Intellectual Property rights

[Mr Tansill]

​

That's fantastic...really.

But I LOL'd when I heard the narrator acknowledge that if the producer of knowledge or any product wants to keep it secret they can do so by contractual agreement!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

He later qualified his position by it by calling it "highly demanding" and "nonsensical" blah, blah, blah...that's the decision of each individual to make.

DAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!

Once the anti-IP side removes itself from the "abstract" realm of "intellectual" property, the problem becomes completely solvent, and the previously supposed difficulties evaporate.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein

 

[CCTelander]

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.

So what? His labor doesn't ENTITLE him to anything. Like everyone else he's free to ATTEMPT to profit from his efforts in the free market. He gets NO GUARANTEE of success.

I can (and HAVE) spend years upon years building up my own business. Then, a competitor comes along and does what I do better, or more efficiently, or improves upon my product making theirs more desirable to the general public. I go out of business due to lost market share.

Did my competitor "steal" my profits? Of course not.

EVERYONE who enters the market is subject to market forces. Period. You don't get a guarantee of profit just because you invested significant resources in your attempt.

 

[CCTelander]

That's fantastic...really.

But I LOL'd when I heard the narrator acknowledge that if the producer of knowledge or any product wants to keep it secret they can do so by contractual agreement!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

He later qualified his position by it by calling it "highly demanding" and "nonsensical" blah, blah, blah...that's the decision of each individual to make.

DAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!

Once the anti-IP side removes itself from the "abstract" realm of "intellectual" property, the problem becomes completely solvent, and the previously supposed difficulties evaporate.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein

One wonders why you appear to be gloating so since NOBODY has argued that innovators do not have the right to ATTEMPT to protect their innovations through the use of LEGITIMATE contractual agreements. NDAs for example.

Better luck next time.

 

[Mr Tansill]

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

Exactly. The issue is that the anti-IP side will not delineate between an abstract idea that is the computer, car, airplane, music, or whatever, and the specific cases of those "abstractions" such as Dell/Visio, Ford/Toyota, Boeing/Airbus, Microsoft/Apple, Wolfram/Maple, Led Zeppelin/Lady Gaga, you name it...

No one owns the abstraction of the "computer" or "music" or "airplane" - no one on the IP side denies this. What the anti-IP side is doing is improperly extending the inability to own these "ideas/abstractions" to specific instances as well. "Oh, because no one can own "music," that means no one can own a specific arrangement of notes..." "because no one can own a computer," translates in their world to "no one can own Windows 7."

 

[Mr Tansill]

One wonders why you appear to be gloating so since NOBODY has argued that innovators do not have the right to ATTEMPT to protect their innovations through the use of LEGITIMATE contractual agreements. NDAs for example.

Better luck next time.

Dude, if you acquiesce that...it's all I was after - a legitimate acknowledgement that voluntary contractual agreements are a way for artists and other innovators to protect their specific work.

 

[CCTelander]

Dude, if you acquiesce that...it's all I was after - a legitimate acknowledgement that voluntary contractual agreements are a way for artists and other innovators to protect their specific work.

Once again, LEGITIMATE contracts are indeed a way for them to ATTEMPT to do so.

I think, however, that the results would turn out to be significantly different than you seem to be imagining.

 

[Travlyr]

So what? His labor doesn't ENTITLE him to anything. Like everyone else he's free to ATTEMPT to profit from his efforts in the free market. He gets NO GUARANTEE of success.

I can (and HAVE) spend years upon years building up my own business. Then, a competitor comes along and does what I do better, or more efficiently, or improves upon my product making theirs more desirable to the general public. I go out of business due to lost market share.

EVERYONE who enters the market is subject to market forces. Period. You don't get a guarantee of profit just because you invested significant resources in your attempt.

