Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Do people "own" their websites?

rated by 0 users
This post has 40 Replies | 6 Followers

Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230
Buzz Killington Posted: Mon, Jun 25 2012 5:36 PM

Say that there's a website which a particular individual decides it would be lulzy to mess with, would it be a violation of property rights in order to violate the website agreement?

What about radio raids, would prank calls to a radio station be considered a violation of private property rights?

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

The more I think of this NAP, it seems like virtually everything I do for fun I will have to give up.

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Nice to know the phrase "crank calls" would basically sum up virtually everything you do for fun.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 239
Points 5,820

I didn't know Austrians have fun. I thought we all just study economics all day and never leave our computers; kind of like how teachers never leave school, right?

"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?" 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

i spray painted a classroom for fun once (public school). i guess thats not a violation of property rights since public schools are well, public (government owned). viva la revoluciya!!!!!!

 

/lol

As far as websites, defacing websites via sql injection or any other means (haxing) is a violation of property rights.

Prank calling although is not since the person you prank called against voluntarily chose to pick up the phone, and voluntarily chose to get angry at you. No one has to pick up their phone after all right?

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 806
Points 12,855

The Texas Trigger:
I didn't know Austrians have fun. I thought we all just study economics all day and never leave our computers; kind of like how teachers never leave school, right?

I've never seen any memo regarding "fun." Is it in the low content thread?

If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

It's in the Members Issues group.

 

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."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

John James:
Nice to know the phrase "crank calls" would basically sum up virtually everything you do for fun.

Aren't you violating the self ownership I have over my mind with your malicious comments?

The Texas Trigger:
I didn't know Austrians have fun. I thought we all just study economics all day and never leave our computers; kind of like how teachers never leave school, right?

I don't know, maybe I'm taking this stuff too far.

I have another question: what about using proxies in order to view websites. Am I violating the website owner's wish that I do not check out his website?

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Mon, Jun 25 2012 9:07 PM

Buzz Killington:

Aren't you violating self ownership I have over my mind with your malicious comments?

lol wut?

Care to explain that?

Buzz Killington:

I have another question: what about using proxies in order to view websites. Am I violating the website owner's wish that I do not check out his website?

What?  This is why there are passwords and logins...

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

gotlucky:
lol wut?

Care to explain that?

My mind dislikes being insulted, insults hurt my feelings, I own myself therefore insulting me violates the non aggression axiom.

gotlucky:
What?  This is why there are passwords and logins...

By using proxies I intrude on the website owner's property.

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Mon, Jun 25 2012 10:57 PM

Buzz Killington:

My mind dislikes being insulted, insults hurt my feelings, I own myself therefore insulting me violates the non aggression axiom.

In what way do insults violate the NAP?  You have just stated the same thing twice.

Buzz Killington:

By using proxies I intrude on the website owner's property.

How are you intruding by using proxies?  They made their website available to the public.  Accessing it is not intruding.  It's like driving down a street.  Just because you look at a house doesn't mean you have intruded...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Mon, Jun 25 2012 11:34 PM

Buzz Killington,

You seem to have a very confused understanding of rights and their implications.  I suggest you read "Human Rights" as Property Rights by Murray Rothbard.  It's pretty short.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

gotlucky:
Care to explain that?

Sure.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Tue, Jun 26 2012 8:06 AM

Yeah, JJ beat me to it. Really, all you have to do is look at his username. cheeky

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
DanielMuff replied on Tue, Jun 26 2012 12:32 PM

Buzz Killington:

Say that there's a website which a particular individual decides it would be lulzy to mess with, would it be a violation of property rights in order to violate the website agreement?

When people say that they own their website, they usually mean that the own the domain name. Obviously, what you are talking about is unauthorized usage of the server, which kinda by definition is violation of the NAP. That is, modifying files or database entries on a server without permission is, by definition, a violation of the NAP.

If you want to get into the issue about nothing physical being touched, modified, etc., then when the changes made on the server, heat emanating from the computer was generated by the person making the changes. So, yeah, there you go.

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."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Tue, Jun 26 2012 1:00 PM

Buzz Killington:
My mind dislikes being insulted, insults hurt my feelings, I own myself therefore insulting me violates the non aggression axiom.

