Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents

[Zippyjuan]

What is basically being said (or how I am hearing it) is that thoughts and new ideas have no value.

Physical things get rights and procection- ideas do not.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What is basically being said (or how I am hearing it) is that thoughts and new ideas have no value.

Physical things get rights and procection- ideas do not.

Bingo! You couldn't "protect" an idea even if you wanted to in the real world. You would have to kill anyone who observes your idea or wipe their memory of it to truly "protect" it. If I could recite your book (for example) from memory for people like Rothbard could, have I "stolen" from you? Of course not. You still have your original manuscript. The original copy and first few runs of any well known work are extremely valuable (like Moby Dick). Modern copies are extremely cheap, and digital copies have literally no value (though amazon could charge a small fee for delivering it to your kindle).

 

[Origanalist]

Originally Posted by Zippyjuan

What is basically being said (or how I am hearing it) is that thoughts and new ideas have no value.

Physical things get rights and procection- ideas do not.
Bingo!

Bingo!

I am trying to wrap my head around this. I looked into the shareware thing, and it seemed to be a succesful model for internet applications but I'm having a hard time transposing that into the physical world.

I'll have to ponder a bit on this, it goes against some pretty set beliefs.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Not everything needs to rely primarily on donations:

- Software can be protected by paid keys.

- Inventions have tremendous first-to-market benefit that can be secured through contract of first use: you come to GM and say, "I have this idea that will make you 500 million dollars a year. If you are not interested I will sell it to Mazda," etc.

- Successful musicians make a lot in live concerts, even though people already have their CD's.

It is only books that seem to rely primarily on donations. And even then, really good authors can make TRUCK LOADS of money through donations of grateful fans.

Whatever it is, it is the correct principles of liberty and truth that are important, because liberty, and consequently the life of the nation is at stake. You either stand on a true principle of Liberty or forever slide into darkness and destruction. I think the choice is clear.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Inventions have tremendous first-to-market benefit that can be secured through contract of first use: you come to GM and say, "I have this idea that will make you 500 million dollars a year. If you are not interested I will sell it to Mazda," etc.

That sounds kinda like a patent system. You have the exclusive rights to your idea/ invention.

Without copyright would you have such things as the Twilight or Harry Potter series and movies? The authors were given control over their stories. If there was no copyright anything which had any sort of popularity could be stolen and copied and abused which would lessen the value of the series.

Copyright is about liberty and freedom- the freedom to decide how to use what you create. It doesn't deny freedoms- it protects them. Innovation is important to the economic strength of the country as well and patents and copyright encourge innovation and discovery which create new jobs and opportunities for people. Removing that protection takes away your control over what you create and discourages innovations and creativity and society stagnates. If you want to deny intelectual property rights you should also abolish physical property rights as well since they also restrict others from using what you have.

 

[leonster]

Not everything needs to rely primarily on donations:

- Software can be protected by paid keys.

- Inventions have tremendous first-to-market benefit that can be secured through contract of first use: you come to GM and say, "I have this idea that will make you 500 million dollars a year. If you are not interested I will sell it to Mazda," etc.

- Successful musicians make a lot in live concerts, even though people already have their CD's.

It is only books that seem to rely primarily on donations. And even then, really good authors can make TRUCK LOADS of money through donations of grateful fans.

Whatever it is, it is the correct principles of liberty and truth that are important, because liberty, and consequently the life of the nation is at stake. You either stand on a true principle of Liberty or forever slide into darkness and destruction. I think the choice is clear.

Thinking of some other examples:

Movies are easy. Want to see it on the big screen? Unless you're going to install one in your house, gotta pay. (Contracts with theaters, not copyright laws, already protect those revenue streams.) DVD sales may fall a bit, but that's happening regardless because piracy already exists.

