How is the energy I carry through the air different from the electrical energy in a CD?
Lets make it even more clear, lets say I start a cover band and cover a bunch of songs, burn a CD, and sell the CDs at the club after my performance. Does it matter how much improvisation and originality I put into the covers?
Taras Smereka:How is the energy I carry through the air different from the electrical energy in a CD?
There is no electrical energy in a CD.
Please, for the love of Rothbard, everyone consult a physicist before making absurd claims!
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Daniel Muffinburg:What ever happened to swords?
Everyone has been sissified.
Hamlet: How now! a rat? Dead, for a ducat, dead! Polonius: Oh, I am slain!
Stranger: Taras Smereka:How is the energy I carry through the air different from the electrical energy in a CD? There is no electrical energy in a CD. Please, for the love of Rothbard, everyone consult a physicist before making absurd claims!
Well, it is obvious that you have already consulted the physicist and are, therefore, making absurd claims.
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: Taras Smereka:How is the energy I carry through the air different from the electrical energy in a CD? There is no electrical energy in a CD.
True.
Why a physicist, though? Isn't the question of what is and isn't information a matter of philosophy? I understand quantum physics beyond an elementary level, and I've studied some of the basic ideas regarding epistemology. I'd have to say this is in the realm of philosophy.
Alright, lets get stupidly technical for no reason so we can get to the bottom of your insanity. Singing causes a pattern of vibrations in the air, and the CD is a pattern of impressions on a disc. So we are talking about owning patterns correct? So if I cover a band it does not violate their IP because the CD and vibrations due to singing are not configured in the same pattern. And if I make my own version of warcraft 3 and start selling it and running a private server it is alright so long as the pattern of the source code is different (I add some things and switch it around).
Giant_Joe: Stranger: Taras Smereka:How is the energy I carry through the air different from the electrical energy in a CD? There is no electrical energy in a CD. True. Please, for the love of Rothbard, everyone consult a physicist before making absurd claims! Why a physicist, though? Isn't the question of what is and isn't information a matter of philosophy? I understand quantum physics beyond an elementary level, and I've studied some of the basic ideas regarding epistemology. I'd have to say this is in the realm of philosophy.
Mr. Giant brings ups a good question: why a physicist? Why not an electrical engineer or Tim the electrician?
Daniel Muffinburg:Mr. Giant brings ups a good question: why a physicist? Why not an electrical engineer or Tim the electrician?
Because Stranger is backed into a corner and as such can only presents strawmen to defend himself with. He does this on virtually every thread where there is a hint of discussion on IP. However, whether IP is right or wrong is irrelevant. He's made up his mind. Might as well save our breath.
Giant_Joe:Why a physicist, though? Isn't the question of what is and isn't information a matter of philosophy? I understand quantum physics beyond an elementary level, and I've studied some of the basic ideas regarding epistemology. I'd have to say this is in the realm of philosophy.
CDs aren't philosophical. They are physical, and copyright applies to physical acts on these physical media.
A philosopher can tell you about the CDness of the CD, he can't tell you how CDs carry information.
filc:Because Stranger is backed into a corner and as such can only presents strawmen to defend himself with. He does this on virtually every thread where there is a hint of discussion on IP. However, whether IP is right or wrong is irrelevant. He's made up his mind. Might as well save our breath.
Every anti-IP argument I have shot down, including, but not limited to, the one that says that open source companies can produce IP just as well, the one the says that information isn't scarce, and the one that says that you can copy if you don't have a contract with the media owner.
The proof that I have shot them down is that no one is seriously proposing them anymore. The only argument left is to nitpick over what is or is not copying, which implies that now everyone agrees that direct copying is a violation of property.
Stranger: Giant_Joe:Why a physicist, though? Isn't the question of what is and isn't information a matter of philosophy? I understand quantum physics beyond an elementary level, and I've studied some of the basic ideas regarding epistemology. I'd have to say this is in the realm of philosophy. CDs aren't philosophical. They are physical, and copyright applies to physical acts on these physical media. A philosopher can tell you about the CDness of the CD, he can't tell you how CDs carry information.
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?
Giant_Joe: Is it information if there is no one to infer it as information? Why do we need a physicist to tell us there is information? How come we cannot get a dairy farmer to tell us there is no information there?
Is it information if there is no one to infer it as information? Why do we need a physicist to tell us there is information? How come we cannot get a dairy farmer to tell us there is no information there?
That's the stupidest anti-IP argument I've seen so far.
Stranger: Giant_Joe: Is it information if there is no one to infer it as information? Why do we need a physicist to tell us there is information? How come we cannot get a dairy farmer to tell us there is no information there? That's the stupidest anti-IP argument I've seen so far.
So if a person copies information from a music CD as text, has he stolen music?
