Question about piracy as theft

[WaltM]

Not really... in the software piracy world this works the same way. You are held to the terms of the EULA that the product ships with regardless of whether the version YOU installed ever presented that EULA to you. For instance if someone buys a phone and agrees to the EULA and then sells it to you and all you have to do is update it to your number you are still assumed to have agreed to the EULA without ever having read it. Same thing with the copyright notice. You are held responsible for the knowledge of that copyright notice regardless of if you ever bought the media, read the notice, or even walked past a store that contained it, but you downloaded it or got a copy that had no such notice included.

SOunds like Matt's pointing out to you, that EULA comes in, where copyright protection leaves off, they're both enforceable though.

 

[WaltM]

So the government intervening in my duplication of something I can easily copy is not intervention.

So the government intervening in my stealing of something I can easily steal is not intervention.

So the government intervening in my robbing of somebody I can easily rob is not intervention.

So the government intervening in my beating of somebody I can easily beat is not intervention.

Since when was crime decided on how easy it is to do something? What I meant to say was, copyright protection is not the sole result of government intervention, but the inevitable result of logically extending property protection.

 

[WaltM]

You are subject to federal copyright law whether you agree to it or not or whether or not there is notice.

ONE SIMPLE FACT I'd like to see somebody in here challenge.

 

[low preference guy]

copyright protection is not the sole result of government intervention, but the inevitable result of logically extending property protection.

that would be true is such thing as "intellectual property" existed.

 

[WaltM]

that would be true is such thing as "intellectual property" existed.

it exists if the powers that be, and the people who benefit from it says it does.

your property and rights don't exist either if they deny it, can you disagree?

 

[low preference guy]

it exists if the powers that be, and the people who benefit from it says it does.

your property and rights don't exist either if they deny it, can you disagree?

disagree, but the explanation is the size of a book, because it requires to carefully define what rights are. i'm not going to explain it, but if you're curious, the explanation can be found in "moral rights and political freedom".

 

[WaltM]

disagree, but the explanation is the size of a book

So when a person has you at gun point, make sure you have the book handy to explain it to him.

, because it requires to carefully define what rights are. i'm not going to explain it, but if you're curious, the explanation can be found in "moral rights and political freedom".

does that book deny a person's right to claim intellectual property?

 

[low preference guy]

does that book deny a person's right to claim intellectual property?

no, that one only explain what rights are. the book that opposes intellectual property is against intellectual property by kinsella (full pdf), but i haven't read that one, so can't recommend. my argument is basically that government action has to be strongly justified, and i only found justification to protect the right to life and private property, which is physical property. "intellectual property" seems to me to create a huge mess and i find it quite arbitrary.

 

[low preference guy]

So when a person has you at gun point, make sure you have the book handy to explain it to him.

that's like saying when someone feels like drinking poison, you need to explain the chemical properties and the laws of nature to convince him of what he is doing is harmful in two words. what an idiotic statement.

when someone wants to kill you because he thinks you aggrieved him, explain to him in a few seconds the doctrine of division of powers and how he should do it through the courts. again, what an idiotic notion.

your statement shows your ignorance of history. you fail to understand that the concept of rights was developed in centuries, and accelerated during the enlightenment. it can't be explained to a thief in a few seconds but the idea was nevertheless used.

 

[WaltM]

no, that one only explain what rights are.

DOes that definition include or exclude right to intellectual property?

If not, you can't use that to tell you have property rights, but not intellectual property rights, can you?

Besides, if you need a whole book to explain something, it's not unalienable or self evident, is it?

the book that opposes intellectual property is against intellectual property by kinsella (full pdf), but i haven't read that one, so can't recommend. my argument is basically that government action has to be strongly justified, and i only found justification to protect the right to life and private property, which is physical property. "intellectual property" seems to me to create a huge mess and i find it quite arbitrary.

why isn't physical property arbitrary ? just because most people agree on it?
what would be "strongly justified" in your perfect world? That 80% of the country supports it?

 

[WaltM]

that's like saying when someone feels like drinking poison, you need to explain the chemical properties and the laws of nature to convince him of what he is doing is harmful in two words. what an idiotic statement.

No, you don't need to. You can tell him to try it and see if he's smarter.

when someone wants to kill you because he thinks you aggrieved him, explain to him in a few seconds the doctrine of division of powers and how he should do it through the courts. again, what an idiotic notion.

agreed. see what both cases have in common? RESULTS MATTER, not words.

your statement shows your ignorance of history. you fail to understand that the concept of rights was developed in centuries, and accelerated during the enlightenment. it can't be explained to a thief in a few seconds but the idea was nevertheless used.

