Intellectual Property rights

[Mustang]

If the print is there and your state has not ruled against such strictures then you may have to wrangle with lawyers.

What is missing from the anti-IP people most of the time that the issue is profiting from another's work. As well all the rainbow fairy dust tales of the artists just releasing all these superb works if IP was abolished is disingenuous as a quick thought experiment states that to produce a well crafted artwork in the realms of imagery or music takes time. In the real world during that time there is overhead from eating, drinking, energy and living quarters outlay. Under your system of non-acknowledgement of the talent and time and focus taken to produce said work they should release it to the world and let a bunch of miserly bastards just take it for their own with no tribute. Under my system the artist's time is being compensated at the point the original work is duplicated. You can then play the gambit of, well if it is good people will pay him. OK..so he starts getting paid and along comes Psychopath Inc. who sees the people love the work and sends a message to his factory to immediately begin mass duplication and ship it to all the markets outlets he has garnered from picking the best artist's work to mass duplicate and giving the consumer a fair price to him, having the ability to buy mass quantities of raw materials and the artist whop originated the work not having those resources.

In the anti-IP system there will be a world of starving artists making pizzas and flipping burgers, whilst a small conglomerate of fraudulent ripoff artists gets bigger and bigger stealing one idea after another till there is never any point in any artist trying to make a living from being an artist.

Rev9

All of what you just stated is irrelevant to the IP discussion. I've acknowledged multiple times the fact that creating music and other abstract concepts requires time and effort, and I've also explained how copying a song or a certain arrangement of words does not in anyway deny the innovator from keeping and using/selling the original compilation. Hence there is no aggression and no loss of profit, whereas enforcing IP laws inherently requires an initiation of aggression for doing nothing more than using private property in a certain manner.

Also, the claim that all artists and musicians would be starving without IP is simply not true. Original artworks will always be worth enormous sums of money despite attempts of forgeries, and musicians are always free to go on tour sell their performance which cannot be exactly reproduced just to name a few examples. Some artists and musicians who solely depend on IP to make money will suddenly find themselves in difficult times, but it's not correct to claim the entire industry will suffer.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

All of what you just stated is irrelevant to the IP discussion. I've acknowledged multiple times the fact that creating music and other abstract concepts requires time and effort, and I've also explained how copying a song or a certain arrangement of words does not in anyway deny the innovator from keeping and using/selling the original compilation. Hence there is no aggression and no loss of profit, whereas enforcing IP laws inherently requires an initiation of aggression for doing nothing more than using private property in a certain manner.

Also, the claim that all artists and musicians would be starving without IP is simply not true. Original artworks will always be worth enormous sums of money despite attempts of forgeries, and musicians are always free to go on tour sell their performance which cannot be exactly reproduced just to name a few examples. Some artists and musicians who solely depend on IP to make money will suddenly find themselves in difficult times, but it's not correct to claim the entire industry will suffer.

see the word "fraud".

 

[Mr Tansill]

he doesnt understand it...Ive said it like 5 times already in complete detail but instead I get bashed.

I'm just struck that there is this separate "logic" out there...

 

[low preference guy]

Bro, ALL contracts ARE legal under a libertarian society (at least those between consenting adults). Besides, if the contract is unlawful, then the creator of the music has the simple right to withdraw from your use his product. This is pretty basic, do you see it?

The thing is, what if some thief put your song in my backyard? I never signed any contract with you, so I'm not restricted to use it any way I want. Sure, if you can figure out who the thief is and if he has a contract with you, he has to pay you for breaking the contract. But if I didn't sign any contract, I can do as I wish with my replication of the waves of the song.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I'm just struck that there is this separate "logic" out there...

They are ignoring the word "fraud" and "fraudulent" because it protects their "anti-intellectual property" fallacy.

 

[Mustang]

the anti-IP advocates still have no clue about the philosophy shown in this video at 00:36 second mark

Repeatedly posting the same video and claiming it refutes everything does nothing to defend your positions. Please articulate how the video justifies IP and why it invalidates the plethora of arguments against IP found in this thread.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm just struck that there is this separate "logic" out there...

The only separate logic that is out there is to proclaim that an idea is property, or that copying, replicating, duplicating, or otherwise creating a new tangible good from an existing is thievery. I do not think the people whom use this rationalization understand the very reason property exists. Perhaps a refresher on Lockean property rights is in order?

Just curious -- how many IP advocates would jail and confiscate the property of another if today the Star-Trek replicator was realized? Imagine all the stealing!

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Repeatedly posting the same video and claiming it refutes everything does nothing to defend your positions. Please articulate how the video justifies IP and why it invalidates the plethora of arguments against IP found in this thread.

You sir, do not understand "fraud" or "fraudulent".

 

[Mr Tansill]

The thing is, what if some thief put your song in my backyard? I never signed any contract with you, so I'm not restricted to use it any way I want. Sure, if you can figure out who the thief is and if he has a contract with you, he has to pay you for breaking the contract. But if I didn't sign any contract, I can do as I wish with my replication of the waves of the song.

