own my work when you buy a copy of my book. You buy the right to own a copy. Nothing more. To say you can do whatever you want in reproduction of my work is false. Because you do not own my work, but merely a copy of it, you do not have the right to do with it as you please in the area of reproduction form the book you bought. Now if you want to own the full rights to my work, well contact me and I might sale that to you for a price. But the assumption that you automatically own the rights to my work simply because you bought a copy is collectivist garbage. It is not capitalism. It is not part of the contract of buying a work.

The state is monopolizing nothing. I am. It is mine. Do you think you have a right to my work? Because if you do then I'm not the one arguing for the rape of property rights here. And if you don't believe that, then you have no just claim to the entirety of my work simply because you buy a copy of it. Unless you specifically and contractually purchase from me all rights to my property then you don't own them, and therefore cannot reproduce my work as if it were your right to do so.

I cannot stop you from reading, preserving, or destroying your copy. That is true. It is yours. But you cannot make copies of it and distribute those because you do not own the rights to the original work. You merely own a copy of said work. It is my property. For you to steal my work by making immoral copies and distributing them is well immoral. It is the antithesis of free market capitalism which says I have a right of ownership to my work and a right to sale it and try and make a profit from it. The only way you can gain the right of ownership (i.e. the right of production and reproduction) is by buying that right form me. You do not do so when you buy a copy of my work. You only do so when you specifically buy those rights from me.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> When you buy a book you buy that copy of that book. You do not buy the entirety of the work itself. You do not buy the right to that work. You simply buy a copy of it. What you do with that copy is up to you, as long as you do not try and steal that work by making copies of the book. It has nothing to do with owning an idea. A book, a story, is a specific work. You do not buy the right to own my work when you buy a copy of my book. You buy the right to own a copy. Nothing more. To say you can do whatever you want in reproduction of my work is false. Because you do not own my work, but merely a copy of it, you do not have the right to do with it as you please in the area of reproduction form the book you bought. Now if you want to own the full rights to my work, well contact me and I might sale that to you for a price. But the assumption that you automatically own the rights to my work simply because you bought a copy is collectivist garbage. It is not capitalism. It is not part of the contract of buying a work.
> 
> The state is monopolizing nothing. I am. It is mine. Do you think you have a right to my work? Because if you do then I'm not the one arguing for the rape of property rights here. And if you don't believe that, then you have no just claim to the entirety of my work simply because you buy a copy of it. Unless you specifically and contractually purchase from me all rights to my property then you don't own them, and therefore cannot reproduce my work as if it were your right to do so.
> 
> I cannot stop you from reading, preserving, or destroying your copy. That is true. It is yours. But you cannot make copies of it and distribute those because you do not own the rights to the original work. You merely own a copy of said work. It is my property. For you to steal my work by making immoral copies and distributing them is well immoral. It is the antithesis of free market capitalism which says I have a right of ownership to my work and a right to sale it and try and make a profit from it. The only way you can gain the right of ownership (i.e. the right of production and reproduction) is by buying that right form me. You do not do so when you buy a copy of my work. You only do so when you specifically buy those rights from me.


I can tell you really haven't thought this one through considering you repeated yourself fifteen times and said the same things over and over. You could have condensed this entire post to one or two sentences, which again, never even addressed any points I made, wherein I specifically addressed yours. You more than likely even have no understanding of the history of IP, and you failed to produce the same principles of property to IP. In other words, estate and title, never mind the fact if IP _is_ property why is it time-limited? You cannot own any specific arrangement of English language, and if you did, then you would own the faculties of every individual who ever exercised their own self-propriety (e.g. speech). 

There's that great line: Has anyone ever told you, you have a great deal of trouble coming to the point? You say that I cannot dispose of the good I've bought from you in such a manner as my choosing. Can you say then, I own what I have purchased? 

No one has yet still addressed independent or simultaneous discovery. Anyways, carry on. I've no more use of this discussion because really...you are just talking to yourself.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> No, I don't see your point because it makes no sense. Why should someone who produces something be forced to rely on the charity of others for maintenance of their livelihood instead of enjoying the fruits of their labor in the market?


