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

[PRB]

Well, depends on what sort of information we're talking about.

Ok. So you admit SOME information can be? Let's hear it.

If it's fraudulent, it can be reasonable to ask the site owner to remove it.

Give an example of what is a case of fraud an why it would be reasonable. Why can't we use the old "If you REALLY didn't want to share it, you shouldn't have shared it with even ONE person!"

Stef would agree with this because of his NAP adherence. I can't think of an example of this, but it's probably possible.

I appreciate you admitted that you can't think of it, but you are open to it being possible. I think this is a major goalpost, getting you to admit you are open minded enough to change your thinking or position, even if you can't think of an example.

Why is fraud aggression? Saying it is doesn't make it so. I can say smiling is aggression too.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I have plenty, actually. Anti-IP folks are either unwilling or unable to get it so I don't see the point in the exercise. I can burn up an entire week of ripping my hair out arguing and not a single soul is going to budge. It's not like I haven't made this argument here before. My conclusion was without IP we wouldn't have books in the modern age, or if we did it would be recycled disjointed pap written by machines, and technology advance would grind to a halt.

I have no desire to go through a whole week to 2 weeks of that absurd stress again only to have all my points overlooked, distorted, or otherwise ignored. Life is too short to argue with brick walls.

In case you haven't noticed, books and all other culture (particularly pop culture) has been nothing but recycled plots, motifs, etc. for a very long time. Hollywood goes through cycles where they just release sequels of sequels for a year or two. Hell, iconic books like 1984 and Brave New World are just retellings of the classic (but somewhat obscure in the West) "We". IDK if you're familiar with fan fiction, but it is often more creative and interesting than the original piece.

And of course, who can forget the many film versions of biblical stories? Talk about unoriginal!

My friend, were it not for people copying and playing with other people's ideas, Western culture would be extremely primitive. There is a reason fine arts students have to study the "classics". The classics are time tested and can be recycled millions of times without worrying about being sued by Dante or Moses or Beethoven's librettist or any number of dead guys/gals.

 

[PRB]

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

You weren't listening? You don't need tacit agreements to be legitimate when you have forceful law that doesn't need to be agreed on, get it? Or no?

 

[PRB]

In case you haven't noticed, books and all other culture (particularly pop culture) has been nothing but recycled plots, motifs, etc. for a very long time.

I love it when people bring up the "for a long time it's worked, so why not keep it that way". Yep, slavery was around for a long time too.

Hollywood goes through cycles where they just release sequels of sequels for a year or two. Hell, iconic books like 1984 and Brave New World are just retellings of the classic (but somewhat obscure in the West) "We". IDK if you're familiar with fan fiction, but it is often more creative and interesting than the original piece.

Retelling stories and duplicating copies of it are entirely different actions.

And of course, who can forget the many film versions of biblical stories? Talk about unoriginal!

Bible is an example of propaganda with agenda, rather than creative work for profit, which is why Scientology can/should be disqualfied as a religion.

My friend, were it not for people copying and playing with other people's ideas, Western culture would be extremely primitive.

You can say the same about slavery, sexism, imperialism. Sure, many things were done in the past, doesn't mean it's automatically right.

There is a reason fine arts students have to study the "classics". The classics are time tested and can be recycled millions of times without worrying about being sued by Dante or Moses or Beethoven's librettist or any number of dead guys/gals.

This is where you miss another important point. even the biggest copyright advocates recognize that copyright should expire. (same thing for patents, for the matter)

Please do not make strawman arguments about how copyright and patents would lead to perpetual royalties that never expire when you know nobody advocates that.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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?

I didn't really change the subject. I was appealing to an authority that you and most of my opponents here seem to consider a standard of "correct".

 

[PRB]

I didn't really change the subject. I was appealing to an authority that you and most of my opponents here seem to consider a standard of "correct".

I don't appeal to founding fathers for my arguments on copyright or intellectual property, at best I use it as proof it was an issue worth mentioning at the time of a country's founding. I recognize technology, population and times are different enough that I would not use their beliefs as the best support for arguments in this topic.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I love it when people bring up the "for a long time it's worked, so why not keep it that way". Yep, slavery was around for a long time too.