TV is funded mostly through advertising, which isn't going anywhere. Also cable somewhat through subscriptions, which are mostly protected against freebie hacking by encryption, right? Not by copyright. If networks are concerned about downloading/piracy, release it on torrents themselves, *commercials intact*, as a goodwill gesture. Some will still prefer the commercial-free version, but some will opt for the official one to show some goodwill back.

Games can be protected along the lines of Steam... relatively good copy protection that makes it a huge hassle to get the pirated stuff, combined with regular deep discounts that make it so easy to get the real stuff. When a game costs $2 (or a pack of games for $10) it becomes more efficient to just buy the real deal than dick around with pirated stuff that usually doesn't work well. Humble Indie Bundle and Good Old Games have a similar philosophy--make it cheap enough that it's not worth pirating. Console games are protected by encryption; it may at times be broken, but mostly it does its job well enough.

And now books. The book market is splitting into digital and paper (unlike music, paper books probably aren't really going anywhere, at least not anytime soon). Digital is already going cheap, kinda like the Steam model. There are tons of free or 99 cent Kindle books well worth your time. At this price point piracy isn't worth the (minimal for books) hassle. For those who continue to prefer paper books... ok sure, other companies may rip off a book and sell it without paying royalties. What bookstore is going to carry those books? Wouldn't publishers pretty quickly demand contracts with bookstores that the bookstores can't stock knockoffs from rogue publishers or else the publishers will cut that bookstore off from future supplies? So the rogue publishers would then turn to the internet to sell their books. And this situation already exists, doesn't it, with piracy? Sure I can pirate a book for free, but if I like it I'm likely to spend a few bucks to buy the thing. Without copyright, I think about buying the new George R. R. Martin paperback--the real deal--for about $8-9 from Amazon or my local store... or I could log on to the knockoff books seller and get it for $3-4 (it can't possibly go much lower than that, it's a 1000 page book, lots of paper + shipping a heavy item + a little profit!) It's like piracy but you actually have to pay! And the difference between the real deal (including supporting the author) and a knockoff whose quality isn't guaranteed and of which the author will see no money? Less than a McDonald's meal. Most people would opt for the real thing.

Edit: I should add, I do pirate things. But there are basically two reasons I do so:

1. Lack of availability. I live in Asia. TV on release date, good selection of English DVDs, English console games... often just aren't available, often due to region restrictions and corporate lockdown. If a TV show is playing on air here the same day as it does in the US, I won't go through the bother of downloading it. Unfortunately, outside of international soccer, that never happens.

2. Massive disparity in price. $25 DVD vs. free download of a movie I'm not even sure I'll like? And the free download is in HD? Yeah I'll take that one, please.

The entertainment I *do* pay for is:

-Cheap indie Kindle books
-Cheap/on-sale computer games (Steam, GOG, Humble Bundle)
-Paperback books (good English selection here)
-Movies in theaters
-Cable TV (though I rarely watch, it's only about $4 a month here with my internet plan, and I can watch live HD sports on it)

Things I generally do *not* pay for:

-Software (Generally locked down by region, English unavailable. I run pirated Windows and Office, pre-installed. For others I stick to freeware/open-source.)
-Console games (Too bloody expensive vs. Steam. I love Nintendo, so I buy the consoles only after they're hacked. Getting the $ from the hardware is better than nothing, eh?)
-DVDs (Useless clutter; expensive; HD Rips are higher quality anyways)
-TV on DVD (see above; even MORE expensive)
-Music (Physical is useless clutter; I prefer to organize everything in a computer folder and iPod. With digital at 99 cents a song, the value just isn't there for me. Youtube is free, eh? Why pay 99 cents? $2-$3 for a favorite album on sale a la Steam would make me reconsider.)
-Live music (In Asia, western rock bands usually cost a minimum of $100 for one concert ticket. No thanks. $30ish, you'd have me interested.)