Most of IP can be benefited by through contracts of first use. Some IP can be benefited from every time, like software that requires a paid key to work. And there are ways to benefit by IP without violating the rights and property of others. Some IP, like books, though still having the benefit of a contract of first use, may rely more on donations than other forms of IP, because of the nature of the medium. Is it fair? It is more fair than immoral use of government force that no one could have delegated to it. It is more fair than the destruction of Liberty and of the society itself. Is it fair that the parents must rely on good will of their children to make something of their lives? Yes. Because if you deny them freedom of choice you deny the purpose of existence. My point is that YOU do not want the society you are arguing for, because you will not like it. It leads to immoral use of government force, then to destruction of Liberty, and then to the destruction of the society itself. When this happens, YOU will not like it. Therefore, you must stand upon a true principle, or forever slide into tyranny and destruction. 




> This whole idea that everyone has a right to own a work I make without paying me, the producer for it, seems pretty collectivist/socialist to me. If you have no paid the producer (i.e. me) for my work, but take it anyway, then that is thievery.


No one has "taken it away!" You still have it. Do you get it? If you did not protect yourself with a contract of the first use, it is your fault, just as if you made a beautiful vase for sale and then dropped and broke it just before the buyer showed up. Everyone has a right to own, and indeed does own, the information in their possession, just as much as they own their minds, their computers, their paper, their cameras, etc. And if they made no contract with you, you cannot force them not to use it. And since you have no moral right to use such force, neither does the government, because the only legitimate authority it has is what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority YOU do not have. Incidentally, immoral use of government force seems pretty collectivist/socialist to me. Thats what socialism and collectivism are by definition. 




> And while no one can own an idea, a book is *NOT* an idea. It is a physical work, produced by the labor of a writer or writers. You can hold it, feel it, smell it, see it, hear it on audio, and if you really want, taste it. It is the writer's physical property. To take that property without said writer's permission, either by consent or purchase, is morally wrong.


You are contradicting yourself.

First of all, you can own and idea, just as much as you can own your mind. And remember, to know an idea IS to own it, just as much as you own your mind.

Secondly, you are talking about a tangible embodiment of an idea, i.e. a tangible copy of a book. If someone stall a copy of a book from you, you have a case: they removed property from your possession. If they made a copy of it without REMOVING property from your possession, and made no contract with you, than you cannot claim a theft of property. You may claim a loss of sales opportunity, but not theft of your property. And even though they have diminished your sales opportunity you have no moral right to use force upon them, because they did not violate your property and made no contract with you, and they have a right to do with their own as they please. It might be immoral on their part, but you cannot use force against them and neither does the government because of the Benson Principle. Again:_ not everything that is immoral is right to forbid by government force, and not everything that is morally right is right to force to perform_. What is the principle here? The Benson Principle. If you have no moral right to use force upon your neighbor (and deadly force if he resists), neither does the government. You have no right to use such force. Therefore neither does the government. Get it?




> You talk about the Benson Principle but I'm pretty sure President Benson believed the government had the moral authority to prevent thievery. In fact the protection of property is one of the three legitimate reasons he gave for the existence of government all together.


For thievery to occur property must be REMOVED from your possession. NOTHING has been removed from your possession, therefore no thievery has occurred. An opportunity for sale has been removed from you, but you have no right to use force upon them because they did NOT violate your property and made no contract with you. It might be immoral, but not enforceable by government force. (Benson Principle).




> You And obviously you have no idea how anything other than mass produced fiction works. Most of the important books, journals, scholarly papers, medical papers, scientific papers, works of art, literature, and science, are all niche works. They do not appeal to the masses, but only to their specific small groups. Yet shouldn't their work be protected so they can reap the just rewards for their works? That they should rely on donations instead of reaping the fruits of their labors seems immoral to me.