No, I'm knowledgeable about how history was always written by victors. The concept of rights always existed, just changed back and forth. The idea was definitely used, not always in ways you'd like (or me).

 

[low preference guy]

DOes that definition include or exclude right to intellectual property?

If not, you can't use that to tell you have property rights, but not intellectual property rights, can you?

Besides, if you need a whole book to explain something, it's not unalienable or self evident, is it?



why isn't physical property arbitrary ? just because most people agree on it?
what would be "strongly justified" in your perfect world? That 80% of the country supports it?

i give up arguing. you can't have a conversation with someone who thinks that difficult concepts that were developed through centuries should be explain in a few seconds to a thief. i doubt your intellectual ability and won't waste my time.

 

[WaltM]

i give up arguing. you can't have a conversation with someone who thinks that difficult concepts that were developed through centuries should be explain in a few seconds to a thief. i doubt your intellectual ability and won't waste my time.

actually, I agree with you.

they ARE difficult concepts, making them NOT self evident, NOT obvious, and NOT unalienable, they took centuries to develop, making them NOT God-given, and NOT natural.

 

[low preference guy]

they ARE difficult concepts, making them NOT self evident, NOT obvious, and NOT unalienable, they took centuries to develop, making them NOT God-given, and NOT natural.

i never argued they were obvious or god-given. i'm extremely puzzled as to why you make such random claims.

 

[WaltM]

i never argued they were obvious or god-given. i'm extremely puzzled as to why you make such random claims.

I apologize for my mistake.

 

[low preference guy]

I apologize for my mistake.

ok. this is my best in a few words. the first question is why you should do or not do something. there has to be a first justification that does not depend in any others. for objectivists and the david hume, the answer is informally to have an enjoyable life. that's the ultimate goal. to maintain life, there are certain conditions that are needed, like an environment in which you can think freely and own property. you need food, so people should have to be able to own land which can't be taken away so they can plan and produce food. so, so far there are two things to protect: life and private property.

now, to add another protection, the burden of proof is on the one who wants to add a new thing to protect. protecting life is the ultimate goal, so doesn't need justification. protecting private property is an immediate requirement to protect life. but intellectual property is just arbitrary. life can just go on without intellectual property, so i think there's no need for it.

 

[WaltM]

ok. this is my best in a few words. the first question is why you should do or not do something. there has to be a first justification that does not depend in any others. for objectivists and the david hume, the answer is informally to have an enjoyable life. that's the ultimate goal. to maintain life, there are certain conditions that are needed, like an environment in which you can think freely and own property. you need food, so people should have to be able to own land which can't be taken away so they can plan and produce food. so, so far there are two things to protect: life and private property.

now, to add another protection, the burden of proof is on the one who wants to add a new thing to protect. protecting life is the ultimate goal, so doesn't need justification. protecting private property is an immediate requirement to protect life. but intellectual property is just arbitrary. life can just go on without intellectual property, so i think there's no need for it.

so if enough people said that life can't go on without IP protected as property, that'd be sufficient justification?

How do you know physical property (such as land) isnt complained about as arbitrary?

 

[low preference guy]

so if enough people said that life can't go on without IP protected as property, that'd be sufficient justification?

How do you know physical property (such as land) isnt complained about as arbitrary?

this is not a "formal argument", but if land can be taken away, it's pretty much impossible for people to produce food. no food=no life. it will be a constant war for land all the time if it isn't protected.

 

[low preference guy]

so if enough people said that life can't go on without IP protected as property, that'd be sufficient justification?

i don't really care about convincing people to abandon IP rights. after they are convinced that the war of drugs is unnecessary and they abolish legal tender laws, maybe then it will be possible to attempt to have a serious discussion about IP.

 

[low preference guy]

now let me ask you a question. why are certain intellectual products protected and others not? aaron russo said he coined the phrase "print money out of thin air". if novels are protected by IP, why not clever phrases? suppose aaron did in fact create that expression. why doesn't the government give russo the right to charge everyone who uses the phrase "print money out of thin air" one dollar per use? he will get probably $1000 per month just from the number of times it comes out of the mouth of ron paul.

creating such protection makes as much sense to me as protecting a novel. if you don't want your intellectual products to be used by others, don't reveal them. you can have a contract in a one on one basis, but if it is somehow leaked to the general public, to people who didn't sign a contract with you, they should be able to use it freely, unless you persuade them that they shouldn't use it or should pay you.