There are a very few diehard pirates. For most, piracy happens due to lack of availability, or due to huge price disparity between the actual item and free. If the big concern is books and authors.. I just can't see it. Paperbacks are already cheap--hour for hour the cheapest form of entertainment out there (RPG/open-world games possibly excepted)--and knockoffs could only end up a few dollars cheaper. Hardcovers may be in danger perhaps? But that's just a business model that can change with the times if need be.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

That sounds kinda like a patent system. You have the exclusive rights to your idea/ invention.

Minus the immoral use of government force, that is. You have the exclusive right to your idea as long as no one knows it. But to know an idea IS to own it, just as much as you own your mind, paper, etc.

Without copyright would you have such things as the Twilight or Harry Potter series and movies?

I plainly showed in a previous post that the answer is an emphatic Yes! Both would still have made a LOT of money from the donations of crazed and greatful fans!

Copyright is about liberty and freedom- the freedom to decide how to use what you create.

In this case, dictatorship is also about freedom -- the freedom of the supreme leader to decide what he wants you to do, etc. It is a contradiction of terms, like "dry water!" And it is an IMMORAL use of force. You are free to decide how to use what you create, but you are not free to decide how others are to use the ideas or information you came up with, unless they made an explicit contract with you; because again, to know information IS to own it, just as much as you own your mind, your camera, etc.

Innovation is important to the economic strength of the country as well and patents and copyright encourge innovation and discovery which create new jobs and opportunities for people. Removing that protection takes away your control over what you create and discourages innovations and creativity and society stagnates.

No one proposes removing protection for your creations! But you cannot protect them by violating the property of others. Example: You could argue that you are protecting your house by leveling the houses of everyone around you, so you can see the intruder coming from a distance etc. But you are wrong. You have no right to violate the property of others in order to protect yours, or in order to secure a monopoly for yourself. You must protect your ideas and information without the immoral use of government force. We listed scores of ways to do so (see the first post).

IP can be protected without immoral use of government force. To argue that without copyrights and patents innovation would diminish is an unsubstantiated speculation, proven emphatically wrong over and over again! Patents and copyrights actually stifle innovation and slow down human progress, which is unsurprising as they are examples of IMMORAL use of government force to create artificial monopolies! Again, if you individually have no moral right to use FORCE upon your neighbor, you cannot ask your government to do it for you, because you CANNOT delegate an authority YOU do not have.

If you want to deny intelectual property rights you should also abolish physical property rights as well since they also restrict others from using what you have.

I do not deny intellectual property rights. It is you who denies them to everyone else, because TO KNOW AN IDEA IS TO OWN IT, just as much as you own your mind. So we are protecting property rights, and you violate them via immoral use of government force.

 

[Zippyjuan]

No one proposes removing protection for your creations! But you cannot protect them by violating the property of others. Example: You could argue that you are protecting your house by leveling the houses of everyone around you, so you can see the intruder coming from a distance etc. But you are wrong. You have no right to violate the property of others in order to protect yours, or in order to secure a monopoly for yourself. You must protect your ideas and information without the immoral use of government force. We listed scores of ways to do so (see the first post).

Perhaps you can explain for us how protecting my inventions and ideas is violating any property rights of others.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Copyright is about liberty and freedom- the freedom to decide how to use what you create. It doesn't deny freedoms- it protects them. Innovation is important to the economic strength of the country as well and patents and copyright encourge innovation and discovery which create new jobs and opportunities for people. Removing that protection takes away your control over what you create and discourages innovations and creativity and society stagnates. If you want to deny intelectual property rights you should also abolish physical property rights as well since they also restrict others from using what you have.

BS Doublespeak. Words fail me to express just how wrong and devasting this opinion is. It is as antithetical to freedom as slavery was - possibly more so. In fact, if I had to choose between abolishing slavery in the former slave states versus abolishing the IP clause for the whole US ... well, let's just say I would have to think about it. After all, thoses states are unlikely to want slavery so there is less danger to them having that legal ability. Patents, OTOH, are a fucking cancer everywhere and it is a Federal-caused problem.

