JackSkylark:but direct copying I predict will drive down the time and labor spent in research and development, leading to a slowdown in innovation in anything that would now be an infinite good.
R&D will continue to become cheaper and easier, and much more so in a freed market.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Maxliberty:What LS is really saying is that he is acknowledging that he is wrong and his arguement no longer makes sense in light of the obvious.
"As many times on this forum before, I will proclaim myself the victor, and people will think I am a fool." - Max Liberty
Maxliberty:Unable to admit his error he resorts to personal attacks.
"I don't think he is taking me seriously anymore. Which strawman broke the camel's back?" - Max Liberty
JParker:LS, the first time you made your point. You yourself said in this thread that it was good to exchange ideas on a friendly field. Isnt this crossing the line a bit? You dont have to agree with Max, but please respect his right to have an opinion, wrong though you may think it is, and not ridicule him to no end.
Max is foolish. I was his biggest supporter on this forum, when he was saying all sorts of stupid things. I'm not his supporter anymore. He's not a contrarian, he's someone who makes a lot of bogus assertions, posts strawman after strawman, and then in the end, calls himself the victor in the argument. I believe you should look up his "God exists and all atheists are wrong", or something to that effect, thread.
JParker:This is one of the biggest problems that libertarians have today, that even here, where most of us agree on 99% of our beleifs, we bicker and go very low in our debates. To an outsider, we would appear to be a bunch of children fighting over every minute detail.
I wasn't aware you were a libertarian. You propose coercion and forced adherence to contracts as IP.
JParker:Why would a liberal or conservative ever join the discussion, and therefore *hopefully* be educated and change their mind, when we are so openly aggressive toward each other?
Liberals and conservatives are too busy trying to decide who to murder and who to keep alive to make slaves to the US dollar hegemony. Don't kid yourself. I'm not here to fondle and caress people with idiotic points of view. If they don't come around, then they don't come around. There is no obligation for me to baby people (like Max) who refuse to stay factual and honest in a discussion.
liberty student: Hutchinson Persons: liberty student:I will freely admit that information cannot be property. 1. The formula for Coca-Cola is information, true? 2. They keep that formula in a vault, true? 3. If it quacks like a duck... Maybe you mean non-secret information cannot be property? No, I meant information. Note, "inform" is a part of the word information. I believe you are referring to "knowledge". But let's even suppose you are correct, that the secret recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken is locked in a vault, accessible only to a handful of people, all of whom are contractually bound to keep it secret, and not to INFORM anyone else about it. What stops me from discovering the exact same formula through my own experimentation? What stops me from making a coke, having only the knowledge of what coke looks, smells and tastes like? And if I do "discover" this "knowledge" on my own, hasn't this rendered the secrecy of the vault and contracts null? Because surely, as coming to the idea by my own method and process, expending my own time and energy, do I not also have the right to license it? This is why knowledge, even specific knowledge, cannot be unique property. There is no way to keep someone else from reaching exact or similar conclusions.
Hutchinson Persons: liberty student:I will freely admit that information cannot be property. 1. The formula for Coca-Cola is information, true? 2. They keep that formula in a vault, true? 3. If it quacks like a duck... Maybe you mean non-secret information cannot be property?
liberty student:I will freely admit that information cannot be property.
1. The formula for Coca-Cola is information, true?
2. They keep that formula in a vault, true?
3. If it quacks like a duck...
Maybe you mean non-secret information cannot be property?
No, I meant information. Note, "inform" is a part of the word information. I believe you are referring to "knowledge".
But let's even suppose you are correct, that the secret recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken is locked in a vault, accessible only to a handful of people, all of whom are contractually bound to keep it secret, and not to INFORM anyone else about it.
What stops me from discovering the exact same formula through my own experimentation? What stops me from making a coke, having only the knowledge of what coke looks, smells and tastes like?
And if I do "discover" this "knowledge" on my own, hasn't this rendered the secrecy of the vault and contracts null? Because surely, as coming to the idea by my own method and process, expending my own time and energy, do I not also have the right to license it?
This is why knowledge, even specific knowledge, cannot be unique property. There is no way to keep someone else from reaching exact or similar conclusions.
1. Could you explain to me the difference to you between "information" and "knowledge"?
Do you think one is always true and the other may or may not be? Or is it something else?
2. I'm not aware of anything that could "stop" you. Does takes work and effort, doesn't it?
When you're done, couldn't you sell a generic substitute as long as you don't market it under the Coke name?
Or maybe you could call it a Moke. Or a Joke. Coke might sue for infringement there though. Or maybe product defamation?
And it might taste the same to you, but you'd never KNOW if you had "The Real Thang, Baby!"
LS, a libertarianism is not anarchy. You are an anarchist. I have yet to see how the sheep of the world could live in anarchy. Could you and I? Absolutely. The uneducated masses who vote for fools like Obama could not, they would tear it and us apart. I dont try and pretend that the NAP is the law of the world. It is, in fact, contrary to natural law. We are naturally aggressive, we steal, we dominate others. You are blending the lines between anarchists, libertarians, austrians, etc. I know what I am, and im not a libertarian. I'm a randian, through and through. To you that may make me a fool, but we do agree on almost every subject, so what use is us fighting each other? We disagree on IP, though as I said, if the time comes that we get to try out a truely free market, i'm more than willing to see what it would be like without IP. I think it will fail, but I can be proven wrong.
liberty student:Liberals and conservatives are too busy trying to decide who to murder and who to keep alive to make slaves to the US dollar hegemony. Don't kid yourself. I'm not here to fondle and caress people with idiotic points of view. If they don't come around, then they don't come around. There is no obligation for me to baby people (like Max) who refuse to stay factual and honest in a discussion.
You were uneducated once. What would you have said if these words were your interduction to liberty? Irrationality is the foundation of these people, they are indoctrinated in their ways. Was it not hard for you to change your views? Didnt the appeal of canada's free healthcare at one time make you think it was the right way? You are certainly (and rightfully) sick of explaining the same thing over and over, and maybe you've had this argument with max a thousand times. But it should be easier to ignore him than ridicule him. But as proponents of logic, shouldnt we all realize that working together we can do more good than fighting each other? We are allies in a struggle right now. When all the world is free, let us bicker over these minor points.
