Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: So, anyway. Why do we need IP if the employee is already committing a crime by making a copy of the film and selling it? Why not prosecute him on that basis? Why do we need IP on top of that? That is IP. It's IP when the employee's contracts says "you are not allowed to 'make copies without our permission"? It shouldn't even have to say that. It's like putting a sticker on your car that says "you are not allowed to steal this car". The clause is just a reminder.
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: So, anyway. Why do we need IP if the employee is already committing a crime by making a copy of the film and selling it? Why not prosecute him on that basis? Why do we need IP on top of that? That is IP. It's IP when the employee's contracts says "you are not allowed to 'make copies without our permission"?
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: So, anyway. Why do we need IP if the employee is already committing a crime by making a copy of the film and selling it? Why not prosecute him on that basis? Why do we need IP on top of that? That is IP.
Daniel Muffinburg: So, anyway. Why do we need IP if the employee is already committing a crime by making a copy of the film and selling it? Why not prosecute him on that basis? Why do we need IP on top of that?
So, anyway. Why do we need IP if the employee is already committing a crime by making a copy of the film and selling it? Why not prosecute him on that basis? Why do we need IP on top of that?
That is IP.
It's IP when the employee's contracts says "you are not allowed to 'make copies without our permission"?
It shouldn't even have to say that. It's like putting a sticker on your car that says "you are not allowed to steal this car".
The clause is just a reminder.
So the employee is already not allowed to do it. So why the need for IP?
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."
E. R. Olovetto: JackCuyler: Trespassing is a crime unto itself, and therefore the hackee may seek restitution from the hacker. (I wasn't around for a while sorry.) I still don't see how hacking is trespassing unless some physical property is altered. What other action we could call "trespassing" occurs when a person is not physically anywhere near another's property?
JackCuyler: Trespassing is a crime unto itself, and therefore the hackee may seek restitution from the hacker.
Trespassing is a crime unto itself, and therefore the hackee may seek restitution from the hacker.
(I wasn't around for a while sorry.)
I still don't see how hacking is trespassing unless some physical property is altered. What other action we could call "trespassing" occurs when a person is not physically anywhere near another's property?
There is absolutely no way to copy files from my computer without altering something. The CPU usage will increase, bits will be moved on the harddrive, log files will be generated, etc. etc.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Tobbog:I wouldn't call someone who copies a film and distributes it himself a competitor.
Every work is derivative. There is no such thing as an original work, only an original interpretation. Man does not create in a knowledge vacuum.
Copying a film, is simply a derivation. Copying a song is a derivation. The original copy is unchanged. A new copy has been created with new property. There is no loss of value (pay attention Stranger) to the first film maker, because we don't work from the labour theory of value, we work from the subjective theory of value.
The only way to support an objective loss of resale value in property, would be to deny the marginal revolution.
Daniel Muffinburg: So the employee is already not allowed to do it. So why the need for IP?
Are you asking me why property laws are needed?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
liberty student:Copying a film, is simply a derivation. Copying a song is a derivation. The original copy is unchanged. A new copy has been created with new property. There is no loss of value (pay attention Stranger) to the first film maker, because we don't work from the labour theory of value, we work from the subjective theory of value.
By that argument, counterfeiting money does not cause a loss of value either. Like paper money, information only has value if its supply is strictly limited.
You're not allowed to create a derivative of something that was obtained illegally.
Stranger: liberty student:Copying a film, is simply a derivation. Copying a song is a derivation. The original copy is unchanged. A new copy has been created with new property. There is no loss of value (pay attention Stranger) to the first film maker, because we don't work from the labour theory of value, we work from the subjective theory of value. By that argument, counterfeiting money does not cause a loss of value either. Like paper money, information only has value if its supply is strictly limited.
That's exactly right. Which is one of the arguments against government monopoly of money.
Stranger:By that argument, counterfeiting money does not cause a loss of value either.
So are you saying that money has objective purchasing power? Because I am pretty sure money doesn't have objective purchasing power, that the purchasing power of money fluctuates and is subjective.
