Daniel Muffinburg: Your ignorance of current IP laws is obvious. There is no "purely open" license possible under current laws.
Your ignorance of current IP laws is obvious. There is no "purely open" license possible under current laws.
Again and again with the bullshit.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Daniel Muffinburg: Well, I prefer high-budget sandwiches, therefore, the state should impose some law that forces all sandwiches to be high-budget.
Well, I prefer high-budget sandwiches, therefore, the state should impose some law that forces all sandwiches to be high-budget.
A pile of bullshit. Copyright does not in any way prevent you from making the film you want to make.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Your ignorance of current IP laws is obvious. There is no "purely open" license possible under current laws. Again and again with the bullshit.
Got any evidence against what I said? I doubt it.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Well, I prefer high-budget sandwiches, therefore, the state should impose some law that forces all sandwiches to be high-budget. A pile of bullshit. Copyright does not in any way prevent you from making the film you want to make.
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."
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Your ignorance of current IP laws is obvious. There is no "purely open" license possible under current laws. Again and again with the bullshit. Got any evidence against what I said? I doubt it. Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Well, I prefer high-budget sandwiches, therefore, the state should impose some law that forces all sandwiches to be high-budget. A pile of bullshit. Copyright does not in any way prevent you from making the film you want to make. Non sequitur? Got anything better than b*******?
Basic scientific truth: the absence of something cannot be proven. However, all you need to do is find one counter-example to invalidate my claim, which you are either too lazy to do or you are in fact bullshitting us and what you claim is not true.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Your ignorance of current IP laws is obvious. There is no "purely open" license possible under current laws. Again and again with the bullshit. Got any evidence against what I said? I doubt it. Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Well, I prefer high-budget sandwiches, therefore, the state should impose some law that forces all sandwiches to be high-budget. A pile of bullshit. Copyright does not in any way prevent you from making the film you want to make. Non sequitur? Got anything better than b*******? Basic scientific truth: the absence of something cannot be proven. However, all you need to do is find one counter-example to invalidate my claim, which you are either too lazy to do or you are in fact bullshitting us and what you claim is not true.
Non sequitur? Got anything better than b*******?
Basic truth: All you would need to provide is one example of a "purely open" license.
Daniel Muffinburg: Basic truth: All you would need to provide is one example of a "purely open" license.
Simple, take the creative commons license, remove the part about restricted attribution.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Basic truth: All you would need to provide is one example of a "purely open" license. Simple, take the creative commons license, remove the part about restricted attribution.
And you still got copyright to deal with.
Anyway, thanks for the entertainment. I now know to not take you seriously when it come to IP. Byeeeeee!
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Basic truth: All you would need to provide is one example of a "purely open" license. Simple, take the creative commons license, remove the part about restricted attribution. And you still got copyright to deal with. Anyway, thanks for the entertainment. I now know to not take you seriously when it come to IP. Byeeeeee!
La fuite en avant, again?
liberty student: kiba:Oh please. Lot of people here, including myself, are computer programmers. We know how much work and capital goes into creating software, thank you very much. Indeed. I only produce specialized digital products and services, probably on a scale that dwarfs nearly everyone here, and I find it very amusing that I am being lectured on how my business and industry runs.
kiba:Oh please. Lot of people here, including myself, are computer programmers. We know how much work and capital goes into creating software, thank you very much.
Indeed. I only produce specialized digital products and services, probably on a scale that dwarfs nearly everyone here, and I find it very amusing that I am being lectured on how my business and industry runs.
Excluding labor not much capital at all. The only capital investment there is would be a computer? Software development is one of the easiest industries to get into simply because you DON'T need a heavy capital investment to get started.
I taught a whole class in Honduras python 2 years ago, they all had older Netburst P4 machines at home. They were developing at home for each other. The advantage of software development is they don't necessarily have to be at any particular global location to contribute to that industry. So I saw it as an opportunity for people there...