Retelling stories and duplicating copies of it are entirely different actions.



Bible is an example of propaganda with agenda, rather than creative work for profit, which is why Scientology can/should be disqualfied as a religion.



You can say the same about slavery, sexism, imperialism. Sure, many things were done in the past, doesn't mean it's automatically right.

This is where you miss another important point. even the biggest copyright advocates recognize that copyright should expire. (same thing for patents, for the matter)

Please do not make strawman arguments about how copyright and patents would lead to perpetual royalties that never expire when you know nobody advocates that.

No strawman there. The IP advocates argue a copyright (etc) shall last the lifetime of the author plus x years (IDR what x is...they seem to change it every decade or so)-which is a pretty big stretch of the word "limited time" written in the Constitution, I'd say. And they do lead to perpetual royalties. The guy who copyrighted the happy birthday song still gets royalty checks. He can (and likely will) give the copyright to an heir or sell it to someone else. One of the ways corporate thugs try to take out opponents is to buy up the opponent's IP rights and just sit on them. (sometimes called "squatting") Had Jeff Tucker not acquired Laissez-Faire books, all the great literature they publish would have effectively disappeared outside of obscure library stacks in universities and such.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You weren't listening? You don't need tacit agreements to be legitimate when you have forceful law that doesn't need to be agreed on, get it? Or no?

Sounds more like a threat than a good reason. And you do need tacit agreements to be legitimate (particularly in view of the courts of law and juries) or else it will never be enforced. Had the record companies not had access to powerful lawyers and lobbyists, they never would have defeated the likes of Napster and various sharing sites in court.

 

[PRB]

No strawman there. The IP advocates argue a copyright (etc) shall last the lifetime of the author plus x years (IDR what x is...they seem to change it every decade or so)-which is a pretty big stretch of the word "limited time" written in the Constitution, I'd say.

No, limited time means not forever. 500 years is still limited time. We can argue about whether it's fair to be 50 years or 100 years, but you admitted NOBODY wants it to be forever, meaning Dante and Beethoven's work would have expired by now.

And they do lead to perpetual royalties. The guy who copyrighted the happy birthday song still gets royalty checks. He can (and likely will) give the copyright to an heir or sell it to someone else.

No, it's currently set to expire in 2030.

He can transfer it only as long as it's ownable, you cannot extend an expiration date by transferring your rights, since rights do not start with transfer, they start when it's created/registered/published.

One of the ways corporate thugs try to take out opponents is to buy up the opponent's IP rights and just sit on them.

That's the downside of property of any kind, people can buy it up to prevent others from making use of it. you can say the same thing with water and land.

(sometimes called "squatting") Had Jeff Tucker not acquired Laissez-Faire books, all the great literature they publish would have effectively disappeared outside of obscure library stacks in universities and such.

Because there's no demand for it.

 

[PRB]

Sounds more like a threat than a good reason. And you do need tacit agreements to be legitimate (particularly in view of the courts of law and juries) or else it will never be enforced. Had the record companies not had access to powerful lawyers and lobbyists, they never would have defeated the likes of Napster and various sharing sites in court.

you can blame everything on somebody having more money and more lawyers, or you can consider that perhaps people do because they are right, or because the market supports them.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No, limited time means not forever. 500 years is still limited time. We can argue about whether it's fair to be 50 years or 100 years, but you admitted NOBODY wants it to be forever, meaning Dante and Beethoven's work would have expired by now.

Yes, everything enters public domain after a certain time. IDK what it is nowadays.



No, it's currently set to expire in 2030.

He can transfer it only as long as it's ownable, you cannot extend an expiration date by transferring your rights, since rights do not start with transfer, they start when it's created/registered/published. [/QUOTE]
Yes, but in practice, whoever inherits the rights will have the legal right to claim it as their own (filing a patent/copyright in their own name).

