Anyone else object to being called "Libertarian"?

[Narmical]

I guess I just disagree with your basic judgement that people would be able to devote their lives to art if they couldn't afford to eat (as the art itself isn't bringing in any money). I don't think you'll be able to convince me otherwise.

Closed Minded much? Don't give up on being convinced so easily.

Your argument is with out patents and copyrights people would not produce creating outputs because they would not be able to make a living. You did admit to not reading the whole thread, but it seems you don't internalize the posts you read. The glaring counter example to you argument is the fashion industry. Its a thriving and creative business that's of no less artistic merit than sculpture or painting. As evince the Metropolitan Museum of Art has an entire wing dedicated to fashion design. In spite of the lack of IP protections, many people make a decent living, both as functionaries in large organisations and as independent sellers (take a look at etsy.com). Moreover, fashion design has its rock stars who make millions and millions despite no protection of there work.

Please read this link which supports my statements about fashion
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080327/002456664.shtml

 

[soulcyon]

I really like the discussion regarding IP in libertarian philosophy. However, just a few pointers, IP has less to do with the "profitability" of your creativity, and more to do with how other people can take your work (rebrand it, tweak it, etc) and make money without your permission. However, the only real way for someone to steal your work and get away with it, is if your work is very unpopular in the first place. The only reason Louis CK and Pretty Lights can literally give away their works is because of their initial popularity. Prior to the free downloads, they were just like any other comedian/artist (respectively).

I believe in creating the contracts (such as Creative Commons) for your creative work, so that people cannot illegally steal your work. But, there will always be companies like RIAA that start abusing IP laws and start charging ridiculous rates for their records - on top of that, they're lobbying to push shit like DMCA, SOPA etc. Recently they've filed charges against Limewire for over $72 Trillion!!! That's more than all the money in the world.

@Narmical and noneedtoaggress; totally agreed - It just so happens that the fashion industry doesn't have to worry about piracy. *lol*

 

[Ivash]

Closed Minded much? Don't give up on being convinced so easily.

Less about being closed minded and more about 'I don't want to waste (his) time on a debate when nothing will come of it'.

 

[Ivash]

Closed Minded much? Don't give up on being convinced so easily.

Less about being closed minded and more about 'I don't want to waste (his) time on a debate when nothing will come of it'.

 

[Narmical]

@Narmical and noneedtoaggress; totally agreed - It just so happens that the fashion industry doesn't have to worry about piracy. *lol*

What do you mean by piracy? do you mean everyday joe making a copy for his friend for free? then no they don't, but if you mean "how other people can take your work (rebrand it, tweak it, etc) and make money without your permission" (your words) then yes they do.

Might want to take a look a photos from fashion shows, and see just how much top designers copy from each other.

Also this is a self contradictory statement

However, just a few pointers, IP has less to do with the "profitability" of your creativity, and more to do with how other people can take your work (rebrand it, tweak it, etc) and make money without your permission

profitablity = make money. It can't be less about one and more about the other?

 

[Danan]

I believe in creating the contracts (such as Creative Commons) for your creative work, so that people cannot illegally steal your work.

A real contract only applies to the parties signing it. So if, for example, Engineer A invents a new technique to produce something and makes a contract with B that says B can use the technique but is not allowed to distribute it but C sees the technique being used by B then C is permitted to use it, distribute it, sell it, etc.

It's a little bit more tricky with, say, an E-book. If A is a publisher who makes a sales contract with customer B with terms of sale that forbid B to share, distribute, sell, etc. the E-book A could argue that if C downloads it from the internet for free it has to be concealment of stolen goods, since the original uploader breached the contract. But since C has the benefit of the doubt it's practically impossible for A to prove this.


To me it all comes down to being able to protect my output without getting special treatment from the government. In my examples A has to investigate, go to court and prove that C broke any form of agreement or knowingly recieved goods from someone who did it. Just like a cattleman has to build fence around his property and prove that a thief stole one of his cows.

To me the big corporations who argue for IP-rights enforced by government are like a farmer who refuses to build a fence and instead demands that society has to pay police forces who protect his property all the time.


And that completely leaves out the moral and logical quesiton if IP even is a valid form of property.


I don't even want to argue about whether artists could still produce their art without IP-laws or if there were more or less innovations. That's a utalitarian approach and that opens the door for plenty of despicable laws that could "benefit society as a whole". I'm on Ron Paul's side: "I'd rather be poor and free than rich and unfree!"