/step down from high horse
JackSkylark: My assumptions are based on a a value free economic approach, not a system of rights, natural or govenment fiat...Thus my argument is not on right or wrong, but on what happens in the market as a result of a legal framework (either one that does not accept IP or does).
Your argument is that the presence of IP results in a better result then the absence of IP. That is the opposite of a value free approach.
JackSkylark:I could very well say "You can't be for real. Prices without IP do not reflect consumer demand (note: relative pricing structure), they represent a problem in disconnect driven infinite goods."
You have said that; trouble is it doesn't mean anything.
It implies neither a problem nor a solution.
Peace
JParker:I dont give a damn about IP, I care that the person who created the code/book/art/music is justly compensated.
Didn't take you long to drop your talk about value free economics and avoiding morality!
JParker:The uneducated masses who vote for fools like Obama could not, they would tear it and us apart.
Obama is what the "uneducated masses" use to "tear us apart." The more sinister the individual the more dire the need for anarchy. A state might be tolerable with a noble population, but the more numerous the Hitlers and Stalins of the world are, the greater the peril in letting it exist.
If you read more and bicker less you will learn very quickly that Libertarianism (and Anarchism) is incompatible with elitism.
A simple but crucial realization is that order, voluntary association, and the market are synonymous, and so are chaos, violence, and the state.
JParker: . Epic never developes another game because the second it hits the market, it is stolen and pirated by everyone because it is fully legal to download the game off bittorrent with no compensation to Epic. Small projects such as kiba speaks of, and philanthropic/hobbyist projects such as linux would happen, but the large projects/industry would cease to exist.
. Epic never developes another game because the second it hits the market, it is stolen and pirated by everyone because it is fully legal to download the game off bittorrent with no compensation to Epic. Small projects such as kiba speaks of, and philanthropic/hobbyist projects such as linux would happen, but the large projects/industry would cease to exist.
I really don't think this would cause such a calamity. It sounds like it depends if you think that the legality of the matter is stopping people from downloading games for free off of bitorrent right now. Artists haven't stopped selling music just because their music is easily stolen and pirated by everyone. People do it all the time with PC games, and all other consoles besides the PS3 at the moment. The creators can still try to put as much protection as they want so that pirated versions of games don't work on their console- but its always broken anyway.
Hutchinson Persons: 1. Could you explain to me the difference to you between "information" and "knowledge"? Do you think one is always true and the other may or may not be? Or is it something else? 2. I'm not aware of anything that could "stop" you. Does takes work and effort, doesn't it? When you're done, couldn't you sell a generic substitute as long as you don't market it under the Coke name? Or maybe you could call it a Moke. Or a Joke. Coke might sue for infringement there though. Or maybe product defamation? And it might taste the same to you, but you'd never KNOW if you had "The Real Thang, Baby!"
I have no idea what you are talking about. Especially on the first portion. You should direct quote the sections your are referring to, it would help the respondent.
JParker:LS, a libertarianism is not anarchy.
Never said it was. Although I think one would be hard pressed to explain how libertarianism (which is based on non-aggression) is compatible with minarchism (just some aggression).
JParker:You are an anarchist.
Are you using that as an epithet? Yes, I am an anarchist. I am a sovereign individual, who must be allowed to make free choices about my life.
JParker:I have yet to see how the sheep of the world could live in anarchy.
JParker:It is, in fact, contrary to natural law. We are naturally aggressive, we steal, we dominate others.
Don't confuse nature and natural law. Also, I would argue that humans are not naturally thieves or trying to kill and dominate one another. We have the capacity for this, but the species would have burnt out long ago if not for higher morals and the capacity to reason.
JParker:You are blending the lines between anarchists, libertarians, austrians, etc. I know what I am, and im not a libertarian. I'm a randian, through and through.
You see, I was a minarchist. Then I was a libertarian. Then I was an anarchist. As my knowledge changes, I change. I don't really like Randians, Rand had some good ideas and some crazy ones. Like most philosophers, she could only see some truths relative to her own time and experience, and thus there is a lot about Rand that is an anachronism. I do like that her class theory is fairly close to Hoppe's.
JParker:We disagree on IP, though as I said, if the time comes that we get to try out a truely free market, i'm more than willing to see what it would be like without IP. I think it will fail, but I can be proven wrong.
I don't believe you can be proven wrong. But maybe you can prove me wrong on that. I'm all for disagreement, but I really want to be right, as in "have the right facts". You see, we can have any opinions we want, but the material facts do not change. There is only one reality, or rather A = A. One of us (or both) are wrong. I want to be right, even if it means changing my position. I can do it. I have done it before.
JParker:You were uneducated once. What would you have said if these words were your interduction to liberty?
I've got an underdog complex. If someone told me I am a stupid idiot and beyond help, it would pique my curiousity. Some people need to be fondled. Some people need to be (intellectually) kidnapped. Some people need to be slapped in the face. I know for a fact, the slap in the face method is the most efficient one for the convertor.
JParker:Didnt the appeal of canada's free healthcare at one time make you think it was the right way?
I didn't know any better. I was ignorant. But even then, I knew something was wrong as soon as I made use of the system and could observe it's operation. I haven't been to a Doctor since 2002 iirc. I didn't consider libertarianism until 2007.
JParker:You are certainly (and rightfully) sick of explaining the same thing over and over, and maybe you've had this argument with max a thousand times. But it should be easier to ignore him than ridicule him.
I tried fondling Max. Dozens of people have tried to appeal to his sense of reason. He's not stupid, he's stubborn, which is a great way to fake stupidity. The slap method is all I will invest in him. When I stop answering him, then I've given up completely.
JonBostwick: JackSkylark: My assumptions are based on a a value free economic approach, not a system of rights, natural or govenment fiat...Thus my argument is not on right or wrong, but on what happens in the market as a result of a legal framework (either one that does not accept IP or does). Your argument is that the presence of IP results in a better result then the absence of IP. That is the opposite of a value free approach.