So as far as capital investment goes, software development is like the bottom of the barrel. Anyone can do it at home with their own home computer, and most IDE's now days are free via open source.
z1235: liberty student: kiba:Oh please. Lot of people here, including myself, are computer programmers. We know how much work and capital goes into creating software, thank you very much. Indeed. I only produce specialized digital products and services, probably on a scale that dwarfs nearly everyone here, and I find it very amusing that I am being lectured on how my business and industry runs. So, kiba. After you've spent a year of work and significant capital in creating your pattern of 0s and 1s, I came in, copied it and started selling it right next to you. Would you consider me as a mere competitor in a free market or a thief (or something else?). Do you regularly invest work and capital into creating communal entities available for all to use (or profit from) for free? How long have you lasted in business like this? LS, it wasn't my intention to lecture anyone, though I'd feel flattered if someone learned something from me. I wish I had more time to allocate to this thread but looks like Stranger and Max have already completed the job without me. Z.
So, kiba. After you've spent a year of work and significant capital in creating your pattern of 0s and 1s, I came in, copied it and started selling it right next to you. Would you consider me as a mere competitor in a free market or a thief (or something else?). Do you regularly invest work and capital into creating communal entities available for all to use (or profit from) for free? How long have you lasted in business like this?
LS, it wasn't my intention to lecture anyone, though I'd feel flattered if someone learned something from me.
I wish I had more time to allocate to this thread but looks like Stranger and Max have already completed the job without me.
Z.
Yes, they would be called competitors. Would I worry? No.
In all the years I been in the business of providing content, I break even or profit from it. Now as far as "communal" entities goes, I invest a lot, the lionshare into my projects. We're talking almost twenty thousand of edits, thousand of pages, and 700 articles over the past two years. In fact, I monopolized my niche. My site has shown up on the front page of Digg and Slashdot.
Now, I am employed to work on a game without any significant protection from "pirates" and competitors alike. That is my primary focus for now.
And you? You have the audacity to lecture me against my entrepreneurial knowledge regarding imagined threats to my operation.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
filc: Excluding labor not much capital at all. The only capital investment there is would be a computer? Software development is one of the easiest industries to get into simply because you DON'T need a heavy capital investment to get started. I taught a whole class in Honduras python 2 years ago, they all had older Netburst P4 machines at home. They were developing at home for each other. The advantage of software development is they don't necessarily have to be at any particular global location to contribute to that industry. So I saw it as an opportunity for people there... So as far as capital investment goes, software development is like the bottom of the barrel. Anyone can do it at home with their own home computer, and most IDE's now days are free via open source.
That's not what capital means. The programmers have to eat while they work on the code. A program isn't useful right away.
The same is true for writers or actors. The publishing company or movie studio pays them an advance on their work so they will be able to survive while they produce the information. That is why it is a capitalist industry. Without IP, capitalism is no longer possible.
filc: liberty student: kiba:Oh please. Lot of people here, including myself, are computer programmers. We know how much work and capital goes into creating software, thank you very much. Indeed. I only produce specialized digital products and services, probably on a scale that dwarfs nearly everyone here, and I find it very amusing that I am being lectured on how my business and industry runs. Excluding labor not much capital at all. The only capital investment there is would be a computer? Software development is one of the easiest industries to get into simply because you DON'T need a heavy capital investment to get started. I taught a whole class in Honduras python 2 years ago, they all had older Netburst P4 machines at home. They were developing at home for each other. The advantage of software development is they don't necessarily have to be at any particular global location to contribute to that industry. So I saw it as an opportunity for people there... So as far as capital investment goes, software development is like the bottom of the barrel. Anyone can do it at home with their own home computer, and most IDE's now days are free via open source.
There's also opportunity cost.
Daniel Muffinburg:There's also opportunity cost.
I'm talking in comparison to other industries. There is always opportunity cost and an individual always needs to pay for sustenance. This is no different and there is no special exception for programmers. The point I'm making, by comparison, capital investment in software development is actually very low in comparison to other industries.
filc:The point I'm making, by comparison, capital investment in software development is actually very low in comparison to other industries.
Is that true? IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Netflix, Google, SAP, SUN on so forth. Are you actually saying that these companies have low capital investment compared to something else?
twistedbydsign99: filc:The point I'm making, by comparison, capital investment in software development is actually very low in comparison to other industries. Is that true? IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Netflix, Google, SAP, SUN on so forth. Are you actually saying that these companies have low capital investment compared to something else?
