/***** MOD EDIT *****/
For reference: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/29914.aspx
/***** END MOD EDIT *****/
Why exactly do we want ot prevent the copying of stuff?
John James: Why exactly do we want ot prevent the copying of stuff?
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
I don't know why "we" want to, but Microsoft might want to do it to lower the supply to obtain higher prices.
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."
Daniel Muffinburg:I don't know why "we" want to, but Microsoft might want to do it to lower the supply to obtain higher prices.
So this thread is to help Microsoft maintain an artificial damper on innovation and the spread of ideas?
I'm with JJ on this. In general, we don't want any concept of intellectual property, since it can only lead to a retardation of innovation, intellect, and thus, efficiency in the utilization of resources. That is, the term intellectual property conveys the idea of some sort of legal title, and this legal recourse if necessary, on an idea or method. This is what I stand against.
Of course, I see no reason to object to, for instance, a software company attempting to keep their ideas and tools restricted through use of cloud access. But if someone found a method to crack that and obtain the code or otherwise pertinent material, I don't see any reason that they should be punished and owe royalties or restitution to the software company. So individuals and businesses could try to keep their stuff secret, but they shouldn't "own" some claim to their secret, protected by some institution or law.
Imagine the absurdity: someone invents the radio, sells it, then gets upset that a customer took it apart, figured out how it worked, and built one of his own and sold it. If the original inventor intended no one to ever do this, the only reasonable way to expect that he would be the only one to ever make the radio would be to never sell one to anyone. Of course, then he would still be mad when someone else arrived at the invention in the same manner as he, and all because he "thought of it first?"
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
John James: Daniel Muffinburg:I don't know why "we" want to, but Microsoft might want to do it to lower the supply to obtain higher prices. So this thread is to help Microsoft [...]
So this thread is to help Microsoft [...]
Yes **rolls eyes**
maintain an artificial damper on innovation and the spread of ideas?
What's artificial about it?
I think it goes back to grade school. "Liar" "Liar!" "Stop copying me!" "Stop copying me!" "STOP COPYING ME!" "Stop copying me!" "Arghhhhhhhh!" "Arghhhhhhhh!"
As the oldest sibling in a family of five, I vigorously attempted to impose all kinds of IP laws. "That's my paper airplane, you're just copying me." "You can't use my hair style." And so on. And then I turned 16.
Clayton -
does it mean kfc needs to distribute their trade secrets for the sake of innovation and spreading ideas on how to fry chicken and should not have the right to contract to keep trade secrets secret?
i think there is a difference between a recipe for fried chicken being owned, and the concept of frying chicken to be owned.
reverse engineer it, ok, steal it or breach a contract, does not seem ok.
Of course KFC doesn't need to distribute their trade secrets, nor does anyone else. But if I, say, happened to develop a recipe for fried chicken, and started selling lots of it because people found it delicious, and it turns out that my recipe is exactly the same as KFC's, I don't think I should be in any trouble. No different than the patenting of a method of production. If someone discovered a new way to produce something that it turns out someone else already invented, and patented, the second person can currently be forced to cease and desist, and pay royalties, etc. I disagree that it should be so.
Of course, companies and individuals have unlimited freedom to contract, and KFC could say that if they show you a tour of their facilities and production, you must agree beforehand to never use the shown methods or sell chicken. They could even make such a contract with customers that just purchase chicken, sort of as a way to prevent someone from tasting the food and discovering the ingredients and competing with them. But without such contracts, I think people should be free to produce what they want and trade with others voluntarily.
cab21: does it mean kfc needs to distribute their trade secrets for the sake of innovation and spreading ideas on how to fry chicken and should not have the right to contract to keep trade secrets secret? i think there is a difference between a recipe for fried chicken being owned, and the concept of frying chicken to be owned.
That is certainly not what this means. KFC has the right to keep it's recipe on secrecy, but if somehow this recipe comes to public, then it should not have the right to force anyone to not use it. Note that I used SHOULD, as I know today the states create artificial monopolies via patents and copyrights.
But, if the recipe was obtained with property invasion of some kind, the invader is liable for theft, but as soon as someone is aware of it without violating property (that is, physical property), then they are free to copy the recipe. That is my opinion, at least.
@cab21: Agreed. This is why I do not go in for Richard Stallman's idea of "free software". He basically believes that software developers do have a duty to give away their "Original Recipe", aka their source-code. The net effect of the GNU license is to make free software used less than it otherwise would be as commercial software companies who are not about to release their source code forego the GNU software in favor of developing their own or purchasing a commercial solution.
Your right: To copy anything in the public domain
Your other right: To put nothing in the public domain you choose not to
The logical conclusion of your rights: That you cannot publish anything you also want to keep secret. This is by definition, so it's embarrassing to have to explain it but modern IP law wants to do the impossible: create public secrets.