According to one source, in 2006, there were 6 million patents in force worldwide. In the US, there are about 250,000 patents granted annually (2011). In 2006, it was about 200,000 patents granted. The number increases. In the 90s you could make up patents by adding "with a computer" to an existing idea. Or "on the internet" and now it is "with a smart phone". The actual language is more complicated but the concept is to rehash and reword. Adapt old ideas to new technology.

These granted patents represent millions of ideas you are not allowed to use without permission from the state. The patent owner is more of a well-compensated patsy. They don't use their own judges or own police to enforce patents. The power remains vested in the states and, increasingly, multi-national organizations. Our stolen tax dollars fund their protectionist racket. Think about that. If patents/copyrights were all that, the patent/copyright holders should be funding - maybe - half the US government. Having no patents or copyrights ought to mean paying far less taxes.

It matters not if you think of the idea or research it independently. Whether first to file or first to invent, the megacorporations end up with the marbles in this game. They may already own 20% of your genome (DNA). Economic nationalists might be concerned with the fact that China now files more patents than we do. The article says their quality isn't there yet. It will get better and the number of filings will only increase - but does it matter? "U.S. corporations hold about 49% of all U.S. utility patents in 2009, while non-U.S. firms hold the majority".

Keep in mind, that in China, "9 out of 10 copies of Windows in China are pirated" (from Steve Ballmer, MSFT CEO). China will use our own laws to rob from us with patents as its people and businesses fail to pay for US IP. Oddly, they deserve to be blamed as does the US but it is likely the right choice for them nationally. Their policy: pay out as little as possible for IP, take in as much as you can. Some days, I wish we had a lot more people like Pat Buchanan.

There may soon be tens of millions of "ideas" that are off limits. Thomas Jefferson understood the danger:

Almost two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned of the dangers of a patent system that would enforce patents on the most obvious of ideas. Jefferson observed that "[a] man has a right to use a saw, an axe, a plane, separately; may he not combine their uses on the same piece of wood? He has a right to use his knife to cut his meat, a fork to hold it; may a patentee take from him the right to combine their use on the same subject?" Jefferson, an inventor himself, feared a system that, "instead of enlarging our conveniences, as was intended, would most fearfully abridge them, and crowd us by monopolies out of the use of the things we have."

http://www.gwblawfirm.com/pr-how-does-a-defendant-successfully-inv.php

MEGAINTERNATIONALCORP is winning this game. Maybe that benefits the US - but I doubt it helps many of us. I won't say the system is bad for inventors as I don't know that it is. Maybe they are sufficiently compensated to play this game. There is billions of dollars in play and maintaining a permanent underclass seems to be very important to TPTB. Peons that grow to large are more easily squashed. Success comes from playing the system and getting your cut of IP/Fed-printed dollars (you don't think people would give gold for a "Blu-Ray" plastic disc?).

Keep in mind that patents are innocent until proven guilty and the people are guilty until proven innocent. Injunctions may squash your business long before a jury rules on a patent. A fucking patent for Pete Romney's sake! It can destroy your business prior to a final ruling on the merits of the patent. Even if you win in court, you lost all the money spent on lawyers. Money is paid for violating a patent. But you get zero for not violating a patent even if a patent-holder caused you to spend a million dollars to prove you were not violating a BS patent. That's total bullshit and the pro-IP crowd here should be flayed for that. Or whipped - I'm flexible.

There is oodles of evidence that patents are not required for innovation:

http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090921/0217286260.shtml

Anyway, you made a statement that requires defending:

Removing that protection takes away your control over what you create and discourages innovations and creativity and society stagnates.

I would like you to provide evidence that "society stagnates" is the absense of patents. I have provided

So it is striking that there seems to be no empirical studies or analyses providing conclusive evidence that an IP system is indeed worth the cost. Every study I have ever seen is either neutral or ambivalent, or ends up condemning part or all of IP systems.

by Stephan Kinsella

I'll be interested in what defense you have of that statement or if you wish to retract it ("society stagnates"). It is a remarkable claim (stagnate: "Cease developing; become inactive or dull").

