Intellectual Property rights

[noneedtoaggress]

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?

I was referring to the fact that you lied for your own gain.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

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?

You said earlier you understood that ideas are not property, I guess you do not.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

1. You sell a person a CD with a contract that 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.

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.

User is binded to said contract. Nice try though ,but you aren't that clever.

 

[low preference guy]

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?

What exactly are you missing when someone sings a song that you sang before? Nothing. You're mixing apples and oranges.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

User is binded to said contract. Nice try though ,but you aren't that clever.

How can you be bound to a contract you never agreed to? This is the same social contract non-sense.

 

[Mustang]

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 don't need to delve into Lockean property rights or Kantian ethics or any other non-starter you wish to chum the water with.

You still have not explained why a contract stating certain actions are prohibited after purchasing a product would be considered legal, it remains just an assumption that you keep repeating. Under your claim, there would be no limit to what could be prohibited when one buys a product as long as a case is made for why it will hurt the profits of the seller.

For example, a computer company could sell a PC with a contract stating all upgrades must be done by them, forcing the consumer to pay whatever prices they charge. A car manufacturer could sell a sedan with a contract stating all services must be done at the official dealership. In both of these cases, a breach of the contract would result in less profit for the company, which by your standards would make them completely legal in a libertarian society despite the apparent unconscionability.

You also have never addressed my counterpoint of Apple's adhesion contract prohibiting jailbreaking being voided, which is a perfect example of the types of contract you are claiming to be completely legal. Until your assumption is justified, it's safe to say that unreasonable and unenforceable adhesion contracts such as prohibiting copying of a music CD would be rejected in a libertarian society.

 

[low preference guy]

How can you be bound to a contract you never agreed to?

Exactly. Pretty hilarious post by Captain America.

 

[low preference guy]

You still have not explained why a contract stating certain actions are prohibited after purchasing a product would be considered legal, it remains just an assumption that you keep repeating.

I'm anti-IP but I disagree with what you're saying. The contract would be legal in a proper society. Otherwise that society violates the freedom of contract of its members if they can't set that condition as a part of the contract.

 

[Mr Tansill]

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

2 + 2 = 5, and not all positions/opinions are equal or relevant. We can use words to no end to defend our positions and divert valid arguments - politicians do it all the time.

No amount of 2 + 2 = 5, no matter what form it takes...nothing anyone has stated in the anti-IP side has stepped around the basic fact that if there is an agreement that restricts your usage in exchange to your being shown its existence, that BINDS you.

 

[low preference guy]

if there is an agreement that restricts your usage in exchange to your being shown its existence, that BINDS you.

If binds you if you agreed to it. But it's important to note that it doesn't bind any person who didn't sign the contract. That's the part you seem to be having difficulties with.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm anti-IP but I disagree with what you're saying. The contract would be legal in a proper society. Otherwise that society violates the freedom of contract of its members if they can't set that condition as a part of the contract.

The funny bit is that any company attempting such draconian measures would be quickly bankrupt and run out of the market. The evidence is right there in PC gaming today. So in trying to 'protect your profit' or which reasonable people realize is merely rent-seeking (not ownership) you destroy whatever consumer desire there was for your product. IP is a destructive concept all around -- to societies progress, to individual liberty and private property, and to the entities that try to enact such IP restrictions.

 

[Mustang]

I'm anti-IP but I disagree with what you're saying. The contract would be legal in a proper society. Otherwise that society violates the freedom of contract of its members if they can't set that condition as a part of the contract.

Of course, I'm not claiming all contracts as part of a sale are unenforceable, just in particular ones that try to prevent a person from using their property in arbitrary ways long after the sale is complete. I also agree that contracts such as NDAs between two parties would be acceptable and entirely enforceable. I probably should have been more clear on that.

 

[KingRobbStark]

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)

The problem is that they don't have a solid understanding of property rights. If I own a CD I have the right to use it, and its content as I see fit. There IP approach is similar to the horror of the income tax. From their perspective your property is not fully yours, and they still have a certain hold over it. It's a total contradiction of private rights.

Ideas CANNOT be owned, and neither are the methods that help manifest those ideas. It's similar to Newton, and his theory of gravity. The idea was gravity, and the method he used to manifest (or explain) his ideas was through his invention of calculus. Now we all know that another fellow by the name Leibniz invented calculus independently during that time. By Captain America's false reasoning Newton has the right to "his ideas", and the right to sue and imprison Leibniz . Complete foolishness.

 

[Mr Tansill]

You still have not explained why a contract stating certain actions are prohibited after purchasing a product would be considered legal, it remains just an assumption that you keep repeating. Under your claim, there would be no limit to what could be prohibited when one buys a product as long as a case is made for why it will hurt the profits of the seller.

