J. Grayson Lilburne:This shock term is to no avail with people who have read Menger, who argued that, regarding non-economic goods like air, we are all "natural communists". And the nature of already-created bits of information is such that for the user of the bits of information, "even if all other members of society completely meet their requirements for these goods, more than sufficient quantities will still remain for him to satisfy his needs." (Menger, Principles of Economics) Therefore they qualify as Mengerian non-economic goods.
If that is the case, then money is also a non-economic good, as the supply of money is theoretically infinite.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
meambobbo: We have already admitted that consumption of information is non-refundable. The buyer cannot exchange his will, and his memory is inalienable from his will. His promise to not redistribute can be terminated by him at any moment. Thus, the copyright contract is not a contract in Rothbard's eyes. It is an exchange of money and a promise not to redistribute on the part of the buyer, and an exchange of a medium or transmission of information by the seller. One could even conclude that the transmission of information was a service, not an exchange. Intellectual property cannot survive on the basis of contract. It must be a property right equivalent to property rights in tangible goods.
We have already admitted that consumption of information is non-refundable. The buyer cannot exchange his will, and his memory is inalienable from his will. His promise to not redistribute can be terminated by him at any moment. Thus, the copyright contract is not a contract in Rothbard's eyes. It is an exchange of money and a promise not to redistribute on the part of the buyer, and an exchange of a medium or transmission of information by the seller. One could even conclude that the transmission of information was a service, not an exchange.
Intellectual property cannot survive on the basis of contract. It must be a property right equivalent to property rights in tangible goods.
Of course. That is why I wrote fallacy 7.
The "copyright contract" is not a contract over copyrights, it is a contract over access rights. The term "copyright reserved" is simply more convenient than enumerating access rights.
Copyrights are never sold to anyone. They are always reserved to the producer. This is what allows him to economically engage in production for consumers.
meambobbo: I think Rothbard was naive in his support of copyright. He never specifies how a pattern can be appropriated, only the medium it is inscribed upon. Sure, someone has property rights in that medium - if someone deleted the information without authorization, they should be held liable for property damages. But to suggest that the information itself can be owned, and that any tangible property that assumes the pattern immediately becomes partially owned by the originator of that information is a giant leap.
I think Rothbard was naive in his support of copyright. He never specifies how a pattern can be appropriated, only the medium it is inscribed upon. Sure, someone has property rights in that medium - if someone deleted the information without authorization, they should be held liable for property damages. But to suggest that the information itself can be owned, and that any tangible property that assumes the pattern immediately becomes partially owned by the originator of that information is a giant leap.
Rothbard was entirely correct and he did not even for a minute consider that it could go any other way. Rothbard was an economist who understood the greater benefit of capitalist production under the division of labor. It is only since communistic production has become widespread that the communists have started a war on private ownership of information.
Stranger:If that is the case, then money is also a non-economic good, as the supply of money is theoretically infinite.
Thats only true under the condition of fiat. You are indeed correct that money is theoretically a non-economic good. So the fiat base must somewhat remain fixed.
If we had gold or silver as our monetary solution than you couldn't make the above statement. As it's supply is finite.
the supply of commodity money is no more infinite than is the supply of the commodity which it is.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
meambobbo:Strictly following your argument, mining gold should be made illegal because it can cause inflation of the money supply. Your thoughts?
Mining gold is not inflation (and neither is making an original movie on the same set and with the same actors as a previous movie), however producing gold coins with another bank's seal on them is inflation, as the seal represents the trust of consumers in that bank. To counterfeit their seal is to defraud the bank of its consumer trust.
meambobbo:You are blatantly advocating that people can have property claims to market positions. Let's say I decide to use every cent of my money to buy up raw meat, and I let it spoil. Meat prices are driven up, and the productivity of surrounding restaurants and groceries are undermined. Have I violated property rights?! Of course not. Your argumentation is not based upon property rights but utility. That's not necessarily bad, but it's your burden to frame rules that clearly produce a net social benefit.