Nobody is guaranteeing anybody anything. IP laws allow the original creator an opportunity to recover previous costs of research and development because those costs are real. IP laws promote innovation for profit. Anti-IP laws stifle original innovation by making it nearly impossible for inventors to recoup the costs of the original R&D.

 

[CCTelander]

Nobody is guaranteeing anybody anything. IP laws allow the original creator an opportunity to recover previous costs of research and development because those costs are real. IP laws promote innovation for profit. Anti-IP laws stifle original innovation by making it nearly impossible for inventors to recoup the costs of the original R&D.

Bullshit from start to finish.

You ARE attempting to guarantee the innovator the RIGHT to PROFIT from his innovation by excluding anyone else from such an attempt, by granting him a monopoly. He has no such right. He has ONLY the right to TRY to profit.

The costs of building and improving my business are very real as well. Am I then guaranteed a right to recover those? Of course not, merely the right to ATTEMPT to recover them by entering the market and competing to the best of my ability.

IP laws DO NOT promote innovation. They stifle it and gradually centralize the ownership of ideas in the hands of major multi-national corporations like Disney, granting these corps an unfair advantage in the market. IP laws usually do NO GOOD WHATEVER for the small creator or innovator.

I really, REALLY wish that people would actually spend some time learning about a topic before they jump in and start arguing about it. Virtually everything you said is factually incorrect, yet you, and others persist in asserting these same erroneous claims. It gets tiresome.

 

[Travlyr]

If any of you creators out there believe that you should be compensated for your devotion, your skills, and hard earned efforts then certain IP laws may start to make sense.

If so PM Conza because he knows everything. This bullshit is in his signature.

Intellectually dishonest trolls on my ignore list: Travlyr, Jake Halston, newbitech.
If you consider a response of there's convincing (highly unlikely) & want a rebuttal: pm me for enlightenment.

 

[Travlyr]

Bullshit from start to finish.

You ARE attempting to guarantee the innovator the RIGHT to PROFIT from his innovation by excluding anyone else from such an attempt, by granting him a monopoly. He has no such right. He has ONLY the right to TRY to profit.

The costs of building and improving my business are very real as well. Am I then guaranteed a right to recover those? Of course not, merely the right to ATTEMPT to recover them by entering the market and competing to the best of my ability.

IP laws DO NOT promote innovation. They stifle it and gradually centralize the ownership of ideas in the hands of major multi-national corporations like Disney, granting these corps an unfair advantage in the market. IP laws usually do NO GOOD WHATEVER for the small creator or innovator.

I really, REALLY wish that people would actually spend some time learning about a topic before they jump in and start arguing about it. Virtually everything you said is factually incorrect, yet you, and others persist in asserting these same erroneous claims. It gets tiresome.

Not all IP laws are the same.

 

[Mr Tansill]

Once again, LEGITIMATE contracts are indeed a way for them to ATTEMPT to do so.

I think, however, that the results would turn out to be significantly different than you seem to be imagining.

Legitimate = Voluntary

Attempt = Enforceable in court

I'm not imagining anything really...probably wouldn't look much different than right now.

Murder is against the law, and it still occurs. The whole point of a body of law is to provide a common agreement a society can form upon. An agreement between a producer of an idea and the consumer of an idea would be voluntary.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

R&D people do get paid. They get paychecks. You're conflating residuals (an unjust transfer of wealth) with compensation. As has been reiterated over and over, you're perfectly free to sell your product and profit from it. But once it's out there, you've lost control of it. The owners can do whatever they want with it. If you really believe that this eats into your profit, don't sell it at all. Keep your IP to yourself or someplace where others can't (theoretically) copy it. Only play your music in concert halls, only display your paintings in galleries, etc., so people have to pay every time they observe your work. But, even if you do this, you risk someone like me who can remember melodies, images, words, etc. and copy them down after the show.

Do you pay the person who made your door every time you use it? Of course not. Even if you were good enough with woodwork and could copy the door, the craftsman would be foolish to try and claim you "stole" it from him.