Stranger:Like paper money, information only has value if its supply is strictly limited.
You're missing the fact that the greater information is shared, the more efficient an economy becomes. By your argument, more people learning to read and write devalues reading and writing. You're basically refuting the possibility for progress by making a claim that every new work is original and not a derivation (if that is what you are saying), and you're also making a grave error by insisting that more value is created by having less aggregate knowledge.
I believe this is the market as zero sum game stuff which I thought most Austrians understood to be bunk.
liberty student:You're missing the fact that the greater information is shared, the more efficient an economy becomes.
You could say that same for any resource, good, or so on. If we all share food, we will never go hungry. If we all share oil, we can commute as far as we want. And so on and so forth, typical communist argument.
Giant_Joe: Stranger: liberty student:Copying a film, is simply a derivation. Copying a song is a derivation. The original copy is unchanged. A new copy has been created with new property. There is no loss of value (pay attention Stranger) to the first film maker, because we don't work from the labour theory of value, we work from the subjective theory of value. By that argument, counterfeiting money does not cause a loss of value either. Like paper money, information only has value if its supply is strictly limited. That's exactly right. Which is one of the arguments against government monopoly of money.
Of course. And abolishing this monopoly does not mean that anyone should have the unlimited right to make copies of dollars. In fact it is the opposite, the ability of privileged groups to make copies of dollars should be outlawed.
Stranger:You could say that same for any resource, good, or so on. If we all share food, we will never go hungry. If we all share oil, we can commute as far as we want. And so on and so forth, typical communist argument.
The comparison you make is flawed because knowledge is not a scarce good.
Try again.
Stranger: Of course. And abolishing this monopoly does not mean that anyone should have the unlimited right to make copies of dollars.
Of course. And abolishing this monopoly does not mean that anyone should have the unlimited right to make copies of dollars.
Yes, it does mean that. The bank would be able to create as many dollars (ie. bank notes) as it wanted. The problem for the bank would then be rapid depreciation of their currency. Since it is the banks interest to be in business, and since they want the people using their bank notes, they wouldn't do this. People would want more bank notes, but the bank wouldn't be willing to make them if it didn't serve the bank's interests.
In fact it is the opposite, the ability of privileged groups to make copies of dollars should be outlawed.
Such groups shouldn't exist under any law. Hence, the abolition of the monopoly on money.
Stranger:In fact it is the opposite, the ability of privileged groups to make copies of dollars should be outlawed.
But you're making the exact opposite argument with regards to intellectual monopoly. You're saying that knowledge should exist as monopoly, and that competition should be outlawed.
liberty student: Stranger:In fact it is the opposite, the ability of privileged groups to make copies of dollars should be outlawed. But you're making the exact opposite argument with regards to intellectual monopoly. You're saying that knowledge should exist as monopoly, and that competition should be outlawed.
Much like in a free banking system, you are perfectly allowed to create your own information under IP, only you are forbidden from reproducing a competitor's information. There is no such thing as an intellectual monopoly.
liberty student:The comparison you make is flawed because knowledge is not a scarce good.
Information is a scarce good however, your repeated attempts to confuse information with knowledge and ideas notwithstanding. It is information that is protected by IP. Information requires skills, capital and labor to produce, hence it must be owned and protected.
Stranger:Much like in a free banking system, you are perfectly allowed to create your own information under IP, only you are forbidden from reproducing a competitor's information.
But isn't all knowledge a derivation? Or are you claiming that every idea is formed in a vacuum, separate from other ideas, language, mathematics, environmental influences etc?
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: So the employee is already not allowed to do it. So why the need for IP? Are you asking me why property laws are needed?
I understand how paper, harddrives, DVDs, Blu-rays, floppy disks, film, paintings, books, iPods, Walkmans, miniDVs, CDs, and brain cells can be property. But I do not understand how abstract concepts and ideas can be property.
Stranger:Information is a scarce good however, your repeated attempts to confuse information with knowledge and ideas notwithstanding.
So are you saying that information exists independently of its creation? If that is so, you have undermined your own argument. If not, then you are playing a semantic game with me.