My argumentation is based on production. Under capitalism, production is rewarded with property protection. Restaurants do not produce raw meant, hence their higher costs are simply an indirect consequence of your purchase of meat.
meambobbo: You are advocating both LTV and ownership of the market value of an intangible concept - beliefs that exist inside the minds of others. You really can't argue otherwise.
You are advocating both LTV and ownership of the market value of an intangible concept - beliefs that exist inside the minds of others. You really can't argue otherwise.
No matter how many times you claim I advocate the labor theory of value, it will always remain fallacy 8.
nirgrahamUK: Stranger:If that is the case, then money is also a non-economic good, as the supply of money is theoretically infinite. the supply of commodity money is no more infinite than is the supply of the commodity which it is.
An advanced capitalist economy cannot function of commodity money alone. You are advocating primitivism, much as you advocate primitivism with the production of information.
Stranger:An advanced capitalist economy cannot function of commodity money alone. You are advocating primitivism, much as you advocate primitivism with the production of information.
what do you think is necessary? fiat? fiduciary?
Stranger:It is only since communistic production has become widespread that the communists have started a war on private ownership of information.
No, it's not private individuals advocating the productive use of other individuals property. It's with private individuals being permitted to place their own privately owned capital into productive use without their neighbor or anyone else telling them otherwise.
So in a sense, following your own point, the argument of pro-IP is anti-capitalistic. We've fabricated a way within positive law to restrict the ability of private individuals to employ their privately owned property into productive use.
Collective ownership never comes into play in any of that.
nirgrahamUK: you sell me a CD of your exquisite and unique song writing and musical instrument playing, you transfer title of it to me in exchange for the title to what was my 10$ on the condition that I do not make a copy CD. I similarly transfer title to you of 10$ in exchange for the title over the cd on the condition that i do not make a copy.
you sell me a CD of your exquisite and unique song writing and musical instrument playing, you transfer title of it to me in exchange for the title to what was my 10$ on the condition that I do not make a copy CD. I similarly transfer title to you of 10$ in exchange for the title over the cd on the condition that i do not make a copy.
The limitation of copyright is not a condition of the exchange, it is a limitation of rights. It informs you that you have not purchased the rights to copy, that it is excluded from the contract.
Hence, no contract-violation can alter the fact that the producer owns the copyright.
nirgrahamUK: Stranger:An advanced capitalist economy cannot function of commodity money alone. You are advocating primitivism, much as you advocate primitivism with the production of information.you may be confused about what commodity money is ? what do you think is necessary? fiat? fiduciary?
Money-substitutes that consist entirely of information.
Stranger:The limitation of copyright is not a condition of the exchange, it is a limitation of rights. It informs you that you have not purchased the rights to copy, that it is excluded from the contract.Hence, no contract-violation can alter the fact that the producer owns the copyright.
it matters not from my argument. it just makes the proviso not to copy, to be something default rather than particular to the case.
the analysis plays out to the same end result.
accept that i 'violated your bogus copyright'.
or
insist that i never bought the cd since i eventually copied it.... and claim back that original cd, ....return to me my 10$ and... allow me to listen to my copy in peace.
Stranger:Money-substitutes that consist entirely of information.
disembodied information that is not on any media? (which would otherwise be simply a commodity)
nirgrahamUK: disembodied information that is not on any media? (which would otherwise be simply a commodity)
Media and information are the same physical thing.
nirgrahamUK: Stranger:The limitation of copyright is not a condition of the exchange, it is a limitation of rights. It informs you that you have not purchased the rights to copy, that it is excluded from the contract.Hence, no contract-violation can alter the fact that the producer owns the copyright. it matters not from my argument. it just makes the proviso not to copy, to be something default rather than particular to the case. the analysis plays out to the same end result. accept that i 'violated your bogus copyright'. or insist that i never bought the cd since i eventually copied it.... and claim back that original cd, ....return to me my 10$ and... allow me to listen to my copy in peace.
