Strike The Root:
"If you're a webmaster and you liked the column you just read, feel free to link to it. That's how the Web works: You link to me and I link to you. STR pays for many, if not most, of the columns that are published here. These columns are the property of STR and the author, and re-publishing them on your site without permission from both is theft. If you do so, your site will be permanently shunned; STR will never link to anything on your site, and in the future may include the name of your site on a list of sites that have stolen columns from STR."
http://www.strike-the-root.com/republish.html
I have the Association of Libertarian Feminists page added on Facebook (which if you are wondering about female libertarian figures in history and have a Facebook, add/like that page), and this was posted a day or two ago:
ALF, Lynn Kinsky and I have been the victims of copyright infringement and defamation by association. Our ALF article appeared in a book titled "Extremism in America" along with material by the KKK and Aryan Brotherhood. Sharon Presley has contacted her lawyer and has asked him ot take appropriate action. This puts us all in a very bad light and is an outrage.
I figure they are taking action because it puts them in a bad light, but I just commented about it and IP, so I wonder what they'll respond with.
Bureaucrash - "all rights reserved" Advocates for Self-Government - "all rights reserved" The Future of Freedom Foundation - "all rights reserved"
Tenth Amendment Center - "All content © 2011 by Tenth Amendment Center"
"When you're young, you worry that people will steal your ideas. When you're old, you worry that they won't." -David Friedman
Come on what is this crap.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Please spread our ideas, just don't share them.
Alex Jones websites has a DMCA copyright notice. That's one of the reasons I don't consider him libertarian.
Doesn't alex jones aredently say "copy my shit"?
It's funny that the people out there who stand up for IP laws call people who don't, lazy and selfish. It's the ultimate irony. ahaha
Eating Propaganda
What do you mean i don't care how your day was?!
Bert: Tenth Amendment Center - "All content © 2011 by Tenth Amendment Center"
Ideas are copyrighted automatically. It's not a crime to point out who that automatically assigned owner is. So a copyright statement by itself is not enough to say that they'll pursue government enforcement, although if nothing else is stated it is a clue.
Peter Schiff Radio
Casey Research
Nielsio: Casey Research Our Services include information delivered via free content made available on or through our Sites (the "Free Service") and premium content which you pay for through a subscription (the "Paid Service"). The Free Service and the Paid Service are collectively referred to herein as "Service" or the "Services." [..] No portion of any publication made available through our Services may be extracted, summarized or reproduced without permission of Casey Research, LLC.
Marc Faber does it too. The entire first page of his Monthly Market Commentary is one huge copyright notice.
In their defense, I think that, instead of copyright, they would simply have a contract that says, "Me send you PDF, and you no redistribute content without my permission." (Bad grammar intended.)
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
"Ideas are copyrighted automatically."
Not only are ideas not copyrighted automatically, they are not copyrighted at all. Under U.S. law, copyright protects expression--how something is said--not idea. Patent law protects something closer to an idea.
What is true is that expression is copyrighted automatically. One you write something, "fix it" in a medium, it is protected by copyright law. Registering the copyright is not necessary, although it gives you some additional rights against an infringer.
Note that I am saying nothing at all about what the law ought to be, which is a much more complicated subject, merely pointing out what it is.
Hi David,
When I said "ideas are copyrighted automatically..", I meant: "There are ideas that are copyrighted automatically, so a statement about who the copyrightholder is does not mean this protection was pursued".
There is no such term as "copyrighted". "Copyright" is a noun, not a verb.
The response I got from ALF (pertaining to IP):
I can't speak for all of ALF but speaking for myself (Sharon), no. The idea that anyone can come along and profit from my hard work without any permission from me or compensation to me is simply unacceptable and IMO immoral. I am well aware... that the big music companies are abusing copyright (and the musicians are not getting that money) but so what? What does that have to do with my intellectual inventions, as it were? It is my property just as surely as my TV or my books. If I were an inventor, would it be OK to rip off my invention? I created the words in my books; I put a lot of hard work into them. Taking them without permission and using them for one's own profit is theft.
