Intellectual Property rights

[heavenlyboy34]

you would really make karl marx proud

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

Pat yourself on the back, Marxist!

 

[low preference guy]

you would really make karl marx proud

more name calling and straw men

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[heavenlyboy34]

more name calling and straw men

qft.

 

[Mr Tansill]

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

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

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

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

 

[CaptainAmerica]

qft.

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

 

[Mr Tansill]

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

Yeah, this ^^^

 

[Mustang]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Revolution9]

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

It is called an Adhesion Contract IIRC.

Rev9

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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

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

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

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

 

[noneedtoaggress]

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

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

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

 

[CaptainAmerica]

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

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

 

[Mustang]

It is called an Adhesion Contract IIRC.

Rev9

As stated clearly even in Wikipedia

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

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

 

[noneedtoaggress]

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

uh huh.

 

[Revolution9]

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

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

Rev9

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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

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

 

[Revolution9]

As stated clearly even in Wikipedia

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

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

Rev9

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

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

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

 

[Mustang]

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

Rev9

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

 

[CaptainAmerica]

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

arrangements require copyright permission