@Phi est aureum
Of course, companies and individuals have unlimited freedom to contract, and KFC could say that if they show you a tour of their facilities and production, you must agree beforehand to never use the shown methods or sell chicken.
Isn't that a contract over someone's will, thus, invalid?
Exactly. You explained this much better than I could. Thank you, Clayton.
Phi est aureum:Of course, I see no reason to object to, for instance, a software company attempting to keep their ideas and tools restricted through use of cloud access.
Of course. It side-steps IP.
But if someone found a method to crack that and obtain the code or otherwise pertinent material, I don't see any reason that they should be punished and owe royalties or restitution to the software company.
I can't think of any cracks that wouldn't involve the unauthorized usage of the cloud server and, thus, not be a violation of property rights.
Imagine the absurdity: someone invents the radio, sells it, then gets upset that a customer took it apart, figured out how it worked, and built one of his own and sold it. If the original inventor intended no one to ever do this, the only reasonable way to expect that he would be the only one to ever make the radio would be to never sell one to anyone.
That's the point. SaaS is an alternative to selling the floppies or downloading files onto the user's computer.
You will have to forgive me, I am, indeed, no expert by any means on contracts. But if the contract were like, "KFC will offer a tour of its facilities, and in exchange, all consenting tourists agree to give KFC royalties for any future business venture(s) in which the consenting tourist engages in competition of chicken restauranteurin," would this be more acceptable? This way anyone that plans to open up a restaurant selling fried chicken would be obliged to decline a tour from KFC?
Clayton:Your other right: To put nothing in the public domain you choose not to
Yes! And that's what SaaS does, which is why it is an alternative to IP. But someone had to derail my thread.
Neither can I. Of course, it's not out of the realm of possibility even if it is outside the sphere of present imagination. That said, I am against violations of others property. I'm simply saying of some technology or otherwise, new method, is developed that can copy the software from the cloud without being in unauthorized access to the cloud server, I see no reason to object. But, again, I agree that it seems unlikely at the moment, and I applaud companies innovating to protect their investors and the viability of their industry through means other than government-sanctioned monopoly rights.
It's impossible. It's like trying to stomp on someone's flowers without trespassing.
Daniel Muffinburg:That's the point. SaaS is an alternative to selling the floppies or downloading files onto the user's computer.
...But of course, sometimes people want to use programs, you know, locally? And not have to have Internet access (let alone the risk of losing all their data and/or access to something they paid for just because someone at the hosting company decides he doesn't like you or any other possible reason they feel like.)
Not to mention privacy concerns.
... so?
Isn't it more like capturing pollen from someone's flowers blown by the wind and making a clone in their own property?
Phi est aureum: Isn't that a contract over someone's will, thus, invalid? You will have to forgive me, I am, indeed, no expert by any means on contracts. But if the contract were like, "KFC will offer a tour of its facilities, and in exchange, all consenting tourists agree to give KFC royalties for any future business venture(s) in which the consenting tourist engages in competition of chicken restauranteurin," would this be more acceptable? This way anyone that plans to open up a restaurant selling fried chicken would be obliged to decline a tour from KFC?
Oh, neither am I. I read it somewhere, and it makes sense (that the only valid contracts are contracts that involves property titles). Your other example may be valid, though. I'm not sure.
How Linux is Built
Jim Zemlin of the Linux Foundation talks with Jeremy Allison of Google
Aalto Talk with Linus Torvalds, 14 June 2012
SaaS only works with the situation where the client doesn't mind giving up his secrets to the server. Bank-clearing transactions could never be handled with SaaS... the data being transacted is much more valuable than the IP being protected by the SaaS operator. Theoretically, you can use cryptography to solve the problem, at least, to a degree.
Clayton: SaaS only works with the situation where the client doesn't mind giving up his secrets to the server. Bank-clearing transactions could never be handled with SaaS... the data being transacted is much more valuable than the IP being protected by the SaaS operator. Theoretically, you can use cryptography to solve the problem, at least, to a degree. Clayton -
Daniel Muffinburg: John James: Daniel Muffinburg:I don't know why "we" want to, but Microsoft might want to do it to lower the supply to obtain higher prices. So this thread is to help Microsoft [...] Yes **rolls eyes** maintain an artificial damper on innovation and the spread of ideas? What's artificial about it?
Well, wouldn't something like SaaS be considered an organic/natural/legitimate means to keep ideas secret, and thus, an organic damper on innovation and the spread of ideas. On the other hand, the state being an illegitimate and immoral creation, and it's granting of patents and copyrights, on what some may consider to be a misnomer, of "intellectual property," this sort of damper on innovation and the spread of ideas is based on the false right of the use of force granted by monopoly rights, and thus, may be considered by some to be artificial, as opposed to organic.