They can secure rewards to themselves through contracts of first use with the publisher, and yes, they can ask for donations too. Whatever seems immoral to you (it may or may not be), ask yourself, Do I, INDIVIDUALLY, have a moral right to use force upon my neighbor, and lethal force if he resists, to force him to do or not to do something? If the answer is No, neither does the government, because YOU cannot delegate an authority you do not have. Get it?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> You can't steal if the the person you are presupposing has been stolen from has not been deprived of any possession, ownership, or use of what is said to be stolen. In other words, using my own property to copy, emulate, reproduce, or otherwise make another of has not deprived you of the same of your own property. To say you own an idea or recipe is to say you own the bodies of every other individual in society who is now under threat of violence, precluded from the use of their faculties and property to make the same. In other words, a monopoly is created and enforced through the State. 
> 
> If you are arguing for contractual IP, then the sell of my book I bought from you does not in any way bind the party I am selling to because he never agreed to your terms. Ergo, he has no obligation to abide by whatever contract was between you and who you sold it to (me). In other words, he is free to reproduce the work as much as he wants limited only by his ownership of scarce resources (e.g. computer, paper, etc.). 
> 
> You are arguing for artificial rents backed by violent monopolization through the State. Everything antithetical to liberty and property rights. Never mind the fact no one has the right to profit, only the right of profit, which means, you can trade your property titles for more than what you paid to obtain them in the first place. In other words, individuals are free to transact in whatever mutually agreed upon prices they decide fit their subjective valuations. You have no authority to deprive my disposition of property. In any event, I've said before that the proponents of IP argue for a rentership society where we are all serfs. If you were logically consistent then you would apply the same principles of property to IP, but you don't because even ardent IP proponents realize what that means and how absurd and tyrannical it would be and is. 
> 
> You should be paying royalties for even speaking, to the folks who invented the English Language. How free you would be!


Brilliant!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> When you buy a book you buy that copy of that book. You do not buy the entirety of the work itself.


That is false. The “work” here is information. To own a copy of information is to own the information. This is an undeniable fact.




> You do not buy the right to that work.


That depends on whether or not I made a contract with you that limits my rights. If I made no contract with you, I can do whatever I want with that information because it is mine just as much as I own my mind, my paper, etc, and you have no right to use force against me, because I did not violate your property and made no contract with you.




> You simply buy a copy of it. What you do with that copy is up to you, as long as you do not try and steal that work by making copies of the book.


To own a copy of information is to own the information. You cannot steal information, unless you destroy the copy in someone else’s possession. You can “steal” a sales opportunity, but you have no moral right to use force against that, and therefore, neither does the government.




> It has nothing to do with owning an idea. A book, a story, is a specific work.


You seem to make distinction between concept of “idea” and “information.”  The “work” you referring to is _information._ There is no distinction, logically or functionally, between “idea” and “work” in this context,— it is all information. A fundamental property of information is that to have it IS to own it, just as much as you own your mind, your paper, etc.




> You do not buy the right to own my work when you buy a copy of my book. You buy the right to own a copy. Nothing more.


Repeating it does not make it true.

To own a copy of information is to own the information, just as much as you own your mind, paper, etc. 




> But the assumption that you automatically own the rights to my work simply because you bought a copy is collectivist garbage. It is not capitalism.


Immoral use of government force is collectivist garbage. It is not free market capitalism.




> It is not part of the contract of buying a work.


What contract? There was NO contract. That is the whole point. If there was a contract you would be right, but there was NO CONTRACT.




> The state is monopolizing nothing. I am. It is mine.


You have no monopoly right over the property of others. The information in your possession is your property, but the information in their possession, even if it is the same information, is THERE property, just as much as they own their minds, their papers, etc. You have no right to use force against their property, therefore there is no monopoly, only perhaps aggression on your part which can (and should) be met with force.




> Do you think you have a right to my work?


Repeating? Ok, lets repeat.

If “work” is information, then if I have it in my possession, I own it, just as much as I own my mind, etc.  And if I came into the possession of it without violating (removing or altering) your property and made no contract with you, you have no moral right to use force upon me. It may or may not be immoral of me to use that information contrary to your wishes, but it is IMMORAL for you to use force against me.




> you have no just claim to the entirety of my work simply because you buy a copy of it.


You do not understand the properties of information. To have a copy of it is to have ALL of it. To pretend otherwise is foolish, and contradicts observable reality. This is a very dangerous and irrational delusion that denies the facts and reality of what information is. Therefore, unsurprisingly, you arrive at wrong conclusions.




