Tobbog:So, tell me, why should that not happen?
Maybe it should happen. You argument is basically that there something you like which can only be produced if my liberties are suspended, so my liberties should be suspended. Where is it written that we must have big budget movies?
Maxliberty: 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? 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.
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.
He didn't say we should be forced to share information. No one is claiming that, other than you.
Stranger: 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.
nirgrahamUK: how are you understanding 'scarcity' ? and how do you understand 'rival'?
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.
Ding Ding Ding...we have a winner. Your killing em Stranger don't let em sweat you. Their argument is so convoluted because it lacks the simplicity of the truth.
Maxliberty: Stranger: 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. Ding Ding Ding...we have a winner. Your killing em Stranger don't let em sweat you. Their argument is so convoluted because it lacks the simplicity of the truth.
[musical] He's killing us slowlyyyyy with straw mans. With straw maaaaans.
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."
nirgrahamUK: 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.
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.
Great, you have now come full circle to see the flaw in your argument. If the only get around of property rights is to have one party steal the information and give it to a third party who can release it without problem then you create incentives to steal since the first person according to you can't really be punished anyway. This is the equivalent of stealing anything and allowing the fencer of stolen property to maintain the property and profit from the theft.
Giant_Joe: Maxliberty: 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? 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. He didn't say we should be forced to share information. No one is claiming that, other than you.
His argument like yours allows for the taking/copying of information by force to have no consequence because in his mind this aggression is for the greater good of economic efficiency. I understand why you don't want to admit it and why none of you will specifically address the punishment to the hacker....because to answer that scenario will destroy your argument just like it did with nighram.
What's with trollish behavior over IP, MaxLiberty and Stranger? When will you two quit the straw mans and non sequiturs?
Daniel Muffinburg: Maxliberty: Stranger: 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. Ding Ding Ding...we have a winner. Your killing em Stranger don't let em sweat you. Their argument is so convoluted because it lacks the simplicity of the truth. [musical] He's killing us slowlyyyyy with straw mans. With straw maaaaans.
Why don't you try addressing the hacker scenario and tell us what the punishment will be. You have been ducking it for about 5 pages now. When you actually press the Austrian cultists for the specific details all they can do is repeat the mantra...no independent critical thinking at all.
Maxliberty:This is the equivalent of stealing anything and allowing the fencer of stolen property to maintain the property and profit from the theft.
no. it is not the equivalent. it is something quite different.
one obvious difference. is that someone who comes to 'physically posses' material property that was once stolen, by his possesion deprives the original and true owner of his right to 'physical possesion' justice is served when the physical goods are returned to the rightful owner. because of material reality such a transfer will necessitate the '3rd party' relinquishing the property.
omeone who comes to ''physically posses' information encoded onto his own material property that was once information that another had pirated and then invited the copying of, by his possesion does not deprive the original and true owner of his right to 'physical possesion'. justice is served when the physical goods are returned to the rightful owner. well, the owner has them, so tick that box. because of material reality no transfer of material from the '3rd party' to the original 'knower' is necessary.
i hope you followed that.
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
Maxliberty: His argument like yours allows for the taking/copying of information by force to have no consequence because in his mind this aggression is for the greater good of economic efficiency.
His argument like yours allows for the taking/copying of information by force to have no consequence because in his mind this aggression is for the greater good of economic efficiency.
Straw man. Hombre de estraw. Le straw le man. Il manno di strawti.
Maxliberty:I understand why you don't want to admit it and why none of you will specifically address the punishment to the hacker....because to answer that scenario will destroy your argument just like it did with nighram.
I addressed hacking in another thread.
Maxliberty: His argument like yours allows for the taking/copying of information by force
His argument like yours allows for the taking/copying of information by force
He didn't argue that taking information by force would help the economy. He may have implied that the removal of IP law may help, but he did not imply that forceful taking of information would be helpful. When are you going to stop accusing people of things that are not true?
Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg: Maxliberty: Stranger: 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. Ding Ding Ding...we have a winner. Your killing em Stranger don't let em sweat you. Their argument is so convoluted because it lacks the simplicity of the truth. [musical] He's killing us slowlyyyyy with straw mans. With straw maaaaans. Why don't you try addressing the hacker scenario and tell us what the punishment will be. You have been ducking it for about 5 pages now.