You're right, I didn't, I'm not going to, and it doesn't matter - if you don't like the terms of the contract, nothing obligates you to enter into it!!! Hello???? McFly??? Anybody home???

For example, a computer company could sell a PC with a contract stating all upgrades must be done by them, forcing the consumer to pay whatever prices they charge. A car manufacturer could sell a sedan with a contract stating all services must be done at the official dealership. In both of these cases, a breach of the contract would result in less profit for the company, which by your standards would make them completely legal in a libertarian society despite the apparent unconscionability.

Again, an apt example. A computer company could sell you a PC with those conditions...but then again, you might choose to take your business elsewhere...things that make you go "hmm."

You also have never addressed my counterpoint of Apple's adhesion contract prohibiting jailbreaking being voided, which is a perfect example of the types of contract you are claiming to be completely legal. Until your assumption is justified, it's safe to say that unreasonable and unenforceable adhesion contracts such as prohibiting copying of a music CD would be rejected in a libertarian society.

That's because I don't know what adhesion contracts are - I'll standby and wait for your response detailing why that invalidates every other point I've made. The point I think you're making is that if a contract is (in your terms) unenforceable, that invalidates it - a falsity. An agreement is an agreement - or we resort to violence.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The problem is that they don't have a solid understanding of property rights. If I own a CD I have the right to use it, and its content as I see fit. There IP approach is similar to the horror of the income tax. From their perspective your property is not fully yours, and they still have a certain hold over it. It's a total contradiction of private rights.

Ideas CANNOT be owned, and neither are the methods that help manifest those ideas. It's similar to Newton, and his theory of gravity. The idea was gravity, and the method he used to manifest (or explain) his ideas was through his invention of calculus. Now we all know that another fellow by the name Leibniz invented calculus independently during that time. By Captain America's false reasoning Newton has the right to "his ideas", and the right to sue and imprison Leibniz . Complete foolishness.

Exactly. They promote rent-seeking not ownership. If they had their ways, we would own nothing. (I am assuming they know the proper definition of ownership and what it entails)

 

[Mustang]

If binds you if you agreed to it. But it's important to note that it doesn't bind any person who didn't sign the contract. That's the part you seem to be having difficulties with.

It's also important to note that there are limits to how much one can be binded depending on the context and clauses of the contract. It's critical that contracts do not supersede private property by turning ownership into renting unless it's explicitly stated that the person is merely renting the product. Trying to claim that person A owns the product (assuming it's fully paid for) but must still do X and not do Y long after the sale to me seems unenforceable unless the very definition of private property is altered.

 

[Mr Tansill]

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.

Here's the point I was trying to make boiled down:

Someday in the future, there will be the technical possibility to restrict the copying of information through whatever brainstorm you could come up with. Pretend for a minute that you don't have the ability to use it without agreeing to a "copyright statement." Use your imagination. Your #2 can't happen...what now? You're right, there's no contract between you and the producer, but you can't use it either.

 

[Mustang]

You're right, I didn't, I'm not going to, and it doesn't matter - if you don't like the terms of the contract, nothing obligates you to enter into it!!! Hello???? McFly??? Anybody home???

That's because I don't know what adhesion contracts are - I'll standby and wait for your response detailing why that invalidates every other point I've made. The point I think you're making is that if a contract is (in your terms) unenforceable, that invalidates it - a falsity. An agreement is an agreement - or we resort to violence.

There's no need for the personal attack. Also, I have continued to point out that when private property conflicts with the terms of a contract, that private property must win out or else it's nothing more than a meaningless label. IMO, contracts that attempt to turn private property into a form of renting should be found unconscionable and I've been stating that all throughout my posts.

You also never addressed my counterpoint of a contract that forces someone to kill another person, which would also be found unconscionable despite it being a contract. Since there is no attempt at actual discussion here, I'll have to assume you will continue to disagree and I'll leave it at that.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Here's the point I was trying to make boiled down:

Someday in the future, there will be the technical possibility to restrict the copying of information through whatever brainstorm you could come up with. Pretend for a minute that you don't have the ability to use it without agreeing to a "copyright statement." Use your imagination. Your #2 can't happen...what now? You're right, there's no contract between you and the producer, but you can't use it either.

Not sure if you are arguing for this, or just as an esoteric point, but are you actually arguing for a society in which you rent and do not own? How exactly, is that desirable or in the spirit of private property? Obviously we know your point is impossible in reality, but for the sake of argument, I think we as individuals and society as a whole would be a decrepit hell if people actually supported universal renting over ownership....

 

[Mr Tansill]

You said earlier you understood that ideas are not property, I guess you do not.

Yeah. My point there being that you don't have to coin the abstract, ethereal concept of intellectual property. When you frame the argument in terms of a legal contractual agreement, the supposed difficulties evaporate, we can get to the real meat of issue and have a real discussion.