-
Sieben, yes, if you take IP arguments seriously, your argument makes sense; but of course, the IP advocates, who are confused and/or disingenuous, will find some ad hoc way to weasel out of it.
-
Sieben: "Arguments for IP are themselves IP. Therefore, advocates of IP cannot use pro IP arguments without the original creator's permission. If I recall correctly, it was some King in the 17th century. Don't violate his property rights!" Yep. I argued somethign similar here: An Objectivist IP Argument for Taxation http://www.stephankinsella
-
Onar Am: "I wholeheartedly agree that it is completely ridiculous to say that killing someone is ok unless you explicitly agree not to kill them. By the same token it is completely ridiculous to say that copying and distributing someone's intellectual product is ok unless you explicitly agree not to copy and distribute it." It is disingenuous
-
Onar Am: " Does it cover fashion? perfume smells? math algorithms? should we have petty patents? design patents? plant patents? Boat hull designs? database rights? moral rights? Defamation? The answer is that information rights cover all of the above." Wow. So it even covers things the current IP law does not cover. You would extend IP rights
-
Onar Am wrote: [quote]In my article I used this as an example of what lunacy positions follow from denying IP. I would also like to add that in an ancap anti-IP society it is perfectly ok to kill someone if you haven't explicitly entered into a mutual agreement that you should not kill each other. [/quote] IP prima facie violates property rights
-
"using your work" just means manipulating and using their own property as guided by information. Who says you own the information? Calling it "work" does not do anything but question beg.
-
No time to reply in detail, but this whole thing is confused and almost incoherent. Just a few comments: Intellectual property rights are rights to ownership over products of the mind such as novels, music, articles, research data and software. Note that he does not define IP. Just gives "such as" examples. IP advocates never know what system
-
Stranger: "Libertarianism is not about abolishing all things the state has taken over." IP law is not some private institution the state took over. It is something new and evil the state created--just like Social Security and taxation and the federal reserve.
-
z1234: "Pray tell, where are physical property laws written and who is their enforcer? " this very question is statist and positivist: written? why does it have to be "written" to be a law? Are you aware that property law operates without, and precedes, the state? Like, say, roads and education. Are you aware that IP law is a creature
-
z1235: "There are boundary problems in information property just as there are in physical property. Plenty of latter have been debated in this forum. The likelihood of a Chinese man creating a 10GB sequence within informational proximity of the movie "Avatar" is smaller than the possibility of me literally walking through you (as allowed