Question about piracy as theft

[LibertarianfromGermany]

very cute, so you're not against counterfeiting currency or ID theft, right? Since nobody owns the information, copying only makes MORE not LESS!

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'm gonna answer it anyway: I personally am not against counterfeiting currency. The problem with currency is, that the paper is supposed to be the money itself, and the fact that you can "counterfeit" it is what makes it terribly unsuited as a currency. If you used a hard money like gold or silver, you wouldn't have those problems.

Both with ID theft and counterfeiting promises to hard money (i.e. paper redeemable paper money), it is a little different. If you just "lie", i.e. pretend to be someone else or try to pay with fake money, I'm not for using force on that individual. If, on the other hand, you made a contract with another person in which you guarantee the authenticity of your ID/Money and you break that contract, you are to be punished for that.

 

[randolphfuller]

I can understand anyone being upset with Rand over his fondness for Guantanamo prison and military tribunals, but is supporting Jak Conway really the answer? Will not a Conway victory be seen as a defeat for Ron Paul?

 

[WaltM]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'm gonna answer it anyway: I personally am not against counterfeiting currency. The problem with currency is, that the paper is supposed to be the money itself, and the fact that you can "counterfeit" it is what makes it terribly unsuited as a currency. If you used a hard money like gold or silver, you wouldn't have those problems.

Both with ID theft and counterfeiting promises to hard money (i.e. paper redeemable paper money), it is a little different. If you just "lie", i.e. pretend to be someone else or try to pay with fake money, I'm not for using force on that individual. If, on the other hand, you made a contract with another person in which you guarantee the authenticity of your ID/Money and you break that contract, you are to be punished for that.

how convenient, so as long as I never explicitly say I'm guaranteeing anything, you can never say I lied or defrauded you.

Are you assuming gold can't be counterfeited?

 

[WaltM]

now let me ask you a question. why are certain intellectual products protected and others not?

Because they are not of equal value.

That's why some houses sell for $1000, some sell for 1000x that.

aaron russo said he coined the phrase "print money out of thin air". if novels are protected by IP, why not clever phrases?

Depends on their uniqueness and value.

Are you telling me you don't know the difference between a 200 page novel and a 50 letter sentence? (besides, information isn't valued by its length anyway)

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?

Depends on whether he copyrighted or trademarked it.
Depends on whether people reuse it for profit or for other purposes.

he will get probably $1000 per month just from the number of times it comes out of the mouth of ron paul.

Yeah? So?

And novel writers dont make millions a year by people reading their books?

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.

If you don't want to tip, don't eat at a restaurant.
If you don't want to be taxed, don't work for income.
If you don't think wages without tips are enough, don't work that job.
If you don't want your car stolen, put on 20 locks.
If you don't want people killing you in your sleep, DON'T SLEEP.

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.

like some have said in previous responses, so why should people who never agreed with laws be tried as criminals if they didn't agree to statutory laws?

 

[low preference guy]

like some have said in previous responses, so why should people who never agreed with laws be tried as criminals if they didn't agree to statutory laws?

i don't approach the law that way. i approach it like this: i want to live and i want the protection of life and private property to be enforced, so i do my best to convince people -i might fail- to establish a government to protect those things. i care about having enough people wanting the government act that way. whether there are people who didn't agree to the laws that protect my life and property, i don't care about that. if they violate my rights, i want them prosecuted. end of story. no need for complexities about agreeing or not agreeing with the law.

 

[low preference guy]

Because they are not of equal value.

That's why some houses sell for $1000, some sell for 1000x that.

the price should be set by the owner of the expression if it's their property. if he wants to create a phrase and charge $1000000, he should be able to do that under the IP system, just like he can set the price of his novel to $1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 if he so desires.

 

[Matt Collins]

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"

Creative works of art are protected "the instant they are fixed in a tangible medium of expression".

So it has to be creative, and it has to be fixed for it to be "copyprivileged".

If you are referring to trademark, it just has to be used in commerce and different enough from anyone else in the same market.

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.

There has to be what's called a "deminimus degree of creativity". That means there has to be a minimal degree of creativity. Likely Russo's statement wouldn't qualify for copyprivilege protection because 6 common words is not considered very creative, not to mention I don't think he fixed it in a tangible medium of expression.