My short reply:
Well, on the issue of IP, there is no theft, as nothing was physically taken, only duplicated. The theft of someone's property must be the loss of something, and there is no loss of property. Someone could say their idea was stolen, but that's an abstract concept, and no one can hold patent to an idea, or that someone else may not duplicate something else.
Nielsio: Peter Schiff Radio
Well, at least he's on the right track. It may as well be a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0, no?
John James: There is no such term as "copyrighted". "Copyright" is a noun, not a verb.
'copyrighted' is used about 20 times on the Wikipedia page of Copyright ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright ).
I know what I mean with it when I say it. I think others do too. What's the problem, and why don't you explain?
John James: Well, at least he's on the right track. It may as well be a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0, no?
That's not what I'm reading. He says you can't reprint his work. The only thing you can do with his website is read it, or print it out to read on your couch and even then it must have all the copyright statements intact.
Oh. You may be right. I didn't look very carefully. But I'm also going on the fact that he actually puts youtube videos that use his content without permission in his "favorites" list and thanks people who make them.
Bert:I put a lot of hard work into them.
Send her literature about the subjective theory of value.
From Casey Research:
4. Our Proprietary Rights The Services and the content distributed through the Services, as well as all copyright, trademark and other rights therein, is the property of Casey Research, LLC. You acknowledge and agree that you do not acquire any ownership rights by using the Services. You agree that you will not copy, republish, upload, post, transmit, distribute, sell or otherwise send to others via e-mail or any other medium any content made available through the Services. No portion of any publication made available through our Services may be extracted, summarized or reproduced without permission of Casey Research, LLC. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any of our copyrights, trademarks or other rights. Unauthorized use, reproduction or rebroadcast of any content of our Services, such as communicating investment recommendations in such Services to non-subscribers in any manner, is prohibited and shall be considered an infringement and/or misappropriation of our proprietary rights. Modification of the content or use of the content for any purpose other than your own personal, noncommercial use is a violation of our copyright and other proprietary rights, and can subject you to legal liability.
The Services and the content distributed through the Services, as well as all copyright, trademark and other rights therein, is the property of Casey Research, LLC. You acknowledge and agree that you do not acquire any ownership rights by using the Services. You agree that you will not copy, republish, upload, post, transmit, distribute, sell or otherwise send to others via e-mail or any other medium any content made available through the Services. No portion of any publication made available through our Services may be extracted, summarized or reproduced without permission of Casey Research, LLC. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any of our copyrights, trademarks or other rights. Unauthorized use, reproduction or rebroadcast of any content of our Services, such as communicating investment recommendations in such Services to non-subscribers in any manner, is prohibited and shall be considered an infringement and/or misappropriation of our proprietary rights. Modification of the content or use of the content for any purpose other than your own personal, noncommercial use is a violation of our copyright and other proprietary rights, and can subject you to legal liability.
"Copyright" here is used very passively. They are not saying, "We will sure you if you violate our copyright." Instead, they are saying, "We might sue you if you violate this agreement. Btw, we also have copyright, and our lawyers told us to mention it, just in case."
Here's the rest of the replies:
ALF:
I do not care to argue the issue. You have your opinion; I have mine. When you write a book and publish it, come back and we'll talk about it.
Me:
If I did publish a book I'd hope everyone would pass it along and spread whatever message they enjoyed of mine. I have no intention to tie down my ideas to some physical form limited by laws that can only be enforced by the state. The Mis...es Institute has a large anti-IP stance when it comes to their books, and they have everything they can in PDF format to download for free. This only spreads the message of liberty instead of confining it. When it comes to the book I'd like to sell all that was printed to make back enough to cover costs, but the book is just the carrier of the message and ideas, it's not the idea itself. The message is beyond the book. An idea cannot be constrained, patented, or controlled, because the idea itself lives beyond space and time in our physical world. To actually patent an idea or invention is just someone trying to claim ownership to something that doesn't actually exist in physical format, it's not property, it's simply an idea. If someone writes a book, they essentially wrote one book, but duplicated that book thousands of times and sold it, but it was one book. This is no different if someone produces and album and sells it, but essentially the labor was only done once for that album, and then duplicated thousands of times.
Ask her what she would think if, eventually, her works stopped being spread because of copyright problems. (It's not as if this has not happened to other people.)
If she continues to reply I will, but she's probably done with responding.
Bert: ALF: I do not care to argue the issue. You have your opinion; I have mine. When you write a book and publish it, come back and we'll talk about it.
This would be fun. Send her links to free books and a list of authors who have published under a CC license. Send her this video. Tell her when she starts selling more books than that guy with her IP enforcement, she should come back and talk to you. Watching someone try to pull rank when they have none is quite amusing.
"When I said "ideas are copyrighted automatically..", I meant: "There are ideas that are copyrighted automatically,"
But there aren't. One of the most fundamental features of copyright law is that it covers expression, not idea. Patent law arguably protects ideas, although it's put in terms of "inventions," but patents are not automatic, they require an application and approval by the PTO.
"Send her literature about the subjective theory of value."
One of the things that strikes me about the Mises forums when, for one reason or another, I read part of them is the level of arrogance displayed by quite a lot of posters. The people associated with ALF have been active libertarians for--I'm guessing--longer than a majority of the posters here have been alive. Their views may or may not be correct, but the fact that they disagree with yours doesn't mean they have never heard the arguments on the other side.
IP is an old controversy in libertarian circles, there are arguments on both sides, and conclusions range from what seems to be currently orthodox here--that creators of IP have no right to control its use--to the opposite extreme, that IP is the most defensible of all forms of property, since creating it does not use up any of the uncreated property--land, natural resources, ...--whose existence is one of the problems that theories of property rights face. If you can't reproduce the arguments on the other side, you are poorly qualified to have an opinion as to what conclusion is correct.
The same point struck me some time back, when posters here were arguing, in effect, that the fact that someone criticized Austrian economics proved he didn't understand it, hence his criticisms weren't worth reading--the someone being a professional economist and libertarian teaching at a university with a strong Austrian element.
It's true that this approach--all beliefs are obviously true or obviously false, and mine are the obviously true ones--accurately reflects Mises' approach to the world, at least as I've heard it reported; I didn't know him. But it wasn't one of his more attractive characteristics. And one effect is to provide evidence for critics of libertarianism to claim that it's the secular equivalent of religious fundamentalism.
David Friedman:One of the things that strikes me about the Mises forums when, for one reason or another, I read part of them is the level of arrogance displayed by quite a lot of posters. The people associated with ALF have been active libertarians for--I'm guessing--longer than a majority of the posters here have been alive.
Forgive me for being one of these "arrogant Mises forum posters", but so what? What does that have to do with competency, logical consistency, and reason? Does time spent associating yourself with a certain ideology translate into some sort of required reverence? Does it not matter how ridiculous your notions are, so long as you'be been around long enough? As in, the older you get the less sense you have to make for people to take you seriously?
Their views may or may not be correct, but the fact that they disagree with yours doesn't mean they have never heard the arguments on the other side.
A lot of times, it does. And I don't really see what any of the rest of your post has to do with some (allegedly) old feminist thinking the "hard work" she puts into something gives it value.
"Forgive me for being one of these "arrogant Mises forum posters", but so what?"
Forgiven. It's always helpful when someone provides evidence in favor of what I've written.
"What does that have to do with competency, logical consistency, and reason? Does time spent associating yourself with a certain ideology translate into some sort of required reverence?"
No. But it translates into an increased probability that you are familiar with arguments made in that ideology, hence a reduced plausibility for the assumption that the reason you disagree with a conclusion is that you haven't seen the arguments for it.
Which is what the post I was commenting on implied.
I'm wondering at what point do libertarians, who feel they've been wronged through the market, stop obtaining their goals through the market (such as boycotting), and look to the courts/State for an answer.
"I put a lot of hard work into them."
I find this statement itself as arrogant. Who cares how much work you put into your work? The market will decide its value.
