Stranger: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.
Such a claim could not be enforced, and is laughable on its face. Third parties are not bound by contracts.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
JackCuyler: Stranger: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. Such a claim could not be enforced, and is laughable on its face. Third parties are not bound by contracts.
Is a "trespassers will be shot" sign a contract?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Another dodge. Surely it's possible.
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."
Stranger: 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: That is already covered by private property rights via contract rights. So, why the need for IP rights?
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.
Then give an example of a violation of IP rights.
No. You can't just claim ownership of patterns or concepts. Any valid copyright agreement you may be able to forge with a person buying the original scarce, physical object can't apply to 3rd parties.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Stranger: JackCuyler: Stranger: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. Such a claim could not be enforced, and is laughable on its face. Third parties are not bound by contracts. Is a "trespassers will be shot" sign a contract?
No. First of all, a person might not be able to read your sign. Second, murder is clearly beyond the level of justifiable punishment for mere trespass.
Daniel Muffinburg: Another dodge. Surely it's possible.
Consult a specialist in forgeries. He'll set you straight on that.
E. R. Olovetto: No. First of all, a person might not be able to read your sign. Second, murder is clearly beyond the level of justifiable punishment for mere trespass.
So if there is no sign, you are allowed to trespass, and to profit from your trespass?
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Another dodge. Surely it's possible. Consult a specialist in forgeries. He'll set you straight on that.
Counterfeiting is fraud. What typically is considered "IP rights" violations is different.
Stranger: E. R. Olovetto: No. First of all, a person might not be able to read your sign. Second, murder is clearly beyond the level of justifiable punishment for mere trespass. So if there is no sign, you are allowed to trespass, and to profit from your trespass?
Did I say that? Please stop being so disingenuous. The hypo is too vague. I didn't say that the lack of a sign meant trespass was allowable. I said that mere trespass can not be justifiably punished by murder. Trespass + making a threat may be.
**rolls eyes** and I'm the one who gets accused of playing semantics games. Allow to try this:
So if you make a painting and I can see it through your window from my property, and I then make a replica of your painting, have I violated your IP rights?
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: 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. Then give an example of a violation of IP rights.
I am awaiting a proper response to this.
That I profit from the trespass is not anyone's concern. Crimes do not magically become more severe because the perpetrator profits from the crime. If I trespass, the victim is entitled to compensation for the trespass, not for any profits I may have gained by the trespass.
If I break into your house and photograph you in bed with your girlfriend, I have committed a crime, and owe you compensation. The crime is no more or less severe, and the compensation owed no more or less, if I did it because I am a pervert or if I did it because your other girlfriend paid me to. My motives are not your concern; my actions are.
Stranger: Consult a physics professor to learn about classes of physical things.
Consult a physics professor to learn about classes of physical things.
So it's an argument that only a physics professor can articulate? I'm not sure what value you add to the discussion by making claims you cannot support.
Stranger: 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.
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's a contract which has nothing to do with capital, labour etc. It also has nothing to do with information freely shared as most information is.
So I will ask again, is information created in a vacuum, or is it created as a derivation of pre-existing information? The difference is, heads you are being dishonest, and tails you refute your own argument. This Morton's fork may explain why you are now being so evasive.
IP also covers patents, don't forget. If I can't make copies after seeing the original work, then only Ford has the right to build automobiles, because everyone else copied Ford's work. We can apply the same standards to any product that doesn't occur naturally - the original inventor, or his heirs, are the only ones who can legally make that product. Oh, but wait! Patents cover processes, as well. So things like farming are protected. Only those farmers who learned to do it themselves, rather than seeing it done, get to farm. Or their heirs.
The reason IP law currently has time limits is because IP creates monopolies. This unbalances the market far too much to be allowed indefinitely, so a duration was decided upon. It is an example of state interference in the market, pure and simple.
BTW, Stranger, have you noticed how many of your arguments are circular? Information is property, therefore stealing it is wrong. How can we call it stealing? Well, because information is property!
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
JackCuyler:"Recover" in what sense? Did the hacker make a copy and the delete the original? If so, the hackee may certainly attempt to recover the data. If not, what's to recover? The original is still in place. The only question then is what to do about the crime of trespassing.
Yes, tell us what would be the appropriate punishment for simple trespass that causes by your definition no damage?