 

[Carlybee]

I am a libertarian and I would sue over copyright infringement whether I profit off my work or not. It's my property until I say it isn't. Even things on my blog...people can read it but they can't use or replicate it without my permission...within the realm of the murky IP laws.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It makes me happy, the republican party is a disgrace to mankind. I'd love to see completely destroyed, I would be very offended if someone referred to me as a republican.

Will you hate it as much when we pwn the leadership positions?

Don't forget that political parties are just tools to be used to get our country back. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[LibertyEagle]

@Rev9

I don't think anyone is arguing that you have to produce for free. Most of the issue people have with IP is that it protects distributors, NOT content producers. In fact it can bite the actual content producers in the ass if they sign up with a bad distributor. As for actual ideas, yeah, once you use them to create something, you should no longer have rights to the idea itself, just to your specific implementation of it. If you want to retain rights to an idea, then you make sure you find your own unique niche that your competitors won't be able to touch.

He should have ownership of his finished product. When someone argues against that, it always comes off like they are trying to justify theft. But, to each their own.

 

[Danan]

He should have ownership of his finished product. When someone argues against that, it always comes off like they are trying to justify theft. But, to each their own.

And he has ownership of it, nobody wants to deny him that. What people are arguing about is whether it's theft if someone sees the product and copies it. That's a far more complicated problem than it looks like at the first glance. Just because he maybe makes less profit of the product if it's not illegal to copy it doesn't mean it's theft or immoral.

The product (for example the written notes of a music piece) is his property, that's clear. But that doesn't imply that nobody is allowed to copy it.

If I watch a baker making bread I can go home, "copy" the bread by using the same recipe and sell it myself. The baker's profits could suffer from my action but there's nothing he can do to stop me from "using his technique".

There are other products where this wouldn't be allowed because of patterns and copy right laws - but whether or not a specific product falls into this category is completely arbitrary since it has no basis in natural law. It all comes down to which producer has enough influence on the legislative process to get special privileges and sell them with an utalitarian argument ("It's for the greater good for society!", "Without those laws no inventions would exist!", etc.).

 

[Narmical]

He should have ownership of his finished product. When someone argues against that, it always comes off like they are trying to justify theft. But, to each their own.

How about this analogy.

You you produce a board, and sell me that board, and then a go on and use it to build a house. Is that a derivative work? should you be able to prevent me from using the board in that way if your the first to invent the board?

 

[soulcyon]

A real contract only applies to the parties signing it. So if, for example, Engineer A invents a new technique to produce something and makes a contract with B that says B can use the technique but is not allowed to distribute it but C sees the technique being used by B then C is permitted to use it, distribute it, sell it, etc.

It's a little bit more tricky with, say, an E-book. If A is a publisher who makes a sales contract with customer B with terms of sale that forbid B to share, distribute, sell, etc. the E-book A could argue that if C downloads it from the internet for free it has to be concealment of stolen goods, since the original uploader breached the contract. But since C has the benefit of the doubt it's practically impossible for A to prove this.


To me it all comes down to being able to protect my output without getting special treatment from the government. In my examples A has to investigate, go to court and prove that C broke any form of agreement or knowingly recieved goods from someone who did it. Just like a cattleman has to build fence around his property and prove that a thief stole one of his cows.

Yes! And this is also the reason why things like videos and songs cannot be enforced properly. Sure people can sign an agreement to download, but what if they're watching the movie in a theatre or listening to the radio? Do they have to sign a contract for every listen/watch?

As for the fashion industry, there are ripoffs (I can think of bootleg Coach purses) but they are clearly lower quality and are rarely sold from brand-name retailers. So the piracy in the fashion industry is prevalent, but less destructive to Coach brand (in example)

To me the big corporations who argue for IP-rights enforced by government are like a farmer who refuses to build a fence and instead demands that society has to pay police forces who protect his property all the time.


And that completely leaves out the moral and logical quesiton if IP even is a valid form of property.


I don't even want to argue about whether artists could still produce their art without IP-laws or if there were more or less innovations. That's a utalitarian approach and that opens the door for plenty of despicable laws that could "benefit society as a whole". I'm on Ron Paul's side: "I'd rather be poor and free than rich and unfree!"

+1 rep

 

[G-Wohl]

Intellectual property *is* a legitimate type of property.