No, it is not. My argument is one of an economic standpoint, I am saying this happens because of this (causality). If you like my conclusion on what happens in non-IP (assuming it becomes an infinite good, and there is not private restriction of access), then you can say you do. This is like the Austrian business cycle theory, its still value free but it takes given assumptions and a framework and makes logical predictions from it. So, in order to auctualy refute my predictions you have to address my argument.
my live blog continues on the Mises blog, chap on copyright
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
well jack, what did you decide about wheeliness?
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
Given these assumptions, the monopoly price of wheel2 may derive greater consumer satisfaction than wheel1.
I am now going to bring into the discussion values, and disclose my views on IP:
My support is for contract bound in the sale of the product, such as a copyright printed on the cover of a book. I would see this as an agreement to disseminate the knowledge/information on the condition that the buyers not reproduce it for sale. In other words, the owner does not sell his property outright. This is similar to a reserved rights land agreement, where you sell certain use of the land but maintain the right to use the land in other ways (such as selling mineral rights). From this, I would argue that infringement of the contract by the purchaser or a subsequent buyer is understood theft and should be, for that reason, treated accordingly on the free market. But I then follow Richard Wincor's legal argument that the person accusing someone of copyright infringement must "prove that the defendant had 'access' to the work allegedly infringed. If the defendant produces something identical to the plaintiff's work by mere chance, then there is no infringement" I would then go on to advocate a similar proposition in the form of patents. All of this is very specific, and only covers contract and implicit theft. Thus, 1) Patents, as they are today, would not exist in a free society. 2) There would, however, be copyright for the inventor, and this copyright would be perpetual (otherwise the man's property is in the hands of the state) 3) Capital funds are limited and they must be allocated to various uses, one of which is research expenditure. This brings in my concept of the IP based goods "disconnect" - which has been explained more in other posts 4) Since copyright protects from implicit theft it is non coercive. 5) Coercively to encourage research expenditures would distort and hamper the satisfaction of consumers. 6) anyone can refuse to have their work "copyrighted"
My support is for contract bound in the sale of the product, such as a copyright printed on the cover of a book. I would see this as an agreement to disseminate the knowledge/information on the condition that the buyers not reproduce it for sale. In other words, the owner does not sell his property outright. This is similar to a reserved rights land agreement, where you sell certain use of the land but maintain the right to use the land in other ways (such as selling mineral rights). From this, I would argue that infringement of the contract by the purchaser or a subsequent buyer is understood theft and should be, for that reason, treated accordingly on the free market. But I then follow Richard Wincor's legal argument that the person accusing someone of copyright infringement must "prove that the defendant had 'access' to the work allegedly infringed. If the defendant produces something identical to the plaintiff's work by mere chance, then there is no infringement" I would then go on to advocate a similar proposition in the form of patents. All of this is very specific, and only covers contract and implicit theft.
Thus,
1) Patents, as they are today, would not exist in a free society.
2) There would, however, be copyright for the inventor, and this copyright would be perpetual (otherwise the man's property is in the hands of the state)
3) Capital funds are limited and they must be allocated to various uses, one of which is research expenditure. This brings in my concept of the IP based goods "disconnect" - which has been explained more in other posts
4) Since copyright protects from implicit theft it is non coercive.
5) Coercively to encourage research expenditures would distort and hamper the satisfaction of consumers.
6) anyone can refuse to have their work "copyrighted"
but you rejected levying a monopoly price on wheel1, why take a different stance with wheel2, havent you considered wheel3?
whre is the dividing line between what can and cant be patented. invention wise.
how about the 'rachel green' haircut?
nirgrahamUK: well jack, what did you decide about wheeliness?
Given our scenario, the question seems to be: "maximize consumer satisfaction in the stone age -- or have a competitive monopoly price (remember we still have older versions of Wheel in the market, as well as newer versions of the Wheel still competing with say Wheel7) and move to the industrial age and beyond? So, using Mises argument, consumers do not benefit from the absence of the monopoly price for Wheel(x), instead they miss out on the satisfaction they could have recieved from the use of Automobile3.
liberty student:Max is foolish. I was his biggest supporter on this forum, when he was saying all sorts of stupid things. I'm not his supporter anymore.
Good, you have finally admitted we are enemies by your choosing. Your tone and attitude only indicate that what you are actually interested in is not a free society, because in a free society there will be disagreement, but rather you want to be the dictator. So you are right, we are enemies.
Your opposition to voluntary contracts as it relates to IP is just one example of your desire to use force despite all your protestations to the contrary.
My argument is not for patent (as such), but for copyright which I have explained up above. Becasue of this we would have a competitive market in development that would not be coercive, since it is contract based. Also, a competitive market in production, since Wheel2 will compete with Wheel2.5.
I don't know what the 'rachel green' haircut is. sorry...
and how convincing do you find that?
ok so the picture im getting is that no-one is arguing pro-patent here anymore . people are just arguing about kinds of copyright, in particular non traditional copyright over 'inventions'.
and everyone will agree that only two parties are bound by the sale of an explicity copywrighted object. The seller, and the buyer. all other 3rd parties who have eyes and minds are not bound. isnt this so?
Maxliberty:Good, you have finally admitted we are enemies by your choosing.
We're enemies because you refuse to acknowledge a reasonable argument and use a lot of strawmen.
Maxliberty:Your tone and attitude only indicate that what you are actually interested in is not a free society, because in a free society there will be disagreement, but rather you want to be the dictator.
Another strawman.
Maxliberty:Your opposition to voluntary contracts as it relates to IP is just one example of your desire to use force despite all your protestations to the contrary.
And we finish off with yet another strawman.
Thanks for making my point. When you are ready to argue what I have written, then we can carry on. As long as you continue to assert positions I do not hold, we're going nowhere.
Max I will add, for those in the peanut gallery, that your continued insistence that if something is contracted, that proves anything is the basis for our disagreement. I have never, ever written against voluntary contracts, and you cannot source where I have done so. That said, not all voluntary contracts are good, rational, or even possible to execute. You and I could come to terms on numerous actions, activities and outcomes, and that in itself would not prove any of those activities, actions or outcomes to be legitimate.