By that reasoning, turning you down for a job (which you presumably dislike) also violates the non-aggression principle.

Buzz Killington:
By using proxies I intrude on the website owner's property.

You're talking about using one or more proxies while defacing a website, right? How is this any different in principle from someone wearing a mask while he vandalizes a store?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Tue, Jun 26 2012 1:05 PM

Daniel Muffinburg:

 

When people say that they own their website, they usually mean that the own the domain name. Obviously, what you are talking about is unauthorized usage of the server, which kinda by definition is violation of the NAP. That is, modifying files or database entries on a server without permission is, by definition, a violation of the NAP.

If you want to get into the issue about nothing physical being touched, modified, etc., then when the changes made on the server, heat emanating from the computer was generated by the person making the changes. So, yeah, there you go.

Exactly, the problem is that someone is unilateral reassignment of property rights.  Clayton has a good post on this on a separate subject here, but the theory applies to websites and computers too.

EDIT: Fixed link to proper post.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

gotlucky:
How are you intruding by using proxies?  They made their website available to the public.  Accessing it is not intruding.  It's like driving down a street.  Just because you look at a house doesn't mean you have intruded...

But if they own their website, then they have a right to exclude anyone from that website.

Daniel Muffinburg:
When people say that they own their website, they usually mean that the own the domain name. Obviously, what you are talking about is unauthorized usage of the server, which kinda by definition is violation of the NAP. That is, modifying files or database entries on a server without permission is, by definition, a violation of the NAP.

If you want to get into the issue about nothing physical being touched, modified, etc., then when the changes made on the server, heat emanating from the computer was generated by the person making the changes. So, yeah, there you go.

So I've violated their property rights?

Autolykos:
By that reasoning, turning you down for a job (which you presumably dislike) also violates the non-aggression principle.

Exactly. The NAP makes life on earth impossible, you cannot do anything if you take the non aggression axoim seriously, a voluntary society could not realistically exist.

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Tue, Jun 26 2012 2:03 PM

Buzz Killington:
Exactly. The NAP makes life on earth impossible, you cannot do anything if you take the non aggression axoim seriously, a voluntary society could not realistically exist.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your reasoning here.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

Autolykos:
Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your reasoning here.

Anything slightly offending or "hurting" someone would have to be considered a violation of the non aggression axiom (and college students would be punished for pulling pranks on their room mates).

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Tue, Jun 26 2012 2:21 PM

I fail to see how being offended necessarily constitutes aggression.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Tue, Jun 26 2012 2:27 PM

Especially considering how aggression is defined as "the initiation or threat of violence".  Since when were insults violent?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Tue, Jun 26 2012 2:31 PM

Buzz Killington:

But if they own their website, then they have a right to exclude anyone from that website.

You need to get caught up on norms.  The norm is that if you make a website, the intention is for other people to access it unless you have restricted access to only specific users.  If someone owns a website, he exercises his right to exclude others by creating login IDs.

Buzz Killington:

So I've violated their property rights?

That's what the man muffin said.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Buzz Killington:

Daniel Muffinburg:
When people say that they own their website, they usually mean that the own the domain name. Obviously, what you are talking about is unauthorized usage of the server, which kinda by definition is violation of the NAP. That is, modifying files or database entries on a server without permission is, by definition, a violation of the NAP.

If you want to get into the issue about nothing physical being touched, modified, etc., then when the changes made on the server, heat emanating from the computer was generated by the person making the changes. So, yeah, there you go.

So I've violated their property rights?

Yes.

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."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

gotlucky:
You need to get caught up on norms.  The norm is that if you make a website, the intention is for other people to access it unless you have restricted access to only specific users.  If someone owns a website, he exercises his right to exclude others by creating login IDs.

Ah.

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

gotlucky:
Especially considering how aggression is defined as "the initiation or threat of violence".  Since when were insults violent?

But why does aggression have to be violent? Insults can also be damaging to an individual.

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Tue, Jun 26 2012 4:45 PM

Buzz Killington:

But why does aggression have to be violent? Insults can also be damaging to an individual.

From the wiktionary on aggression:

aggression (plural aggressions)

  1. The act of initiating hostilities or invasion.
  2. The practice or habit of launching attacks.
  3. Hostile or destructive behavior or actions.

