Intellectual Property rights

[CaptainAmerica]

still waiting for my reply an hour later.

What is fraud?

 

[Bordillo]

Time,Energy,and Talent belong to a person who owns their own self. From that individual's TIME,ENERGY,and TALENT come a product. That product is property.

Are you against youtube? As an artist would you not want your songs on youtube?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Are you against youtube? As an artist would you not want your songs on youtube?

youtube has a user agreement when you sign up and use their space to place videos/content on the website.

 

[YumYum]

Are you against youtube? As an artist would you not want your songs on youtube?

Twenty million people who are trying to promote their music put their stuff on youtube. Once they "make" it, they sue youtube to take it off.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Twenty million people who are trying to promote their music put their stuff on youtube. Once they "make" it, they sue youtube to take it off.

is that your way of demonizing youtube?

 

[YumYum]

is that your way of demonizing youtube?

No. I feel sorry for youtube. The are caught in the middle. I'm showing the hypocrisy of the so-called artist who have no problem sharing their music to get exposure, but once they have an audience and a following, they change their tune and forbid their "art" to be shared.

 

[Bman]

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.

Impossible.

 

[Bman]

I agree with the above, obviously. My WHOLE point here is to wrestle away the concept that we consumers can dispose of someone else's work because it has now become so easy to replicate it - there are effectively no barriers. My discussion of contracts was meant to show it is tenable that there is another construct completely separate from the idea of property that makes it so artists, idea-producers, whatever, can protect and sell their work. Of course most arguments grow into the absurd when taken to the logical extremes - hence the concept of intellectual property.

Understand the situation. With no state there is no way to enforce contracts. If someone breaks a contract there is no act of aggression. Thus aggression can not be used because there is no need for self defense. So long as there is a state there will be IP, without a state there will be no IP.

You have two choices in this argument, you either want a state or you do not want a state. If you want a state there is no reason to argue why IP should exist, because it is going nowhere. If you don't want a state there is no need to argue because IP won't exist.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Understand the situation. With no state there is no way to enforce contracts. If someone breaks a contract there is no act of aggression. Thus aggression can not be used because there is no need for self defense. So long as there is a state there will be IP, without a state there will be no IP.

You have two choices in this argument, you either want a state or you do not want a state. If you want a state there is no reason to argue why IP should exist, because it is going nowhere. If you don't want a state there is no need to argue because IP won't exist.

I've been waiting over 3 hours for a reply to my question to others on this thread

"What is fraud?"

 

[Bman]

I've been waiting over 3 hours for a reply to my question to others on this thread

"What is fraud?"

That would only matter to the legal authority and how they defined it, as such this would sum it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud#Elements_of_fraud


The people you are arguing with have thought a lot about their argument against IP. They certainly can give you some food for thought. I don't think they'll care too much how the current system interprets fraud. I think they've demonstrated numerous times that the cost aspect means nothing to them in regards to the initial producer, but only to the consumer and how the consumer can benefit from the purchase even in a case where the consumer becomes a competing producer. I'm not an AnCap so I've decided this IP argument is quite fruitless as I'm quite aware that so long as I want a state on any level, there will be forms of IP.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Holy hell, this thread just exploded since the time I looked away.

Safe to say that this is a controversial topic.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I think it is telling that you ignore our arguments and instead construct your own that you attack. To me this shows a lack of confidence in your position and your argument. Can you tell me how an idea which is infinitely reproducible which has no loss of property to the original owner -- that is, a good that is non-scarce in nature such as recipes, ideas, patterns, formulas, etc. can be property? How can I steal something that you still own? If I draw Mickey Mouse and then market him on my own, does not Disney still have the ability to draw and use Mickey Mouse themselves?

Furthermore, I would presume that in the event a Star-Trek replicator was ever invented, that you would be in favor of artificial rents and would throw people in jail for infinitely replicating shelter, food, TVs, etc. even though the original owners have lost no property. When you take a scarce good, you take from one and give to another. When you reproduce you create an all new good. Nothing is lost by the original owner.

Can you challenge this argument, or will you continue to avoid it?

Good luck with that, AED.

People are generally thick...

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Holy hell, this thread just exploded since the time I looked away.

Safe to say that this is a controversial topic.

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.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Holy hell, this thread just exploded since the time I looked away.

Safe to say that this is a controversial topic.

I said it on the 1st page this is one nasty thread on DAILYPAUL

 

[CaptainAmerica]

That would only matter to the legal authority and how they defined it, as such this would sum it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud#Elements_of_fraud


The people you are arguing with have thought a lot about their argument against IP. They certainly can give you some food for thought. I don't think they'll care too much how the current system interprets fraud. I think they've demonstrated numerous times that the cost aspect means nothing to them in regards to the initial producer, but only to the consumer and how the consumer can benefit from the purchase even in a case where the consumer becomes a competing producer. I'm not an AnCap so I've decided this IP argument is quite fruitless as I'm quite aware that so long as I want a state on any level, there will be forms of IP.

So now the validity of the english language is up for grabs . Fantastic.Then why are we even debating?

 

[nobody's_hero]

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.

Well, I don't think you're going to get any "new" arguments from either side, lol. We're 433 posts from the start and I doubt any minds have changed.

I suppose could direct my efforts towards finding out where the anti-IP crowd started within the Ron Paul revolution. It wouldn't resolve differences but it might help me understand more about the debate itself.

I'm curious as to when and how the pro-property rights people somehow broke off from the 'property' theme and became vehemently anti-IP. What caused this great schism? A Lew Rockwell article or something?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Well, I don't think you're going to get any "new" arguments from either side, lol. We're 433 posts from the start and I doubt anyone's minds have changed.

I suppose could direct my efforts towards finding out where the anti-IP crowd started within the Ron Paul revolution. It wouldn't resolve differences but it might help me understand more about the debate itself.

I'm curious as to when and how the pro-property rights people somehow broke off from the 'property' theme and became vehemently anti-IP. What caused this great schism? A Lew Rockwell article or something?

I find it interesting that the "libertarians" abandon Ayn Rands philosophy completely on individual property.Very fascinating modern transitions when it comes to philosophy of "individual liberty" if you ask me.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Well, I don't think you're going to get any "new" arguments from either side, lol. We're 433 posts from the start and I doubt any minds have changed.

I suppose could direct my efforts towards finding out where the anti-IP crowd started within the Ron Paul revolution. It wouldn't resolve differences but it might help me understand more about the debate itself.

I'm curious as to when and how the pro-property rights people somehow broke off from the 'property' theme and became vehemently anti-IP. What caused this great schism? A Lew Rockwell article or something?

For the most part sheeple of the Ron Paul movement have been following Russian Today news (go figure) and eat it up like it is the gospel of Christ.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I find it interesting that the "libertarians" abandon Ayn Rands philosophy completely on individual property.Very fascinating modern transitions when it comes to philosophy of "individual liberty" if you ask me.

Yeah, that's what I'm really curious to know.

EDIT: I like RT though, lol.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well, I don't think you're going to get any "new" arguments from either side, lol. We're 433 posts from the start and I doubt any minds have changed.

I suppose could direct my efforts towards finding out where the anti-IP crowd started within the Ron Paul revolution. It wouldn't resolve differences but it might help me understand more about the debate itself.

I'm curious as to when and how the pro-property rights people somehow broke off from the 'property' theme and became vehemently anti-IP. What caused this great schism? A Lew Rockwell article or something?

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

"Life, faculties, production, in other words, individuality, liberty, property, this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

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.