> Unless you specifically and contractually purchase from me all rights to my property then you don't own them,


This is what you don’t seem to understand: The information in your possession is YOUR property. The information in MY possession is my property (even if it is the same information). I own it just as much as I own my mind. There is nothing you can do about it, and if I made no contract with you, and did not violate your property, you have no right to use force against me. To possess information IS to own it, just as much as you own your mind, your papers, your camera etc. This is the nature of information. You denying the very nature of the thing you are arguing about! No wonder your conclusions are wrong and self-contradictory!




> I cannot stop you from reading, preserving, or destroying your copy. That is true. It is yours. But you cannot make copies of it and distribute those because you do not own the rights to the original work. You merely own a copy of said work.


To own a copy of information, is to own the information. This is the very NATURE of information. To deny this FACT is irrational and foolish.




> It is my property.


Yes it is. It is your property. But the moment I have a copy of it, it becomes MY property as well, just as much as I own my mind, my paper, my  tape recorder, etc. I own  it independently of you, and without violating your property. You still have yours perfectly intact. This is the nature of information. I may have deprived you of a sales opportunity by possessing the information, and it might or might not be immoral, but you have no MORAL right to use force against me, because I did not violate your property and I made no contract with you.




> For you to steal my work by making immoral copies and distributing them is well immoral.


Not everything that is immoral is right to forbid by government force. Learn that much. This is key to the survival of Liberty and of society itself. It is actually IMMORAL to do what you are proposing, because it requires an immoral use of government force. Therefore, it violates the rights and property of others and leads to destruction of Liberty, and consequently, to the destruction of the society itself.




> It is the antithesis of free market capitalism


Immoral use of government force is the antithesis of free market capitalism.




> The only way you can gain the right of ownership (i.e. the right of production and reproduction) is by buying that right form me.


It is only true if you can keep a secret and secure from me a contract of first use. Otherwise it is simply not true.




> You do not do so when you buy a copy of my work.


To own a copy of information IS to own the information. This is the very nature of information. To deny it is to deny reality.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Quick Summary of Correct Principles of IP


On intellectual property:

This is a very important subject directly connected to the survival and prosperity of this nation, because it is directly connected to Liberty (without which any nation will inevitably self-destruct), which is directly connected to free speech, especially on the internet.

Here are the main points:

Intellectual property has a few major misconceptions in our society:

_1) “Information can be stolen even though the author still has his copy.”
_
That is false because to steal something you must deprive the owner of the use of the thing. To violate a property you must either:
a) alter it,

b) remove it from the possession of the owner, or

c) materially endanger a) or b) 

None of this takes place, when information is copied. What can be “stolen” is perhaps i) a secret, or ii) the ability to profit by having exclusive/controlled access to the information.  Neither one of these, however, constitute a violation of the authors property if neither (a), (b), nor (c) occurred with regards to the author’s tangible and intellectual property.

The natural reality of any and all information is this:

*TO HAVE INFORMATION IS TO OWN IT*, just as much as you own your mind, your papers or you computer, etc.

The author owns it, but so does anyone who has a copy of the information. The author owns HIS copy, and the copier owns HIS copy. They are separate copies, and constitute TWO separate instances of intellectual property, even if it is the exact copy of the other. They are TWO properties, not one. This is the very nature of information. Each one who has a copy owns it just as much as he owns the medium on which it is recorded; he owns the information just as much as he owns his mind, his papers, his camera, or his computer.

TO HAVE IT IS TO OWN IT.

_2) “The creator of information cannot profit by his work without government forced monopoly on the use of the information he created.”
_
That is false, because there are multiple ways for the author to profit by his work without the immoral use of government force to impose a monopoly. They are (in part):
a)      Secure a contract of first use with a publisher, performer or manufacturer. Example: a movies studio may contract with a theater chain to show their movie first, etc.

b)      In case of an invention, keep the secret as long as you can and be first to market and thus gain economic advantage. (Generally it buys the inventor 6 month to 2 years of natural monopoly, before others can figure out how it was done and swing into production).

c)      In case of software, a paid key may be required to unlock the code.

d)     In case of a performer use your recordings as an advertisement for your live performances. Most famous artists make most of their money in live performances. People come to see them in concert even though they already own all of their CD’s. Also original paintings may cost millions, even though photographic copies of them are readily available for free. etc.

e)      Reap the benefits of using it yourself.

f)       Rely on donations of grateful users. For example, even if Stephanie Myers did not have a contract of first use with her publisher (which she does have), but even if she didn’t, most of her grateful fans would have gladly donated $1 each or more if she asked for it, which would probably amount to millions of dollars! 

