A victory for intellectual property rights?

[mediahasyou]

 

[mediahasyou]

so what you are saying I should be able to take RP's books
and reprint them with my name on them?

Is it theft if I let a friend borrow my Ron Paul book?

Is it theft to tell another person about Ron Paul's book? Information is no different whether I copy it electronically or if my brain copies it.

 

[slothman]

Children in kindergarden are usually taught to share.
Why share that book when the other kid can buy another one?
Since the second kid borrowed he must be a lost sale.

 

[sidster]

Is it theft if I let a friend borrow my Ron Paul book?

Is it theft to tell another person about Ron Paul's book? Information is no different whether I copy it electronically or if my brain copies it.

it isn't theft if you come over to watch my On Any Sunday DVD.
Nor would it be theft if you were to borrow a book from
your local library. It would, however, be theft if you copied
it as you are depriving the author of the book the proceedings
from the sale that is now not going to take place.

 

[sidster]

Children in kindergarden are usually taught to share.
Why share that book when the other kid can buy another one?
Since the second kid borrowed he must be a lost sale.

why even publish books and sell them in the first place?
Why don't all authors simply post their books online for
all to download free of charge?

 

[mediahasyou]

it isn't theft if you come over to watch my On Any Sunday DVD.
Nor would it be theft if you were to borrow a book from
your local library. It would, however, be theft if you copied
it as you are depriving the author of the book the proceedings
from the sale that is now not going to take place.

The library is "depriving the author of the book the proceedings from the sale that is now not going to take place."

There is no difference between a library and online sharing.

 

[mediahasyou]

btw, your avatar is copyright protected, sidster, I suggest you remove it to not conflict with your personal beliefs of intellectual property rights. (dont be a hypocrite.)

 

[revolutionman]

as far as i have read, libertarians are divided by intellectual property rights issues.

Some people believe a man has a right to his intellectual property, others (like me) believe intellectual property rights are voided when a product is sold.

An example of my beliefs about intellectual property:

if I purchase a CD, the CD and its contents are mine to do with what i please. All other arguments are bureaucratic legal jargon.

When you purchase something either you own it or you don't.

When you purchase a house the architect that designed it does not retain the rights to the foundation. Similarly, when a musician sells an album, he sells the contents of that album. Only through ridiculous, corrupt legislation does anyone retain the rights to the contents of MY property (the CD I paid $18 for). Basically my position is that physical ownership trumps any claim to "intellectual" property.

Mind you, these intellectual property rights allow for monopoly. Monsanto destroys farmers crops based on these frivolous claims to non-property.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

as far as i have read, libertarians are divided by intellectual property rights issues.

Some people believe a man has a right to his intellectual property, others (like me) believe intellectual property rights are voided when a product is sold.

An example of my beliefs about intellectual property:

if I purchase a CD, the CD and its contents are mine to do with what i please. All other arguments are bureaucratic legal jargon.

When you purchase something either you own it or you don't.

When you purchase a house the architect that designed it does not retain the rights to the foundation. Similarly, when a musician sells an album, he sells the contents of that album. Only through ridiculous, corrupt legislation does anyone retain the rights to the contents of MY property (the CD I paid $18 for). Basically my position is that physical ownership trumps any claim to "intellectual" property.

Mind you, these intellectual property rights allow for monopoly. Monsanto destroys farmers crops based on these frivolous claims to non-property.

-------
Actually, when you buy a CD, DVD, software, etc, you buy a user license. You own the physical container and can do what you please with it (frisbee, anyone?), but the contents are proprietary. If you read the label, it usually says something like "not for public performance". By buying the product, you've agreed to their contract. ALL libertarians understand the importance of contract. (download "The Market For Liberty" if you don't get it) If you want to use your CD's music in film, elevators, etc, you can purchase a license for that purpose.

It seems that copyright law does need to be updated, but it is still workable. It would be best administered by people who understand the market, like artists and producers. The government is far too stupid and inept to understand it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

why even publish books and sell them in the first place?
Why don't all authors simply post their books online for
all to download free of charge?