Stranger:Every anti-IP argument I have shot down, including, but not limited to, the one that says that open source companies can produce IP just as well, the one the says that information isn't scarce, and the one that says that you can copy if you don't have a contract with the media owner.
lol, indeed.. no-one seriously disagrees that stuff that are logical absurdties can be produced by anyone, whether under lgeal systems embracing IP-fiction or otherwise.
no-one can produce IP because there is no such thing. no one can produce square-circles.
information is not scarce and so is not a candidate for property. end of story. information is not rivalrous.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Giant_Joe: So if a person copies information from a music CD as text, has he stolen music?
That makes no sense at all. Consult a physicist.
how are you understanding 'scarcity' ? and how do you understand 'rival'?
Stranger: Every anti-IP argument I have shot down, including, but not limited to, the one that says that open source companies can produce IP just as well, the one the says that information isn't scarce, and the one that says that you can copy if you don't have a contract with the media owner. The proof that I have shot them down is that no one is seriously proposing them anymore. The only argument left is to nitpick over what is or is not copying, which implies that now everyone agrees that direct copying is a violation of property.
And the ironic thing is they're all saying the same thing about you.
Stranger: Giant_Joe: So if a person copies information from a music CD as text, has he stolen music? That makes no sense at all. Consult a physicist.
Yes, it does make sense. I don't need to consult a physicist because I know how CDs work. I understand refraction, the shifting of wavelength caused by the reflection of the laser, and the physical recording medium, the redundancy within the disc to help against degradation, etc...
Bits are carved out on a CD. If those bits are interpreted as ASCII text (8 bits per character) is the person stealing music or text?
Stranger: filc:Because Stranger is backed into a corner and as such can only presents strawmen to defend himself with. He does this on virtually every thread where there is a hint of discussion on IP. However, whether IP is right or wrong is irrelevant. He's made up his mind. Might as well save our breath. Every anti-IP argument I have shot down, including, but not limited to, the one that says that open source companies can produce IP just as well, the one the says that information isn't scarce, and the one that says that you can copy if you don't have a contract with the media owner. The proof that I have shot them down is that no one is seriously proposing them anymore. The only argument left is to nitpick over what is or is not copying, which implies that now everyone agrees that direct copying is a violation of property.
I hereby, on this seventh day of the first month of the two thousandth and tenth year after the Good Lord's resurrection, challenge you, Mr. Stranger, to restate my, Daniel Muffinburg, supposed and alleged argument against Intellectual Property rights.
Giant_Joe:Bits are carved out on a CD. If those bits are interpreted as ASCII text (8 bits per character) is the person stealing music or text?
He's stealing bits. The interpretation is not part of the copying process.
Daniel Muffinburg:I hereby, on this seventh day of the first month of the two thousandth and tenth year after the Good Lord's resurrection, challenge you, Mr. Stranger, to restate my, Daniel Muffinburg, supposed and alleged argument against Intellectual Property rights.
You are very full of yourself to believe that your challenges are of relevance to anyone's opinion of anything but yourself.
Stranger: Giant_Joe:Bits are carved out on a CD. If those bits are interpreted as ASCII text (8 bits per character) is the person stealing music or text? He's stealing bits. The interpretation is not part of the copying process.
Accept that he is not stealing. He is copying. Let us know when you want to start being honest.
nirgrahamUK: how are you understanding 'scarcity' ? and how do you understand 'rival'?
Scarcity - physically limited in supply.
How do you understand it? My interpretation of intellectual communists is that they think information is just a bunch of ideas floating around in the aether, and all you have to do is reach out and catch it, much like the land communists believe. If that were true, however, they wouldn't have to invade other people's property to obtain information, they could just catch it from the same original source.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg:I hereby, on this seventh day of the first month of the two thousandth and tenth year after the Good Lord's resurrection, challenge you, Mr. Stranger, to restate my, Daniel Muffinburg, supposed and alleged argument against Intellectual Property rights. You are very full of yourself to believe that your challenges are of relevance to anyone's opinion of anything but yourself.
I'm just trying to figure out what it is that you claim is my argument against IP.
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg:I hereby, on this seventh day of the first month of the two thousandth and tenth year after the Good Lord's resurrection, challenge you, Mr. Stranger, to restate my, Daniel Muffinburg, supposed and alleged argument against Intellectual Property rights. You are very full of yourself to believe that your challenges are of relevance to anyone's opinion of anything but yourself. I'm just trying to figure out what it is that you claim is my argument against IP.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't care about you.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg:I hereby, on this seventh day of the first month of the two thousandth and tenth year after the Good Lord's resurrection, challenge you, Mr. Stranger, to restate my, Daniel Muffinburg, supposed and alleged argument against Intellectual Property rights. You are very full of yourself to believe that your challenges are of relevance to anyone's opinion of anything but yourself. I'm just trying to figure out what it is that you claim is my argument against IP. If it makes you feel any better, I don't care about you.
Does that mean that will no longer straw man me?
Stranger:My interpretation of intellectual communists is that they think information is just a bunch of ideas floating around in the aether, and all you have to do is reach out and catch it, much like the land communists believe.
filc: Stranger: Giant_Joe:Bits are carved out on a CD. If those bits are interpreted as ASCII text (8 bits per character) is the person stealing music or text? He's stealing bits. The interpretation is not part of the copying process. Accept that he is not stealing. He is copying. Let us know when you want to start being honest.