I argue this, based on reason. One can contract with me to turn off the sun tonight around 8:00 PM. I can agree to the contract. We have a voluntary contract, and yet we both know full well, I do not have the capacity to turn off the sun at any time.
Thus your argument, about contracting with employees to hide Coke's formula in it's vault constitutes voluntary IP protection, you are only correct in so far as the actual piece of paper the knowedge is recorded on, never is shared. However, the idea (IP) itself, is still capable if being learned, reproduced and discovered by others, so in that regard, any contracts to protect the IP can't be of any use protecting against another individual not contracted from using their brain as the orginiator of Coke did, in order to come up with the formula.
Anyway, please carry on. I actually laugh at some of your ridiculous ideas, at the very least they serve as entertainment. The market speaks, but individual participants (which comprise a free market) are wrong. Sounds pretty authoritarian to me. It is actually completely anti-free market when you assume that only the pro- position matters and the -con position does not.
Then again, you believe in supernatural beings, so perhaps this whole discussion is moot.
Does anybody know what Jacksklark is actually saying? His theory goes way over my head.
I have not seen any calculational chaos in the many examples that I know throughout history nor do I ever see any breakdown for market of new digital goods.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
If anyone wants to see a great video game business model in the age of piracy(or sharing, as I like to call it), just look at Steam. They make their games hard to pirate(which is perfectly acceptable in a world without IP laws. DRM is a bad business practice as it fucks over the people who actually purchase the game, but that's not the case with Steam. There's no hassle whatsoever for those who buy the game, and it is VERY difficult to get a Valve game working without buying it...mostly because they require Steam to be running when you play, which is again, no inconvencience for those who purchase games through Steam) and make getting their games as easy as clicking a button. Furthermore, it offers great services, like being able to have all of your games tied to your account so you can access them from any computer, anywhere, at any time.
kiba:Linux isn't some hobbyist project coded by some programmer in their parent's basement. It is developed by professionals hired from corporations like IBM.
BC Linux is a capital good to that business. Gears 2 is a pure and simple consumer product.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
meambobbo:Nobody has really responded to my saying that labor used to create IP is scarce
It's irrelevant to the question of ownership. Only matter and space are in the unfortunate condition of being unusable except exclusively, and it is solely for this reason that the concept of "property" has any utility at all; information has no such handicap, so treating information as if it were property is quite simply absurd. The only justification one might use is that the widespread violence initiated to enforce property claims in information is somehow mitigated by some other factor, but any such justification would have to either implicitly or explicitly assert an objective inferiority of the rights of the victims as compared to others. This too is absurd as there are no objective signs or marks which distinguish any individual or group of individuals as having a right to rule, a right to impose their will upon, any other individual or group of individuals. The only objective rational ethical assertion we can make is one of an equality of rights, by simple process of elimination, as any alternative must either be non-objective, or self-inconsistent and thus non-rational, or both. The only oughts which must be assumed are that we should be objective and rational in our ethics; any argument against these basic first oughts must itself be subjective and irrational and thus dismissable out of hand as gibbering nonsense. The only objectively rational arguments must be for equality, which entails maintenance of pareto optimality, and thus for a non-initiation of violence, which precludes any enforcement of property claims in information.
Enforcement of legitimate claims of ownership of physical property requires no such violation of pareto optimality, as legitimate ownership of physical property is based on ongoing use of matter and space. For others to use the matter or space of my body requires denying me my use. For others to use the matter or space of my computer likewise requires denying me my use, unless I cease my use voluntarily; the former lacks justification for the very same reason as property claims in information lack justification. Where I sit or stand, what I hold in hand, the matter of my body, and the matter and space I reclaim from nature to hold the various forms I find useful, such as, for example, my computer are all in ongoing use by me. My legitimate ownership of any of them only ends when my use ends, such as through destruction of the forms I find useful, over time, due to increasing entropy; for example, if I build a house and it eventually rots back into the ground, the land and materials cease to be mine as I no longer actually use them. There is nothing in your notion of "intellectual property" that is by its nature only usable exclusively, as information is itself an intangible; information can only exist insofar as it is encoded in physical forms and so the only property claims one can legitimately make in relation to information are ownership claims on the physical media of storage and exchange. Brains, CDs, hard drives; those are the only "intellectual property" with any rational basis.
meambobbo:Most IP is developed by professionals and intended for mass consumers. Let me give you some examples: video games and Mac and Windows operating systems.
That is a tiny fraction of the software actually produced. Most software work is custom work, not work for mass consumption. Mass consumption is covered easily enough by software developed voluntarily by those who find doing so to be fun, those who in turn sell support services, and those who can support their work through ad revenue. I'm a programmer, I know what the field is like. Art isn't much different. Digital artists and designers can profit from advertisements while their work itself is available for free, or they can do custom work like designing websites or ads or logos; my girlfriend's a digital artist/designer and that's the primary sort of work available in her field. Physical art can be displayed in for-profit museums or originals can be sold for a profit; cheap mass produced copies might turn a profit, but they can't compete with originals. Performance artists can sell their performances. Musicians can likewise make their money off of live performances, as was their sole source of revenue before the invention of the phonograph. Composers can perform custom work for ad supported or subscription based entertainment, or for ads, or for musicians who have no talent for composition, only for playing. There's no presently IP covered field that can't be supported without resorting to the widespread violence of IP enforcement.
meambobbo:We even have at least one specific variant designed for mass consumer use - Ubuntu. These products are free to use. Every hardware vendor could save money installing it over Windows. So why do Windows and Mac still rule the OS market?
So why do Windows and Mac still rule the OS market?
They don't. GNU/Linux is dominant in the server market. Windows and Mac are dominant in the desktop market, largely due to inertia and the distortion of the market by IP laws, but continue to lose ground to GNU/Linux. The distortion of the market by IP laws allows Microsoft and Apple to gain unnaturally large profits, which in turn allows them to hype their software more through advertising, and in the case of Microsoft it also allows for the ongoing suppression of competitors by buying them out, bribing hardware vendors, et cetera. There's also the effect of IP on hardware, such as graphics cards, which has made it far more difficult to develop linux drivers for such hardware; Microsoft gets Windows drivers for free, while linux developers generally have to develop their own, increasing the difficulty of developing quality games for GNU/Linux. There's also the major distortion of the video game market itself to consider, which in turn helps Microsoft even more. Big budget video games are subsidized by the violence of IP enforcement; without IP laws, there would be fewer big budget video games, but the games which would exist would be more stable, portable, and moddable because the software end would tend to be developed primarily collaboratively rather than competitively, with content running on that software provided by subscriptions or through ad supported distribution sites or by volunteers who just enjoy modding or even as promotional material for selling hardware or some other products or services. The fact that free/open source software games/engines with the quality of Adanaxis, VegaStrike, Spring, FlightGear, et alia, are developed despite the existence of IP laws is clear evidence that, in their absence, quality games would still be developed, and that they'd be generally more stable, portable, and moddable than the big budget commercial games developed under IP laws.
meambobbo:Because Mac and Windows are designed to be user friendly to the mass majority of computer users.
Mac maybe, but certainly not Windows. Apple conducts actual usability research. So does the non-profit GNOME Foundation, which is responsible for one of the two most popular desktop environments for GNU/Linux. In fact, my girlfriend, who uses a Mac, tried out GNOME using an account I created for her on my computer, and she thought that in some respects it was even better than her Mac, and that overall it was at least as good as a Mac. Microsoft just guesses generally, and usually quite wrongly; it only has the advantage of inertia; people are used to it. The only thing they manage to make more user friendly is the initial installation, which is usually handled by hardware vendors anyway, and the only reason it's more user friendly is because they only install the basics; they don't offer the tens of thousands of additional applications which are standard on GNU/Linux installation CDs/DVDs. Installing all those additional applications, plus the extra configuration options offered by GNU/Linux due to the fact that it's just plain more flexible, often requires additional user input during the installation, which some distributions don't handle well. The commercial distributions like RedHat and Mandrake do a pretty good job in this area compared to non-profits like Debian; Mandrake is actually braindead simple to install, or at least it was back in '03 when I first tried it out, and I can't imagine it having gotten more difficult to install since then.
meambobbo:However, the brunt of the direction of development is in the direction the developers want to consume. They don't want to compete directly with Windows market, because they don't want Windows.
So? They work to make it better. Those who work on the UI try to make the UI as good as possible. Those who work on the low level components try to make those as good as possible. The people who work on the UI, particularly those developing GNOME-based applications, put at least as much work into making the UI user friendly as do Mac developers. If there are particular niche programs which are in demand but not supplied by volunteer work, they can be handled by those seeking to sell support services or by custom development work; in the worst case, those who want such programs can pool their money together to hire developers to produce them, though if it's the sort of program that's useful to more than a handful of people, the sale of support services should be enough to promote development and maintenance of such software.
meambobbo:What business model would allow entrepreneurial investment to direct IP labor towards satisfying consumer demands, while guaranteeing as much or greater income than current business models that rely on IP law?
Probably none. IP laws create monopolies, and thus monopolist rent. The same or greater income is not necessary for the development of information-based products and services; that some people won't be able to line their pockets with unnaturally large profits is irrelevant to the question of whether information-based products and services, of the same or greater quality, can be developed in the absence of IP. All the evidence suggests that they can be developed, but even if they couldn't, IP would be unjustifiable on ethical grounds.
meambobbo:or that the equivalent of the "new socialist man" would appear and work simply for others' benefit
How ironic, considering that it is you who suggests that others be forcibly denied full use of their own persons and property, that they should be forced into self-sacrifice, to support IP profiteers.
meambobbo:Here's a simpler question to answer - why would I work year-round with 2 dozen people to produce a video game that will give me less than a week's work of entertainment, if not for the monetary gains derived from satisfying consumer demand, which are obviously larger if our product is allowed to be artificially scarce? It seems anti-IP would turn all video games into hobbyist mods of existing games.
Even if that were true (which it clearly isn't given the existence of high quality volunteer-developed games, ad supported games, and subscription based gaming services), so what? If the demand isn't there in the absence of IP laws, it isn't there. People will find something else to spend their time and money on; creating massive distortions in the market just so you can turn a profit completely ignores the negative externalities of your activity, all that is unseen, all the alternative unrealized uses of the same economic resources, as well as the absurdity of your supposed right to rule over others to make your business model viable. Why would I work year-round with 2 dozen people to produce a giant statue of a resus monkey made out of feces if not for the monetary gains derived from extracting tithes from the people at gunpoint, on behalf of the monkey shit god? It's a question no more absurd than your own.
Corporations are an extension of the state.
Rich333, I'm usually not much for cheerleader posts, but I have to say this: you are a gentleman and a scholar and your post kicks ass.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
liberty student: Then again, you believe in supernatural beings, so perhaps this whole discussion is moot.
Perhaps you'd best stop with the cheap shots against religion.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:Perhaps you'd best stop with the cheap shots against religion.
You of all people should be able to appreciate a good cheap shot.