The more I think about it, the more i think that's likely, It takes far less capital investment to create software than it does hardware.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
What I think has not been considered in this debate as of yet is the fact that the free market can protect voluntary IP. The music industry has moved to downloadable songs via itunes, pandora and other sources. The consideration for advancement in technology has been thrown out the window.
Do you honestly think the greatest minds in history can not find a solution to solving a problem such as 'making a profit on a cinema movie' without the use of the state?
Your lack of understanding on how it can be done does not grant you the use of protectionist violence on others. You are utilizing the same argument as those who can not understand how roads can be private. Declaring that without the state providing roads, there would be chaos, and people would have no way to leave their homes.
The problem comes from not understanding the fact that the market has and will continue to find a solution to everything better than any state can- and without a gun.
z1235:So, kiba. After you've spent a year of work and significant capital in creating your pattern of 0s and 1s, I came in, copied it and started selling it right next to you. Would you consider me as a mere competitor in a free market or a thief (or something else?). Do you regularly invest work and capital into creating communal entities available for all to use (or profit from) for free? How long have you lasted in business like this?
Count me in as a programmer. I don't work on mass-market consumer software, though. The value of my job isn't about being able to copy other people's work - it is to create programs to solve problems as they arise. To the extent I can more quickly find other legally usable code and implement it more quickly than writing my own, copying is not only acceptable but good. But at least 99% of my job could not operate efficiently on that premise. So you wouldn't hurt me at all by copying my work.
Also, my co-workers can view and use my code, as can other businesses that perform similar work that we occasionally collaborate with. I have no problem with that. And you can reprint my blog however you wish.
That being said, I do enjoy video games and films, and I do believe Stranger has some good points about copyright, particularly in the case of commercial distribution of perfect copies to the eyes of the end consumer - ie. the consumer considers the official distribution and the illegal distribution equivalent market substitutes - watermarks or subtle alterations would be void.
I don't believe his method of enforcement is correct, however. I don't believe any distributor should be barred from making distributions, only that they be forced to fork over some share of their profits - this rate could be settled in court and I would presume take general considerations from past prices and sales figures. If the distributor prices his distributions too low, his entire profit is wiped out. I generally think, however, that without a free market in courts, this process could become corrupted.
I'm not 100% sold on the idea either. I do realize that video games and movies could still be created, only in a different manner and with a different business model. I'm simply not sure the commercial copyright violator is as ethically defensible as someone who taxes others that distribute perfect copies of his work.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Communists don't believe in the legitimacy of capital. Don't waste your breath.
meambobbo: I don't believe his method of enforcement is correct, however. I don't believe any distributor should be barred from making distributions, only that they be forced to fork over some share of their profits - this rate could be settled in court and I would presume take general considerations from past prices and sales figures.
I don't believe his method of enforcement is correct, however. I don't believe any distributor should be barred from making distributions, only that they be forced to fork over some share of their profits - this rate could be settled in court and I would presume take general considerations from past prices and sales figures.
So money counterfeiters are okay if they fork over some share of their profits to the note-issuing bank?
twistedbydsign99:Is that true? IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Netflix, Google, SAP, SUN on so forth. Are you actually saying that these companies have low capital investment compared to something else?
As compared to Ford? Or Boeing? Yes.
Look strawman aside, focusing specifically on software development, not services, hosted services, ect, what kinds of capital investments are we talking about?
A) a place to work
B) A computer
C) sustenance.
Now I challenge you to compare that to industries who create tangible goods, make a case that their capital investment is lower than just a $400 PC.
Stranger:Communists don't believe in the legitimacy of capital. Don't waste your breath.
Please explain how I am a communist?
filc:As compared to Ford? Or Boeing? Yes.
http://www.google.com/finance?q=boeing
market cap: 44.61 billion
http://www.google.com/finance?q=oracle
market cap: 123.53 billion
The invested capital is not clearly greater for Boeing. I would think that invested capital would rationally mirror the actual amount of capital and future capital the company has.
Doesnt that just prove that one company is larger than another? Its capital investment is larger because it moves a higher volume of product and a higher volume of consumers are addressed.
Look I'm no economist but I can tell you that if I had had to choose between the following of the two industries.
