Intellectual Property rights

[goldencane]

So I've just spent a long time reading all of this... some interesting stuff.

Trying to convince a person who believes they need IP "protection" that IP "protection" should not exist is like trying to convince a person on welfare that welfare should not exist.

IP is without a doubt a horrible thing for society, especially for things like medicines, but most people here seem to be talking about the arts. In regards to things like lyrics, or subjects, or ideas, what if person B completely separate and unknowing of person A creates something very similar to that of person A, yet person A got the copyrights in right before person B was able. How is that fair? Idea's or knowledge are not exclusive to one person at one time, thus one person can not be granted the sole "rights" to those ideas or knowledge. The actual music we hear or painting we see is just a physical representation of the idea. It is nothing more than ridges and grooves on a record, digital code on a computer, globs of paint on a canvas. That physical representation is property, but if someone is able to replicate that actual physical representation it is theirs. All they did was carve grooves into vinyl so to speak and they didn't even do it in the same way the original artist did. Inventions do not really exist, people just discover that a certain combination of materials, words, colors, etc, that work well together. It does not matter who makes these discoveries, they are part of the natural world and once we know them, we know them. No one has sole ownership of Newton's laws, they are just facts of the universe.

 

[goldencane]

But it is not just the property itself, it is the time and effort to go along with it that are being protected. Why is that so hard to understand?

Do we not believe that the fruits of one's labor should be protected?

We don't just protect tangible things. I cannot touch your 'right to free speech', but yet we have laws protecting it. Should we do away with the laws then, because there is nothing physical to protect?

Two people work equally hard and equally long on a similar idea. One gets the copyright right before the other is able too. One person is screwed. Idea's or knowledge are not exclusive to one person at one time, thus one person can not be granted the sole "rights" to those ideas or knowledge.

We protect the right to free speech. We should protect the right to free use of knowledge as well.

 

[Revolution9]

Don't be so sure of that. Prior to reading this thread, I was fairly disinterested in the topic and didn't really have a take. The anti-IP side has made a sequential, logically consistent and reasoned case that I can't find any holes in.

Typical blindered view you hold to. Your stand is that artists can go do something else for a living as they have no compensation available for pursuing the exercise of their God given talents.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

Two people work equally hard and equally long on a similar idea. One gets the copyright right before the other is able too. One person is screwed. Idea's or knowledge are not exclusive to one person at one time, thus one person can not be granted the sole "rights" to those ideas or knowledge.

We protect the right to free speech. We should protect the right to free use of knowledge as well.

Would not happen in copyright of an IP independently derived. The odds would be in the quadrillions to one category.

I have yet to see one anti_IP argument that does not rip the livelihood right away from the artist, makes appeals to totally fallacious real world situations or just plain assed ignores the cogent points made by the pro IP crowd. These same people will harp on and on about some form of society that will not exist in our lifetimes, if ever, then base their fragile arguments off that. They also like to present non-IP as IP and then proceed to pummel that strawman as though they are accomplishing something more than getting them selves worked into a tizzy.

Rev9

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Would not happen in copyright of an IP independently derived. The odds would be in the quadrillions to one category.

I have yet to see one anti_IP argument that does not rip the livelihood right away from the artist, makes appeals to totally fallacious real world situations or just plain assed ignores the cogent points made by the pro IP crowd. These same people will harp on and on about some form of society that will not exist in our lifetimes, if ever, then base their fragile arguments off that. They also like to present non-IP as IP and then proceed to pummel that strawman as though they are accomplishing something more than getting them selves worked into a tizzy.

Rev9

Besides all the other arguments, sense of entitlement much? What does this have to do with the definition and concept of property? Such cruelty to rip the livelihood away from the wagon-maker in favor of steam locomotion, or gas-powered vehicles. Such audacity to proclaim a right of profit and monopoly and espouse such notions as property, when they are the complete opposite. Furthermore, it hasn't even been established that having no IP is a net-negative, on the contrary all the evidence points to the opposite. I mean look at the Grateful Dead, Mozart, Da Vinci, etc.