I could have equally said, "Send her Stephan Kinsella's work against IP," and would that have been arrogant as well? After all, I'm assuming she hasn't read Kinsella's work.
EDIT: It's difficult to judge arrogance on an online forum, but I wasn't to be arrogant when I made that statement.
David Friedman:Forgiven. It's always helpful when someone provides evidence in favor of what I've written.
No problem. When someone takes the time to investigate every thread that mentions their name, I feel it's a nice thing to give them something to feel vindicated in some way.
No. But it translates into an increased probability that you are familiar with arguments made in that ideology, hence a reduced plausibility for the assumption that the reason you disagree with a conclusion is that you haven't seen the arguments for it. Which is what the post I was commenting on implied.
Again, I fail to see how giving someone the benefit of the doubt, and assuming they simply aren't aware that value is subjective amounts to "providing evidence for critics of libertarianism to claim that it's the secular equivalent of religious fundamentalism." To be perfectly honest, if someone has been introduced to subjective value theory and still thinks labor inputs is what gives something its value, I would say it is that person that is engaging in religion. Or do you wish to argue that value is not subjective?
Freedomainradio:
That's odd. Why would the permission be different? And didn't you say Molyneux was anti-IP?
David Friedman:One of the things that strikes me about the Mises forums when, for one reason or another, I read part of them is the level of arrogance displayed by quite a lot of posters. The people associated with ALF have been active libertarians for--I'm guessing--longer than a majority of the posters here have been alive. Their views may or may not be correct, but the fact that they disagree with yours doesn't mean they have never heard the arguments on the other side.
The fact is one cant go around assuming everyone has heard the arguments before, especially if they disagree on some basis which one believes has been adressed and debunked. So what if they have been around for long ?
Maybe they have heard the arguments but not grasped them yet ? How many people, especially in libertarian circles has at some point heard the arguments and remained unconvinced until the right formulation of those arguments was presented to them.
Wow, jeez. Yes, all beliefs are EITHER true or false. Noone in Austrian circles, and not Mises either in any of the writings I have read, has claimed that it was OBVIOUS! What would he have thought of his own work if everything was just OBVIOUS and he hadnt really done anything special, he hadnt really need to think things through it was just OBVIOUS. This is seems to me to be some kind of silly attempt at sliding in a horrible version of skepticism, where one is always unaware if what one believes are true or not. For example: "I am really sitting here writing a response to David Friedman ?", entertain such thoughts if you will but dont expect other people in pursuit of truth and reality to pay any attention. Secondly this seems like unfair bashing, if you dont know him then maybe you should give an example of it or let the general skeptic approach rule here too. I hope you are not referring to the silly quote from your father which as been overused endlessly against Austrians, that is on wikipedia. Milton just states it without mentioning the particular arguments that got Mises upset. Additionally, a progressive income tax is a distinctly socialist idea and I would have probably done same, proudly. Furthermore , most critics of libertarianism never engage in arguments seriously, but simply avoid and denounce us, why should we care if they listen in to our conversation and cut and paste to make it seem like we are "secular fundamentalists", they have done such smearing for ages. Additionally, most religious fundamentalists in my experience are a lot more consistent than they moderate counterparts who usually want their God and eat it too.
John James: That's odd. Why would the permission be different? And didn't you say Molyneux was anti-IP?
I thought he had come to that point.
However, he promised to put up a statement about the 'rights' of his materials on his website, but he hasn't done that. A libertarian who's against IP would make sure to put up some kind of creative commons statement, and certainly make sure that their own material doesn't include IP threats (like the ones I listed).
So after finding those I think he meant that he intended to put the same "you are free to copy my works in whole but nothing else" statement on his (redesigned) website, and that he isn't siding against IP.
TheCultureofReasonCenter.com:
"Copyright © The Culture of Reason Center 2011 All rights reserved."
...but then again, it looks like a Randian fan group.
Me concur. Avoids alienating Libertarians by adding a simple contract.
I agree with Friedman on this one. This place is becoming way too much like RevLeft for my liking.