Once you assume that copying information can cause no harm...which is your position...there is very little grounds for damages...even if in the real world the hacked company just lost 100 million dollars and the company went broke as a result of the copying.
So since this is your idea...tell us what the appropriate punishment is.
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.
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.
I can see you in court demanding the hackers imprisonment for a momentary increased CPU usage.....my god the horror of it all. What is the appropriate restitution for increased CPU usage...maybe paying the electric bill for a month .....that sounds more than sufficient. Meanwhile the copied data bankrupts the company.
liberty student: 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.
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.
So we should be forced to share because you think it is more efficient? Hardly a pro liberty approach. Your theory fails to address two major points, one, what happens to information copied by trespass or contract violation and two, why does the current unregulated market for information treat information like property which is contrary to your prediction regarding unregulated markets for information? Until you can answer those two questions you have no logical ground to stand on.
E. R. Olovetto: 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. This is irrelevant. Information is not a scarce good nor a physical thing.
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: So we're back to semantics. What is the difference between a physical thing, and information?
So we're back to semantics. What is the difference between a physical thing, and information?
This is irrelevant. Information is not a scarce good nor a physical thing.
Everything that the market does regarding information is in direct contradiction to your notion that information is not scarce. All scarce things have prices. Information has prices.
Third parties are bound by the rules regarding receiving stolen property. What was stolen was the original owners ability to release the information in their possession as they saw fit. You have no right to take information from me without my permission and give it to others. The third party possession is essentially the fruit of the poisoned tree.
Stranger:Is a "trespassers will be shot" sign a contract?
Did you put such a sign next to any random road and shot everyone who passed?
So if I start a cover band and we play Deep Purple's "Woman from Tokyo" at a club or something somewhere, or I just sing it aloud while im walking down the street one day, have I committed some sort of crime? You can't even claim that Purple is losing revenue since they never would have played at that particular venue.
Have Iron Maiden committed a crime because they were influenced by Purple and because they use similar musical techniques?
When Mises.org puts up Adam Smith's works and lets us read them for free without asking him or his descendants have they caused him or his descendants any loss?
E. R. Olovetto: Did I say that? Please stop being so disingenuous. The hypo is too vague. I didn't say that the lack of a sign meant trespass was allowable. I said that mere trespass can not be justifiably punished by murder. Trespass + making a threat may be.
And you completely missed the point. If it doesn't take a contract to be guilty of trespass, then the "I don't have a contract with the copyright holder hence I get to copy" argument is laughable.
Taras Smereka:So if I start a cover band and we play Deep Purple's "Woman from Tokyo" at a club or something somewhere, or I just sing it aloud while im walking down the street one day, have I committed some sort of crime? You can't even claim that Purple is losing revenue since they never would have played at that particular venue.
For the ten millionth time, what is illegal is a media to media copy. You can sing all you want.
Taras Smereka: When Mises.org puts up Adam Smith's works and lets us read them for free without asking him or his descendants have they caused him or his descendants any loss?
There are no works by Adam Smith on Mises.org.
Aster_Lacnala:IP also covers patents, don't forget.
Patents are a much older mechanism that dates back to mercantilism, and originally applied to industries like salt production. They are not the heart of IP.
Aster_Lacnala:BTW, Stranger, have you noticed how many of your arguments are circular? Information is property, therefore stealing it is wrong. How can we call it stealing? Well, because information is property!
That's not circular at all.
Stranger:And you completely missed the point. If it doesn't take a contract to be guilty of trespass, then the "I don't have a contract with the copyright holder hence I get to copy" argument is laughable.
Its an implicit contract like the fact that I won't invite you on a plane ride and then evict you while in the air. I'm not sure you can imply there is an implicit contract with IP.
Maxliberty: 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. I can see you in court demanding the hackers imprisonment for a momentary increased CPU usage.....my god the horror of it all. What is the appropriate restitution for increased CPU usage...maybe paying the electric bill for a month .....that sounds more than sufficient. Meanwhile the copied data bankrupts the company.
Nice appeal to emotion.
Maxliberty: liberty student: 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. So we should be forced to share because you think it is more efficient? Hardly a pro liberty approach. Your theory fails to address two major points, one, what happens to information copied by trespass or contract violation and two, why does the current unregulated market for information treat information like property which is contrary to your prediction regarding unregulated markets for information? Until you can answer those two questions you have no logical ground to stand on.