An honest person might make the claim that innovation is 25 good-ideas/hour (GIPH) with patents and is only 10 GIPH without a patent system. A dishonest person might claim stagnation.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Perhaps you can explain for us how protecting my inventions and ideas is violating any property rights of others.

Thomas Jefferson knew.

Samsung understands.

Megaupload gets it.

"Happy Birthday" singers dig.

Copyright and patent grants of privilege are another form of property infringement courtesy of the state. While they have their origins in a much earlier privilege given to Friends of the Crown, in their modern incarnation they blend in with the welfare state's wealth distributing impetus. Far from being "natural" property rights grounded in the common law, patent and copyright are monopoly privileges granted solely by state legislation.

http://www.ilanamercer.com/IPR3.htm

Keep in mind that penalties are increasingly criminal as well as civil. Swat raids for small fry businesses and individuals will increase, not decrease.

You have two opinions to retract now or else it is the bucket for you!

You are welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts. IP is force, not freedom. It may be "good", it may be a "necessary evil". But it is not "freedom" until and unless all parties agree to the restriction. E.g., I may enter a Loews movie theatre and promise to respect the IP of the movie from now until forever. Those who made no such agreement should not be bound by it. Likewise, if an industry wants to protect or reward ideas within their circle, they can do so voluntarily.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Perhaps you can explain for us how protecting my inventions and ideas is violating any property rights of others.

It is not protecting your inventions that violates the property of others, but "protecting" it via an immoral use of government force. That immoral government force indeed violates the property of everyone else to "protect" yours. If someone made a copy of a copy of your book without your permission, the government claims a right to use force upon him to prevent him from doing so, and if he resists, it claims the right to kill him. That is what government force is, it is a gun pointed at your head saying you will do this or else. ALL government laws are ultimately backed up by lethal force. In case of IP protection it is IMMORAL. Why? Because YOU, individually, have no right to violate your neighbors property to prevent him from making a copy of a copy of your book, and if he resists you have no moral right to kill him for it; therefore, the government have no such authority either, because you cannot delegate an authority YOU do not have. (Benson Principle.) So to "protect" your inventions, the government falsely claims the right to use force upon everyone, and to take their lives if they resist, for using information in their possession, even if they made no contract with you. Thus life and property of everyone is under a threat of violation by the government, without a shred of right to do so, to grant you your "protection." I say it again, If you, individually, have no moral right to do it to your neighbor, neither does the government. Get it?

 

[WhistlinDave]

Hmm. Perhaps we should institute this "pay whatever you like" to everything. No prices on anything. An apple? I only feel like it is worth five cents today. For all of them. After all, you only had to pick it. You didn't make the sunshine and make it grow. Sort of takes away your incentive to produce more apples if you don't think you will get much of anything for it. No property rights so I can go and pick your apples and sell them same as I would be able to go and steal your book or invention and sell my own copies. Why pay you for the time and energy put into coming up with it? Will that enourage more inventions and books to be created?

I put all of my time into coming up with an amazing new car engine- 100 miles to the gallon and it runs on water! I spent thousands in research and design but don't have the money right now to make it. Somebody from GM hears about it and steals the idea- the have the money and resources to produce it. They make millions selling the cars with my engine in it. But I don't get anythigng for my work. If I am able to get some money to produce it, I can't hope to compete against their established markets and practice and factories in place producing car engines. Without any patent protection, what is my incentive to spend the thousands I did to come up with this invention if I am not likely to see any benefits from it? Where is the incentive for GM to come up with new designs if the can just rip off what somebody else is doing? They get the benefit without having to spend any money on R&D costs.

That's OK. GM can pay me what they think they feel like giving me. They will care about me. If it is a good engine, they should give me a lot, right? Will they? Not holding my breath until the checks start coming from GM.