Sorry but that does not make any sense. Please use correct English.
Whether something is a non-economic good depends on the actual supply of the good, not any theoretical supply. For example, US dollars are not actually super-abundant right now, so they are economized.
J. Grayson Lilburne: Stranger:If that is the case, then money is also a non-economic good, as the supply of money is theoretically infinite. Whether something is a non-economic good depends on the actual supply of the good, not any theoretical supply. For example, US dollars are not actually super-abundant right now, so they are economized.
Yes, so are Transformers II blu-ray discs. What's your point?
Stranger:(which would otherwise be simply a commodity)
Stranger:Yes, so are Transformers II blu-ray discs. What's your point?
The discs may be scarce, but, depending on the technical and institutional frameworks, the movie itself may not be.
Stranger:Sorry but that does not make any sense. Please use correct English.
Under Rothbardian Title-Transfer theory of exchange If you object to my having copied your media. you can take back your original media if you give me back my money with which I had purchased it. i get to keep my copy that you disapprove of.
Stranger:Media and information are the same physical thing.
If so, replicating information would necessarily entail replicating media.
Why anarchy fails
J. Grayson Lilburne: Stranger:Yes, so are Transformers II blu-ray discs. What's your point? The discs may be scarce, but, depending on the technical and institutional frameworks, the movie itself may not be.
AJ: Stranger:Media and information are the same physical thing. If so, duplicating information would necessarily entail duplicating media. Picard: "Earl gray tea. Hot."
If so, duplicating information would necessarily entail duplicating media. Picard: "Earl gray tea. Hot."
Guys, fallacy 2.
nirgrahamUK: content removed per request of author
content removed per request of author
No, your copy is stolen property, since you never acquired the right to copy information and it was specifically excluded from your contract.
Whether or not you have a contract with the property owner makes no difference at all. He fully reserves the right to make copies. He never transfers this right to you. Any violation of this right is therefore theft.
Stranger: AJ: Stranger:Media and information are the same physical thing. If so, duplicating information would necessarily entail duplicating media. Picard: "Earl gray tea. Hot." Guys, fallacy 2.
Here is your fallacy 2, where you come to the same conclusion as above. However, I have already done a reductio on that conclusion (in bold above). Can you resolve this apparent paradox or not?
"Ideas can be communicated orally following their formulation in the mind, but useful information can only be produced while working with media, can only be inscribed and communicated through media, and can only be enjoyed and consumed through a media. Often they must be recorded from the physical world using sophisticated instruments to transform physical patterns from one aspect to another, recordable one. This physicality makes information essentially indistinguishable from media. Information can only exist if media takes a specific physical shape. For example, if one wants a recording of actors riding along a mountain range, one must send physical actors to this mountain range and record their physical presence with cameras writing on film or on digital memory, a process that requires a substantial capital investment. The uniqueness of such an event is self-evident, and even if another producer of information were to hire the same actors to ride along the same mountain range and film them with the same equipment, the resulting stream of information would still be completely different in physical structure. This makes information a good that is inevitably bound to a physical structure, which are scarce, therefore a tangible good. Any existence of an identical copy of this information stream is physically connected to this original recording through acts of communication with the producer's property, and it is impossible for it to be a result of an independent act of creation.
"In fact, one can determine whether or not an intellectual property is legitimate based on the nature of the information; when the information is unique and will never re-occur in the lifetime of the universe, then it is scarce and comes only from one original source. If the information is not unique and can re-occur again and again, then it is not scarce and can be considered super-abundant, as it would be in the Garden of Eden. For super-abundant information, no conflict can possibly arise, as no labor is ever spent in its production. For information that is unique and specific, the scarcity of this information will grant the one who possesses it a productive advantage, and many others will attempt to obtain this information. Because it is unique, the only way to obtain it is by either contracting with the original producer, or by violating this producer's physical property. This is why there is a market for information in the first place, and this is why counterfeiters seek to obtain this information in order to produce copies. Were the information not scarce, there would be no need at all to engage in copying! (In comparison with patents for ideas, one never sees internet pirates redistributing patented ideas, as these have no scarcity and no value.)"
