Intellectual Property rights

[KingRobbStark]

To a mindless fool who does not understand the nature of those 0's and 1's and the amount of sheer intellectual effort to develop the chips, circuits and machine code to man code substrate, translation of data to the graphics world for display and the numerous clockwork driven parts, timers, syncronisers and others that make up the complexity of the computer that the OS lays over top of to allow human access it may just be ones and zeroes. But not to someone who understand the nature of computers in their current state.

I'll tell you what.. There are only 8 notes per octave in any given key in western music, outside of the pentatonic and blues scales. Why don't you just take those 8 notes and write us up one of yer famous Mozart sounding musical compositions anbd post it here about an hour from now.. After all, all you anti-IP folks are so effing talented that our jaws will drop with sheer unadulterated envy at the gifts of talent your knowledge of such things bestows. After all, if you know about a scale and Mozart then it is no sweat to recreate that style, just like rearranging 0's and 1's creates an OS.

Let's up the ante on your stupid gambit..What is even cooler is that there are about 90 elements we can get a grip on or bottle up. Nearly everything in the Universe is made from those elements. Since that is so nobody should pay for anything as it is obvious those who have manipulated those elements into unique products aren't all that unique and do not deserve the fruits of that product. It is made of the same stuff everything is and like everything it should be free.

Frakkin' dimwitted philosophical stance this anti-IP marxism is.

Rev9

I'm a programmer. We were debating fundamentals . You should either have something constructive to say or shut the fuck up.

 

[Travlyr]

That's pretty much my take on his behavior.

But hey, the arrogant, condescending, and insulting behavior displayed by Cap and Rev9 probably does as much, if not more to convince people that IP is bogus as any rational argument I could post. So I say let's hope they keep it up!

Or maybe not. Stealing from innovation for R&D is not liberty oriented. The inconsistency of the Austrian school is interesting. Austrians pretend that ignoring important information is useful in winning converts. But it is not. Someday the Austrians will have to debate honestly. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

That's pretty much my take on his behavior.

But hey, the arrogant, condescending, and insulting behavior displayed by Cap and Rev9 probably does as much, if not more to convince people that IP is bogus as any rational argument I could post. So I say let's hope they keep it up!

Irony of arrogance in your statement.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Non sequitur. There is no contract implied in simple exchange or consumption of creative work. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, the "contract" argument is tenuous at best.

Yes you are very good at endorsing "contract" between property owners until it involves an actual contract that you dislike.Nobody is forcing you into a contract and if you don't like the property simply don't buy or agree to the contract of it from another property owner.

 

[Travlyr]

I'm a programmer. We were debating fundamentals . You should either have something constructive to say or shut the fuck up.

Don't you just love this tactic. If only the opposition would STFU, then we would be the winners! Rev is actually talking about reality in the real world. I completely understand his position. A little self-refection would do you good.

 

[KingRobbStark]

Don't you just love this tactic. If only the opposition would STFU, then we would be the winners! Rev is actually talking about reality in the real world. I completely understand his position. A little self-refection would do you good.

Insulting people is hardly constructive. If his argument is sound like you claim, then he wouldn't result in calling people idiots after every word.

 

[CCTelander]

You know, I remember back in the early to mid 70s, when cassette tapes and tape players were becoming really popular. The record companies were all screaming like Chicken Little that the sky was falling, the "allowing" people to freely record LPs onto cassette so they could play them in their cars, or share them with friends, would spell the end of the recording industry.

All the same old arguments were trotted out. Nobody would actually buy LPs any more, they'd just record them from friends. Record company profits would take such a hit that no new music would be made, it just wouldn't be profitable. etc. etc.

What actually happened was quite the reverse. Profits actually went up as a result of people using cassettes to record and share music.

These guys arguing for IP have that same Chicken Little attitude as the record companies back then. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

Well, it's not. And IP is STILL bogus!

 

[CaptainAmerica]

If I really wanted to be arrogant I would just say this :
If you hate contractual agreements so much to the point that a person cannot enter a contract with user agreements then what is stopping you from creating your own economy and own nation somewhere else? Simply put, anarchism fails and does not work.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I'm a programmer. We were debating fundamentals . You should either have something constructive to say or shut the fuck up.