However, it shouldn't be a governmental responsibility, directly, to protect it. Intellectual property protections need to be handled privately by means of contract. When you purchase a song off iTunes, for example, you don't really purchase the song itself, but rather a license to acquire the digital file from its distributor (and, thus, the copyright holder(s)). License agreements are privately-handled by contracts in all other fields of law - intellectual property should be no different.

A lot of people make fun of the "would you download a car?" analogy because it's ridiculous to imagine downloading a physical object. But people miss the point - downloading a car, if it were possible, *would* be stealing. You don't purchase a license to own a reproduction of a car - you purchase the car itself.

The founders put the intellectual property protections into the US Constitution because they were afraid of government tyrants taking destructive liberties with the creations of the citizens, which prohibits the free cultural exchange necessary of powerful nations. It was never intended to be handled in the manner it is today.

 

[freedomordeath]

A lot of people make fun of the "would you download a car?" analogy because it's ridiculous to imagine downloading a physical object. But people miss the point - downloading a car, if it were possible, *would* be stealing. You don't purchase a license to own a reproduction of a car - you purchase the car itself.

This technology exists today, its not that advanced yet so cars can't be done, but simple objects can be printed off special printers.

 

[hrdman2luv]

All Ron Paul supporters are constantly refered to as Libertarians in the media, I consider myself a conservative Republican personally, just not the kind of conservative Republican that most in the party have de-volved into these days with all the war rhetoric, but my hope is to bring Republicans back to their senses, not turn them into Libertarians. I also feel this label has turned alot of potential Rep voters off to us.

The republican establishment has ruined it for me. I'm more insulted by being called a republican than a Libertarian.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I'm going to point out that 'my opinion differs heavily from yours' does not equal 'ignorance' or 'not interested in understanding how things function without it'.

Of course not. I wasn't implying that you simply having a different opinion was ignorant. You should re-read my post. I understand your perspective, I was there. I held your "opinion". I was trying to explain a different perspective to you, in response to your own questions and comments and you completely disregarded what I was saying and put your preconceived notions into my mouth and went on about how it was impossible to "change your opinion" and gloated about how thankful you were that the law was "on your side".

To trade an insult for an insult, you are being... well, an idiot if you think that anyone with a different opinion does not understand the issue. I could use as easily accuse you of ignorance for ignoring basic economic realities, and that you're wallowing in the ignorance of a history that has been clear of what happens without IP laws. And I could claim that your arrogance is blinding you to the extremely simple idea that 'opinions can legitimetly differ', which is typically the 'black and white, right or wrong!' viewpoint of a child, etc.

You could accuse me of "ignoring basic economic realities" but I'm not the one who was asserting that value is derived from profit, and I gave you examples and even a book to go about answering some of the questions you had. You clearly have shown that you don't care about what a perspective outside the box you've put yourself in could bring to the table when one reads your replies.

I'm not saying you "don't understand the issue" because you have a different opinion. You're the one who's telling me you find it difficult to see how things would work without it, all while you're putting your preconceived notions into a straw man argument against me to back up your "opinion" as if it were factual. You're also making claims that your issues were "rarely addressed", which really just shows ignorance about the other side of the argument, and now I can see why after an attempt to address them myself. Also... either we need IP laws or we don't. Either it's beneficial or it's not. Just because you have a subjective opinion which is based on what you believe to be "common sense" which you are taking for granted as "basic economic realities", doesn't mean whether IP works or not is up in the air. Just because someone has the "opinion" that "marijuana is bad and should be illegal" doesn't mean that the Drug War is beneficial or successful.

You can have your opinion and you can cling to it all you want. I'm just pointing out that what you're doing is clinging to it, despite the fact that I'm trying to answer the issues you have with the anti-IP argument and direct you to find more answers if you actually feel like getting some.

I actually typically dislike throwing insults around (usually going back to moderate my own posts to make sure that there are few insults in it- unless it is to a certain type of person, but I don't think you are that type of person) but I see this 'black and white' viewpoint all the time on the internet, and it gets under my skin. So I apologies if you take this as being harsher than it was meant to be.

You can take that how you will. I was just pointing out what you were doing. You can have your opinion, I really don't care, obviously nothing I say is going to matter until you are willing to question the lot of preconceived notions you hold about how beneficial IP is. Whether or not you choose to take a deeper look into the argument or not is irrelevant to the fact that the internet is challenging and revolutionary when it comes to IP. I'm only posting this information and continuing to respond to your post for people who are actually willing to challenge themselves and the opinions they hold, which you clearly are not.