Ah, but not everything is IP. IP, unlike real property, is super-abundant. The real market price of any idea is 0. Only the idea captured in a medium has value. (i.e. the materials in a book, not the words in it) Your argument fails. Since you are an economist, you should know that as something moves toward infinity in abundance, it loses real value. (the law of supply and demand, etc) This is how IP works.

This is not a correct application of the law of supply and demand because your premise is flawed. IP may be super abundant, but any one piece of IP, if it is truly an original creation, is unique. That is what gives it value. For you to say that IP loses value because there is so much of it out there, approaching infinity in abundance, would be true only if every piece of IP was identical to the next. But they aren't.

Having a million identical widgets for sale drives their value down. Having a million unique ideas available for development or publication is not equivalent, because each idea is unique. A good song about teen angst can still make money, while a crappy song about teen angst won't make any, and doesn't lessen the value of the good song even though they are both songs and they are both about teen angst. They are unique, not the same commodity.

To use Zippyjuan's example, your argument that something loses value because there is a near infinite supply doesn't hold water unless you have a million different people each coming up with their own unique, unrelated design for super efficient engines, all of which work and produce the same result. But you don't. You might have a few different designs for such an engine, but not approaching infinity.

To me, one book might have value and I don't mind paying ten dollars for it, because the subject interests me. Another book may be of zero interest to me, so the value of that book to me is zero, and therefore I won't buy it. The two are unique; they are not the same commodity just because they both happen to be IP.

 

[WhistlinDave]

It is not protecting your inventions that violates the property of others, but "protecting" it via an immoral use of government force. That immoral government force indeed violates the property of everyone else to "protect" yours. If someone made a copy of a copy of your book without your permission, the government claims a right to use force upon him to prevent him from doing so, and if he resists, it claims the right to kill him. That is what government force is, it is a gun pointed at your head saying you will do this or else. ALL government laws are ultimately backed up by lethal force. In case of IP protection it is IMMORAL. Why? Because YOU, individually, have no right to violate your neighbors property to prevent him from making a copy of a copy of your book, and if he resists you have no moral right to kill him for it; therefore, the government have no such authority either, because you cannot delegate an authority YOU do not have. (Benson Principle.) So to "protect" your inventions, the government falsely claims the right to use force upon everyone, and to take their lives if they resist, for using information in their possession, even if they made no contract with you. Thus life and property of everyone is under a threat of violation by the government, without a shred of right to do so, to grant you your "protection." I say it again, If you, individually, have no moral right to do it to your neighbor, neither does the government. Get it?

This is only correct if one decides that the very concept of IP is invalid, and that copyrights are not valid property rights. Because if my neighbor steals my car, he has violated my property rights, and if the government uses force to return my car to me, and to stop him from selling my car, profiting from it, or using it and benefiting from it without my permission--because it's mine, not his--that use of force is not immoral, is it? Government exists to protect Liberty, and part of my Liberty is my property rights.

So why is one so different from the other? I haven't read this entire thread yet but I still have not seen any convincing argument that intellectual property should not be protected for the benefit of the creator who put their own work into their creation and should have the right to benefit financially from that work.

 

[WhistlinDave]

For those who think Intellectual Property is not a valid form of property, and the concept of Copyright is bogus, I have a question:

Would you have any problem with it if I were to take one of Ron Paul's books, and copy it word for word without his permission, and then begin printing my book and selling it, and keep all the money for myself? Do you think there is nothing wrong or immoral about me doing this?

 

[The Free Hornet]

I haven't read this entire thread yet but I still have not seen any convincing argument that intellectual property should not be protected for the benefit of the creator who put their own work into their creation and should have the right to benefit financially from that work.

A) It is not property.

B) You are neither reading nor responding to posted links which show the harm (cases, case studies, net negative harm)

You may feel differently in the future when your house is swat raided due to an IP address (which could be spoofed or your PC hacked) or someone called up 911 screaming "OMG! He's recording baseball without explicit written permission of the MLB!!!". People have been raided and it will continue to happen. Shots will be fired. Dogs will be killed. Mundanes will be reminded that they are motherfuckers who should lie down and eat the carpet.

