This is what a hypocrite looks like : Stefan Molyneux abusing DMCA to censor

[PRB]

who says Gutenberg was not BORED?
and just liked fucking around with machines?
are you one of my ex's?

I don't need to make one assumption or another about how and why somebody did or didn't do something.

I only need to tell you one person or a few people don't represent all people.

I can also give you hundreds of examples of people who worked for free, somehow that means nobody should ever be paid or labor is not your property?

I can give you examples of people donating organs and land, so that means land and organs can't be sold or can't be property?

I can talk all day with you if you think IP can be property, you just don't like how it's currently enforced, but if you're using exceptions to show IP can't or shouldn't be property, you can expect the responses to be "I got exceptions too bro"

 

[PRB]

Yes. If I were to try to steal your television, for example, you would be justified in using force to stop me. However, were I to copy your TV by memorizing the details of it by observing it and reverse engineering it, you are no poorer for it-and cannot legitimately use force to stop me.

As I mentioned in previous threads, an inventor who really doesn't want other people to "steal" his idea should not sell anything-but rent it out instead. (This obviously doesn't stop the person with perfect memory like Murray Rothbard, but it is a legitimate and rational means of controlling what happens with expressions of an idea)

It is somewhat reminiscent of physical gold. If you have it stored in someone else's vault somewhere, it is technically yours, but in practice you've surrendered control of it. Hence the old line among "gold bugs"-if you don't have it in your physical possession, it's not really yours.

are you saying then, if information was ever given to even one person, you can never stop anybody from spreading it infinitely? in this example, if Stefan gave me his person contact under the belief I'll never share or sell it, he can never stop anybody else from having it because "if he really wanted to keep it private, he should never even tell me"?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

But people who oppose IP, are almost always guaranteed to be those which don't benefit from it.

Ask the same question about "is ________ legitimate property" and fill in the blank with land, gold, air, slaves...to know what a person will answer, you need only know whether this person can profit from it.

Not true anymore, though I'm sure it was at one time. Thanks to the interwebz and a better popular understanding of real property vs. imaginary "property" (ideas) it's more common to see inventors/creators use easy proliferation to gain more attention and capitalize on markets. (trying to compare ideas to land, gold, slaves, etc is absurd on its face-it's comparing apples and oranges) For example, I've participated in a contest in which the goal was to take an idea created by a composer and reinvent it in a way that is compelling (to the judges, of course). (I didn't win, but it was an interesting experience ) Inventors could do likewise. For example brand X could have a competition for the best variation on product Y.

 

[HVACTech]

I don't need to make one assumption or another about how and why somebody did or didn't do something.

I only need to tell you one person or a few people don't represent all people.

I can also give you hundreds of examples of people who worked for free, somehow that means nobody should ever be paid or labor is not your property?

I can give you examples of people donating organs and land, so that means land and organs can't be sold or can't be property?

I can talk all day with you if you think IP can be property, you just don't like how it's currently enforced, but if you're using exceptions to show IP can't or shouldn't be property, you can expect the responses to be "I got exceptions too bro"

I will take that as a no.

never heard of a pulsejet?
it was a gift, from the germans to the britons..
nevermind...
it is a machine.

 

[PRB]

Not true anymore, though I'm sure it was at one time. Thanks to the interwebz and a better popular understanding of real property vs. imaginary "property" (ideas) it's more common to see inventors/creators use easy proliferation to gain more attention and capitalize on markets.

This is again, where I will remind you to acknowledge the difference between creative work and propaganda.

Or more specifically : in demand creative work vs propaganda that seeks to be in demand.

People who use social media to get attention, only do so because they have no choice. If they could choose between sitting on their asses vs promoting their work, what do you think they would choose?

(trying to compare ideas to land, gold, slaves, etc is absurd on its face-it's comparing apples and oranges) For example, I've participated in a contest in which the goal was to take an idea created by a composer and reinvent it in a way that is compelling (to the judges, of course).

This is when somebody clearly is asking for help, you can't say everybody is. In cases where somebody is established to be in demand, this won't likely happen.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

are you saying then, if information was ever given to even one person, you can never stop anybody from spreading it infinitely?

Yes

in this example, if Stefan gave me his person contact under the belief I'll never share or sell it, he can never stop anybody else from having it because "if he really wanted to keep it private, he should never even tell me"?

As I understand the case currently, Stefan is arguing from the claim that a tacit contract is as valid as a real one. US courts have held this to be wrong every time it's been brought to trial. The record companies and other corporate interests are exceptions to the rule because they have high-power attorneys who know how to bullshit ignorant judges and juries. Beyond this somewhat anecdotal proof, there is the fact that it is almost impossible to enforce a tacit contract in any meaningful way. Adobe has found a good solution, IMO. If you want to use creative suite, you have to register it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This is again, where I will remind you to acknowledge the difference between creative work and propaganda.

Or more specifically : in demand creative work vs propaganda that seeks to be in demand.

People who use social media to get attention, only do so because they have no choice. If they could choose between sitting on their asses vs promoting their work, what do you think they would choose?



This is when somebody clearly is asking for help, you can't say everybody is. In cases where somebody is established to be in demand, this won't likely happen.

I gtg to class now, but I'll address this ASAP.

 

[HVACTech]

Yes


Adobe has found a good solution, IMO. If you want to use creative suite, you have to register it.

they are concerned about what I do with my pulsejet?

