Intellectual Property rights

[noneedtoaggress]

say goodnight to karl marx for me

//

 

[CCTelander]

that was answered several times. you ignored the answers.

Ignoring any evidence he disagrees with seems to be SOP for Cap. Too bad, really.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Ignoring any evidence he disagrees with seems to be SOP for Cap. Too bad, really.

yes when I present an argument you immediately throw your hands up and say "YOU CANT SAY THAT" lol because in your world "fraud " and "fraudulent" do not exist. say goodnight to karl marx

 

[SpicyTurkey]

yes when I present an argument you immediately throw your hands up and say "YOU CANT SAY THAT" lol because in your world "fraud " and "fraudulent" do not exist. say goodnight to karl marx

Go to sleep already. hahaha

 

[CCTelander]

It's all moot anyway. At least so far as movies, music, software, any printed material, etc. are concerned, IP is already dead. Technology has killed it and it's only going to get worse.

So, those of us opposed to IP have, in effect, already won by default.

Adapt or die.

 

[Xenophage]

I, as an artist and musician and owning a gaming company am concerned about IP. I see many posts where folks call down the idea of IP. If we have no IP alot of stories will go untold. Folks making a movie with characters can be pre-empted and ripped off by lessor productions capitalising on any buzz the production has created. Folks could just recompile The Beatles recordings and sell them. How do I stop folks from ripping my artwork off from within my games, using publicly available tools and a bit of savvy and making their own game using my art chops and even my code? These are just a few examples. I can come up with dozens. I think this will kill an entire section of the economy. Prove me wrong. If you are taking the course of proving me wrong then explain to me why i should stay in a business where my work can be ripped and kill my profits and my ability to grow my IP into movie, music, character and other franchises.

Rev9

I have had this argument with Rothbardian IP-haters on here for years. It's gotten quite heated at some times.

They want to be able to profit for free off the intellectual effort of people more creative than them. That's intellectual slavery. And they claim to love freedom? It's an unbelievable contradiction in their general philosophy - but Rothbardian libertarians generally do not have a cohesive philosophy from which their political ideas flow. For a more rational, consistent defense of liberty look to Ayn Rand. She and I agree: intellectual property exists, it is just as essential to human beings as any other form of property, and needs to be protected.

A lot of people on this thread think musicians ought to be selfless charities, donating the fruits of their hard work for free to any asshole who thinks he deserves to have a good time. Fuck. That. I don't give two shits about anyone who wants to rip me off. Just as bad as a fucking liberal, except maybe worse, since these "libertarians" masquerade as defenders of freedom. I'll die before I give up my rights to my intellectual property.

Or, more likely, I'll simply stop producing or sharing my work.

 

[Xenophage]

Thankfully Ron Paul is not anti-IP, despite his association with lowlifes from the Mises Institute. At least, he's never come across that way. If he was, I'd drop him in a heartbeat.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Thankfully Ron Paul is not anti-IP, despite his association with lowlifes from the Mises Institute. At least, he's never come across that way. If he was, I'd drop him in a heartbeat.

agreed fully.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I have had this argument with Rothbardian IP-haters on here for years. It's gotten quite heated at some times.

They want to be able to profit for free off the intellectual effort of people more creative than them. That's intellectual slavery. And they claim to love freedom? It's an unbelievable contradiction in their general philosophy - but Rothbardian libertarians generally do not have a cohesive philosophy from which their political ideas flow. For a more rational, consistent defense of liberty look to Ayn Rand. She and I agree: intellectual property exists, it is just as essential to human beings as any other form of property, and needs to be protected.

A lot of people on this thread think musicians ought to be selfless charities, donating the fruits of their hard work for free to any asshole who thinks he deserves to have a good time. Fuck. That. I don't give two shits about anyone who wants to rip me off. Just as bad as a fucking liberal, except maybe worse, since these "libertarians" masquerade as defenders of freedom. I'll die before I give up my rights to my intellectual property.

Or, more likely, I'll simply stop producing or sharing my work.

I think you're safe, this piece of fiction you made up is pretty much worthless.

 

[low preference guy]

I have had this argument with Rothbardian IP-haters on here for years. It's gotten quite heated at some times.

They want to be able to profit for free off the intellectual effort of people more creative than them. That's intellectual slavery. And they claim to love freedom? It's an unbelievable contradiction in their general philosophy - but Rothbardian libertarians generally do not have a cohesive philosophy from which their political ideas flow. For a more rational, consistent defense of liberty look to Ayn Rand. She and I agree: intellectual property exists, it is just as essential to human beings as any other form of property, and needs to be protected.

A lot of people on this thread think musicians ought to be selfless charities, donating the fruits of their hard work for free to any asshole who thinks he deserves to have a good time. Fuck. That. I don't give two shits about anyone who wants to rip me off. Just as bad as a fucking liberal, except maybe worse, since these "libertarians" masquerade as defenders of freedom. I'll die before I give up my rights to my intellectual property.

Or, more likely, I'll simply stop producing or sharing my work.

huge straw man. i consider it proven that one should be able to used scarce goods as property, so I want that form of property to be protected (which i consider the only form of property but i digress). to have more laws than those which protect this form of property, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate for "intellectual property", and they simply haven't been able to produce convincing arguments. moreover, IP laws impose arbitrary obligations on people who never agreed to them, while at the same time violating their property rights.

my position has nothing to do with wanting to live free off of others. in fact, the goods i produce could be protected by IP laws, but i manage to live fine without them, as many others. the fact that you attack people's motives and outright invent things about them shows that you don't have a good case and resort to desperate strategies.

