Intellectual Property rights

[noneedtoaggress]

I completely understand his position. A little self-refection would do you good.

The problem with his argument is that he's saying putting labor into something is sufficient enough to define it as property.

It's not.

 

[Travlyr]

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.

His points are valid. Ignoring them is silly.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

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

when attacking other people and calling them arrogant is all you got.....So far I have pointed out your hypocrisy over and over.

 

[KingRobbStark]

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

You must be proud. Are you going to patent that too?

I can say that I will be better than you will ever be, but that would be an understatement.

 

[Revolution9]

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

I doubt my rebuttal to your retarded analogy of what an OS is is hardly non-topical nor ad hominem. If the shoe fit your foot in my spiel then wear it. But don't blame me you tried it on.

You can pretend all you want that IP advocates have not made points, including myself. The issue is I refuse to repeat myself ad nauseum or play in your dead end alleys where the counterpoint is not recognized when you anti-IP folks launch into your next set of fallacious shots.



Rev9

 

[Travlyr]

The problem with his argument is that he's saying putting labor into something is sufficient enough to define it as property.

It's not.

All he is asking for is compensation for his effort and talent. It is justified.

 

[CCTelander]

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

Constantly implying that anarchists, and now Austrians are being intellectually dishonest is, in fact, ad hominem. You embody it in phrases like "Someday the Austrians will have to debate honestly. I'm not holding my breath."

Now, let's see how intellectually honest YOU actually are. Gonna own up to it THIS time?

*I'M* not holding *MY* breath, but I've been surprised before.

 

[low preference guy]

All he is asking for is compensation for his effort and talent. It is justified.

It's not justified if it violates other people's rights.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I protest this thread

 

[KingRobbStark]

His points are valid. Ignoring them is silly.

No one is ignoring them, but when someone addresses them he refuses to follow them up. That should tell you something.

 

[CCTelander]

All he is asking for is compensation for his effort and talent. It is justified.

There's that labor theory of value rearing its ugly head again.

 

[KingRobbStark]

I doubt my rebuttal to your retarded analogy of what an OS is is hardly non-topical nor ad hominem. If the shoe fit your foot in my spiel then wear it. But don't blame me you tried it on.

You can pretend all you want that IP advocates have not made points, including myself. The issue is I refuse to repeat myself ad nauseum or play in your dead end alleys where the counterpoint is not recognized when you anti-IP folks launch into your next set of fallacious shots.



Rev9

The foundation of an OS is exactly like I described.

I've never said you haven't made any points. It doesn't mean they are right.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

All he is asking for is compensation for his effort and talent. It is justified.

Great. I think people should be compensated for their efforts as well.

Is "IP" necessary for that to happen? No.

Does "IP" infringe on real property rights? Yes.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Originally Posted by goldencane
Can you provide one common denominator or one definition that describes what property truly is? What must something contain for it to be considered property?

individual human being is sovereign = owns self
individual human being owns self= ownership of time,energy and talents
individual human being owning time,energy and talents= ownership of what is produced by time,energy,and talents
individual owns product=property

property is mutually given, and with contractual agreement or agreements depending on the actual contract between 2 property owners.To say that no contract is legitimate between 2 property owners is to debase their sovereignty ,or to debase 1 or the other persons sovereignty.

fraud :
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

heavenlyboy34 said:And when one sells or transmits/broadcasts his property, he no longer claims any right to it.

Wrong.

When a contractual agreement is made between 2 sovereign property owners that contractual agreement must be upheld for it to be consent. Otherwise it can become fraud. To debase the contractual agreement is to void the very existence of property and contradict the sovereignty.

heavenlyboy34 replies: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.

See the pattern?

 

[Revolution9]

You must be proud. Are you going to patent that too?

I can say that I will be better than you will ever be, but that would be an understatement.

Bring it on smart ass. I have a ton of projects I can stack against anything you have for complexity and professionality. Whatcha got? I am not one to shoot my mouth off about accomplishments unless challenged in such and then I go all in. You got games? You got apps? You got 3D game engine scripting? PhysX? Maybe shaders? Can you create procedural animations? AI programming? pathfinding?

Whatcha got smartass? Got a link?

Rev9

 

[low preference guy]

Bring it on smart ass. I have a ton of projects I can stack against anything you have for complexity and professionality. Whatcha got? I am not one to shoot my mouth off about accomplishments unless challenged in such and then I go all in. You got games? You got apps? You got 3D game engine scripting? PhysX? Maybe shaders? Can you create procedural animations? AI programming? pathfinding?

Whatcha got smartass? Got a link?

Rev9

come on guys, who has the bigger dick between you two is off topic.

 

[CCTelander]

individual human being is sovereign = owns self
individual human being owns self= ownership of time,energy and talents
individual human being owning time,energy and talents= ownership of what is produced by time,energy,and talents
individual owns product=property

property is mutually given, and with contractual agreement or agreements depending on the actual contract between 2 property owners.To say that no contract is legitimate between 2 property owners is to debase their sovereignty ,or to debase 1 or the other persons sovereignty.

fraud :
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.


Wrong.

When a contractual agreement is made between 2 sovereign property owners that contractual agreement must be upheld for it to be consent. Otherwise it can become fraud. To debase the contractual agreement is to void the very existence of property and contradict the sovereignty.



See the pattern?

Once again you misuse the term "fraud."

To fail to live up to the terms of a VALID contract constitutes breach of contract, NOT fraud.

Fraud is to profit unjustly at the expense of another BY MEANS OF DECEIT.

Two completely different things.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Once again you misuse the term "fraud."

To fail to live up to the terms of a VALID contract constitutes breach of contract, NOT fraud.

Fraud is to profit unjustly at the expense of another BY MEANS OF DECEIT.

Two completely different things.

fraudNoun/frôd/
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

fraud·u·lentAdjective/ˈfrôjələnt/
1. Obtained, done by, or involving deception, esp. criminal deception: "the fraudulent copying of American software".
2. Unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities.

You break the contractual agreement and you have become fraudulent in your obtaining of property.

 

[Travlyr]

Great. I think people should be compensated for their efforts as well.

I would like to know how you would compensate an inventor for R&D. Please share.

Is "IP" necessary for that to happen? No.

Perhaps. Share your idea on how an inventor/creator will receive just compensation for their efforts if not for IP.

Does "IP" infringe on real property rights? Yes.

Baloney.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

individual human being is sovereign = owns self
individual human being owns self= ownership of time,energy and talents
individual human being owning time,energy and talents= ownership of what is produced by time,energy,and talents
individual owns product=property

property is mutually given, and with contractual agreement or agreements depending on the actual contract between 2 property owners.To say that no contract is legitimate between 2 property owners is to debase their sovereignty ,or to debase 1 or the other persons sovereignty.

fraud :
1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.


Wrong.

When a contractual agreement is made between 2 sovereign property owners that contractual agreement must be upheld for it to be consent. Otherwise it can become fraud. To debase the contractual agreement is to void the very existence of property and contradict the sovereignty.



See the pattern?[/QUOTE]
Yes. You keep making factually incorrect and logically faulty statements, and I keep correcting you. How many more pages would you like to do this?