Do you think when a swat team has no drug raids on the horizon that they'll just sit around waiting??? They'll swat raid the wrong house because of cyberbullying (threatening remarks tied to the IP of an open wireless router - which can be stupid mainly because of the government):

http://www.digital-digest.com/news-...ng-Home-Due-To-Flaky-IP-Address-Evidence.html

Counterfeit hair products get swat raided: http://www.libertariannews.org/2012...raid-against-counterfeit-hair-product-seller/

Unless perhaps you have skin in the IP game, you should get with the abolishinists. Even then, you should get with abolishnests because the reality of IP will hit hardest those who fail to understand its immorality.

If the IP trolls on this board took the "property" thing seriously, they would realize the biggest thefts of so-called IP are the media industry itself which retroactively increases copyright lengths. So if you give your money today for something that current law says will be off copyright in 99 years, they will extend it to fuck your great-great grandkids. Like with the banking industry, they're just skimming a little bit more and defrauding the future. No pirate will ever copy enough to take back all that has been taken from the public domain. Our tax money is stolen to protect their IP and the thanks we get are retroactive extensions.

If you're on the pro-IP side of the fence, there is no language foul enough to describe you.

1976:

Whoever knowingly and with fraudulent intent transports, causes to be transported, receives, sells, or offers for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any phonograph record, disk, wire, tape, film, or other article on which sounds are recorded, to which or upon which is stamped, pasted, or affixed any forged or counterfeited label, knowing the label to have been falsely made, forged, or counterfeited shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both, for any subsequent offense.

2012:

“Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000.”

In thirty years, it may be 10 years, in sixty... 20, in ninety... life in prison. If this is the legacy you want to leave your future generations then, seriously, fuck you.

 

[The Free Hornet]

For those who think Intellectual Property is not a valid form of property, and the concept of Copyright is bogus, I have a question:

Would you have any problem with it if I were to take one of Ron Paul's books, and copy it word for word without his permission, and then begin printing my book and selling it, and keep all the money for myself? Do you think there is nothing wrong or immoral about me doing this?

If you acquired that book without force, fraud, and without explicitly agreeing to not do what you are saying you will do, then go right ahead!

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

This is only correct if one decides that the very concept of IP is invalid, and that copyrights are not valid property rights.

You are missing another possibility, which in fact is the reality, and that is: to possess information IS to own it, just as much as you own your mind, your paper, your computer, etc. It is not that information is not property. It is. But to possess it IS to own it. In fact once you know something, it is practically impossible to dispossess yourself of that knowledge, such is the nature of information, and in this it DRASTICALLY differs from tangible property. To pretend that information does not have properties DRASTICALLY different than that of tangible property is extremely foolish and dangerous for Liberty and for the survival of the society itself!

Because if my neighbor steals my car, he has violated my property rights, and if the government uses force to return my car to me, and to stop him from selling my car, profiting from it, or using it and benefiting from it without my permission--because it's mine, not his--that use of force is not immoral, is it? Government exists to protect Liberty, and part of my Liberty is my property rights.

You just missed the fact that you still have your information perfectly intact once it was copied. You are ignoring the FACT, that once information is known by someone else, he OWNS it just as much as he owns his mind, his computer, etc. These are the FACTS of the properties of information. You ignoring these facts, and therefore are arriving to wrong conclusions.

So why is one so different from the other?

I just explained it. The differences are irrefutable.

I haven't read this entire thread yet but I still have not seen any convincing argument that intellectual property should not be protected for the benefit of the creator who put their own work into their creation and should have the right to benefit financially from that work.

Intellectual property SHOULD be protected, and the creator SHOULD benefit by it if it is useful to others, but he must do it without violating the rights and property of others via immoral use of government force. (See the Benson Principle).