If a computer plays music from a CD, it must then "steal" the bits onto the CD drive's read buffer. Playing music from music CDs is stealing.
nirgrahamUK: Stranger:My interpretation of intellectual communists is that they think information is just a bunch of ideas floating around in the aether, and all you have to do is reach out and catch it, much like the land communists believe. whereas in reality information is stored in mental deposits deep below layers of mental rock, and mental miners have to be sent out to transfer information from plato land where it is of no use to us everyday folks, and they bring it back to us here on earth as scarce, rival, info-nuggets that would rust without being daily polished....,
In reality, information is inscribed into media, and this inscription is a time and capital-consuming process of production.
Giant_Joe: If a computer plays music from a CD, it must then "steal" the bits onto the CD drive's read buffer. Playing music from music CDs is stealing.
Obviously the copyright owner sells you the right to do that when you purchase media.
Second stupidest argument against IP so far.
Stranger:In reality, information is inscribed into media, and this inscription is a time and capital-consuming process of production.
no argument on that from me. but it does not justify information rights. it only justifies scarce and rival media rights. which we have. its called private property rights in material goods.
nirgrahamUK: Stranger:In reality, information is inscribed into media, and this inscription is a time and capital-consuming process of production. no argument on that from me. but it does not justify information rights. it only justifies scarce and rival media rights. which we have. its called private property rights in material goods.
Call it whatever you want, the outcome is the same. You are not allowed to make copies.
Stranger: nirgrahamUK: Stranger:My interpretation of intellectual communists is that they think information is just a bunch of ideas floating around in the aether, and all you have to do is reach out and catch it, much like the land communists believe. whereas in reality information is stored in mental deposits deep below layers of mental rock, and mental miners have to be sent out to transfer information from plato land where it is of no use to us everyday folks, and they bring it back to us here on earth as scarce, rival, info-nuggets that would rust without being daily polished...., In reality, information is inscribed into media,
In reality, information is inscribed into media,
No. Pits are inscribed into a CD by some algorithm that takes input from an analog signal that is distinguishable from music. When someone reads the CD as music and recognizes it as music, it then becomes music.
and this inscription is a time and capital-consuming process of production.
LTV again. Someone "discovered" an immutable and constant idea that is just floating in the air, and now claims ownership to it for an arbitrary amount of time.
Stranger: Giant_Joe: If a computer plays music from a CD, it must then "steal" the bits onto the CD drive's read buffer. Playing music from music CDs is stealing. Obviously the copyright owner sells you the right to do that when you purchase media. Second stupidest argument against IP so far.
But you said that copying is stealing??
Stranger:Call it whatever you want, the outcome is the same. You are not allowed to make copies.
you are not allowed to make copies from the physical property of another when you are denied access to someone else physical property and the access you require crosses material boundaries and is defacto aggression. you can copy another persons physical property if you are non-invasive. like if i see you reading a page, and then i start to copy down the contents of the page. i have not interfered with your physical page property. my eyes did not send out beams that scarred your paper.
things get interesting when you aren't denied access to someone elses physical property. like when you have access to a 'pirates' physical property.
nirgrahamUK:like if i see you reading a page, and then i start to copy down the contents of the page. i have not interfered with your physical page property. my eyes did not send out beams that scarred your paper.
It is impossible to make an exact copy this way and thus the argument is pointless and irrelevant.
nirgrahamUK:things get interesting when you aren't denied access to someone elses physical property. like when you have access to a 'pirates' physical property.
This makes you an accomplice to the crime, and just as liable to retaliation by the copyright holder.
Giant_Joe: Stranger: Giant_Joe: If a computer plays music from a CD, it must then "steal" the bits onto the CD drive's read buffer. Playing music from music CDs is stealing. Obviously the copyright owner sells you the right to do that when you purchase media. Second stupidest argument against IP so far. But you said that copying is stealing??
You now hold the title for all top three stupidest arguments so far. It is not stealing if you pay the owner what he asks. Free market economics 101.
Stranger:It is impossible to make an exact copy this way and thus the argument is pointless and irrelevant.
Stranger:This makes you an accomplice to the crime, and just as liable to retaliation by the copyright holder.
obviously you are wrong. an accomplice is someone who materially participates in the commission of a crime. but if 'I' do that thing, i did not materially participate in the trespass of another's property. i did not touch the property.I did not provide tools of mine to help another 'touch' the property more effectively. all the touching was done without my 'accompaniment'
But if I bought the CD, and copied and, and now I'm selling copies, copying then becomes stealing? What about copying without selling?
Giant_Joe: Maxliberty: 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?
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?
You're missing the fact that the greater information is shared, the more efficient an economy becomes....that was LS's quote......his belief that creating what he views as an efficient market is sufficient reason for people to steal information without consequence.