Fine, the CD is in your backyard - you insert it into your computer, and before you are able to play it, a script runs which states "use of this CD constitutes consent to the following terms (previously stated)." Problem solved.

 

[Mustang]

see the word "fraud".

See my post which already directly dealt with the claim of fraud, the one you ignored.

I see the word "deception" in both official definitions of fraud, and since the mere act of copying is NOT a deception it cannot inherently be considered fraud without further analysis. In fact, you invented your own definition of fraud that conveniently supports your claim, but given that is clashes with the accepted and legal definition it cannot be taken as fact. Fraud is NOT failing to receive consent to [d]o a certain action with a product.

Example, I can buy an iPhone and make it clear my intention is to jailbreak it. Apple has no legal recourse and cannot stop me despite not having give consent, since I purchased the iPhone making it my private property. Under your definition that would be "fraud' when clearly no fraud has taken place.

 

[low preference guy]

Fine, the CD is in your backyard - you insert it into your computer, and before you are able to play it, a script runs which states "use of this CD constitutes consent to the following terms (previously stated)." Problem solved.

if the thief played the song and recorded it using a microphone and put it in just a regular tape, then there is no contract that binds me.

i happen to agree with everything else you said and in a free society intellectual "property" issues would be dealt with using contracts.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

They are ignoring the word "fraud" and "fraudulent" because it protects their "anti-intellectual property" fallacy.

I see the word "deception" in both official definitions of fraud, and since the mere act of copying is NOT a deception it cannot inherently be considered fraud without further analysis. In fact, you invented your own definition of fraud that conveniently supports your claim, but given that is clashes with the accepted and legal definition it cannot be taken as fact. Fraud is NOT failing to receive consent to so a certain action with a product.

Example, I can buy an iPhone and make it clear my intention is to jailbreak it. Apple has no legal recourse and cannot stop me despite not having give consent, since I purchased the iPhone making it my private property. Under your definition that would be "fraud' when clearly no fraud has taken place.

No you just keep reasserting the same argument over and over and over as if repeating it makes it true.

It does not.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The only separate logic that is out there is to proclaim that an idea is property, or that copying, replicating, duplicating, or otherwise creating a new tangible good from an existing is thievery. I do not think the people whom use this rationalization understand the very reason property exists. Perhaps a refresher on Lockean property rights is in order?

Tell me what is fraud?

 

[Mr Tansill]

The only separate logic that is out there is to proclaim that an idea is property, or that copying, replicating, duplicating, or otherwise creating a new tangible good from an existing is thievery. I do not think the people whom use this rationalization understand the very reason property exists. Perhaps a refresher on Lockean property rights is in order?

I've acquiesced that it's not property in a previous post.

Your usage constitutes certain actions/restrictions on your part - a pretty simple contract and concept - we save the venture into Lockean property rights, Kantian ethics, or any other non-starter you wish to chum the water with for another thread...does sound fun though.

The point is that you have no knowledge without your legitimate agreement to abide by the terms of the creator. It is as simple as this.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Fine, the CD is in your backyard - you insert it into your computer, and before you are able to play it, a script runs which states "use of this CD constitutes consent to the following terms (previously stated)." Problem solved.

You can drive the nail in their coffin but they won't admit it.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Tell me what is fraud?

is it this statement?

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

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Fine, the CD is in your backyard - you insert it into your computer, and before you are able to play it, a script runs which states "use of this CD constitutes consent to the following terms (previously stated)." Problem solved.

It doesn't solve anything. What happens if someone puts the song up on Youtube for instance which completely skips the script? The fact remains once it is out in the public domain it's antithetical to private property to restrict its use to people whom have no contractual obligation. Frankly, you would most likely go bankrupt if you tried to force this non-sense on consumers. If you are unfamiliar with PC gaming, then you would advocate such draconian non-sense. (Research DRM)

 

[Mr Tansill]

if the thief played the song and recorded it using a microphone and put it in just a regular tape, then there is no contract that binds me.

WTF are you talking about...seriously? I mentioned a "technical" solution that a creator could implement to protect his ideas...

If someone violated a contract, by taking my vehicle, and left it in your backyard with a couple parts missing, and maybe new tires and new wind shield wipers, it becomes yours? You're not seriously advocating that are you?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

is it this?

Not necessarily. In context I was referencing heavenlyboy34 when he said that he makes music and doesn't copyright protect it and distributes it freely.

Now if he did allow me to rewrite his music and resell it that would not be fraud, but I was simply baiting him to see whether he would even happily allow someone else to do whatever they please with his music.

So tell me what is fraud?

 

[low preference guy]

WTF are you talking about...seriously?

1. You sell a person a CD with a contract that says he can't reproduce it.
2. He places a copy of the song but without any copyright statement in my backyard.
3. I have the song and since I don't have a contract with you, I can use it freely. Nothing binds me.

Point 2 is obviously a violation of the contract. If you happen to prove that the person who broke the contract broke it, then you can send him to jail or have him pay you money. But you can't do anything to restrict my use of the song because I have no contract with you.