For those who think Intellectual Property is not a valid form of property, and the concept of Copyright is bogus, I have a question:

Would you have any problem with it if I were to take one of Ron Paul's books, and copy it word for word without his permission, and then begin printing my book and selling it, and keep all the money for myself? Do you think there is nothing wrong or immoral about me doing this?

Of course it is immoral, if you do not compensate Paul for his effort. But here is the key: not everything that is immoral is right to forbid by government force. Example: It is immoral not to help the poor if you can, but it is also IMMORAL to FORCE people to "help" the poor. Do you get it? What is the principle here? The Benson Principle: If you, INDIVIDUALLY, have no moral right to use FORCE upon your neighbor, you cannot ask your government to do it for you.

 

[WhistlinDave]

You may feel differently in the future when your house is swat raided due to an IP address (which could be spoofed or your PC hacked) or someone called up 911 screaming "OMG! He's recording baseball without explicit written permission of the MLB!!!". People have been raided and it will continue to happen. Shots will be fired. Dogs will be killed. Mundanes will be reminded that they are motherfuckers who should lie down and eat the carpet.

Do you think when a swat team has no drug raids on the horizon that they'll just sit around waiting??? They'll swat raid the wrong house because of cyberbullying (threatening remarks tied to the IP of an open wireless router - which can be stupid mainly because of the government):

If the government is conducting SWAT-style raids against private people, shooting family pets, etc., over copyright infringements, that is certainly way over the line of what I would consider acceptable. I don't think that kind of use of force is justified by the magnitude of the crime, not even close. But if the government is overstepping its bounds and acting psycho in enforcing intellectual property laws, that doesn't make the concept of intellectual property itself invalid. That just means the government is, as usual, acting tyrannically.

You are missing another possibility, which in fact is the reality, and that is: to possess information IS to own it, just as much as you own your mind, your paper, your computer, etc. It is not that information is not property. It is. But to possess it IS to own it. In fact once you know something, it is practically impossible to dispossess yourself of that knowledge, such is the nature of information, and in this it DRASTICALLY differs from tangible property. To pretend that information does not have properties DRASTICALLY different than that of tangible property is extremely foolish and dangerous for Liberty and for the survival of the society itself!

You just missed the fact that you still have your information perfectly intact once it was copied. You are ignoring the FACT, that once information is known by someone else, he OWNS it just as much as he owns his mind, his computer, etc. These are the FACTS of the properties of information. You ignoring these facts, and therefore are arriving to wrong conclusions.

I just explained it. The differences are irrefutable.

Intellectual property SHOULD be protected, and the creator SHOULD benefit by it if it is useful to others, but he must do it without violating the rights and property of others via immoral use of government force. (See the Benson Principle).

For those who think Intellectual Property is not a valid form of property, and the concept of Copyright is bogus, I have a question:

Would you have any problem with it if I were to take one of Ron Paul's books, and copy it word for word without his permission, and then begin printing my book and selling it, and keep all the money for myself? Do you think there is nothing wrong or immoral about me doing this?

Of course it is immoral, if you do not compensate Paul for his effort. But here is the key: not everything that is immoral is right to forbid by government force. Example: It is immoral not to help the poor if you can, but it is also IMMORAL to FORCE people to "help" the poor. Do you get it? What is the principle here? The Benson Principle: If you, INDIVIDUALLY, have no moral right to use FORCE upon your neighbor, you cannot ask your government to do it for you.

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?

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. 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.

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.

 

[Zippyjuan]

If you acquired that book without force, fraud, and without explicitly agreeing to not do what you are saying you will do, then go right ahead!

Can I do that with your car as well? The car has value. The book has value. I never agreed not to take it.

 

[WhistlinDave]

If you acquired that book without force, fraud, and without explicitly agreeing to not do what you are saying you will do, then go right ahead!

I don't agree, but I give you points for being consistent.