Go back to where I posted the definition of "theft" and review it a few times so you understand it. That way you can stop using this sort of fallacious reasoning.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Bullshit from start to finish.

You ARE attempting to guarantee the innovator the RIGHT to PROFIT from his innovation by excluding anyone else from such an attempt, by granting him a monopoly. He has no such right. He has ONLY the right to TRY to profit.

The costs of building and improving my business are very real as well. Am I then guaranteed a right to recover those? Of course not, merely the right to ATTEMPT to recover them by entering the market and competing to the best of my ability.

IP laws DO NOT promote innovation. They stifle it and gradually centralize the ownership of ideas in the hands of major multi-national corporations like Disney, granting these corps an unfair advantage in the market. IP laws usually do NO GOOD WHATEVER for the small creator or innovator.

I really, REALLY wish that people would actually spend some time learning about a topic before they jump in and start arguing about it. Virtually everything you said is factually incorrect, yet you, and others persist in asserting these same erroneous claims. It gets tiresome.

This^^ +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

[Mr Tansill]

Do you pay the person who made your door every time you use it? Of course not. Even if you were good enough with woodwork and could copy the door, the craftsman would be foolish to try and claim you "stole" it from him.

No dumbass, but neither do you, the purchaser of the door, once you own it, replicate it 50,000,000 times and give it away for free!!!!!

 

[low preference guy]

R&D people do get paid. They get paychecks. You're conflating residuals (an unjust transfer of wealth) with compensation. As has been reiterated over and over, you're perfectly free to sell your product and profit from it. But once it's out there, you've lost control of it. The owners can do whatever they want with it.

I disagree with this. If there is a contract involved, the owner can be restricted.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

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?

If I was to take them to court to dispute property, they would call it "government violence". The irony is that the anti-ip advocates believe in a hocus pocus form of economy in which no civil government exists because no matter how you put it, they view civil government as "use of violence" when disputing property .

 

[Travlyr]

R&D people do get paid. They get paychecks. You're conflating residuals (an unjust transfer of wealth) with compensation. As has been reiterated over and over, you're perfectly free to sell your product and profit from it. But once it's out there, you've lost control of it. The owners can do whatever they want with it. If you really believe that this eats into your profit, don't sell it at all. Keep your IP to yourself or someplace where others can't (theoretically) copy it. Only play your music in concert halls, only display your paintings in galleries, etc., so people have to pay every time they observe your work. But, even if you do this, you risk someone like me who can remember melodies, images, words, etc. and copy them down after the show.

Do you pay the person who made your door every time you use it? Of course not. Even if you were good enough with woodwork and could copy the door, the craftsman would be foolish to try and claim you "stole" it from him.

Go back to where I posted the definition of "theft" and review it a few times so you understand it. That way you can stop using this sort of fallacious reasoning.

Total false argument. I'm not saying IP laws have to extend indefinitely. I'm claiming that IP laws level the playing field for innovators.

A man INVESTS time and money into a project. Another man comes along and says, "Hey nice machine" I think I'll copy it and sell them. The man who did not make the investment of time and money has the competitive advantage because he has no R&D investment. That's theft and bullshit.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Mustang, the fundamental disagreements are:

What is property?
Why do we have property?

We do not agree on the answers, and these are essential questions.

and also

What constitutes fraud?

 

[low preference guy]

A man INVESTS time and money into a project. Another man comes along and says, "Hey nice machine" I think I'll copy it and sell them. The man who did not make the investment of time and money has the competitive advantage because he has no R&D investment. That's theft and bullshit.

That's only if the creator CHOOSES to give somebody else access to his machine. If somebody breaks his door to access the machine of course we are opposed to that and the criminal should go to jail.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Your specific body is what I refer to. Not 'human body.' Your specific body is a pattern in the Universe. In fact, everything is just patterns. Patterns of matter and energy.

anti-ip got pwned.