Rich333: meambobbo:Nobody has really responded to my saying that labor used to create IP is scarce It's irrelevant to the question of ownership. Only matter and space are in the unfortunate condition of being unusable except exclusively, and it is solely for this reason that the concept of "property" has any utility at all; information has no such handicap, so treating information as if it were property is quite simply absurd. The only justification one might use is that the widespread violence initiated to enforce property claims in information is somehow mitigated by some other factor, but any such justification would have to either implicitly or explicitly assert an objective inferiority of the rights of the victims as compared to others. This too is absurd as there are no objective signs or marks which distinguish any individual or group of individuals as having a right to rule, a right to impose their will upon, any other individual or group of individuals. The only objective rational ethical assertion we can make is one of an equality of rights, by simple process of elimination, as any alternative must either be non-objective, or self-inconsistent and thus non-rational, or both. The only oughts which must be assumed are that we should be objective and rational in our ethics; any argument against these basic first oughts must itself be subjective and irrational and thus dismissable out of hand as gibbering nonsense. The only objectively rational arguments must be for equality, which entails maintenance of pareto optimality, and thus for a non-initiation of violence, which precludes any enforcement of property claims in information. Enforcement of legitimate claims of ownership of physical property requires no such violation of pareto optimality, as legitimate ownership of physical property is based on ongoing use of matter and space. For others to use the matter or space of my body requires denying me my use. For others to use the matter or space of my computer likewise requires denying me my use, unless I cease my use voluntarily; the former lacks justification for the very same reason as property claims in information lack justification. Where I sit or stand, what I hold in hand, the matter of my body, and the matter and space I reclaim from nature to hold the various forms I find useful, such as, for example, my computer are all in ongoing use by me. My legitimate ownership of any of them only ends when my use ends, such as through destruction of the forms I find useful, over time, due to increasing entropy; for example, if I build a house and it eventually rots back into the ground, the land and materials cease to be mine as I no longer actually use them. There is nothing in your notion of "intellectual property" that is by its nature only usable exclusively, as information is itself an intangible; information can only exist insofar as it is encoded in physical forms and so the only property claims one can legitimately make in relation to information are ownership claims on the physical media of storage and exchange. Brains, CDs, hard drives; those are the only "intellectual property" with any rational basis. meambobbo:Most IP is developed by professionals and intended for mass consumers. Let me give you some examples: video games and Mac and Windows operating systems. That is a tiny fraction of the software actually produced. Most software work is custom work, not work for mass consumption. Mass consumption is covered easily enough by software developed voluntarily by those who find doing so to be fun, those who in turn sell support services, and those who can support their work through ad revenue. I'm a programmer, I know what the field is like. Art isn't much different. Digital artists and designers can profit from advertisements while their work itself is available for free, or they can do custom work like designing websites or ads or logos; my girlfriend's a digital artist/designer and that's the primary sort of work available in her field. Physical art can be displayed in for-profit museums or originals can be sold for a profit; cheap mass produced copies might turn a profit, but they can't compete with originals. Performance artists can sell their performances. Musicians can likewise make their money off of live performances, as was their sole source of revenue before the invention of the phonograph. Composers can perform custom work for ad supported or subscription based entertainment, or for ads, or for musicians who have no talent for composition, only for playing. There's no presently IP covered field that can't be supported without resorting to the widespread violence of IP enforcement. meambobbo:We even have at least one specific variant designed for mass consumer use - Ubuntu. These products are free to use. Every hardware vendor could save money installing it over Windows. So why do Windows and Mac still rule the OS market? They don't. GNU/Linux is dominant in the server market. Windows and Mac are dominant in the desktop market, largely due to inertia and the distortion of the market by IP laws, but continue to lose ground to GNU/Linux. The distortion of the market by IP laws allows Microsoft and Apple to gain unnaturally large profits, which in turn allows them to hype their software more through advertising, and in the case of Microsoft it also allows for the ongoing suppression of competitors by buying them out, bribing hardware vendors, et cetera. There's also the effect of IP on hardware, such as graphics cards, which has made it far more difficult to develop linux drivers for such hardware; Microsoft gets Windows drivers for free, while linux developers generally have to develop their own, increasing the difficulty of developing quality games for GNU/Linux. There's also the major distortion of the video game market itself to consider, which in turn helps Microsoft even more. Big budget video games are subsidized by the violence of IP enforcement; without IP laws, there would be fewer big budget video games, but the games which would exist would be more stable, portable, and moddable because the software end would tend to be developed primarily collaboratively rather than competitively, with content running on that software provided by subscriptions or through ad supported distribution sites or by volunteers who just enjoy modding or even as promotional material for selling hardware or some other products or services. The fact that free/open source software games/engines with the quality of Adanaxis, VegaStrike, Spring, FlightGear, et alia, are developed despite the existence of IP laws is clear evidence that, in their absence, quality games would still be developed, and that they'd be generally more stable, portable, and moddable than the big budget commercial games developed under IP laws. meambobbo:Because Mac and Windows are designed to be user friendly to the mass majority of computer users. Mac maybe, but certainly not Windows. Apple conducts actual usability research. So does the non-profit GNOME Foundation, which is responsible for one of the two most popular desktop environments for GNU/Linux. In fact, my girlfriend, who uses a Mac, tried out GNOME using an account I created for her on my computer, and she thought that in some respects it was even better than her Mac, and that overall it was at least as good as a Mac. Microsoft just guesses generally, and usually quite wrongly; it only has the advantage of inertia; people are used to it. The only thing they manage to make more user friendly is the initial installation, which is usually handled by hardware vendors anyway, and the only reason it's more user friendly is because they only install the basics; they don't offer the tens of thousands of additional applications which are standard on GNU/Linux installation CDs/DVDs. Installing all those additional applications, plus the extra configuration options offered by GNU/Linux due to the fact that it's just plain more flexible, often requires additional user input during the installation, which some distributions don't handle well. The commercial distributions like RedHat and Mandrake do a pretty good job in this area compared to non-profits like Debian; Mandrake is actually braindead simple to install, or at least it was back in '03 when I first tried it out, and I can't imagine it having gotten more difficult to install since then. meambobbo:However, the brunt of the direction of development is in the direction the developers want to consume. They don't want to compete directly with Windows market, because they don't want Windows. So? They work to make it better. Those who work on the UI try to make the UI as good as possible. Those who work on the low level components try to make those as good as possible. The people who work on the UI, particularly those developing GNOME-based applications, put at least as much work into making the UI user friendly as do Mac developers. If there are particular niche programs which are in demand but not supplied by volunteer work, they can be handled by those seeking to sell support services or by custom development work; in the worst case, those who want such programs can pool their money together to hire developers to produce them, though if it's the sort of program that's useful to more than a handful of people, the sale of support services should be enough to promote development and maintenance of such software. meambobbo:What business model would allow entrepreneurial investment to direct IP labor towards satisfying consumer demands, while guaranteeing as much or greater income than current business models that rely on IP law? Probably none. IP laws create monopolies, and thus monopolist rent. The same or greater income is not necessary for the development of information-based products and services; that some people won't be able to line their pockets with unnaturally large profits is irrelevant to the question of whether information-based products and services, of the same or greater quality, can be developed in the absence of IP. All the evidence suggests that they can be developed, but even if they couldn't, IP would be unjustifiable on ethical grounds. meambobbo:or that the equivalent of the "new socialist man" would appear and work simply for others' benefit How ironic, considering that it is you who suggests that others be forcibly denied full use of their own persons and property, that they should be forced into self-sacrifice, to support IP profiteers. meambobbo:Here's a simpler question to answer - why would I work year-round with 2 dozen people to produce a video game that will give me less than a week's work of entertainment, if not for the monetary gains derived from satisfying consumer demand, which are obviously larger if our product is allowed to be artificially scarce? It seems anti-IP would turn all video games into hobbyist mods of existing games. Even if that were true (which it clearly isn't given the existence of high quality volunteer-developed games, ad supported games, and subscription based gaming services), so what? If the demand isn't there in the absence of IP laws, it isn't there. People will find something else to spend their time and money on; creating massive distortions in the market just so you can turn a profit completely ignores the negative externalities of your activity, all that is unseen, all the alternative unrealized uses of the same economic resources, as well as the absurdity of your supposed right to rule over others to make your business model viable. Why would I work year-round with 2 dozen people to produce a giant statue of a resus monkey made out of feces if not for the monetary gains derived from extracting tithes from the people at gunpoint, on behalf of the monkey shit god? It's a question no more absurd than your own.