Why don't you try addressing the hacker scenario and tell us what the punishment will be. You have been ducking it for about 5 pages now.
There is a thread about hacking where I address this issue. Go find it if you are interested.
Maxliberty:When you actually press the Austrian cultists for the specific details all they can do is repeat the mantra...no independent critical thinking at all.
Prove this or will consider it trollish behavior.
nirgrahamUK: Maxliberty:This is the equivalent of stealing anything and allowing the fencer of stolen property to maintain the property and profit from the theft. no. it is not the equivalent. it is something quite different. one obvious difference. is that someone who comes to 'physically posses' material property that was once stolen, by his possesion deprives the original and true owner of his right to 'physical possesion' justice is served when the physical goods are returned to the rightful owner. because of material reality such a transfer will necessitate the '3rd party' relinquishing the property. omeone who comes to ''physically posses' information encoded onto his own material property that was once information that another had pirated and then invited the copying of, by his possesion does not deprive the original and true owner of his right to 'physical possesion'. justice is served when the physical goods are returned to the rightful owner. well, the owner has them, so tick that box. because of material reality no transfer of material from the '3rd party' to the original 'knower' is necessary. i hope you followed that.
I fully understand your position. People have the right to copy information from other people even against their will. Even after this aggression to copy is completed there is no recourse to the party that had the original information. Your position does not recognize my right to decide to whom and when I share information. According to you, my being forced to share information is perfectly acceptable since after I have been forced to share the information I still retain it, so in your mind I have not lost anything.
I hope you followed that.
Daniel Muffinburg:I addressed hacking in another thread.
Sure you did. It is really a simple yes or no to most of the pertinent questions. If I had your idiotic position I wouldn't answer either.
Maxliberty: People have the right to copy information from other people even against their will.
it depends.
as i have pointed out on other threads .you have copied the information of my text, you pressed 'quote', you have not asked for permission. you did not consider my will. what you did does not constitute aggression against me, or do you think that it did and that you owe me an apology?
Maxliberty: nirgrahamUK: Maxliberty:This is the equivalent of stealing anything and allowing the fencer of stolen property to maintain the property and profit from the theft. no. it is not the equivalent. it is something quite different. one obvious difference. is that someone who comes to 'physically posses' material property that was once stolen, by his possesion deprives the original and true owner of his right to 'physical possesion' justice is served when the physical goods are returned to the rightful owner. because of material reality such a transfer will necessitate the '3rd party' relinquishing the property. omeone who comes to ''physically posses' information encoded onto his own material property that was once information that another had pirated and then invited the copying of, by his possesion does not deprive the original and true owner of his right to 'physical possesion'. justice is served when the physical goods are returned to the rightful owner. well, the owner has them, so tick that box. because of material reality no transfer of material from the '3rd party' to the original 'knower' is necessary. i hope you followed that. I fully understand your position. People have the right to copy information from other people even against their will. Even after this aggression to copy is completed there is no recourse to the party that had the original information. Your position does not recognize my right to decide to whom and when I share information. According to you, my being forced to share information is perfectly acceptable since after I have been forced to share the information I still retain it, so in your mind I have not lost anything. I hope you followed that.
Sorry, it's not available for the Kindle.
Giant_Joe: Maxliberty: His argument like yours allows for the taking/copying of information by force He didn't argue that taking information by force would help the economy. He may have implied that the removal of IP law may help, but he did not imply that forceful taking of information would be helpful. When are you going to stop accusing people of things that are not true?
The logical consequence of your argument is that the copying of information by force is without consequence. He then indicates that this will be more economically efficient.
Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg:I addressed hacking in another thread. Sure you did. It is really a simple yes or no to most of the pertinent questions. If I had your idiotic position I wouldn't answer either.
What is my position? I don't remember ever making one on this thread. Oh, dear sir, please bless me with a link to my supposed argument.
nirgrahamUK: Maxliberty: People have the right to copy information from other people even against their will. it depends. as i have pointed out on other threads .you have copied the information of my text, you pressed 'quote', you have not asked for permission. you did not consider my will. what you did does not constitute aggression against me, or do you think that it did and that you owe me an apology?
If it depends, then information at times has the characteristics of property otherwise it does not depends. When information has the characteristics of property then it needs to be treated like property. Glad to see you understand now.