What is the difference between knowledge and information?
Stranger:Information requires skills, capital and labor to produce, hence it must be owned and protected.
This is LTV stuff. Very surprising.
Fallacy of composition.
Daniel Muffinburg:I understand how paper, harddrives, DVDs, Blu-rays, floppy disks, film, paintings, books, iPods, Walkmans, miniDVs, CDs, and brain cells can be property. But I do not understand how can abstract concepts and ideas can be property.
Good thing that we are not discussing abstract concepts and ideas then, because that only adds to the confusion.
One last time, copyright protects information.
liberty student: So are you saying that information exists independently of its creation? If that is so, you have undermined your own argument. If not, then you are playing a semantic game with me. What is the difference between knowledge and information?
Information has a physical manifestation.
Stranger:You're not allowed to create a derivative of something that was obtained illegally.
What is the legal basis for the restriction of my use of my property? I agree I should be punished/held responsible for the theft. Once the punishment/restitution is settled, however, why is my use of my property restricted? The raw materials I use are my property.
As a very simple example, say you write a short poem. I steal your poem, and in the short time it's in my possession, I memorize it. I'm caught, return the poem, and compensate you to your satisfaction. We've agreed the matter is settled, in a very legally binding way. I then legally purchase a notebook and a pen. Is it your claim that I may not write down the poem, from memory, on my paper using my pen?
JackCuyler: Is it your claim that I may not write down the poem, from memory, on my paper using my pen?
Exactly, as you accessed the media illegally in order to do so.
Stranger:Information has a physical manifestation.
So then isn't every physical thing a form of information?
liberty student: Stranger:Information has a physical manifestation. So then isn't every physical thing a form of information?
No.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg:I understand how paper, harddrives, DVDs, Blu-rays, floppy disks, film, paintings, books, iPods, Walkmans, miniDVs, CDs, and brain cells can be property. But I do not understand how can abstract concepts and ideas can be property. Good thing that we are not discussing abstract concepts and ideas then, because that only adds to the confusion. One last time, copyright protects information.
Define copyright. Are you using the definition that amounts to what exists today under current IP laws, or is there some other definition you are using?
Stranger: JackCuyler: Is it your claim that I may not write down the poem, from memory, on my paper using my pen? Exactly, as you accessed the media illegally in order to do so.
Why do we need seperate IP laws for that? Don't private property rights already cover that?
Since our matter was settled, I don't see the justification. Your attempt to control my behavior and property would be a violation of our agreement, and therefore would be aggression. You cannot continually make me pay for the initial illegal act after the matter has been settled.
JackCuyler: Since our matter was settled, I don't see the justification. Your attempt to control my behavior and property would be a violation of our agreement, and therefore would be aggression. You cannot continually make me pay for the initial illegal act after the matter has been settled.
You committed a new crime. Settlements don't give you a license to commit future crimes.
Stranger: JackCuyler: Since our matter was settled, I don't see the justification. Your attempt to control my behavior and property would be a violation of our agreement, and therefore would be aggression. You cannot continually make me pay for the initial illegal act after the matter has been settled. You committed a new crime. Settlements don't give you a license to commit future crimes.
What is the crime?
Daniel Muffinburg: Define copyright. Are you using the definition that amounts to what exists today under current IP laws, or is there some other definition you are using?
The right to reproduce the information on media.
How is this different from current IP laws?
Daniel Muffinburg: Why do we need seperate IP laws for that? Don't private property rights already cover that?
I don't see how the section of the law codes that defines these rights is in any way pertinent to this debate.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Define copyright. Are you using the definition that amounts to what exists today under current IP laws, or is there some other definition you are using? The right to reproduce the information on media. How is this different from current IP laws?
So if you make a painting and I can see it through your window from my property, and I then make an exact replica of your painting, have I violated your IP rights?
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Why do we need seperate IP laws for that? Don't private property rights already cover that? I don't see how the section of the law codes that defines these rights is in any way pertinent to this debate.