I'm not sure that there has ever been a situation where this is any more appropriate:
/thread
liberty student: I argue this, based on reason. One can contract with me to turn off the sun tonight around 8:00 PM. I can agree to the contract. We have a voluntary contract, and yet we both know full well, I do not have the capacity to turn off the sun at any time. Thus your argument, about contracting with employees to hide Coke's formula in it's vault constitutes voluntary IP protection, you are only correct in so far as the actual piece of paper the knowedge is recorded on, never is shared. However, the idea (IP) itself, is still capable if being learned, reproduced and discovered by others, so in that regard, any contracts to protect the IP can't be of any use protecting against another individual not contracted from using their brain as the orginiator of Coke did, in order to come up with the formula.
Yes, but a voluntary contract over things which you do have control, that is your own actions should be allowable and enforceable. For example, you have control over whether you decide to share information that you have been given. You have control over making copies of software or music you may have purchased. So contracts that restrict those activities should be allowed but you are in disagreement with that.
Now it is certainly true that these contracts would not prevent another person from thinking of the same idea and to the extent another person thought of the idea indepently then they would certainly have equal rights to the use of that idea. Clearly, what Coke is trying to do is to force people to think of the idea themselves rather than simply copying it off of a piece of a paper. If we look objectively at Coke's strategy to protect their idea it has been incredibly effective. Despite your claim that the formula is easily obtainable it in fact appears to be quite difficult to duplicate independently.
Also, we would expect a whole range of other design and development projects to use similar measures to protect their ideas and that is exactly what we find in the market place.
Simply because there is the possibility that someone else may have the same idea does not mean I am obligated to share the idea or that any effort to protect the idea or limit the knowledge of idea is a complete waste of time or somehow violates the other persons rights.
People believe that their ideas and inventions have value. People will protect what they think has value. People will make efforts to protect ideas and inventions. It has nothing to do with the government. The fact that there are laws about protecting ideas and inventions is an illustration of the above.
On this subject, unlike you I don't define anything I don't understand or lack knowledge of as being supernatural. Things either exist or they don't. God exists whether you like it or not.
Maxliberty:Yes, but a voluntary contract over things which you do have control, that is your own actions should be allowable and enforceable. For example, you have control over whether you decide to share information that you have been given.
No one has argued against this.
Maxliberty:So contracts that restrict those activities should be allowed but you are in disagreement with that.
Source or strawman?
Maxliberty:If we look objectively at Coke's strategy to protect their idea it has been incredibly effective. Despite your claim that the formula is easily obtainable it in fact appears to be quite difficult to duplicate independently.
Unless you can prove knowledge of attempts, their successes and failures, costs and investment. Otherwise, just as assertion.
Maxliberty:Simply because there is the possibility that someone else may have the same idea does not mean I am obligated to share the idea or that any effort to protect the idea or limit the knowledge of idea is a complete waste of time or somehow violates the other persons rights.
No one has claimed this, have they?
Maxliberty:People believe that their ideas and inventions have value. People will protect what they think has value.
Without a doubt. But if you've ever been in business, selling a product you produce, unless you price it to the market and consumer demand, rather than what you think it is worth, you're going to fail. Value in the market, is not determined on the supply side only. That is the core of Austrian economics.
Maxliberty:People will make efforts to protect ideas and inventions.
Sure. And sometimes they will be successful, sometimes they will encourage competition and R&D, and sometimes they will go bust. Saying "people will make efforts to protect ideas and inventions" (no insult intended) is about as insightful as saying "people will get alarm systems for their stores and offices".
Maxliberty:It has nothing to do with the government.
The IP market is completely distorted. Even the pro-IP folks back this up. People at the big corporations in charge of IP back this up. It's not at all in dispute. What is in dispute is if there is any legitimacy to it.
And if you really believe in the market, you'll let the market sort it out. It's my belief and experience, that it is very hard to compete against "free". Not impossible, but very difficult to compete with an indentical product for more money.
Maxliberty:On this subject, unlike you I don't define anything I don't understand or lack knowledge of as being supernatural.
Strawman.
liberty student: No one has argued against this.
Previously you have but it is good now you agree that contracts can be used to protect IP in a free market.
,
liberty student:Unless you can prove knowledge of attempts, their successes and failures, costs and investment. Otherwise, just as assertion.
liberty student: Sure. And sometimes they will be successful, sometimes they will encourage competition and R&D, and sometimes they will go bust. Saying "people will make efforts to protect ideas and inventions" (no insult intended) is about as insightful as saying "people will get alarm systems for their stores and offices".