Dude, we have been contributing many sound arguments against your anti-ip position.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You know, I remember back in the early to mid 70s, when cassette tapes and tape players were becoming really popular. The record companies were all screaming like Chicken Little that the sky was falling, the "allowing" people to freely record LPs onto cassette so they could play them in their cars, or share them with friends, would spell the end of the recording industry.

All the same old arguments were trotted out. Nobody would actually buy LPs any more, they'd just record them from friends. Record company profits would take such a hit that no new music would be made, it just wouldn't be profitable. etc. etc.

What actually happened was quite the reverse. Profits actually went up as a result of people using cassettes to record and share music.

These guys arguing for IP have that same Chicken Little attitude as the record companies back then. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

Well, it's not. And IP is STILL bogus!

Clearly you are sidestepping the issue I bring to the table. You ignore the subject of fraud just like the others who keep dismissing "fraud" as a non-relating topic.

 

[CCTelander]

Or maybe not. Stealing from innovation for R&D is not liberty oriented. The inconsistency of the Austrian school is interesting. Austrians pretend that ignoring important information is useful in winning converts. But it is not. Someday the Austrians will have to debate honestly. I'm not holding my breath.

There is no theft. The original "owner" is not, in any way, deprived of his use of his innovation.

The rest of your comments are the same bullshit ad hominem that you've been peddling a lot around here lately.

Save it for the rubes. Nobody with 2 functioning brain cells is buying.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You know, I remember back in the early to mid 70s, when cassette tapes and tape players were becoming really popular. The record companies were all screaming like Chicken Little that the sky was falling, the "allowing" people to freely record LPs onto cassette so they could play them in their cars, or share them with friends, would spell the end of the recording industry.

All the same old arguments were trotted out. Nobody would actually buy LPs any more, they'd just record them from friends. Record company profits would take such a hit that no new music would be made, it just wouldn't be profitable. etc. etc.

What actually happened was quite the reverse. Profits actually went up as a result of people using cassettes to record and share music.

These guys arguing for IP have that same Chicken Little attitude as the record companies back then. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

Well, it's not. And IP is STILL bogus!

Clearly you are sidestepping the issue I bring to the table. You ignore the subject of fraud just like the others who keep dismissing "fraud" as a non-relating topic.

 

[CCTelander]

Clearly you are sidestepping the issue I bring to the table. You ignore the subject of fraud just like the others who keep dismissing "fraud" as a non-relating topic.

I haven't ignored the issue of fraud. You're simply defining it incorrectly. There is no fraud in what I'm actually advocating.

 

[Travlyr]

Insulting people is hardly constructive. If his argument is sound like you claim, then he wouldn't result in calling people idiots after every word.

Oh, you are not the first to try and shut-up opposing views. The First Amendment specifically. Your opposition has very valid points. I don't blame you for wanting to shut them up, but open minds want to know why you want to shut down the debate.

 

[low preference guy]

Clearly you are sidestepping the issue I bring to the table. You ignore the subject of fraud just like the others who keep dismissing "fraud" as a non-relating topic.

No, you're ignoring people when they show you why you're wrong. I've already replied to your points about fraud many pages before.

 

[KingRobbStark]

Dude, we have been contributing many sound arguments against your anti-ip position.

His reply didn't address the issue, then followed with his usual ad hominem attacks.

 

[CCTelander]

His reply didn't address the issue, then followed with his usual ad hominem attacks.

Well, when ad hominem's all you've really got...

 

[Revolution9]

I'm a programmer. We were debating fundamentals . You should either have something constructive to say or shut the fuck up.

Don't like your intrepid little whitewashes to be nailed to the wall like the balderdash it is is what I get from your lashing out. I created this thread that you are drooldonkeying in. You must be a really good programmer to have pulled your computer OS analogy out of your lower fundament.

Rev9

 

[KingRobbStark]

Oh, you are not the first to try and shut-up opposing views. The First Amendment specifically. Your opposition has very valid points. I don't blame you for wanting to shut them up, but open minds want to know why you want to shut down the debate.

I didn't want him to shut down the debate. Why would I? I'm having fun. What I want to shut down are his ad hominem attacks. Even if he had valid arguments, those attacks hamper their effectiveness.

 

[Travlyr]

There is no theft. The original "owner" is not, in any way, deprived of his use of his innovation.

The rest of your comments are the same bullshit ad hominem that you've been peddling a lot around here lately.

Save it for the rubes. Nobody with 2 functioning brain cells is buying.

What are you talking about? When have I used an ad hominem?