 

[DamianTV]

Yeah, and Edgar Allen Poe. He made a whole whopping $6 bucks from "The Raven".

 

[libertyjam]

Everyone here has been invited to Tom Waits Private Listening Party. Give it a go, Tom has mulled over this issue and presents his solution, for himself at least.

 

[Revolution9]

Obviously I'm a Marxist.

I agree with that assessment.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

Besides all the other arguments, sense of entitlement much?

Seems that you are a hypocritical projection artist. You seem to feel entitled to products that the originator does not want you to have without regarding the stipulations imposed. This sounds suspiciously like theft. But you want to protect your "right" (criminal privilege self-granted by your philosophical fallacies) to steal the fruits of my labor and make up reams of garbage and philosophical fairy dust to pretend advocation of your sorry set of moral principles. Sense of entitlement much?

Yer a larf thinking your pseudo-intellectual fluff amounts to a hill of beans in the real world.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

Yeah, and Edgar Allen Poe. He made a whole whopping $6 bucks from "The Raven".

Which would have bought him 720 pounds of wheat in those days. At least he got paid something.

Rev9

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I have yet to see one anti_IP argument that does not rip the livelihood right away from the artist, makes appeals to totally fallacious real world situations or just plain assed ignores the cogent points made by the pro IP crowd.
Rev9

Actually, you have-you just choose ignore them.

 

[YumYum]

Whoever recorded and stole this classical piece should be sued!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUm8wtDQgTU

 

[Lifesoup]

whoever recorded and stole this classical piece should be sued!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vum8wtdqgtu

send in the swat teams!!!

 

[LibertyRevolution]

 

[Gumba of Liberty]

Classic.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

LMAO!!! fucking brilliant, and sooooo true.

 

[Mr Tansill]

Only controversial in the same manner that advocating an End to the Fed would be at a Federal Reserve Bank meeting. It seems pretty overwhelming who has greater numbers and a more robust argument. Of course, I'm always open to new arguments from either side -- I wasn't always an advocate for ending IP, then again I am not blinded by such bias as those immediately profiting from the protectionism.

Is that a fact? Seems we really need a poll to settle it...as if it would be anyway...

 

[Mr Tansill]

IP is a rather new invention. It has no natural basis, that is to quote Bastiat:


Simply put, IP is an artificial construct that has nothing to do with property. It's very essence is anti-property. Like I brought up earlier, we can go back to the Lockean-Rothbardian idea of property. Furthermore, IP is nothing more than rent-seeking, an idea opposed to ownership. IP denies the very reason property was conceived of in the first place. Without scarcity there is no such thing as property, except insofar as self-ownership is concerned. To own implies a set of rule-sets. If I were to own an idea, I would literally be owning the body of other individuals. If I am to own a certain configuration of property, and the use of force to prevent others from configuring their property in the same manner is that not an injunction of anothers property? Honestly, it's that simple. Furthermore, the fact that another individual creates an identical yet wholly new good does not detract from the original individual who assembled the first good in such a manner. You have lost nothing, but I have lost ownership of my property due to IP -- it is an imposition on the authority of me to choose how to use my own property.

IP is not property! If there was ever a misnomer, that would be it.

Ok fine...settled...IP is NOT property...

Can you address how the subject would play out if as a condition for your exposure to certain information that another individual created you were subject to certain restrictions (i.e. keeping the information "secret")? Trying to bring this back to the idea of a contract and break it free of the "artificial construct" that is IP.

I agree with you IP is not "property." But I say again: Can you address this from a contractual viewpoint?

 

[Mr Tansill]

Don't be so sure of that. Prior to reading this thread, I was fairly disinterested in the topic and didn't really have a take. The anti-IP side has made a sequential, logically consistent and reasoned case that I can't find any holes in.

 

[KingRobbStark]

Typical blindered view you hold to. Your stand is that artists can go do something else for a living as they have no compensation available for pursuing the exercise of their God given talents.

Rev9

They are not exclusively your talents, you just happen to reach them first. If by chance another individual with similar talents "steal" your fan base, then you are obviously doing something wrong, and perhaps you're not as talented as you lead your self to believe.