Unregulated market for information? Then what are IP laws, the FCC, the FTC, the FCC, etc?
Stranger: Taras Smereka:So if I start a cover band and we play Deep Purple's "Woman from Tokyo" at a club or something somewhere, or I just sing it aloud while im walking down the street one day, have I committed some sort of crime? You can't even claim that Purple is losing revenue since they never would have played at that particular venue. For the ten millionth time, what is illegal is a media to media copy. You can sing all you want.
So vocal cords aren't media?
Daniel Muffinburg: Maxliberty: liberty student: 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. So we should be forced to share because you think it is more efficient? Hardly a pro liberty approach. Your theory fails to address two major points, one, what happens to information copied by trespass or contract violation and two, why does the current unregulated market for information treat information like property which is contrary to your prediction regarding unregulated markets for information? Until you can answer those two questions you have no logical ground to stand on. Unregulated market for information? Then what are IP laws, the FCC, the FTC, the FCC, etc?
Common problem with Austrian cultists...the world is larger than America. Also, even in America there are lots of unregulated buying and selling of information. You are thinking only of movies and songs but information is much larger and more pervasive than just those narrow categories.
Daniel Muffinburg: Maxliberty: 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. I can see you in court demanding the hackers imprisonment for a momentary increased CPU usage.....my god the horror of it all. What is the appropriate restitution for increased CPU usage...maybe paying the electric bill for a month .....that sounds more than sufficient. Meanwhile the copied data bankrupts the company. Nice appeal to emotion.
No appeal to emotion. A fact, that unauthorized copying of data can have real economic impact on firms and individuals....contrary to your assertion that hacking is damage free.
Maxliberty: So we should be forced to share because you think it is more efficient?
So we should be forced to share because you think it is more efficient?
It has been pointed out to you many times before that this is not true and that it's a strawman. Why do you concede on a point one week, and then the next week forget that you did?
SEC - Insider information.FDA - Nutrition information.
Care to try again?
Heh, I guess i must have read it off google books or something then. Does it matter?
Can you explain how singing it is not a media? Its clear that that is a circumstance of me and other people benefiting from the idea without compensating the originator of it.
So if I decide to make a warcraft 4 or start a private warcraft 3 server (since the company that owns the copyright is being a douche and not supporting the series). is that wrong
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Taras Smereka:So if I start a cover band and we play Deep Purple's "Woman from Tokyo" at a club or something somewhere, or I just sing it aloud while im walking down the street one day, have I committed some sort of crime? You can't even claim that Purple is losing revenue since they never would have played at that particular venue. For the ten millionth time, what is illegal is a media to media copy. You can sing all you want. So vocal cords aren't media?
No, consult a physicist.
Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg: Maxliberty: 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. I can see you in court demanding the hackers imprisonment for a momentary increased CPU usage.....my god the horror of it all. What is the appropriate restitution for increased CPU usage...maybe paying the electric bill for a month .....that sounds more than sufficient. Meanwhile the copied data bankrupts the company. Nice appeal to emotion. No appeal to emotion. A fact, that unauthorized copying of data can have real economic impact on firms and individuals....contrary to your assertion that hacking is damage free.
I challenge you to prove that I ever made that claim.
Maxliberty:No appeal to emotion. A fact, that unauthorized copying of data can have real economic impact on firms and individuals....contrary to your assertion that hacking is damage free.
Liability, not damage. But was he even saying that? I think it would be good to find a difference between a pin number to a bank account versus a released movie.
Daniel Muffinburg: I challenge you to prove that I ever made that claim.
Pistols at dawn, sir!
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Taras Smereka:So if I start a cover band and we play Deep Purple's "Woman from Tokyo" at a club or something somewhere, or I just sing it aloud while im walking down the street one day, have I committed some sort of crime? You can't even claim that Purple is losing revenue since they never would have played at that particular venue. For the ten millionth time, what is illegal is a media to media copy. You can sing all you want. So vocal cords aren't media? No, consult a physicist.
Of course, because as LS pointed out earlier, you can't re-articulate what the physicist says. Nice appeal to authority, btw.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: I challenge you to prove that I ever made that claim. Pistols at dawn, sir!
What ever happened to swords?