Since the base of your arguement against IP protection is that people will not do it in a free society because it can not exist without the government then you are now contradicting yourself. I am glad you have changed your mind and now realize that IP protection wil exist in a free society and as you now say sometimes it wil be successful and sometimes it won't.
liberty student: Without a doubt. But if you've ever been in business, selling a product you produce, unless you price it to the market and consumer demand, rather than what you think it is worth, you're going to fail. Value in the market, is not determined on the supply side only. That is the core of Austrian economics.
Value in the market is determined by both a buyer and a seller but the decision to protect something new is determined by the perceived value of the new idea or invention and that is a one sided decision. To the extent the product is successful will determine whether the protection is a wise investment or not.
liberty student: The IP market is completely distorted. Even the pro-IP folks back this up. People at the big corporations in charge of IP back this up. It's not at all in dispute. What is in dispute is if there is any legitimacy to it. And if you really believe in the market, you'll let the market sort it out. It's my belief and experience, that it is very hard to compete against "free". Not impossible, but very difficult to compete with an indentical product for more money.
Since you now acknowledge that some free market IP protection will be successful I guess that puts you in the pro-IP group. Yes, I think I have frequently said that the market is the best place to sort this out and it consistently shows your previous ideas are false. If IP protection as you now admit will exist in the free-market then that would mean not everything will be easily copied and therefore "free". Which brings us full circle to Coke. Since the Coke formula has no government protection if your previous thinking prevailed we would expect to see an identical tasting soda to Coke at a much cheaper price. In fact we don't see that so the free market IP protection is working. Glad to see that you have seen the light on this issue.
If you would just concede my superior intellect in the beginning you wouldn't have to come so grudgingly to the truth.
Maxliberty:Previously you have but it is good now you agree that contracts can be used to protect IP in a free market.
of course people can have contracts which oblige them to physically behave in various ways, but whether this is the same as 'protecting IP' is another question. In fact, for us who deny the possibility of IP; we cant (and we dont) logically believe that IP that is protected; it is something else that is happening. the most we can say is 'coke' believe they are 'protecting' what they think is their 'IP'. I dont know that their motiviations are all that relevant to the matter really. its between them and their shareholders or whathaveyou.
Maxliberty: liberty student: No one has argued against this. Previously you have but it is good now you agree that contracts can be used to protect IP in a free market.
If you can't substantiate it, I am calling you a liar. When you strawmen intentionally, that is lying. So either backup these claims, or don't make them. You're not fooling anyone.
Maxliberty:Since the base of your arguement against IP protection is that people will not do it in a free society because it can not exist without the government then you are now contradicting yourself.
Maxliberty:I am glad you have changed your mind and now realize that IP protection wil exist in a free society and as you now say sometimes it wil be successful and sometimes it won't.
This is a strawman. IP protection per se can never work absolutely. It's a myth based on your assertion that if people make a contract, that can change A = A to A = B.
Maxliberty:Value in the market is determined by both a buyer and a seller but the decision to protect something new is determined by the perceived value of the new idea or invention and that is a one sided decision. To the extent the product is successful will determine whether the protection is a wise investment or not.
Do you really think that if you babble on and on, eventually you will make or win a point in the discussion? Because this is just babbling. It seems like everything you do in discussions for the last 6 months is based upon lying (strawmen) unsubstantiated assertions, or just running on endlessly.
Price is a measurement of value. Price is determined subjectively, by the buyer and seller working together to make or not make a trade. Period. This is Austrian Economics 101. By rights, you should have tried to reply, because now you're just posting fallacies.
Maxliberty:Since you now acknowledge that some free market IP protection will be successful I guess that puts you in the pro-IP group.
Another strawman, I mean lie. Source?
Maxliberty:Yes, I think I have frequently said that the market is the best place to sort this out and it consistently shows your previous ideas are false.
Unsubstantiated assertion, source?
Maxliberty:If IP protection as you now admit will exist in the free-market then that would mean not everything will be easily copied and therefore "free".
Strawman/lie. Source?
Maxliberty:Which brings us full circle to Coke. Since the Coke formula has no government protection if your previous thinking prevailed we would expect to see an identical tasting soda to Coke at a much cheaper price.
Maxliberty:If you would just concede my superior intellect in the beginning you wouldn't have to come so grudgingly to the truth.
You've proven over hundreds of posts to be nothing more than a stubborn liar.
liberty student: If you can't substantiate it, I am calling you a liar. When you strawmen intentionally, that is lying. So either backup these claims, or don't make them. You're not fooling anyone.
I could have sworn that your intial arguement was that since IP in your mind is not property then any contract about it by defintion became a slave contract and was enforceable because no one could force you to stop using your mind. I recall that as your general arguement. Nonetheless, we are now in agreement that contracts can be used to protect IP. Which if you believe what you just wrote then that essentially makes your entire arguement against IP a moot point because you are an advocate of contractually enforced IP protection.
liberty student: Another strawman, I mean lie. Source?
I guess you should read your own post in this thread. Something along the lines of "some IP protection will work and some won't". So try looking about 5 posts back.
liberty student: Maxliberty:Which brings us full circle to Coke. Since the Coke formula has no government protection if your previous thinking prevailed we would expect to see an identical tasting soda to Coke at a much cheaper price.Assertion and fallacious argument. Fail.
You really need to start reading what you write. Your claim that products can not compete with free products stems from your incorrect thinking that without government enforced IP protection all IP will essentially be "free". The Coke example shows you to be incorrect as the Coke formula is not protected by government enforcement and yet the Coke IP is not free. The Coke example disproves your theory.
liberty student:You've proven over hundreds of posts to be nothing more than a stubborn liar.
I can see you have given up trying to defend your undefendable position and have resorted to childish name calling.
nirgrahamUK: Maxliberty:Previously you have but it is good now you agree that contracts can be used to protect IP in a free market. of course people can have contracts which oblige them to physically behave in various ways, but whether this is the same as 'protecting IP' is another question. In fact, for us who deny the possibility of IP; we cant (and we dont) logically believe that IP that is protected; it is something else that is happening. the most we can say is 'coke' believe they are 'protecting' what they think is their 'IP'. I dont know that their motiviations are all that relevant to the matter really. its between them and their shareholders or whathaveyou.