Copyfascism Watch

these leftist libertarians that oppose copyright without equivalently opposing other bureaucracies are vulgar libertarians

classical economics involve production of labor, not creativity

conventional accounting methods applies to labor

but not to innovation

because a majority of humans are ignorant, human actions

must be able to be voluntary controlled, in addition to

the quality of goods and services produced

because human actions can be directed by the entrepreneur,

human actions are scarce resources and must be made

efficiently by the entrepreneur.

our current form of patent protection is illegitimate

because our state is a monopoly. however, if our state was

not a monopoly (low barriers to succede from the state)

then it would be a voluntary association, so it can

do anything it want such as protecting copyrights

our state monopoly prevents all non-agreers to the state

must obey their patent laws

trade secrets are clearly legitimate. they should be enforced

if it is a voluntary association

anyway entrepreneurs can voluntary make a contract to restrict

people working with their trade secret to move out of the

association.

but territoriality of the circumstance is trivial.

they can restrict some contracts even if the person is outside

the territory, such as video cameras

therefore, entrepreneurs can legitimately restrict human

actions prohibiting the copying of works by using video

cameras in the people who voluntarily agree to the

entrepreneur

what if the user just remembers and then move out?

well, they can use gadgets that make them forget

about these stuff before they are opting out

but "knowledge redistribution" would promote innovation,

as we STAND ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS ;-)

Copyright should properly be called "copyprivilege", as it is not a right but a privilege granted by the government. As such, infringement violates no one's right, but it does violate a privilege.

In popular parlance, violating privilege is frequently called "theft". Thus, I have no problem with using that word, despite the fact that I am generally opposed to government grants of such privilege. Here is an example: a salesman is given an exclusive territory by his company. This is his privilege. If another salesman encroaches on his territory, he will cry out "don't *steal* my customers!". This may not be the exact dictionary definition, but the English language is dynamic and changing.

The law does indeed gives people the exclusive privilege to control the distribution of their creative works, but arguing semantics does nothing to change this state of affairs.

There are many other ways to promote innovation instead of copyright. It would be far better if the government just reward one million dollars to every patentee instead restricting the idea on everyone for 20 years. For the 20 years, products would become so expensive that it hinders competition and it would sometimes be much more expensive than to buy these expensive products than to pay the patentee $1 million dollars for the innovation.

Because 90% of our innovations depend on subsequent improvements, setting the term limit to zero years would encourage subsequential buildup of innovations, which results in exponential growth. So limiting the term to zero years and instead rewarding every patentee $1 million would greatly benefit innovation in the long run. This encourages subsequent would-be innovators to buildup and improve the existing inventions instead of waiting 20 years until the patent expires. So the benefits of of rewarding every patentee $1 million would by far outweigh the costs of a 20 year patent restriction.

If the government wants to promote innovation, they must think of creative ways to achieve innovation. Copyright and patents are just one way. They are not perfect. Long term projects cannot be even be motivated by patents. Patents is juat a means to achieve an end. It's not the only way.

Many options are available to improve innovation, without the hazardous consequences of IP. Government funding, eugenics, education, etc. are equivalent ways to speedup innovation. Eugenics is very effective. It just require killing of the supposably "mentally challenged" people as in the Nazi regime, and encouraging the reproduction of geniuses. Also, we should build a very authoritarian state-regulated education system that encourages innovation. The possibilities are arbitrary. If you support copyright and patents, why wouldn't you just go also support a totalitarian fascist state forcing innovation? Copyright and patents are just equivalent state-creations like eugenics. Indeed, IMHO, it would be cheaper if the government just directly fund the sciences and the arts instead of IP. (not that I prefer any government intervention)

As shown, copyright and patents are just "means" to achieve the "ends". They are not the only means to encourage innovation. Government advocacy of "means" to achieve some ends failed, such as applicating socialism as a "means" to achieve a properous "end".

How much control and compensation does the creator of a work deserve?

How much does a publisher?

I think they deserve little control.

I think many works can be built on from the works of others.

I take as an example the bible a collaborative evolving text that is much the work of translators and monastic scribes as it is of the apostles. Yet it is one of the most popular works ever. Who am I to say it's finished yet either.

I think creators of works deserve a fair compensation. They spend their time, effort creating, and talent creating. We benefit enjoy their creation it seems only fair we should give them a bit of comfort for their trouble.

Rewarding patent inventors with one million dollars is a great idea, since it's so easy to obtain patents.  I could use a couple Lear Jets, please vote for that law.

I tend to take the rather subtle position that (1) Copyright law is theft, because it tries to make private a resource that can't be effectively privatized or enforced, but (2) It's beneficial for people to contribute to and be a part of their culture rather than be marginalized by taking obscure positions like "Copyright is theft, therefore I won't publish in any venue that reasonable people read or view."

Because of (2) I don't mind people using Copyright.

However, I do mind states using Copyright, because I don't like the unnecessary use of state violence to establish a form of property that's really hard to defend, uses public resources (i.e. taxes, coercion of ISPs and individuals on the Internet to "obey Copyright"), and simultaneously decreases everyones' freedom by preventing mutual voluntary association between individuals when these individuals are "illegally copying."  Copyright seems like a loss in every respect: it decreases freedom, and increases the size and scope of government.

Copyright does cause wealth to be transferred to a group of people called "artists."  I'm not sure much can be said about "artists" except (1) They care about money and (2) They realize that information property, given through state monopoly, is rapidly deteriorating.  For some reason (2) causes them to try to increase policing of society, I guess because that's historically worked for other laws, but it's pretty useless.

If "starving artists" are worried about making money, maybe they should stop trying to do so through an ineffective failed property system that I finance as a taxpayer.  I'm not much inclined to finance a government system of art anyway, given that I work at a real job and don't have to resort to the government art coercion system and despite this have time to make intellectually interesting art.  This seems like the optimal outcome.   The government system of "Copyright" is notable for producing starving artists, and artists who fight really hard for the practically statistically zero chance of "making it big" (where they don't even make very much money, just a few million typically), and an incredible amount of shoddy quality art.  This is hardly surprising; it's a typical outcome resulting from government intervention.  Patronage or artists who can support themselves typically gives better results.