Because they want to make money and get their work out in bookstores. Not a toughie!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The library is "depriving the author of the book the proceedings from the sale that is now not going to take place."

There is no difference between a library and online sharing.

Not true, simply because of the nature of a book. A book is a physical item, which can be catalogued. Every photocopy will be of degraded quality relative to the original. Digital music can be duplicated perfectly millions of times.

Onine sharing is more akin to pirating, where the criminal steals books and sells them in original form for personal profit, with a loss to the publisher and author.

 

[sidster]

The library is "depriving the author of the book the proceedings from the sale that is now not going to take place."

There is no difference between a library and online sharing.

sure there is a difference between borrowing a book from the
library vs downloading a song from the internet. The book you
return back to the library after you have read it. If you were to
make photocopy of the book or scan the pages of the book,
then that would be the same as your illegal/immoral downloading
from the internet.

btw, your avatar is copyright protected, sidster, I suggest you remove it to not conflict with your personal beliefs of intellectual property rights. (dont be a hypocrite.)

you are again wrong. the avatar was created from a sanctioned
south park site. they gave me the right to use the site to create
this particular avatar and use it.

 

[Matt Collins]

so what you are saying I should be able to take RP's books
and reprint them with my name on them?

That would be forgery, a form of copyright infringement.

 

[Matt Collins]

It would, however, be theft if you copied it as you are depriving the author of the book the proceedings from the sale that is now not going to take place.

Incorrect for multiple reasons.

Dictionary definition of theft from m-w.com -
"the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it "

That means that since the original owner has not been deprived of the object in question it isn't theft; it's copyright infringement. And because not everyone who makes an unlawful copy would've gone out to purchase it instead, it cannot be said that for every unlawful copy a sale is lost. In fact there is no way to correlate it.

 

[Matt Collins]

why even publish books and sell them in the first place?
Why don't all authors simply post their books online for all to download free of charge?

Many do.

But Ron has made a lot of money. So has Jerome Corsi. And Judge Andrew Napolitno. And the Clintons, and probably Obama too.

People still make money off of their books.

 

[Matt Collins]

Actually, when you buy a CD, DVD, software, etc, you buy a user license.

Software, yes. Music and film? No.

There are a lot of shinkwrap end user license agreements which may or may not be legal - search for EULAs and see the result.

But with music and film you don't agree to anything, you are simply subject to federal copyright law.

If you read the label, it usually says something like "not for public performance". By buying the product, you've agreed to their contract.

Not true. Public performance is a part of copyright. As a copyright owner you are able to stipulate when and where your work of art is displayed or performed and how much to charge for it.

 

[Matt Collins]

Onine sharing is more akin to pirating, where the criminal steals books and sells them in original form for personal profit, with a loss to the publisher and author.

Except that not every pirated copy = a lost sale. The two cannot be correlated.

 

[slothman]

-------... If you read the label, it usually says something like "not for public performance". By buying the product, you've agreed to their contract. ...

... It would be best administered by people who understand the market, like artists and producers.....

Any contract some signs can be changed before hand.
If I am given a contract and cross some parts out and they agree then they changed parts don't apply.
What if I just cross out the "not for preformance"?
For a normal contract that works.


[sarcastic]Yes lets have people who would gain from more laws for CP enforce those laws that benefit them.[/sarcasm]
That sounds like a conflict of interest.

 

[Matt Collins]

Any contract some signs can be changed before hand.
If I am given a contract and cross some parts out and they agree then they changed parts don't apply.
What if I just cross out the "not for preformance"?
For a normal contract that works.

I just did that on my income tax form ha ha ha. Where it says "under penalty of perjury" I crossed it out. The information is true to the best of my knowledge, but I am not going under oath to say that because then it can be used against me in court.

See Conklin:
http://www.anti-irs.com/


OT I know...

 

[revolutionman]

if i dont sign it I aint binded by it.

I cant just stick a contract on something and claim that its legally binding to whomever comes into possession of that item. Thats ridiculous.