That's the downside of property of any kind, people can buy it up to prevent others from making use of it. you can say the same thing with water and land.

But IP is not like those sort of properties. That's one of the big reasons IP as a concept fails. Water and land are scarce by nature and ideas are not.

Because there's no demand for it.

False. The demand may be by obscure audiences (like balck and white film photography and antique cars), but it exists.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/10/16/laissez-faire-books-rip

 

[PRB]

Yes, everything enters public domain after a certain time. IDK what it is nowadays.

https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

No, it's currently set to expire in 2030.

He can transfer it only as long as it's ownable, you cannot extend an expiration date by transferring your rights, since rights do not start with transfer, they start when it's created/registered/published.
Yes, but in practice, whoever inherits the rights will have the legal right to claim it as their own (filing a patent/copyright in their own name).

No, they don't, that's just not how copyright works. Copyright starts and ends by the author and creation (or registration when in dispute), you can't renew or extend a copyright.

You also can't re-register what's expired and public (you can't patent what's already public, or "obvious"). This is not like snatching up a domain name.

But IP is not like those sort of properties. That's one of the big reasons IP as a concept fails. Water and land are scarce by nature and ideas are not.

If ideas aren't scarce, why don't you have them all?

False. The demand may be by obscure audiences (like balck and white film photography and antique cars), but it exists.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/10/16/laissez-faire-books-rip

not enough to keep it alive, that's my point. One person is demand, but one person without money is not enough to keep it running.

 

[dannno]

There are so many problems with IP..

What if I write a song that I plan to release some day, then a year later somebody else writes the same song and copyrights it? Why should they have the only rights to the song just because they went to the government first if I wrote the song first?

Why do we put the government in charge of tracking all of this intellectual property? It's such an enormous task..

You really have to worship the government at some level to believe in IP.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

There are so many problems with IP..

What if I write a song that I plan to release some day, then a year later somebody else writes the same song and copyrights it? Why should they have the only rights to the song just because they went to the government first if I wrote the song first?

Why do we put the government in charge of tracking all of this intellectual property? It's such an enormous task..


You really have to worship the government at some level to believe in IP.

Yup. +rep 4 u.

 

[PRB]

There are so many problems with IP..

What if I write a song that I plan to release some day, then a year later somebody else writes the same song and copyrights it?

Never happened, but to answer you, the best answer is "publish it first, first to prove he did it wins".

You may be thinking of, what happens if I can prove I wrote it first but he registers it first. The answer is you win by creation. Registration in bad faith or without first creating it is not a full proof shortcut (the same is not true with "first to file" patent law today).

The other possibility is you completely lied about being the first to create without any proof of it, that wouldn't stand legally anyway, or else anybody can claim he owned something before you did and never sold it to you. If you created something with the intent to publish and profit, knowing that laws protect you if you profit, and chose not to, you are at fault yourself, but that's not a problem as long as you can prove you wrote it first.

Why should they have the only rights to the song just because they went to the government first if I wrote the song first?

That's like asking why should you be Danno and I must be PRB just because you said so first. But in reality, you don't need to run to register, as with patent. You do only need to prove you were the first to express and write it.

Why should YOU be the rightful land and home owner of where you lived just because you ran to the gubmint to regsiter your deed and ownership? That's a BS question, if you're asking the legal question, you appeal to the legal authority. The question of "should it depend on who records his land ownership" is a good one, but until that changes, that's at least one way to settle a dispute.

Why do we put the government in charge of tracking all of this intellectual property? It's such an enormous task..

It's not an enormous task when the people at stake can easily protect themselves by proving they did it first. It's not perfectly fair, but it's as fair as it can get. The alternative is that nobody can ever claim anything.

You really have to worship the government at some level to believe in IP.

No, you don't. No more than you need to believe in government for land ownership. First claimer wins is fairly common in all property disputes.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Never happened, but to answer you, the best answer is "publish it first, first to prove he did it wins".

You may be thinking of, what happens if I can prove I wrote it first but he registers it first. The answer is you win by creation. Registration in bad faith or without first creating it is not a full proof shortcut (the same is not true with "first to file" patent law today).