Stranger:No, your copy is stolen property, since you never acquired the right to copy information and it was specifically excluded from your contract. Whether or not you have a contract with the property owner makes no difference at all. He fully reserves the right to make copies. He never transfers this right to you. Any violation of this right is therefore theft.
will you apologise for copying the content of my post? whether or not you have a contract with me or the LvMI makes no difference at all. I fully reserve the right to make copies. denying that right to you. any violation of this right is theft.
regardless, you are simply perverting the word theft. theft is when you deprive an owner of property. so that they lack it to the extend that you have it without their permission. when i copy the cd i bought. the cd producer does not lack a cd that they had before i 'stole' it, and has not had the power to make copies taken away. they retain that power over any cd's they in fact own.
Stranger:Whether or not you have a contract with the property owner makes no difference at all. He fully reserves the right to make copies. He never transfers this right to you. Any violation of this right is therefore theft.
That one can reserve the right to make copies is precisely what you've got to prove.
And the capacity per disk changes as well. This is specifically prevalent in technology. Consider Intel's ability to fabricate smaller and smaller die sizes(32nm, 25nm). The same amount of resources are used but a higher capacity in performance and quantity of die die produced per 1 cubic inch of silicon is vastly increased. So while the physical resource which makes up the object may be scarce, the capacity it holds exponentially expands to the point that it's content, electrons, is not scarce.
Likewise for disks. A 5.25" harddrive all have the same platter size, but the capacity per platter changes as technology allows. In other words we get more out of the same amount of resources.
nirgrahamUK:now you must explain that. why can it go into my eye but not through my digital camera lense. the light rays....
And what's great about this point is data moves across a physical media in the exact same way. Either by light, or by electricity over a copper medium. It's all electrons though. The way we see and interpret images, the way a camera takes an image, and the way we send data over most mediums is done by the use of electrons.
nirgrahamUK: will you apologise for copying the content of my post? whether or not you have a contract with me or the LvMI makes no difference at all. I fully reserve the right to make copies. denying that right to you. any violation of this right is theft.
I have gladly removed the content as a courtesy.
nirgrahamUK:regardless, you are simply perverting the word theft. theft is when you deprive an owner of property. so that they lack it to the extend that you have it without their permission. when i copy the cd i bought. the cd producer does not lack a cd that they had before i 'stole' it, and has not had the power to make copies taken away. they retain that power over any cd's they in fact own.
Fallacy 4.
AJ: Stranger:Whether or not you have a contract with the property owner makes no difference at all. He fully reserves the right to make copies. He never transfers this right to you. Any violation of this right is therefore theft. That one can reserve the right to make copies is precisely what you've got to prove.
Why? It already happens.
Stranger: nirgrahamUK:regardless, you are simply perverting the word theft. theft is when you deprive an owner of property. so that they lack it to the extend that you have it without their permission. when i copy the cd i bought. the cd producer does not lack a cd that they had before i 'stole' it, and has not had the power to make copies taken away. they retain that power over any cd's they in fact own. Fallacy 4.
you don't have the right to the market value (at some point in time) of the property you have, just the right to the property you have. inflation fallacy fallacy refuted.
nirgrahamUK: Stranger: nirgrahamUK:regardless, you are simply perverting the word theft. theft is when you deprive an owner of property. so that they lack it to the extend that you have it without their permission. when i copy the cd i bought. the cd producer does not lack a cd that they had before i 'stole' it, and has not had the power to make copies taken away. they retain that power over any cd's they in fact own. Fallacy 4. you don't have the right to the market value (at some point in time) of the property you have, just the right to the property you have. inflation fallacy fallacy refuted.