Oh gawd. I must say, your attempts to avoid questions are pretty good but so damn obvious.
Stranger: liberty student: Stranger:Information has a physical manifestation. So then isn't every physical thing a form of information? No.
So we're back to semantics. What is the difference between a physical thing, and information?
Also, you didn't answer me about derivations. Do you believe creation occurs in a vacuum or do you believe that we build on information we accumulate from others and our environment?
liberty student: So we're back to semantics. What is the difference between a physical thing, and information?
Consult a physics professor to learn about classes of physical things.
liberty student:Do you believe creation occurs in a vacuum or do you believe that we build on information we accumulate from others and our environment?
What difference does it make? If a media says you are not allowed to access it in order to copy the information to another media, then you are not allowed to do such a thing.
Daniel Muffinburg: So if you make a painting and I can see it through your window from my property, and I then make an exact replica of your painting, have I violated your IP rights?
I can't imagine on what outlandish terms you think you could be allowed to do that, or even be able to. There are entire professions of people capable of telling even the best forgeries apart from the real thing.
JackCuyler: E. R. Olovetto: JackCuyler: Trespassing is a crime unto itself, and therefore the hackee may seek restitution from the hacker. (I wasn't around for a while sorry.) I still don't see how hacking is trespassing unless some physical property is altered. What other action we could call "trespassing" occurs when a person is not physically anywhere near another's property? There is absolutely no way to copy files from my computer without altering something. The CPU usage will increase, bits will be moved on the harddrive, log files will be generated, etc. etc.
Most people have websites on a server somewhere, but that is besides the point. I agreed with that line of reasoning in a hypothetical case where a hacker shut down a website. In that case, the physical alteration of the structure of a hard disk or what have you affected the owner and/or end users.
There could be other scenarios (what you are calling trespass) where "the hacker" merely gained access to information, say a yet to be published book, without violating any agreement with the owner or making physical alteration via use which affected the owner negatively. His server still functions and his book is intact. The hacker in essence dipped his bucket into a stream flowing past his property.
Perhaps this is a grey area, and a case could be made either way depending on other circumstances, like what means the hacker took vs. what access was allowed normally. I don't know but I am not convinced that the inevitable physical alteration constitutes criminal behavior, just because throwing out the word trespass seems to fit. I think that law in practice has to account for our connectedness and find an acceptable threshold of activity by those who encounter other people's property.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Stranger: liberty student: So we're back to semantics. What is the difference between a physical thing, and information? Consult a physics professor to learn about classes of physical things. liberty student:Do you believe creation occurs in a vacuum or do you believe that we build on information we accumulate from others and our environment? What difference does it make? If a media says you are not allowed to access it in order to copy the information to another media, then you are not allowed to do such a thing.
That is already covered by private property rights via contract rights. So, why the need for IP rights?
Stranger: liberty student: So we're back to semantics. What is the difference between a physical thing, and information? Consult a physics professor to learn about classes of physical things.
it would kind of be in your best interest to defend your point.
Can someone please explain to me how copying is stealing? I'm not talking about a breach of contract. Just a plain copy. How is it stealing.
This is irrelevant. Information is not a scarce good nor a physical thing.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: So if you make a painting and I can see it through your window from my property, and I then make an exact replica of your painting, have I violated your IP rights? I can't imagine on what outlandish terms you think you could be allowed to do that, or even be able to. There are entire professions of people capable of telling even the best forgeries apart from the real thing.
Nice dodge. What does forgery have to do with this? Please, answer the question in my previous comment.
Daniel Muffinburg: That is already covered by private property rights via contract rights. So, why the need for IP rights?
I don't understand your question. IP rights are part of private property rights and contract rights.
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: So if you make a painting and I can see it through your window from my property, and I then make an exact replica of your painting, have I violated your IP rights? I can't imagine on what outlandish terms you think you could be allowed to do that, or even be able to. There are entire professions of people capable of telling even the best forgeries apart from the real thing. Nice dodge. What does forgery have to do with this? Please, answer the question in my previous comment.
Your scenario is impossible, hence there is no point in responding to it.