The other possibility is you completely lied about being the first to create without any proof of it, that wouldn't stand legally anyway, or else anybody can claim he owned something before you did and never sold it to you. If you created something with the intent to publish and profit, knowing that laws protect you if you profit, and chose not to, you are at fault yourself, but that's not a problem as long as you can prove you wrote it first.



That's like asking why should you be Danno and I must be PRB just because you said so first. But in reality, you don't need to run to register, as with patent. You do only need to prove you were the first to express and write it.

Why should YOU be the rightful land and home owner of where you lived just because you ran to the gubmint to regsiter your deed and ownership? That's a BS question, if you're asking the legal question, you appeal to the legal authority. The question of "should it depend on who records his land ownership" is a good one, but until that changes, that's at least one way to settle a dispute.



It's not an enormous task when the people at stake can easily protect themselves by proving they did it first. It's not perfectly fair, but it's as fair as it can get. The alternative is that nobody can ever claim anything.



No, you don't. No more than you need to believe in government for land ownership. First claimer wins is fairly common in all property disputes.

Why are you still comparing ideas to real property when not even the law says they are the same?

 

[PRB]

Why are you still comparing ideas to real property when not even the law says they are the same?

Because they don't need to be the same to be justified the same way as far as whether something can be owned, how to settle dispute of ownership, and your favorite "whether you can own something without government".

First of all, do you concede or not, that land ownership disputes is no more fair if the primary arbiter is whether you recorded your deed first?

 

[acptulsa]

False. The demand may be by obscure audiences (like balck and white film photography and antique cars), but it exists.

So, anything you don't like is for 'obscure audiences'?

Tens of millions of people believe Citizen Kane is still the greatest movie ever made. Tens of millions of people can identify a 1957 Chevrolet on sight. You can't find three people who give a shit about unfunny Russian cartoons even if you do translate them. That, huggy boy, is what an obscure audience looks like.

...you can't renew or extend a copyright.

You probably can't at that. But Samuel Clemens' progeny sure figured out how to do it.

You really have to worship the government at some level to believe in IP.

You have to worship government to believe that if Harper Lee hadn't made a buck on To Kill a Mockingbird, she might never have gone to the trouble to write it? You have to worship government to be dismayed by the idea of some fat corporation stealing every good idea that comes along and making billions on them, while not giving the person who invested his blood toil tears and sweat one farthing for his or her brilliance and effort? You do?

This is turning into one of the funniest threads we've ever had here...

First of all, do you concede or not, that land ownership disputes is no more fair if the primary arbiter is whether you recorded your deed first?

Good strategy. If you ask the semi-rhetorical questions you use in lieu of rational argument in something other than legible English, with confusingly bad grammar here and the wrong word there, people likely will decide it isn't worth the trouble to ask you to clarify, and then you can pretend to yourself that you won by forfeit.

Glad you're making that work for you. Remind me to pat you on the head.

 

[PRB]

Good strategy. If you ask the semi-rhetorical questions you use in lieu of rational argument in something other than legible English, with confusingly bad grammar here and the wrong word there, people likely will decide it isn't worth the trouble to ask you to clarify, and then you can pretend to yourself that you won by forfeit.

Glad you're making that work for you. Remind me to pat you on the head.

I will rephrase.

For people who say "you have to worship the government to believe in IP", they seem to believe such a claim based on the false premise, that government registration is the only way to settle copyright claims or patent claims. It isn't, although legally today, it may be the most popular and fastest way.

I can ask the same question : What today is the most just, fastest, easiest, least likely to cause more confusion way to settle a land or house ownership dispute? What is your answer other than "Who first recorded"? If you have an answer, then we can settle IP claims that way too, without government. If you don't have an answer, you must admit IP is no worse than other forms of property if disputes are settled based on who recorded first.

 

[acptulsa]

See, that's the trouble with raising kids in the Jet Age. They figure it doesn't invalidate their conclusions at all if their train of thought jumps over seven or eight stations along the way.