Intellectual Property rights

[Mr Tansill]

That was never a point of contention. The point was whether somebody not bound by a contract because he didn't sign it should be restricted legally.

No.

 

[Travlyr]

No. That's not correct.

To copy RP's book and sell it AS YOUR OWN WORK, would be fraud.

To copy it and sell it as the work of RP, however, would be perfectly fine.

That makes sense, except why would Ron Paul bother researching, writing, publishing, and marketing his book if anyone with a high-tech copier can take his books sales from him without doing any of the research or writing?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I only engage in conversation with people who exhibit an ability to understand the nature of a debate. In any event, you cannot point out where I ever said such a thing -- I've been ignoring you since you are ignoring all of my arguments. How about you continue to parrot your ad hominem. Obviously I'm a Marxist.

nature of the debate? You remove the word "fraud" from existing to prop up your anti-intellectual property as a legitimate platform which supports "individual liberty" . We will never agree because you remove "fraud" from existence of the debate and there is no purpose to debate. You either support complete anarchy or you support limited government.

 

[KingRobbStark]

That makes sense, except why would Ron Paul bother researching, writing, publishing, and marketing his book if anyone with a high-tech copier can take his books sales from him without doing any of the research or writing?

You can say he did his research by reading Paul's book

 

[Seraphim]

Yes exactly.

Look at the number of books available online as PDF's. Both submitted by the author themselves and simple "black market" digital copies. How many of these books do you see being printed up word for work with a new authors named slapped onto it? NONE.

In the real world, no matter what the legal conditions, it DIFFICULT to take credit for someone else's work and not be punished. IP Laws don't protect shit. The same way that drunk driving laws don't stop drunk driving and do not safe guard the victims of drunk drivers AT ALL.

No. That's not correct.

To copy RP's book and sell it AS YOUR OWN WORK, would be fraud.

To copy it and sell it as the work of RP, however, would be perfectly fine.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

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.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison supported patents and copyright protection specifically for the arts,and literary works as well as invention.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

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.

The irony that you would void the definition and existence of "Fraud" and the act of being "fraudulent" and you dare say that having an IP is an act of entitlement? The hypocrisy .

 

[Travlyr]

You can say he did his research by reading Paul's book

If you cut out opportunity for compensation for research and development, then why would anybody research and develop?

 

[KingRobbStark]

He rearranged them.

Did you create the banana? Or did you plan the seed and let nature arrange all the atoms? Did you pull the weeds that would have destroyed your crop?

wtf?

I can address this in any terms you like - can you address the question?

Which one? The first one?

No I can't compel you to share anything. That being said, we should define the meaning of sharing.

 

[KingRobbStark]

If you cut out opportunity for compensation for research and development, then why would anybody research and develop?

Why would anyone research and develop if a third party will not build upon what has been done?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Also, do you really think that a song is an idea? Or a song is discovered vice created? Did Mozart turn over a rock one day and stumble upon a fundamental law of nature in symphonic form, which you, just as easily, and accidentally, could have stumbled upon? Or did he create all that through his effort?

Mozart, if you know anything about him, learned to write symphonies, quartets, etc. by copying other composers. His father made him copy out scores and study them. Like the pop music of today, Mozart followed templates long established. Haydn, the father of the symphony, was a friend of his. They both imitated each others' ideas. IOW, he did put his own effort into playing around with old ideas, but none of them were entirely "new"-only old stuff re-imagined. (that's why the difference in style between Haydn and Mozart is negligible) Mozart also learned a lot from J.C. Bach, btw.

 

[Travlyr]

Why would anyone research and develop if a third party will not build upon what has been done?

If protected, then the profit motive to compensate for research and development as well as profits from sales of goods and services will motivate to innovate. Third parties have to compete rather than just simply copy & produce without spending the research and development expenses.

Without IP protections, third parties have the advantage because they do not have to invest any resources for research and development.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Mozart, if you know anything about him, learned to write symphonies, quartets, etc. by copying other composers. His father made him copy out scores and study them. Like the pop music of today, Mozart followed templates long established. Haydn, the father of the symphony, was a friend of his. They both imitated each others' ideas. IOW, he did put his own effort into playing around with old ideas, but none of them were entirely "new"-only old stuff re-imagined. (that's why the difference in style between Haydn and Mozart is negligible) Mozart also learned a lot from J.C. Bach, btw.

the classical period was unique because theocracy forced composers to sound like such and such artist and were forced to write music a certain way. Mozart tried to get away from that and many times named his compositions vulgarly in defiance. Beethoven was a true break through as a composer and artist because he had no obligation to a theocracy.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison supported patents and copyright protection specifically for the arts,and literary works as well as invention.

This was the stated reason, but it was a protectionist measure. Even if you accept your appeal to authority, Jefferson and Madison's idea of patents/copyrights only lasted a few years. (hence the use of "limited time" in the Constitution) Your idea of IP (derived from the Copyright act and similar IP laws) lasts longer than the lifetime of the creator.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

the classical period was unique because theocracy forced composers to sound like such and such artist and were forced to write music a certain way. Mozart tried to get away from that and many times named his compositions vulgarly in defiance. Beethoven was a true break through as a composer and artist because he had no obligation to a theocracy.

True, but my point still stands. (Mozart also mocked horn players in the scores for horn concertos btw, lol )

 

[CaptainAmerica]

This was the stated reason, but it was a protectionist measure. Even if you accept your appeal to authority, Jefferson and Madison's idea of patents/copyrights only lasted a few years. (hence the use of "limited time" in the Constitution) Your idea of IP (derived from the Copyright act and similar IP laws) lasts longer than the lifetime of the creator.

I do believe my property can be given through my will.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

True, but my point still stands. (Mozart also mocked horn players in the scores for horn concertos btw, lol )

Many of the compositions were forced by the theocracy/king

 

[Mr Tansill]

The irony that you would void the definition and existence of "Fraud" and the act of being "fraudulent" and you dare say that having an IP is an act of entitlement? The hypocrisy .

Yeah seriously...the asymmetry of their beliefs is mystifying...

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Now the big question behind this debate is :

Who here is an anarchist?
and what kind of anarchist if so?

I am not an anarchist.

 

[Mr Tansill]

wtf?

Point being that you don't create anything...if you are a farmer, by your logic (by your terms...), the farmer didn't create anything - all the matter and energy that ever was, ever will be, and the farmer merely creates a different arrangement of matter/energy...therefore (by your logic, your terms), the farmer doesn't own all the wheat (or whatever) he "rearranged."

Get it?

Which one? The first one?

No I can't compel you to share anything. That being said, we should define the meaning of sharing.

We can leave it undefined - I'm not sure there is disagreement on the concept.