Intellectual Property rights

[KingRobbStark]

of course I wont share it,its my IP,unless I do decide to donate charity.

Typical.

 

[Travlyr]

Pay him?

Pay him how... by cheating him out of his R&D?

What is "just" compensation?

Fair pay for an honest day's work. Whatever the artist asks.

Are we basing value on his labor?

He is. Pay him for his talents.

You're just asking me to centrally plan the market into a scenario that meets your satisfaction.

I am not asking anything of the sort.

Who will feed the poor if we don't have a robust state welfare system?

Huh? The welfare system has enslaved many since LBJ initiated the program. Welfare is a system of dependency. What are you talking about?

If I claim ownership over a pattern, IP says that someone can't use their own physical property to assemble in it in that pattern.
How is that baloney?

I have no idea what you are complaining about.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

of course I wont share it,its my IP,unless I do decide to donate charity.

Why did you create it if it's just going to sit around collecting dust?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Pay him how... by cheating him out of his R&D?
Fair pay for an honest day's work. Whatever the artist asks.
He is. Pay him for his talents.

Ok. I pay him what he asks for. Are you satisfied?

 

[KingRobbStark]

Ok. I pay him what he asks for. Are you satisfied?

According to him the contents are still his regardless of the sale.

 

[Revolution9]

individual human being is sovereign = owns self
individual human being owns self= ownership of time,energy and talents
individual human being owning time,energy and talents= ownership of what is produced by time,energy,and talents
individual owns product=property

property is mutually given, and with contractual agreement or agreements depending on the actual contract between 2 property owners.To say that no contract is legitimate between 2 property owners is to debase their sovereignty ,or to debase 1 or the other persons sovereignty.

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 credited with accomplishments or qualities.


Wrong.

When a contractual agreement is made between 2 sovereign property owners that contractual agreement must be upheld for it to be consent. Otherwise it can become fraud. To debase the contractual agreement is to void the very existence of property and contradict the sovereignty.



See the pattern?[/QUOTE]
Yes. You keep making factually incorrect and logically faulty statements, and I keep correcting you. How many more pages would you like to do this?

He supplied definitions that the world accepts as valid. Furthermore these definitions apply to real world acts that the community has decided they should have remedy for by either fines or incarceration/probation to attempt to subdue such behavior. How can you expect the anti-IP argument to be taken seriously when this level of intellectual fraud based around ad hoc intellectualized slippery definitions is constantly induced into their thinking.

Rev9

 

[Travlyr]

According to him the contents are still his regardless of the sale.

Bullshit. You struggle to understand the conversation... let alone what I say. His talents and effort are his. Don't steal.

 

[Revolution9]

According to him the contents are still his regardless of the sale.

You can use them then, as you have met the producers contractual terms. They undoubtedly do not include the right or privelege of making a profit from reproducing the IP unless specifically stated in the contractual agreement. They have all kinds of Open Source licenses for folks who do not wish to make a profit after distribution. In fact, many state specifically that you cannot make a profit or convert it to cash and that it must always retain an open source modality. It is however the IP producers perogative and not the consumers as to what kind of licensing occurs.

Rev9

 

[KingRobbStark]

Bullshit. You struggle to understand the conversation... let alone what I say. His talents and effort are his. Don't steal.

His talent and effort created the product. He sold the product. I bought the product. The product becomes my property. I do with my property as I please. I managed to reverse engineer my property. I created a product with similar functions and a cheaper price. He still has his talent and effort. The consumer is satisfied.

#winning

 

[Travlyr]

Ok. I pay him what he asks for. Are you satisfied?

Yes, because he earned his compensation.

 

[Travlyr]

#winning

All he needs now is a cheerleader. heavenlyboy34... now is the time to + rep this boy.

 

[KingRobbStark]

You can use them then, as you have met the producers contractual terms. They undoubtedly do not include the right or privelege of making a profit from reproducing the IP unless specifically stated in the contractual agreement. They have all kinds of Open Source licenses for folks who do not wish to make a profit after distribution. In fact, many state specifically that you cannot make a profit or convert it to cash and that it must always retain an open source modality. It is however the IP producers perogative and not the consumers as to what kind of licensing occurs.

Rev9

THANK YOU! A post with no hint of condescension. It feels great to be respected, and it feels even better to offer respect in turn.

The idea behind the product is the result of previous ideas. If all ideas are patented how is it possible to innovate and improve a product? If two individuals thought of the same idea is it fair for one to restrict the other from using his IP?

 

[Son of Detroit]

There's no way I can get through this whole thread. I'm done after page 18.

Oh you guys.

 

[KingRobbStark]

All he needs now is a cheerleader. Honeyboy... now is the time to + rep this boy.

There are 2 spots sill open. You are welcome to one of them.

 

[Revolution9]

Why did you create it if it's just going to sit around collecting dust?

Probably because he enjoyed it as his creation and may wish to nurture it by only allowing its unveiling in a manner that would bring favorable light onto the work and him as the artist behind the work. If brought to the public in a good manner and having the work well received either leads to more work and monetary compensation for people who would consider themselves wealthier or happier to own one of his products. Having properly attempted to monetize his work to pay down his debts accumulated during the work done to complete the project, he can decide by the reaction to the work whether to pursue more work in the same venue or perhaps may consider a whole new profession due to the inability to monetize his work in that chosen venue. Take Frank Frazetta as an example. Most of his IP as due to the dynamism inherent in his paintings. He wokred on others IP in the comics industry but really came into his own painting in oils. They got licensed to umpteen poster companies and were used on album covers and magazine covers and he was able to be comfortable in his old age due to the IP licensing. His works also profitted from the IP licensing as you could have bought an original Frazetta in the 70's for 10K-30K USD. His works climbed in value, especially as he got older and collectors knew there were less and less new works to be added to his IP. By 1984 his oils would fetch a cool million a canvas in Japan. Thank you to IP and licensing for allowing this brilliant talent to focus his efforts on a legacy that is sure to enrich and give rise to many new artists in generations to come. IP enriches mankind when viewed from this perspective.

Rev9

 

[noneedtoaggress]

The USSR created the conditions that gave us Tetris, therefore Communism enriches humankind.

 

[Travlyr]

The USSR gave us Tetris, therefore Communism enriches humankind.

Dumb.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I agree.

 

[Revolution9]

THANK YOU! A post with no hint of condescension. It feels great to be respected, and it feels even better to offer respect in turn.

The idea behind the product is the result of previous ideas. If all ideas are patented how is it possible to innovate and improve a product? If two individuals thought of the same idea is it fair for one to restrict the other from using his IP?

IP is not an idea. It is a set of objects (even in the abstract as in ideas) placed together in a unique and identifiable manner and constituting a product. A product is something tangible. A movie, a visual artwork, a musical score transmitted on a medium, a book, Royal Rife's microscope, a software application, and others meeting the above criteria.

On the condescension issue. Check back in the thread and count how many insults were hurled this way and the other artists in this thread defending their livelihood. This is not academic to many of us but a bread and butter issue. I don't take kindly to them and can fire off some scathing rejoinders myself if they want to play in that mudpit. I don't like it but I won't put up with it. If they rejoin the debate with a civil attitude the get response in kind. It is always my policy here.

Rev9

 

[Travlyr]

I agree.

Then let's move forward.