Maxliberty: Giant_Joe: Maxliberty: His argument like yours allows for the taking/copying of information by force He didn't argue that taking information by force would help the economy. He may have implied that the removal of IP law may help, but he did not imply that forceful taking of information would be helpful. When are you going to stop accusing people of things that are not true? The logical consequence of your argument is that the copying of information by force is without consequence. He then indicates that this will be more economically efficient.
I was being nice, but here's the piece of conversation.
liberty student: 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.
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.
LS didn't say we should force sharing of information. He said:
the greater information is shared, the more efficient an economy becomes.
Where did he make the claim that force should be used to realize this efficiency?
Maxliberty:If it depends, then information at times has the characteristics of property otherwise it does not depends. When information has the characteristics of property then it needs to be treated like property. Glad to see you understand now.
poor logic. it depends on what varies. the presence of information in our stories does not vary. the 'dependancy' does not fluctuate as regards information sometimes being property and sometimes not. obviously the variance relates to the phsyical objects involved and the ways in which someone might copy information from them, i.e. whether it be physically invasive or not.
Daniel Muffinburg: Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg:I addressed hacking in another thread. Sure you did. It is really a simple yes or no to most of the pertinent questions. If I had your idiotic position I wouldn't answer either. What is my position? I don't remember ever making one on this thread. Oh, dear sir, please bless me with a link to my supposed argument.
Your position is that information can not be property and can not be owned. Given that, the rest can be logically deducted.
Giant_Joe: Maxliberty: Giant_Joe: Maxliberty: His argument like yours allows for the taking/copying of information by force He didn't argue that taking information by force would help the economy. He may have implied that the removal of IP law may help, but he did not imply that forceful taking of information would be helpful. When are you going to stop accusing people of things that are not true? The logical consequence of your argument is that the copying of information by force is without consequence. He then indicates that this will be more economically efficient. I was being nice, but here's the piece of conversation. liberty student: 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. LS didn't say we should force sharing of information. He said: the greater information is shared, the more efficient an economy becomes. Where did he make the claim that force should be used to realize this efficiency?
With your position, the forced copying of information results in no harm to the person forced to share. In other words, nothing is stolen even if i break into your house and copy it. So the hacker has no legitimate fear of punishment for the trespass and copying of data. The hacker has no fear of copying data since this cannot be considered any violation of rights from your perspective. The logical result of your position is that people will be forced to share information since there will be no meaningful punishment to the people who reveal the information.
Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg: Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg:I addressed hacking in another thread. Sure you did. It is really a simple yes or no to most of the pertinent questions. If I had your idiotic position I wouldn't answer either. What is my position? I don't remember ever making one on this thread. Oh, dear sir, please bless me with a link to my supposed argument. Your position is that information can not be property and can not be owned. Given that, the rest can be logically deducted.
That doesn't mean I don't consider hacking illegal.
Maxliberty: With your position, the forced copying of information results in no harm to the person forced to share. In other words, nothing is stolen even if i break into your house and copy it. So the hacker has no legitimate fear of punishment for the trespass and copying of data. The hacker has no fear of copying data since this cannot be considered any violation of rights from your perspective. The logical result of your position is that people will be forced to share information since there will be no meaningful punishment to the people who reveal the information.
Who's advocating trespass?
No one is advocating trespass. The point is that IP creates a monopoly on an arbitrarily defined idea and forces third parties to obey it.
For example, lets say guy A writes a book. And then some other guy B, independantly and without reading that book writes an article with similar content and posts it on the internet. The Intellectual property position is that guy B should be coerced out of being able to put the information on the internet.
This is stupid and retards the spread of information just so guy A can sell some books in the short run.
Daniel Muffinburg: Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg: Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg:I addressed hacking in another thread. Sure you did. It is really a simple yes or no to most of the pertinent questions. If I had your idiotic position I wouldn't answer either. What is my position? I don't remember ever making one on this thread. Oh, dear sir, please bless me with a link to my supposed argument. Your position is that information can not be property and can not be owned. Given that, the rest can be logically deducted. That doesn't mean I don't consider hacking illegal.
What part would be illegal and what would be the punishment. How can I be punished for theft if nothing was taken...according to you?
Taras Smereka:No one is advocating trespass.
Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg: Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg: Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg:I addressed hacking in another thread. Sure you did. It is really a simple yes or no to most of the pertinent questions. If I had your idiotic position I wouldn't answer either. What is my position? I don't remember ever making one on this thread. Oh, dear sir, please bless me with a link to my supposed argument. Your position is that information can not be property and can not be owned. Given that, the rest can be logically deducted. That doesn't mean I don't consider hacking illegal. What part would be illegal and what would be the punishment. How can I be punished for theft if nothing was taken...according to you?
Theft isn't the only crime possible. You can be prosecuted for illegally manipulating the computer.
Maxliberty:...my being forced to share information...
You've dismantled your entire position in six words. Because: What actual action are you being forced to perform or refrain from performing when someone copies something from you? (Remember we're assuming no other laws are broken by that person in the process - no trespass, etc.)
Why anarchy fails
Property rights via the principle of original appropiation state the idea is what a person can orginally appropiate. BUT a copy of that idea, meaning, my thinking of the same idea and using the same idea is a COPY. It is NOT the original thing. A clay pot that is copied is an exact copy of that original clay pot BUT is NOT the original clay pot. It is a copy. That is still common sense.
The copy is NOT the original clay pot. So nobody owned the copy until the copier made it. Now the copier owns the copy for they originally appropiated the copy. But another person can copy that copy and they originally appropiate this third copy. Nothing is stolen. New items are being made.
It's ironic to me that here we are, the Human Race, finding ways of squelching the problems of scarcity, simply by allowing free markets to work. And various advocates, here who want to further economization thereby making higher quality goods available, at a lower price in higher abundance, are called communists of information. it seems so backwards to me.
filc: It's ironic to me that here we are, the Human Race, finding ways of squelching the problems of scarcity, simply by allowing free markets to work. And various advocates, here who want to further economization thereby making higher quality goods available, at a lower price in higher abundance, are called communists of information. it seems so backwards to me.
Who knows. Maybe they never look at the countless example of business models working without copyright. Heck, I don't think he asked me if I tried a business model that doesn't relies on monopoly rights.
So far, the Ludwig von Mises Institution is still selling books, and tons of them. They aren't harmed by people like me "freeriding" by reading Austrian economic books.
Doesn't good theory translates to good results?
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
kiba: So far, the Ludwig von Mises Institution is still selling books, and tons of them. They aren't harmed by people like me "freeriding" by reading Austrian economic books.
I opened the first Austrian book I had and this is what came up in the first page:
Copyright © 2003 by the Ludwig von Mises InstituteIndexes prepared by Brad EdmondsAll rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoeverwithout written permission except in the case of reprints in the contextof reviews. For information write the Ludwig von Mises Institute, 518West Magnolia Avenue, Auburn, Alabama 36832.ISBN: 0-945466-37-4
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
AJ: Maxliberty:...my being forced to share information... You've dismantled your entire position in six words. Because: What actual action are you being forced to perform or refrain from performing when someone copies something from you? (Remember we're assuming no other laws are broken by that person in the process - no trespass, etc.)
You are forced to allow them to access your media.
Stranger: kiba: So far, the Ludwig von Mises Institution is still selling books, and tons of them. They aren't harmed by people like me "freeriding" by reading Austrian economic books. I opened the first Austrian book I had and this is what came up in the first page: Copyright © 2003 by the Ludwig von Mises InstituteIndexes prepared by Brad EdmondsAll rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoeverwithout written permission except in the case of reprints in the contextof reviews. For information write the Ludwig von Mises Institute, 518West Magnolia Avenue, Auburn, Alabama 36832.ISBN: 0-945466-37-4
When was the last time they sued someone for copyright infringement.
If you have known, the Creative Common Attribution license is posted under the main site. Also, David Veksler is looking for people to set up bittorrent servers, last time I check.
Also, Jeffery Trucker, the webmaster of this site is explicitly anti-IP.
Why would LvMI care if someone made copy wholesale of the book and then spread it to their dad, mom, relatives, and everyone around them? I would think LvMI staffers would be happy.
Daniel Muffinburg: When was the last time they sued someone for copyright infringement.
When was the last time someone violated it?
kiba: If you have known, the Creative Common Attribution license is posted under the main site. Also, David Veksler is looking for people to set up bittorrent servers, last time I check. Also, Jeffery Trucker, the webmaster of this site is explicitly anti-IP.
And yet, despite their fluctuating opinions, they still use copyright.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: When was the last time they sued someone for copyright infringement. When was the last time someone violated it?
Oh yeah, and there are books available free of charge on their website.