 

[CCTelander]

I have had this argument with Rothbardian IP-haters on here for years. It's gotten quite heated at some times.

They want to be able to profit for free off the intellectual effort of people more creative than them. That's intellectual slavery. And they claim to love freedom? It's an unbelievable contradiction in their general philosophy - but Rothbardian libertarians generally do not have a cohesive philosophy from which their political ideas flow. For a more rational, consistent defense of liberty look to Ayn Rand. She and I agree: intellectual property exists, it is just as essential to human beings as any other form of property, and needs to be protected.

A lot of people on this thread think musicians ought to be selfless charities, donating the fruits of their hard work for free to any asshole who thinks he deserves to have a good time. Fuck. That. I don't give two shits about anyone who wants to rip me off. Just as bad as a fucking liberal, except maybe worse, since these "libertarians" masquerade as defenders of freedom. I'll die before I give up my rights to my intellectual property.

Or, more likely, I'll simply stop producing or sharing my work.

"I'll die before I give up my rights to my intellectual property."

I call bullshit. I seriously doubt that you'd risk your own personal safety defending your so-called IP "rights" for even one second. Much more likely that you'd send a state sanctioned thug out to risk THEIR personal safety enforcing your imaginary "rights" by killing or caging some poor schmuck for the horrendous crime of downloading an MP3.

Regardless, the whole thing is moot anyway.

The battle is over. You guys got to the field too late. The market has spoken.

IP is dead. Technology killed it.

Adapt or die.

 

[Mr Tansill]

Wow. Just, fucking wow...I left this thread about 8 hours ago and it was overgrown then...now I check it briefly and it's nearly DOUBLED in size to become behemoth in stature...

Of course (after skimming the last 8 hours of enlightened discussion), no one on the anti-IP side has actually ANSWERED my previous critique that artists and anyone else (software engineers, et al) can execute a valid way to protect the fruits of their labor through contractual agreement with their consumers/customers. The reason for this is precisely because it provides a VALID solution to a problem they wish and desire to remain unsolved. That problem being they can no longer find "moral" justification for stealing another's work. A justification existing in the current paradigm which supports intellectual property.

Now that I realize this fact, I recognize what's really going on here. There are a few, possibly many, interlopers, infiltrating the liberty movement on this board spreading their socialist agenda with the precise purpose of engaging me in an open-ended argument whose function is to distract myself and others from supporting the Presidential Campaign of my man Ron Paul. It won't work, this is a critical time in our campaign, and now I see that the other side is going to great lengths to undermine it - no sane, liberty-believing individual could possibly support such a naive world-view that all people are entitled to the results of someone else's time, energy, and money. It cannot be reconciled with a libertarian conscience - the two are mutually exclusive. 2 + 2 = 4, not 5.

My message to you socialists/feudalists/fascists is this: place both hands around your neck and squeeze. Take your "liberty" elsewhere.

 

[low preference guy]

Wow. Just, fucking wow...I left this thread about 8 hours ago and it was overgrown then...now I check it briefly and it's nearly DOUBLED in size to become behemoth in stature...

Of course (after skimming the last 8 hours of enlightened discussion), no one on the anti-IP side has actually ANSWERED my previous critique that artists and anyone else (software engineers, et al) can execute a valid way to protect the fruits of their labor through contractual agreement with their consumers/customers.

I already showed you that contractual agreement to prevent copies is not the same as IP-law, because IP law binds everyone even those who didn't agree to anything, unlike a contract that binds only those who agreed to it. No matter how hard you close your eyes and put your hands to your ears, the holes in your argument won't go away.

 

[Mr Tansill]

I already showed you that contractual agreement to prevent copies is not the same as IP-law, because IP law binds everyone even those who didn't agreed to anything, unlike a contract that binds only those who agreed to it. No matter how hard you close your eyes and put your hands in your ears, the holes in your argument won't go away.

I said choke yourself.

 

[CCTelander]

I already showed you that contractual agreement to prevent copies is not the same as IP-law, because IP law binds everyone even those who didn't agree to anything, unlike a contract that binds only those who agreed to it. No matter how hard you close your eyes and put your hands to your ears, the holes in your argument won't go away.

Amazing how the pro-IP crowd consistently do exactly that (ignore valid arguments), isn't it?

 

[CCTelander]

I said choke yourself.

We love you too Mr. T.

Adapt or face the same fate as did the buggy manufacturers.

 

[low preference guy]

I said choke yourself.

Wow, that convinced me! I'm pro-IP now!

 

[Xenophage]

Wow, that convinced me! I'm pro-IP now!

You'll rationalize just about any way you can to continue profiting from the intellectual efforts of other people. No matter how you slice it, that is the root of what you seek: to be a parasite.

"What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.

An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.

It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it—but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in nature—an object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed.

The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal."

Ayn Rand, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You'll rationalize just about any way you can to continue profiting from the intellectual efforts of other people. No matter how you slice it, that is the root of what you seek: to be a parasite.

"What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.

An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.

It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it—but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in nature—an object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed.

The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal."

Ayn Rand, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"

Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property. ~Ayn Rand

They will never compute this quote.

 

[Xenophage]

"I'll die before I give up my rights to my intellectual property."

The battle is over. You guys got to the field too late. The market has spoken.

IP is dead. Technology killed it.

Adapt or die.

The market has spoken? Laughable!

The "market was speaking" during the African slave trade. Is that supposed to be some sort of defense? Hey, technology improved then, too! The Europeans had rifles!