The point here is that such a government monopoly is immoral, because no author has a moral right to use FORCE upon his neighbors to prevent them from using information in their possession, even if it is the exact copy of the information he created. And since he has no moral right to use such violence, he cannot delegate it to the government to do it in his behalf.

_3) “The author worked hard to create the information, he deserves remuneration if other people use it, and it will be immoral if they use it without compensating him, therefore force can be used to extract the payment.”
_
First of all, the author can and should benefit by his work. The proper ways to do so without violating the rights and property of others are listed in section (2).

Secondly, and this is key: Not everything that is immoral is right to forbid by government force, and not everything that is morally right is right to FORCE to perform. Giving money to the poor if you can is certainly morally right and good, but it is WRONG to take this money by force, for that would be theft and plunder. It maybe morally right and desirable to give flowers to one’s mother or wife on her birthday, but it is wrong to force such performance by violence. Also it may be morally bad to waste ones talents and to live below ones abilities, but it is WRONG to use violence against such a person, as long as he does not violate the property of others. What is the principle here? I call it The Benson Principle which is also equivalent to the Second Fundamental Principle of Liberty: If you INDIVIDUALLY have no moral right to use FORCE upon your neighbor or to violate his property, you cannot delegate such violence to any third party, including government. If you have no right to violate your neighbor’s property, you cannot rightly ask the government to do it for you either.

_4) “Implied contracts, i.e. contracts that do not require an explicit agreement, exist all over in the society; therefore copyrights are implied contracts, and thus can be enforced by government.”
_
That is false, because by their nature, implied contracts, i.e. contracts that do not have an explicit agreement from all the parties involved, can only be properly imposed upon things that you own, and nothing else. This is because with regards to YOUR own property you do not need an agreement from anyone as to what to do with it. Thus if you own a parking lot you can post a sign “No parking after 10 pm” and you have a right to enforce it without the car owner’s explicit agreement, because you OWN the lot, and you can impose any rules you want UPON IT, and a car owner would be violating YOUR property if he did not use the property as you prescribed. However, if you posted a sign saying: “No parking after 10 pm, but if you do, it will signify that you agree that I own your house, and that you are my slave for 50 years,” and someone leaves his car on your lot after 10pm, can you take his house and make him a slave for 50 years? No! Why? Because you do not own either him nor his house, therefore for such a contract to be binding you have to have an EXPLICIT agreement from him before you can enforce it. Without an explicit agreement, the best you can do is to tow his car, and perhaps charge a fee for your trouble to offset/rectify the violation of your property, and nothing more. Implied contracts do not require explicit agreements precisely because they apply only to the things you own and nothing else.

Copyrights cannot be enforced as an implied contract because you do not own the people who copy your work. You do not own their minds, you do not own their copy machines, you do not own their papers or their computers. Therefore, you cannot impose an implied contract upon these things because you have exactly zero authority/ownership over them. You can only impose an implied contract upon your copy of the information and limit or condition access to IT, because you own THAT COPY; but you have no right or say over the copies owned by others. This is the nature of information. To deny this is to deny reality and to violate both intellectual and tangible property of others, because they own that information no less than you, the author, do, and no less than they own their minds, their papers or their computers. That’s what information is: TO HAVE IT IS TO OWN IT.



This is a brief summary of correct principles of IP.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Modified the following paragraphs:

The fundamental principle of Intellectual Property is this: _

To possess information IS to own it,_ _because, by its very nature,_ _e__very copy of information is a separate intellectual property, that is independently owned by each one who has it,_ _nor less than he owns his mind, his body, or the medium upon which the information is recorded._ 

This is the very nature of information that can be easily verified by simple observation.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Modified this passage in the "Quick Summary of Correct Principles of IP" section of the top post:




> Here we will give the true definition of what Intellectual Property is:
> 
> *Intellectual Property is nothing more or less than a COPY of information in one's possession.*
> 
> Therefore, each copy of information constitutes a separate and independent intellectual property.
> This definition is based in the reality and truth of what information IS.
> 
> The natural reality of any and all information is this:
> 
> ...

----------