 

[PRB]

"are you saying then, if information was ever given to even one person, you can never stop anybody from spreading it infinitely?"

Yes

Just so nobody can say I am strawmanning a person's position. I have it quoted here.

His position is basically, information isn't physical so can't be protected if it's even given to one person.

As such, you're basically saying under NO circumstance, forget IP, can Stefan EVER ask anybody to remove any information by force.

 

[PRB]

they are concerned about what I do with my pulsejet?

the same way owning a gun and car doesn't mean you can use it as you please without regard to others and law.

 

[PRB]

Beyond this somewhat anecdotal proof, there is the fact that it is almost impossible to enforce a tacit contract in any meaningful way. Adobe has found a good solution, IMO. If you want to use creative suite, you have to register it.

it's simpler than that, tacit agreements aren't necessary if laws say you must follow or do something.

for example : nobody was asked whether he's made an agreement, tacit or explicit, not to own slaves.

so, we can go on all day about "only laws I agreed to are valid", but I won't do that unless you want to.

 

[jmdrake]

Oh, here we go. People saying "This guy didn't have a patent, therefore that's proof people will invent things regardless of monetary reward"

That's like saying I can give you examples of people who worked for free, therefore paying shit wages and asking people to be slaves isn't violating their rights, after all, I have proof people can and do work for free.

1) Who said Gutenberg didn't have a financial reward just because he didn't have a patent? You do realize that his invention increased his own productivity and therefore his own earning potential right? Look at Linus Torvalds (creator of Linux). His claim to fame is he created software that the source code is given away for free. He is worth $150 million dollars. (See http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/linus-torvalds-net-worth/)

2) How is asking a person to be a slave violating his rights? I'm assuming if you are asking a person to be a slave that person can say "no." Once upon a time this country had apprenticeships were people could work in exchange for education in a particular craft of profession. Now we have student loan debt and unemployed or underemployed graduates.

 

[jmdrake]

I will take that as a no.

never heard of a pulsejet?
it was a gift, from the germans to the britons..
nevermind...
it is a machine.

And now we've given the Iranians a stealth drone.

 

[PRB]

1) Who said Gutenberg didn't have a financial reward just because he didn't have a patent? You do realize that his invention increased his own productivity and therefore his own earning potential right? Look at Linus Torvalds (creator of Linux). His claim to fame is he created software that the source code is given away for free. He is worth $150 million dollars. (See http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/linus-torvalds-net-worth/)

$150M is far behind what Gates & Jobs are worth, but it's a hell lot more than I'll ever make. So perhaps he's got what he's satisified with and I can't tell him he's wrong. What I can say is, just because it worked for him, doesn't mean he's not allowed or shouldn't be allowed to choose a different path.

The point of IP or any property is that one has control or choice, not possible if it wasn't recognized as property (or a similar right, such as privacy).

Similarly, I can give you examples of an attention whore who wants everybody to follow him on twitter and call his house, that doesn't mean therefore Stefan can't and shouldn't choose to have privacy if he doesn't value attention from everybody. If you recognize a person's right to property, privacy, you leave him the choice. if you don't, then you can't.

2) How is asking a person to be a slave violating his rights? I'm assuming if you are asking a person to be a slave that person can say "no."

asking isn't the right word, I meant demand and actually enslave. After all, if you don't believe labor is property or freedom is property, and I can give you examples of people who worked for free or voluntarily forgone their freedom to collect money and movement, what would that prove?

 

[HVACTech]

And now we've given the Iranians a stealth drone.

dear sir,
what you do with my invention is not my..

"IP"

 

[heavenlyboy34]

it's simpler than that, tacit agreements aren't necessary if laws say you must follow or do something.

for example : nobody was asked whether he's made an agreement, tacit or explicit, not to own slaves.

so, we can go on all day about "only laws I agreed to are valid", but I won't do that unless you want to.

Okay. That still doesn't change the illegitimacy of tacit contract-both philosophically and under established law and legal precedent.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Just so nobody can say I am strawmanning a person's position. I have it quoted here.

His position is basically, information isn't physical so can't be protected if it's even given to one person.

As such, you're basically saying under NO circumstance, forget IP, can Stefan EVER ask anybody to remove any information by force.

Well, depends on what sort of information we're talking about. If it's fraudulent, it can be reasonable to ask the site owner to remove it. Stef would agree with this because of his NAP adherence. I can't think of an example of this, but it's probably possible.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

it's simpler than that, tacit agreements aren't necessary if laws say you must follow or do something.

for example : nobody was asked whether he's made an agreement, tacit or explicit, not to own slaves.

so, we can go on all day about "only laws I agreed to are valid", but I won't do that unless you want to.

Well, even the FF's who are so venerated and deified around here tended to argue that an unjust law should not be followed. This is also part of most nullification/secession doctrine.

 

[PRB]

dear sir,
what you do with my invention is not my..

"IP"

do you have an invention or marketable idea? if not, your words mean nothing. i can say "what you do with my land is not my concern" as long as I have none too.

 

[PRB]

Well, even the FF's who are so venerated and deified around here tended to argue that an unjust law should not be followed. This is also part of most nullification/secession doctrine.

so you just changed the subject and used your last resort? that ultimately, nothing matters as long as you decided a law is unjust.

What if I decided age of consent laws are unjust, do you respect my decision or belief?