A) Make airplanes
B) Make software
I could go home and start on B today, where as A is a whole other story. You folks really going to dispute that?
Look we can't compare business to business aposteriori and get an acurate idea of what capital is needed to perform said task. Such comparisons don't take into consideration the strucuture of the market in both different industries. It must be done apriori.
We know in general what capital is needed for software development. Now by comparison what capital is needed to make airplanes? Are you going to argue that it takes less capital to make airplanes then software development?
Look is it really worth scrutinizing this point? Do you want to drag on another 10 pages of humiliation of a detail? Bring common sense back into this so we can move on.
filc: Doesnt that just prove that one company is larger than another? Its capital investment is larger because it moves a higher volume of product and a higher volume of consumers are addressed. Look I'm no economist but I can tell you that if I had had to choose between the following of the two industries. A) Make airplanes B) Make software I could go home and start on B today, where as A is a whole other story. You folks really going to dispute that?
Yes. All sorts of hobbyists make airplanes out of spare parts for fun. How is that commercially viable?
Stranger: filc: Doesnt that just prove that one company is larger than another? Its capital investment is larger because it moves a higher volume of product and a higher volume of consumers are addressed. Look I'm no economist but I can tell you that if I had had to choose between the following of the two industries. A) Make airplanes B) Make software I could go home and start on B today, where as A is a whole other story. You folks really going to dispute that? Yes. All sorts of hobbyists make airplanes out of spare parts for fun. How is that commercially viable?
Its great when you make my argument for me. Hence it's much easier to get started in software development.Which is w hat this minor detailed point was about.
Stranger:The publishing company or movie studio pays them an advance on their work so they will be able to survive while they produce the information
Right - without IP rights, this becomes an awkward process if you try to follow the traditional model. Ideas for films could come from anywhere, even a concept done just months before. Entrepreneurs that drive what gets produced would be more concerned about selling a general idea to "investors" - he doesn't take the traditional market risk. He takes a cut of what he can get others to invest. If he inaccurately gages how many investors he can draw in and exhausts his funds mid-production and fails to deliver a workable end product, he still gets paid - he will simply be unable to find future investors for future projects. On the other hand, if he can deliver a satisfactory project without spending all the investors' money, he can pocket it.
The "investors" who provide the capital to sustain the workers and expenses incurred during the production period would actually be the end consumers, who receive no marketable product, only the end information. Just like the "prosumer" has come to software, the investor/consumer would have to come to film.
The consumer here bears the most risk for the lifecycle of any project. This is awkward for the market, which usually attempts to push risk onto entrepreneurs operating on a commercial basis. Perhaps this risk would be passed back onto the entrepreneur in the above model. For example, maybe consumers get a vote for every dollar invested on whether the end product is satisfactory, with the level of satisfaction determining the entrepreneur's pay - of course, that is open to corruption to occur in both directions.
filc: Its great when you make my argument for me. Hence it's much easier to get started in software development.Which is w hat this minor detailed point was about.
Just because there is "hobbyist" software development that costs nothing to make and that you can sell on the iPhone store for a dollar, does not mean that the entire capitalist structure of the industry is redundant. Just like people aren't going to fly on airplanes that were built for a dollar, they aren't going to use an operating system that had nothing invested in it (which is why Linux, more than a decade after claiming to be able to do so, has still not been adopted by the mass market).
Stranger:Just because there is "hobbyist" software development that costs nothing to make and that you can sell on the iPhone store for a dollar, does not mean that the entire capitalist structure of the industry is redundant. Just like people aren't going to fly on airplanes that were built for a dollar, they aren't going to use an operating system that had nothing invested in it (which is why Linux, more than a decade after claiming to be able to do so, has still not been adopted by the mass market).
Not even worth responding to. :[p]
Hurts to be wrong don't it Stranger? Humble up a bit.
filc:Hurts to be wrong don't it Stranger? Humble up a bit.
I think what stranger is saying is that there is different types of software just like there are airplanes. Its not so simple to just say that industry a takes more capital than industry b. There is a software project that rivals the capital cost of an airplane, its cost is born into wages and previous efforts at making software. Also there is a whole area of software that supports the creation of software itself, such as CVS. These software projects are analagous to the different services available at a production plant. Any interesting piece of software takes around 1 million lines of code minimum. Think about that. Your mind can generally handle around 7 things, and the scale of the project is greater than a million. Its a gigantic effort to make a piece of software.
I understand your argument Twisted. Just an FYI I'm also in the industry.
I live in Seattle so all I have around me are software development firms. I do business with 5 of them locally. Some big some small.
filc: I understand your argument Twisted. Just an FYI I'm also in the industry. I live in Seattle so all I have around me are software development firms. I do business with 5 of them locally. Some big some small.
Its a fantastic job if you work at the right place.
AJ: Stranger, when you're done grasping at straws you might want to answer this: Stranger: 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. Not when it's out on the net already, or when you don't effectively restrict access. Those are the scenarios being discussed - obviously, as all others would entail violating other laws ("actual property rights") as I wrote above. Now name the actual action you are forced to perform or refrain from, or you have no argument.
Stranger, when you're done grasping at straws you might want to answer this:
Stranger: 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.
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.)
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.
Not when it's out on the net already, or when you don't effectively restrict access. Those are the scenarios being discussed - obviously, as all others would entail violating other laws ("actual property rights") as I wrote above.
Now name the actual action you are forced to perform or refrain from, or you have no argument.
By your taking from me, information that is in my possession, without my permission, I have lost the right of free association as I no longer am free to decide with whom I would like to share the information that I have. By allowing me no means of redress to secure rights you have effectively eliminated this right. In short, if you are able to violate my security systems or contracts I have protecting these rights then there is no punishment for you. This is contrary to liberty and the basic ideas of property.
z1235: liberty student:Please don't pretend to speak for all IP capitalists as though they are of one mind on monopoly or of one model with their businesses. That's sloppy argumentation. I did no such thing. My suggestion (and not a provable argument, btw) was that perhaps the ones who are not themselves involved in the production of IP (information, patterns, i.e. intangibles) are simply unaware of how much work and capital goes into creating it, whereas the ones involved are aware and find it absurd to accept mere thieves as "competitors". And please stop using "monopoly" as if that's somehow going to hurt the feelings of a free market IP supporter. The number of ALL possible 10gig combinations of 0s and 1s is larger than the number of all atoms in the known universe. Most of these combinations are garbage, but SOME -- like the pattern of Avatar -- are not and customers are willing to pay to experience it. Everyone is absolutely free to invest in their own prospecting tools and dive into this vast digital universe to find the next pattern of 0s and 1s for which customers will pay. There's no monopoly on 10gig patterns, or any size patterns for that matter. Nitpickers come in and say, "But what if I took Avatar and changed one bit (out of the billions)? Can I claim THAT pattern as mine, then?" -- as if this somehow shows the absurdity of the concept of information as property. Does the vagueness of homesteading (What piece of land did you exactly "mix your labor" with? How about these two square feet? Did you mix your labor there too?), land ownership (How deep underground? How high in the sky?) make the concept of tangible property ridiculous, as well? Just as in the case of tangible property, not all answers are there (nor they need to be). People will know. Arbiters will know. The market will figure it out. Free markets ALREADY treat information as property. And that's only going to increase as percentage of global GDP. This argument is already finished. Z.
liberty student:Please don't pretend to speak for all IP capitalists as though they are of one mind on monopoly or of one model with their businesses. That's sloppy argumentation.
I did no such thing. My suggestion (and not a provable argument, btw) was that perhaps the ones who are not themselves involved in the production of IP (information, patterns, i.e. intangibles) are simply unaware of how much work and capital goes into creating it, whereas the ones involved are aware and find it absurd to accept mere thieves as "competitors".
And please stop using "monopoly" as if that's somehow going to hurt the feelings of a free market IP supporter. The number of ALL possible 10gig combinations of 0s and 1s is larger than the number of all atoms in the known universe. Most of these combinations are garbage, but SOME -- like the pattern of Avatar -- are not and customers are willing to pay to experience it. Everyone is absolutely free to invest in their own prospecting tools and dive into this vast digital universe to find the next pattern of 0s and 1s for which customers will pay. There's no monopoly on 10gig patterns, or any size patterns for that matter.
Nitpickers come in and say, "But what if I took Avatar and changed one bit (out of the billions)? Can I claim THAT pattern as mine, then?" -- as if this somehow shows the absurdity of the concept of information as property. Does the vagueness of homesteading (What piece of land did you exactly "mix your labor" with? How about these two square feet? Did you mix your labor there too?), land ownership (How deep underground? How high in the sky?) make the concept of tangible property ridiculous, as well? Just as in the case of tangible property, not all answers are there (nor they need to be). People will know. Arbiters will know. The market will figure it out.
Free markets ALREADY treat information as property. And that's only going to increase as percentage of global GDP. This argument is already finished.
Just keeping hitting LS's softball arguments right out of the park Z. I love it.
How is the view in your ivory tower?
Maxliberty:By your taking from me, information that is in my possession
You still have it in your possession.
Maxliberty:I have lost the right of free association as I no longer am free to decide with whom I would like to share the information that I have
Sure you can. You can share the information YOU have with anyone you want. You never lost your information. You still have it. You still control it.
Maxliberty:By allowing me no means of redress to secure rights you have effectively eliminated this right.
You do not have positive rights.
Maxliberty:In short, if you are able to violate my security systems or contracts I have protecting these rights then there is no punishment for you.
Trespass is not the same as observation.
Maxliberty:This is contrary to liberty and the basic ideas of property.
Neither you or Stranger have offered a coherent definition of intellectual property qua property.
DM, I fixed your post. You regularly copy paste, instead of using the quoting function and it trashes the thread display. Do not copy paste please.
liberty student: DM, I fixed your post. You regularly copy paste, instead of using the quoting function and it trashes the thread display. Do not copy paste please.
I almost always hit the "quote" button. But on that one post, I think I did copy and paste some of it.
z1235:I did no such thing. My suggestion (and not a provable argument, btw) was that perhaps the ones who are not themselves involved in the production of IP (information, patterns, i.e. intangibles) are simply unaware of how much work and capital goes into creating it, whereas the ones involved are aware and find it absurd to accept mere thieves as "competitors".
Right, which is semantics, and you have been refuted by so-called intellectual capitalists. Which shouldn't be necessary anyways, when you make an obviously fallacious and collectivistic (or do I repeat myself) argument. It is provable. Proven to be fallacious.
z1235:And please stop using "monopoly" as if that's somehow going to hurt the feelings of a free market IP supporter.
You're asserting again.
z1235:Nitpickers come in and say, "But what if I took Avatar and changed one bit (out of the billions)
And yet what portion of anything you do is entirely and completely unique? Or do you exist and function in this world with absolutely no intellectual capital of your own?
z1235:Just as in the case of tangible property, not all answers are there (nor they need to be). People will know. Arbiters will know. The market will figure it out.
I agree with this. However, the positivists are asserting that Intellectual monopoly is really intellectual property. If the market accepts monopoly, so be it. But that doesn't change that it is a monopoly.
z1235:Free markets ALREADY treat information as property.
Which free market is that?
z1235:And that's only going to increase as percentage of global GDP. This argument is already finished.
Ah yes, the infamous and inevitable "appeal to reality". The world is flat, everyone knows that. Argument over.
Maxliberty:Just keeping hitting LS's softball arguments right out of the park Z. I love it.
Or perhaps it's the opposite. People in the production of IP don't realize how much capital investment is involved in other industries, as refuted above. Such an argument is made from ignorance, and I don't mean that in a negative way. I'm simply stating it as a matter of fact, consider Hazlitt's position. Consider that what is not considered, that what is not seen. The argument here is that capital investments in software development is very high. This is simply not true, as refuted above. You cannot make this argument without first knowing whats in involved in all other industries.
But ultimately the point is mute. The amount of capital involved in an industry does not prove or disprove need for government regulation. This is one of the strawmen people are talking about and it's sad that we keep moving away from the actual point of the discussion. We must disabuse ourselves from subscribing to these ultimately insiginfigtant details if we desire to progress.
At least in this case it seems that anyone who thinks that software development requires an extensive amount of invested capital above, and as opposed to, other industries must not be aware of whats involved in manufacturing of tangible goods. Again as refuted above.