Notice the words hostile, destructive, invasion, and attacks?  If you look up hostile, you will see that it is also the desire to injure another.  And notice the first 2 definitions are specifically about initiating violence?  That is what libertarians are talking about.  We are using a dictionary definition of the word.

Some people like to say things like, "Johnny argues so aggressively" or "Timmy plays chess so aggressively", but this is a metaphoric use of the word.  Literally, these people are not using aggression, but saying they are aggressive conveys a certain meaning that they want to get across, even if it is not the dictionary use of the word.

Insulting someone may be aggressive in a metaphoric sense, they are aggressive in their attitude.  But libertarians are talking about aggressive actions.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 664
Points 13,095

But I thought trespassing violated the NAP?

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein
  • | Post Points: 65
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Tue, Jun 26 2012 10:32 PM

Fool on the Hill:

 

But I thought trespassing violated the NAP?

It does.  Let's look at Walter Block's concise definition of the NAP:

The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.

Now, let's look at the wikipedia explanation of trespass:

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels and trespass to land.

Trespass to the person, historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem, and maiming.[1] Through the evolution of the common law in various jurisdictions, and the codification of common law torts, most jurisdictions now broadly recognize three trespasses to the person: assault, which is "any act of such a nature as to excite an apprehension of battery";[2] battery, "any intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff's person or anything attached to it and practically identified with it";[2] and false imprisonment, the "unlaw[ful] obstruct[ion] or depriv[ation] of freedom from restraint of movement."[3]

Trespass to chattels, also known as trespass to goods or trespass to personal property, is defined as "an intentional interference with the possession of personal property...proximately caus[ing] injury."[4] Trespass to chattel, does not require a showing of damages. Simply the "intermeddling with or use of...the personal property" of another gives cause of action for trespass.[5][6] SinceCompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions,[7] various courts have applied the principles of trespass to chattel to resolve cases involving unsolicited bulk e-mail and unauthorized server usage.[8][9][10][11]

Trespass to land is today the tort most commonly associated with the term trespass; it takes the form of "wrongful interference with one's possessory rights in [real] property."[12] Generally, it is not necessary to prove harm to a possessor's legally protected interest; liability for unintentional trespass varies by jurisdiction. "[A]t common law, every unauthorized entry upon the soil of another was a trespasser", however, under the tort scheme established by the Restatement of Torts, liability for unintentional intrusions arises only under circumstances evincing negligence or where the intrusion involved a highly dangerous activity.[13]

 

If you read the whole quote on trespass, you will see that it very much has to do with violence, however, I assume that you meant trespassing on land.  But that too requires aggression.  The important point to understand is the unilateral reassignment of property rights.  Each person has a right to his property (that's why it is his property), and you have a right to control it in the manner you wish (so long as you aren't violating other people's rights).  A trespasser is unilaterally reassigning the property rights of the owner.  He is taking control of something that is not his.  It is more obvious when the owner confronts the aggressor, but even if the owner is not present, the trespasser is still an aggressor.

Remember, as Block pointed out, the NAP has to do with both the person and property.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Tue, Jun 26 2012 10:32 PM

Quad.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Tue, Jun 26 2012 10:32 PM

Ruple.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Tue, Jun 26 2012 10:34 PM

Post.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Jun 27 2012 8:16 AM

Buzz Killington:
But why does aggression have to be violent? Insults can also be damaging to an individual.

Do you think other people can actually make you feel insulted?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

Eh, I just won't participate in the raids.

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Jun 27 2012 11:22 AM

That doesn't answer my question.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

What is your question?

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Jun 27 2012 1:44 PM

See above.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

Thanks.

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Jun 27 2012 3:28 PM

Right, so what's your answer? Or are you afraid of answering?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 806
Points 12,855
ThatOldGuy replied on Wed, Jun 27 2012 10:41 PM

Daniel Muffinburg:
It's in the Members Issues group.

Ja, I'm just not seeing it. I feel like there have been threads made regarding fun, but I've only seen the word written (I'll probably have to find an audio dictionary to even know how the word is pronounced).

For some reason I can't find any thread regarding fun. I know I've read somewhere that a lot of posters here go clubbing or play video games in their spare, spare time.

That does it. I'm making a thread.

If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 2 (41 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS