IP is not about property, it's about the recognition of a pattern. It's: "If I am the first to identify that a certain sequence of notes is aesthetically pleasing, no one else can use that sequence of notes without my permission." It's completely nonsensical as a concept in and of itself, so it could only be argued from the utilitarian position that it encourages invention and supports inventors and authors. But even that position is extremely weak, and in fact the opposite is true, as a scientist so effectively explains here.
Why anarchy fails
bloomj31: 2. If you copyright garzzlebax then you have the right to that name or whatever. I can guarantee you you'd be glad of copyright laws if you sold a product called garzzlebax and then someone came out with a different product called garzzlebax. Because then the time and effort you'd put into your product wouldn't have been for nothing. Ideas can definitely be stolen. If, for instance, I have a blueprint for a machine. Someone steals the blueprint and makes the machine. Well, I have first claim to the profits because I have first claim to the design. This is good for me bad for the thief. You take away the laws and suddenly everyone has a reason to just steal from someone else whenever they come up with something good. I don't like that possibility.
2. If you copyright garzzlebax then you have the right to that name or whatever. I can guarantee you you'd be glad of copyright laws if you sold a product called garzzlebax and then someone came out with a different product called garzzlebax. Because then the time and effort you'd put into your product wouldn't have been for nothing. Ideas can definitely be stolen. If, for instance, I have a blueprint for a machine. Someone steals the blueprint and makes the machine. Well, I have first claim to the profits because I have first claim to the design. This is good for me bad for the thief. You take away the laws and suddenly everyone has a reason to just steal from someone else whenever they come up with something good. I don't like that possibility.
Yes, I would be upset if someone else made money off my idea. I'm also upset over the fact that I don't own everything I see. I can't control other people or their property. Such is life.
If someone steals blueprints, they are stealing blueprints. That's something physical. That's property. Again, ideas cant' be stolen.
Giant_Joe: Yes, I would be upset if someone else made money off my idea. I'm also upset over the fact that I don't own everything I see. I can't control other people or their property. Such is life. If someone steals blueprints, they are stealing blueprints. That's something physical. That's property. Again, ideas cant' be stolen.
The question isn't whether you can own everything you see, but whether or not you can have rights to something you work hard to create. Just because it isn't physical doesn't mean you can't own it. Or at least claim to own it. Ownership still requires enforcement. I just happen to think that the government or non-government courts should recognize intellectual property.
I also think you're mischaracterizing the way IP works. The law doesn't say you can't think of an idea I've copyrighted. Just that you can't reproduce that idea for purposes of selling it or something physical relating to it without my permission.
So for instance, McDonald's. They own the rights to the brand name, the layout of the restaurant, the product line, etc. Now, you can think about Mcdonald's without a problem. But you can't just go make a Mcdonald's without license from McDonald's. And that's because it took years and years to establish that brand and the product line and everything else associated with McDonald's. Another example is Mickey Mouse. Think how many years it took Disney to make Mickey a household name. But he's not real. He's just an idea. Same goes for Superman. There's a reason Siegel and Schuster are fighting DC over rights to Superman.
I think that intellectual property should be protected as much as physical property to make sure that people cannot benefit from the labor of another without due compensation.
bloomj31:But what if I come up with something first? Shouldn't I have exclusive right to it for a period of time?
Why not forever?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
bloomj31:1. Not just because I say so but because a lot of people say so. You may not think that's a legitimate reason but that's pretty much how democratic politics works. I dunno, I like 7 years.
So might makes right?
Spideynw: So might makes right?
This isn't about might, this is about consensus.
Spideynw: Why not forever?
Seems unfair.
bloomj31: Spideynw: So might makes right? This isn't about might, this is about consensus.
Can someone please ban this troll?
bloomj31: Spideynw: Why not forever? Seems unfair.
Why?
Spideynw: Can someone please ban this troll?
Why is it that whenever someone disagrees with someone on the internet, they think they're trolling? I'm trying to say that I want to use the same logic I use for protecting private property on intellectual property. How can you be for the state protecting one and not the other? The both are fruits of the labor of someone. Perhaps private property shouldn't exist either because it's not fair for someone to own a piece of land? I see your position as being inconsistent with protection of private property.
Spideynw: Why?
Well, I suppose it would depend on how long someone had to work on an idea before they patented or trademarked it. But if you can't do something with it in 7 years, it's probably time for someone else to give it a shot.
The real question you should be asking, Spidey, is what makes you think that just because you disagree with something that everyone should suddenly change their ways just to suit you? I mean what do they stand to gain from appeasing you?
that's a non-question bloomj31 coming from you. you are not on equal footing here, don't you think you should have realized that?
wilderness: that's a non-question bloomj31 coming from you. you are not on equal footing here, don't you think you should have realized that?
Equal footing with whom?
bloomj31: Spideynw: Can someone please ban this troll? Why is it that whenever someone disagrees with someone on the internet, they think they're trolling? I'm trying to say that I want to use the same logic I use for protecting private property on intellectual property. How can you be for the state protecting one and not the other? The both are fruits of the labor of someone. Perhaps private property shouldn't exist either because it's not fair for someone to own a piece of land? I see your position as being inconsistent with protection of private property.
Your position is that if there is some consensus, then it is OK to do whatever the majority wants to the minority. That, by definition, is might makes right. Since you refuse to acknowledge your position, you are obviously just trolling.
Real property can be stolen. IP cannot be stolen. Enforcement of real property rights does not infringe on the real property rights of anyone else. Enforcement of IP rights infringes on the real property rights of everyone else.
It is blatantly obvious that you have no interest in a real discussion. You just want to hold onto your ideas, regardless of the logic used. You are a troll, and you should be banned.
bloomj31: Equal footing with whom?
every issue you bring up, it will be YOU bringing it up. And you advocate initiating physical aggression to get your way. To question anybody elses motives, with that in mind, automatically puts you on the lesser footing.
bloomj31: Spideynw: Why? Well, I suppose it would depend on how long someone had to work on an idea before they patented or trademarked it. But if you can't do something with it in 7 years, it's probably time for someone else to give it a shot.
Why? Why not 10 minutes, 1 hour, 1 week, 1 month, 7 months, 2 years, 1 decade, 7 decades, 7 centuries, etc., etc. What makes you such an expert? Are you god?
wilderness:And you advocate initiating physical aggression to get your way.
And bloomj31 the troll refuses to acknowledge that fact.
Spideynw: Your position is that if there is some consensus, then it is OK to do whatever the majority wants to the minority. That, by definition, is might makes right. Since you refuse to acknowledge your position, you are obviously just trolling. Real property can be stolen. IP cannot be stolen. Enforcement of real property rights does not infringe on the real property rights of anyone else. Enforcement of IP rights infringes on the real property rights of everyone else. It is blatantly obvious that you have no interest in a real discussion. You just want to hold onto your ideas, regardless of the logic used. You are a troll, and you should be banned.
No, not just some consensus. Vast consensus. Which means that you just want to have the power to tell people that even though they all agree, you don't so they should listen to you. You're still arguing that might makes right, just your might and not theirs.
And yes, IP can obviously be stolen. Look at the whole music industry. They've got a problem. Every time someone makes a song now, I can just go download it and get it for free. Same thing with movies. Someone takes a year and spends 100 million dollars to get a movie made and I can watch it on the internet for free. Same thing for video games. Modern Warfare 2 leaked like a week before it was released and if they hadn't caught the kid who did it, the game would've probably been available on a torrent file for anyone who wanted to download it on PC. All these projects cost millions of dollars to make and they can be stolen. So obviously, your logic does not square with reality.
Spideynw: Why? Why not 10 minutes, 1 hour, 1 week, 1 month, 7 months, 2 years, 1 decade, 7 decades, 7 centuries, etc., etc. What makes you such an expert? Are you god?
No, and my ruling is obviously not binding. But yours isn't either, even though you seem to think it is.
wilderness: every issue you bring up, it will be YOU bringing it up. And you advocate initiating physical aggression to get your way. To question anybody elses motives, with that in mind, automatically puts you on the lesser footing.
Initiating physical aggression to get my way in what? What are you talking about?
bloomj31: Initiating physical aggression to get my way in what? What are you talking about?
don't play dumb and innocent, you know exactly what I am talking about. blood is on your hands by your positive/assertive support for your wants via initiating coercion.
wilderness: don't play dumb and innocent, you know exactly what I am talking about. blood is on your hands by your positive/assertive support for your wants via initiating coercion.
Blood is on my hands? Really? Wilderness, what the hell are you talking about bro?
If someone steals from someone else then you're damn right, I'm willing to use coercion to get them to give back what they've stolen. If someone harms someone else physically, damn right, I'll use physical coercion to punish them for their actions.
bloomj31:No, not just some consensus. Vast consensus.
Which still means there are those that do not consent. In other words, might make right.
bloomj31: Which means that you just want to have the power to tell people that even though they all agree, you don't so they should listen to you. You're still arguing that might makes right, just your might and not theirs.
I advocate letting people opt out of paying taxes or having to use state currency or being subject to state law. How is me not paying taxes, not using state currency, or not being subject to state law in any way using force? But I am sure the troll won't be able to comprehend that statement.
As to real property, all real property is owned. The question comes down to, who has the best claim to the property. As to ideas, once they become public knowledge, everyone has them, and as such, no one can claim them. But you do not venture into the realm of logic, just might makes right.
bloomj31:And yes, IP can obviously be stolen.
Really? So when I copy a song, from your CD, it magically disappears? Or if I go to your concert and record it, you magically lose your ability to sing that song again? Oh wait, the troll doesn't understand the difference between "copying" and "stealing", because the troll doesn't like to recognize reality.
bloomj31:Look at the whole music industry. They've got a problem. Every time someone makes a song now, I can just do download it and get it for free.
And if I have a monopoly on providing electricity in an area and someone else builds a power plant, who gives a shit that I am now losing money to the new power plant? Cry me a river.
Spideynw: Which still means there are those that do not consent. In other words, might make right. I advocate letting people opt out of paying taxes or having to use state currency or being subject to state law. How is me not paying taxes, not using state currency, or not being subject to state law in any way using force? But I am sure the troll won't be able to comprehend that statement. As to real property, all real property is owned. The question comes down to, who has the best claim to the property. As to ideas, once they become public knowledge, everyone has them, and as such, no one can claim them. But you do not venture into the realm of logic, just might makes right. Really? So when I copy a song, from your CD, it magically disappears? Or if I go to your concert and record it, you magically lose your ability to sing that song again? Oh wait, the troll doesn't understand the difference between "copying" and "stealing", because the troll doesn't like to recognize reality. And if I have a monopoly on providing electricity in an area and someone else builds a power plant, who gives a shit that I am now losing money to the new power plant?
And if I have a monopoly on providing electricity in an area and someone else builds a power plant, who gives a shit that I am now losing money to the new power plant?
1. But what gives you the right to tell them what to do? What makes you think that your dissent gives you the special privilege to not play the game?
2. I advocate letting people opt out of paying taxes too. But the power to govern is the power to tax. As long as the government is going to be collecting the money, I'm going to advocate that it be spent in the ways that benefit me. But yeah I'll back you on abolishing taxes.
3. But who has the right to collect on the royalties? The person who created the content or the people who've stolen it and used it? IP is the right of the producer to collect revenue on their product. Everyone knows about McDonald's doesn't mean they have the right to go make one without the owner's consent.
4. Did I make the CD? No. Some artist did. And they have a label. And there were probably millions of dollars spend on development, editing, distribution, etc. They have to make that money back by selling their product, but apparently, once someone else has heard the product of their labor, they don't own it anymore. Why make anything IP based if someone can just come steal it from me?
5. The thing is that they can't just package your energy plant into a Mp3 file and then send it halfway across the world where it can be unzipped and rebuilt there. But, if they were to take your energy plant and then use it for themselves. Or deny you the profits you get from your customers, they'd be doing the same thing IP pirates do to music companies, video game publishers, and movie studios.
Wait, doesn't the Mises Institute have rights to reproduce the material on this site?
In particular, the Mises books, the Rothbard books, etc?
You're saying that IP is sound because government enforces it?
Giant_Joe: You're saying that IP is sound because government enforces it?
No, I'm saying the government enforces it because IP is sound.
bloomj31: Giant_Joe: You're saying that IP is sound because government enforces it? No, I'm saying the government enforces it because IP is sound.
That's right, that's how our government works. You're not making any different claim than they are, just that you're right and they're not. You would use force against them to get your way.
You would steal people's ideas and the fruits of their intellectual labor and deny them compensation for the time and energy they put into creating them. You're no better than the people you claim to oppose.
But seriously though, doesn't Mises Institute have the material they distribute protected by some kind of copyright or license?
bloomj31: That's right, that's how our government works. You're not making any different claim than they are, just that you're right and they're not. You would use force against them to get your way. You would steal people's ideas and the fruits of their intellectual labor and deny them compensation for the time and energy they put into creating them. You're no better than the people you claim to oppose.
And you are obviously a troll.
bloomj31: That's right, that's how our government works.
That's right, that's how our government works.
So that's ok?
You're not making any different claim than they are, just that you're right and they're not.
If we're making the same claim, how can one be right and one be wrong?
You would use force against them to get your way.
Force against who? The government? Possibly. There are the ones who have to prove legitimacy to me. They are the ones who steal from me.
Where does the stealing happen?
As for the hard work... who cares? I don't believe in the labor theory of value. The point isn't to work hard, it's to provide something that other people want.
Spideynw: And you are obviously a troll.
Your logic is bankrupt and out of touch with reality. You don't care about protecting the fruits of people's labor.
bloomj31:I understand that people on this site aren't for democracy but unfortunately, America still plays the democracy game. So for better or worse, that's the context in which these rules have to be considered.
I understand the people on this site aren't for putting Jews in ovens, but unfortunately, Nazi Germany still plays the democracy game. So for better or worse, that's the context in which these rules have to be considered.
Make sense?
bloomj31:I'm sure there's a ton of rebuttal but I support all forms of private property, including IP and I think the state or non-governmental enforcer should have a role in protecting people's property, whether it be physical or intellectual.
There is no such thing as intellectual property. It is a non-concept. It can't even be described coherently under any system of property rights I have heard. It is intellectual monopoly, and I wish people would refer to it that way, to make clear that IP [sic] is created by the state to award privilege to some individuals at the expense of the market at large.
Giant_Joe: So that's ok? If we're making the same claim, how can one be right and one be wrong? Force against who? The government? Possibly. There are the ones who have to prove legitimacy to me. They are the ones who steal from me. Where does the stealing happen?
1. It's a damn sight better than what you're proposing.
2. The point is that you don't believe might doesn't make right, just that your might is legitimate and theirs is not.
3. Why? What makes you so special? Why does the majority have to prove anything to you? You would treat them the same way. You're not different.
4. When someone takes a intellectual product and makes money by distributing it even though they did nothing to create it. It's just like how taxes involve taking away the value of a worker's labor, so does stealing IP involve the theft of the producer's labor. It's the same thing. But you claim to protect one and not the other. Inconsistent.
liberty student: I understand the people on this site aren't for putting Jews in ovens, but unfortunately, Nazi Germany still plays the democracy game. So for better or worse, that's the content in which these rules have to be considered. Make sense? There is no such thing as intellectual property. It is a non-concept. It can't even be described coherently under any system of property rights I have heard. It is intellectual monopoly, and I wish people would refer to it that way, to make clear that IP [sic] is created by the state to award privilege to some individuals at the expense of the market at large.
I understand the people on this site aren't for putting Jews in ovens, but unfortunately, Nazi Germany still plays the democracy game. So for better or worse, that's the content in which these rules have to be considered.
1. This doesn't follow. I'm talking about protecting people's property, not killing people. But, since you've brought up a flaw with democracy, I will admit that democracies can fail. But this is not an instance of democratic failure. Just because democracies can fail doesn't mean they always do.
2. So is private property. It gives individuals a monopoly over their own property at the expense of the market at large. It would be better for everyone who didn't own the private property if the owner's rights weren't protected. But that would be taking away the fruits of the labor of the owner. In much the same way that the destruction of IP would take away from the labor of the producer.
3. Does the Mises Institute have copyrights on the material it spreads or not?
bloomj31: 1. It's a damn sight better than what you're proposing.
That's just how you feel. It's a non sequitur.
So they are different claims?
The majority does not have a claim on ownership of me. If they want a claim of ownership on me or my property, they have to prove it to me that they are deserving or in the right.
Just because someone creates an idea doesn't mean they can profit from it.
Just because someone didn't create an idea doesn't mean that they can't profit from it.
bloomj31:This doesn't follow.
Indeed it does. You made an appeal to democracy and an appeal to "this is the context of the discussion, how it is"
I simply pointed out that in the 1940s, your argument would amount to, democracy puts Jews in ovens, so this is the context we have to look at it.
Your appeals were non-sensical.
bloomj31: But this is not an instance of democratic failure.
It is a failure of any monopoly state, of which democracy is only one kind. Yes, it is a failure of democracy, but specifically, a failure of statism.
bloomj31:So is private property.
So is private property what?
bloomj31:It gives individuals a monopoly over their own property at the expense of the market at large.
No it doesn't, because property can only have one owner at a time, as it is scarce. You and I can't both claim 100% ownership over my car. But you and I can both claim 100% ownership over the idea of having fried eggs and bacon for breakfast, or rowing a boat without coming into conflict over control of the idea.
The rest of your point #2 is incoherent. Please make an argument, your use of sarcasm or irony isn't well presented.
bloomj31:Does the Mises Institute have copyrights on the material it spreads or not?
Why would that matter? The Mises Institute doesn't speak for me. What they do isn't indicative of the position of everyone in this forum, let alone everyone who is a member. Is this another failed attempt at arguing by assertion, and trying to use an authority as a proof?
FYI, LvMI has copyright only because the state forces it. Everything on Mises.org is Creative Commons and can be distributed freely. The fact that LvMI does not participate in intellectual monopoly, is why it is so successful in spreading ideas. Because society does not progress when ideas are restricted in ownership. That should be intuitive to anyone who spends more than 5 minutes considering how markets work, and understands competition, monopoly and coercion.
Nearly 100% of these circular discussions, all come down to a lack of economic education by people who insist upon arguing philosophy and politics. If one has a basic grasp of austrian ideas, and simple economic theory, the answers are somewhat self-evident.