Fallacy 2.
Stranger:Fallacy 2.
how is it fallacy 2? do you have reputation rights? are reputations scarce?
nirgrahamUK: Stranger:Fallacy 2. how is it fallacy 2? do you have reputation rights? are reputations scarce?
Of course. One is not allowed to pose as myself on the marketplace. It will cause my clients to mistrust me.
Stranger:Of course. One is not allowed to pose as myself on the marketplace. It will cause my clients to mistrust me.
i am referring to me telling people that you are *a believer in IP* and them *believing me* and this affecting your reputation and them *choosing not to do business with you*
nirgrahamUK: Stranger:Of course. One is not allowed to pose as myself on the marketplace. It will cause my clients to mistrust me. i am referring to me telling people that you are *a believer in IP* and them *believing me* and this affecting your reputation and them *choosing not to do business with you*
That makes no sense.
I tried to present Information as Property which, if accepted, would circumvent much of the contracts-related problems discussed here.
Z.
I say something that is a fact about you that people had not yet factored into their estimation of you, and they adjust their estimation. this is commonly called a variation in your reputation. it can result in people liking you more or less. and choosing to shop from your store more or less often.
it need not even be a fact.people may respond to me saying emotional things about you. fashions may change. people might decide that they think less of IP believers than IP deniers, and they might shop on the basis of such judgements
do you comprehend?
nirgrahamUK:do you comprehend?
No. How is this relevant?
the general estimation that the public has for a person; "he acquired a reputation as an actor before he started writing"; "he was a person of bad report"
this can effect the market price your goods will retail at.
do you understand that you don't have a right to the market price of your goods under any particular reputation scenario. the price at which your good will sell depends not just on your ownership of the good. but on the subjective valuation of would be purchasers. this can and does fluctuate without your having any claim to it being at any particular level.
if people subjectively value your cd less, because i have copies. that alone is not grounds to sue me. inflation-fallacy fallacy refuted.
Stranger: JackCuyler: Stranger:The old proverb asks whether an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters would ever produce the works of Shakespeare. According to information theory, the answer is no. Given that there are a limited number of keys on the keyboard, the answer is yes. There are infinite combinations of those keys, just like there are infinite combinations of strings of 0 and 1. You could try random combination for the entire lifetime of the universe and never achieve the same event.
JackCuyler: Stranger:The old proverb asks whether an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters would ever produce the works of Shakespeare. According to information theory, the answer is no. Given that there are a limited number of keys on the keyboard, the answer is yes.
Stranger:The old proverb asks whether an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters would ever produce the works of Shakespeare. According to information theory, the answer is no.
Given that there are a limited number of keys on the keyboard, the answer is yes.
There are infinite combinations of those keys, just like there are infinite combinations of strings of 0 and 1. You could try random combination for the entire lifetime of the universe and never achieve the same event.
That depends on how large of a group you are looking to repeat. In your 0 and 1 example, if we are simply looking for the string 1010, it is extremely likely that a monkey randomly typing 1's and 0's will type that string in a very short amount of time. For any set of four consecutive characters in the infinite string, there is a finite number of combinations -- exactly 16, in fact.
Likewise, given that there are a finite number of keys on the keyboard (X), and that the number of characters making up the complete works of Shakespeare is fixed (Y), any given segment of Y characters in the infinite random string also has a finite number of possibilities (X^Y). Over the course of infinity, the probability of that particular string we're looking for appearing in a group of X characters approaches 1.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
JackCuyler: That depends on how large of a group you are looking to repeat. In your 0 and 1 example, if we are simply looking for the string 1010, it is extremely likely that a monkey randomly typing 1's and 0's will type that string in a very short amount of time. For any set of four consecutive characters in the infinite string, there is a finite number of combinations -- exactly 16, in fact.
You're assuming that the length of the string to be found is known and definite. The monkeys must type randomly. They may type one infinitely-long string forever.