Intellectual Property rights

[CCTelander]

Negative. I cannot remove my song from your brain. Brains are the whole issue here. If the idea is never given material form - if it is just floating around inside your cranium as an abstract thought, I can't do anything about that and it doesn't matter anyhow, because IP does not exist until or unless an idea has been given physical form. As you correctly point out, I do not have any right to your brain. I can't force you to unlearn something.

Also, the act of experiencing a work of art is not the same as the act of copying it in *physical form*. Sure, a crude copy is stored somehow in your neurons, but to experience a work of art takes no meaningful action on the part of the listener or viewer. It is automatic. The recipient of the experience is engaged passively. If no action has taken place, no crime has taken place either. You cannot help that light goes into your eyes, or sound goes into your ears, and once its there it gets processed by your brain.

However, if you were to write the song down as sheet music, or record it, or generate a digital copy, *then* you would be engaged in IP theft, unless I had given you permission to do so. In that case I have every right to forcibly remove the copies from your possession.

Well, you dance really well, but all you're doing in actuality is dodging the issue.

Whether we're talking about the neurons of my brain, my hard drive, or the paper and ink I use to write out a score, the PRINCIPLE is EXACTLY the same. These are ALL MY PERSONAL PROPERTY, justly acquired.

Exactly where, when and how did you JUSTLY acquire ANY LEVEL of ownership over any of these items of MY personal property?

Until you can provide a satisfactory answer to that question, your theory of IP fails.

 

[nobody's_hero]

The thread has doubled in size since I last posted in it, and yet all I see are the same exact points in favor of IP still being tossed around while all of the counterpoints explained by myself and many others against IP continue to be ignored..

I'm sure that's how the pro-IP crowd sees it as well, just vice versa.

 

[nobody's_hero]

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.

Bingo.

 

[goldencane]

Pro IP'ers, answer me this. If two people come up with the same product or same idea, completely independent and unknowing of eachother (which happens fairly often), but one person gets the IP protection just before the other person is able to. The second person put in just as much time, just as much effort, has just as much talent. How is it fair that he can not use his product or idea for profit?

What if it is the same premise, but the guy is from another country and does not know about IP laws. He still came up with his idea or product completely independently and unknowing of the person in the US that has the same idea. How is it fair that he can not use the "product" of his time, effort, and talent for profit?

Once again, because ideas and knowledge are not exclusive to one person at one time, one person can not be granted sole ownership to those ideas or knowledge.

 

[goldencane]

edit: double post

 

[YumYum]

"Who" is ripping off "who"?

Recently, the RIAA announced their intention to sue LimeWire for $75 trillion in damages - a sum greater than the current GDP of the entire global economy. There are currently around 11,000 songs on LimeWire that have been tagged as copyright-infringed, and the RIAA estimates that each one has been downloaded thousands of times, the penalties accruing to the above sum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LimeWire

 

[nobody's_hero]

Property rights have a purpose: to support human life, to allow us to be civilized rather than tribal. We don't have 'property' just because it sounds nice. By betraying the mind as the creator of value, you're betraying the very core of the root of what is property. You cannot defend property intellectually without also defending intellectual property.

It says I can't give you any more rep at the moment. PM me so I'll remember to give you some for this later.

 

[nobody's_hero]

"Who" is ripping off "who"?

Limewire should have contracted with musicians who were willingly interested in spreading their music for free. Instead, it helped itself to the artwork of musicians who valued their work (and the record labels that those musicians signed licenses with), so it got sued.

People aren't going to get what they sue for, but they'll get something. This happens all the time. They'll probably get what each copy of each song is worth as sold in an album in a store multiplied by the number of downloads that occurred, plus litigation fees. It sucks to be limewire, but they could easily have avoided the whole fiasco by asking permission from artists to redistribute their songs.

 

[Conza88]

​

 

[low preference guy]

I'm not playing psychologist, but we're both playing philosopher. There's nothing wrong with that.

If you're not an anarcho-capitalist, then your argument about using the government to retaliate against criminals makes little sense. Do you think there's a need for a criminal justice system?

what's the connection between being an anarcho-capitalist and IP? how does not being in favor of anarcho-capitalism implies one is in favor of IP?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Dear lord is this thread still going?