 

[brooks009]

Sorry to throw a stick in your spokes but you can patent clothing and purses. I don’t know where you got the notion that you can’t. You can get a design patent or even in some cases a utility patent.

Also companies like coach have copyright or trademarks of their logos which is enough protection for their purses.

This just shows me your ignorant of Intellectual property laws and I don’t know why I’m even bothering arguing with you.

 

[Narmical]

Sorry to throw a stick in your spokes but you can patent clothing and purses. I don’t know where you got the notion that you can’t. You can get a design patent or even in some case a utility patent.

Also companies like coach have copyright or trademarks of their logos which is enough protection for their purses.

This just shows me your ignorant of Intellectual property laws and I don’t know why I’m even bothering arguing with you.

I got my information from articles like this (this is not the specific article that clued me in)
http://lawontherow.com/2011/02/14/congress-proposes-copyright-protection-for-fashion-design/

Its about writing new legislation to protect fashion design via copyright.

Maybe I'm wrong. It does seem that design pattents are possible however
http://www.jinlex.com/articles-alerts/fashion-and-garment-law-intellectual-property-protection
claims they are not of general use.

I stand by my conclusions for now, but my conviction has been shaken.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I got my information from articles like this (this is not the specific article that clued me in)
http://lawontherow.com/2011/02/14/congress-proposes-copyright-protection-for-fashion-design/

Its about writing new legislation to protect fashion design via copyright.

Maybe I'm wrong. It does seem that design pattents are possible however
http://www.jinlex.com/articles-alerts/fashion-and-garment-law-intellectual-property-protection
claims they are not of general use.

I stand by my conclusions for now, but my conviction has been shaken.

More on the trademarks:

nate-m February 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
The fashion industry has put a lot of work into integrating trademarks into their designs. I think the result is horrendously bad tasted, but it does have the advantage that it makes it illegal to copy those designs closely.

Stephan Kinsella February 11, 2011 at 11:19 am
This is another distortion caused by IP law. Since there is no copyright and patent on fashion then the manufacturers twist an aspect of trademark law to gain protection from competition. If trademark law did not contain its unlibertarian aspects–that is, if it gave ONLY a right to sue for FRAUD–then they could not use it this way and the whole fashion industry would not have been distorted as it has been by them putting their trademarks into the design-they would have no reason to. The reason is that if I knock off your Gucci bags, and reproduce the Gucci trademark all over it, there is usually no fraud involved–the customer knows he is buying an el-cheapo knockoff. So there would be no crime or claim. So there would be no reason to slap trademarks all over things, since whether the clothing or purse etc. has the trademark on it or not, it would not be fraudulent to copy it and knock if off (not per se, anyway).

So, this is jsut another example of how state laws distort the market–and IP laws distort fashion and culture. The solution is not to add more IP law but to take it away.

Stephan Kinsella February 10, 2011 at 4:40 pm
trademark law is also unlibertarian–there is a part of it that is libertarian, the part based on consumer fraud; but this is only a subset of state trademark law; and even that is distorted in that it gives the right to sue to the competitor rather than to the consumer-victim. and this has led to distortion of fashion itself, unsurprisingly. See http://blog.mises.org/13442/leveraging-ip/

Trademark and Fashion

In addition to patent and copyright, trademark can also be leveraged for anticompetitive purposes. As mentioned in Johanna Blakley: Lessons from fashion’s free culture, there is little IP protection in the fashion industry, which thrives despite–probably because of–this. Knockoffs of others’ fashion designs are rampant and legal. This is one reason some designers work their trademark itself into the very design of items such as purses and even some clothing. Then, a knockoff of such an item is a trademark infringement, and the designer can now sue the copier. So here we have trademark law being used to thwart otherwise-legal competition in the fashion industry.

This is also an example of how IP law–in this case, trademark law–distorts the economy and the market: who knows if this bizarre phenomenon of the trademark of the designer being plastered all over and integrated into the very appearance and style of the designer’s products would have ever arisen, absent trademark law.

 

[jj-]

However, it shouldn't be a governmental responsibility, directly, to protect it. Intellectual property protections need to be handled privately by means of contract.

Agree completely. Just so you know, you spent a lot of time bashing people who had that exact same position.