 

[Matt Collins]

so then even though you didn't specifically agree to EULA, or copyright laws, aren't you subject to them anyway?

Again EULA is an agreement meaning you have to agree to it (unless of course some idiot judge somewhere created case law to the contrary - then by definition it couldn't be an agreement though).

Is it fair to say EULA is an explicit agreement, whereas copyright law, patent law in general are statutory law, which apply to every person in the country, even if it's against his will, without his knowledge?

Yes pretty much.

 

[LibertarianfromGermany]

how convenient, so as long as I never explicitly say I'm guaranteeing anything, you can never say I lied or defrauded you.

Yes, if I don't explicitly agree to certain trade terms that you take for granted, you can't hold me liable for them.

Are you assuming gold can't be counterfeited?

Of course it can be, but if you have your trading partner sign a contract for the authenticity of the gold, you can prove to everyone that he, by having given you fake gold, is at fault and broke his contract. If you don't make a contract about the explicit composition of the goods traded, then in a technical sense, no fraud could have been initiated if the goods (even if they are not what you expected) are delivered.

 

[WaltM]

the price should be set by the owner of the expression if it's their property. if he wants to create a phrase and charge $1000000, he should be able to do that under the IP system, just like he can set the price of his novel to $1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 if he so desires.

when did I ever disagree with that?

and, when was an IP ever defended and protected against the owner's will?

 

[WaltM]

Yes, if I don't explicitly agree to certain trade terms that you take for granted, you can't hold me liable for them.

So can you hold a person to laws he never agreed to obey?

Of course it can be, but if you have your trading partner sign a contract for the authenticity of the gold, you can prove to everyone that he, by having given you fake gold, is at fault and broke his contract. If you don't make a contract about the explicit composition of the goods traded, then in a technical sense, no fraud could have been initiated if the goods (even if they are not what you expected) are delivered.

Ok

 

[WaltM]

There has to be what's called a "deminimus degree of creativity". That means there has to be a minimal degree of creativity. Likely Russo's statement wouldn't qualify for copyprivilege protection because 6 common words is not considered very creative, not to mention I don't think he fixed it in a tangible medium of expression.

but you can register any phrase as your trademark, right?

otherwise i don't see how ING Direct can do this:

 

[Koz]

Piracy is theft you fools, it is stealing somone's intellectual 'property'.

If I write a book and sell it to a person, then you make copies off of that book you are stealing my intellectual property.

This is a ridiculous post.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Translation
Let me try to bring in any irrelevant situation to prove my point -1.

he's very good at that, yes

 

[LibertarianfromGermany]

So can you hold a person to laws he never agreed to obey?

Well, I'm an AnCap, but yes, you can use force on people that have used force on you. Or to phrase it differently: It shouldn't be acceptable to use force on you for using force on someone that initiated force on you first.

 

[Matt Collins]

but you can register any phrase as your trademark, right?

otherwise i don't see how ING Direct can do this:

Trade mark does not require any minimal degree of creativity. Trademarks are designed to brand and limit confusion in the marketplace. If someone else uses the same slogan as ING in their marketing with the same colors and it is in the same sector/industry, then yes they will probably be found liable for trademark infringement.

 

[Matt Collins]

Piracy is theft you fools, it is stealing somone's intellectual 'property'.

I think you missed the first 3 pages of this thread. It would behoove you to go back and read them

 

[WaltM]

Well, I'm an AnCap, but yes, you can use force on people that have used force on you. Or to phrase it differently: It shouldn't be acceptable to use force on you for using force on someone that initiated force on you first.

you and I only disagree on what counts as unjustified initiation of force against a innocent person's rightful property

 

[heavenlyboy34]

If pirating isn't stealing according to the argument that : "You still have it, you didn't lose it"

Then is selling an e-book actually selling it? Doesn't selling require somebody to lose, physically, a object of limited quantity, and which he gives up control over?

Do people who sell ebooks mind if it's been copied and given out for free (not to benefit anybody, but to hurt his sales)?

Is buying iTunes actually buying anything? You didn't obtain anything physically which is lost on another person's part.

Pirating isn't stealing because it's PIRATING!! NOT THEFT!! The other scenarios you mentioned are voluntary transactions and have nothing to do with your original assertion. facepalm @ OP's illogic.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

YouTube - Copying Is Not Theft - let the re-recording begin!