There isn't even anything new in here, just Pro-IP'ers complaining about the opposition and patting each others back over it. Not even an argument.

 

[CCTelander]

Dear lord is this thread still going?

There isn't even anything new in here, just Pro-IP'ers complaining about the opposition and patting each others back over it. Not even an argument.

Not even a straight answer to direct questions. Just the usual dodging and ignoring.

Kind of telling, don't you think?

 

[josh b]

This thread is making me depressed about the fate of the liberty movement.

 

[Travlyr]

I think most people are in awe that you guys argue for theft from others.

A man devotes years of his life researching and developing a motor that runs on hydrogen and exhausts water. He brings his invention to market, and you guys would allow anyone (an established factory owner who already has the equipment that can be modified to produce this man's invention bought and paid for so he has total advantage to produce the engines immediately) can copy his invention without paying just compensation for the man's R&D.

No thanks.

 

[CCTelander]

I think most people are in awe that you guys argue for theft from others.

A man devotes years of his life researching and developing a motor that runs on hydrogen and exhausts water. He brings his invention to market, and you guys would allow anyone (an established factory owner who already has the equipment that can be modified to produce this man's invention bought and paid for so he has total advantage to produce the engines immediately) can copy his invention without paying just compensation for the man's R&D.

No thanks.

The whole of human civilization is firmly based upon copying and improving upon the innovations of others.

"We stand on the shoulders of giants."

There is NO theft involved. The original innovator is still free to use his innovation as he sees fit. NOTHING has been taken from him.

And, yet once again, that Marxist labor theory of value pops up.

 

[Mr Tansill]

Question:

Does the anti-IP side believe in the right to trademark?

Simple Yes or No.

 

[goldencane]

Travlyr, Xenophage, CaptainAmerica, Revolution9, Mr Tansill, and other IP'ers:

Pro IP'ers, answer me this. If two people come up with the same product or same idea, completely independent and unknowing of eachother (which happens fairly often), but one person gets the IP protection just before the other person is able to. The second person put in just as much time, just as much effort, has just as much talent. How is it fair that he can not use his product or idea for profit?

What if it is the same premise, but the guy is from another country and does not know about IP laws. He still came up with his idea or product completely independently and unknowing of the person in the US that has the same idea. How is it fair that he can not use the "product" of his time, effort, and talent for profit?

Once again, because ideas and knowledge are not exclusive to one person at one time, one person can not be granted sole ownership to those ideas or knowledge.

 

[Travlyr]

The whole of human civilization is firmly based upon copying and improving upon the innovations of others.

"We stand on the shoulders of giants."

There is NO theft involved. The original innovator is still free to use his innovation as he sees fit. NOTHING has been taken from him.

And, yet once again, that Marxist labor theory of value pops up.

No theft? What about the years of labor expended in research and development that the factory owner got for free? That is theft.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I think most people are in awe that you guys argue for theft from others.

A man devotes years of his life researching and developing a motor that runs on hydrogen and exhausts water. He brings his invention to market, and you guys would allow anyone (an established factory owner who already has the equipment that can be modified to produce this man's invention bought and paid for so he has total advantage to produce the engines immediately) can copy his invention without paying just compensation for the man's R&D.

No thanks.

The amazing thing is that you keep throwing around the word "theft" in the vain hope that repeating it will make it true. I'll repeat this again-not even the law as it is uses the word "theft" or any synonym or related term. That is just empty rhetoric thrown around by pro-IPers in hopes of making the issue emotional rather than logical.

 

[Travlyr]

The amazing thing is that you keep throwing around the word "theft" in the vain hope that repeating it will make it true. I'll repeat this again-not even the law as it is uses the word "theft" or any synonym or related term. That is just empty rhetoric thrown around by pro-IPers in hopes of making the issue emotional rather than logical.

No it is not an emotional issue. If a man spends years upon years working on a project using his own resources that is a serious investment. R&D is valid work that deserves compensation. Stealing the R&D investment from the man is theft in my book.