Benjamin Burkley:Benjamin Burkley
allow me to explain. your professors dont want you to copy another author; this is because they want to see hwat you are capable of (after your exposure to the ideas of other authors!)
however, does this mean that the 'idea' that you wrote down is your 'property' no?
what if you all did have independantly the same idea. if you truly did, what will your professor say against you all?
Benjamin Burkley:But, would it be right for someone else to claim this post as their own, and when someone expresses interest in it to make a profit on my ideas?
it depends what you mean by 'claim this post as their own;'
if they say,," i wrote the post that Benjamin Burkley wrote", then the question rather answers itself.
if they say "heres something i wrote", and they wrote it, and it has the same words in it as the post that you wrote, thats something else.
---
by reading this post you have implcitly agreed that i did not implicitly agree to anything when i read your prior post
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
Benjamin Burkley:I simply do not agree that there is not such thing as IP.
What you agree to isn't the question. 54% of voting Americans agreed Obama was a good choice, over 95% believed the Dems or Republicans were a good choice. What people think, and what is, are not always the same thing.
Benjamin Burkley:How is creating an idea any different than homesteading a peice of unowned land?
The land is scarce. Ideas are not.
Benjamin Burkley:You have to put the capital down, to work it, make it useful, create it.
The Austrian school of economics is based on a subjective theory of value, not a labour theory of value. It doesn't matter how much you work, put in capital, the product only has commercial value when you negotiate a price in market exchange.
Benjamin Burkley:This makes all of the capital that the producer of the idea sunk into the creation of the idea a sunk and lost cost.
What it means, is that people will allocate capital more carefully. Instead of producing products for the IP value, they will produce products which the market demands. If you produce something people want, they will buy it. IP notwithstanding.
Benjamin Burkley:I do think that people should have monopoly privlidge on goods they produce.
Then you're a lost cause. Monopoly is a state granted privilege, it doesn't exist in nature. Open competition exists in nature.
If you want to address Jeffrey Tucker, I recommend you comment on one of his blog posts or email him (contact information at the end of the article I linked up thread). I doubt he is reading this discussion, so your comments have a slim chance of reaching him through this medium.
However, I would advise stopping by http://blog.mises.org first. There is a lot of discussion that already addresses your questions and concerns.
GilesStratton:MaxLiberty is quite correct.
No he is not. Don't make a fool of yourself.
GilesStratton: If A, invites B to his house on the grounds that he does not swear in front of the children of A, known as C, and then A swears and C hears, he can not sue B. On the other hand, if B swears and C hears he can take actions against him. Contractual agreements regarding the use of property don't presume to own anything except the property in question.
If A, invites B to his house on the grounds that he does not swear in front of the children of A, known as C, and then A swears and C hears, he can not sue B. On the other hand, if B swears and C hears he can take actions against him. Contractual agreements regarding the use of property don't presume to own anything except the property in question.
i do agree with you on this part. whcih is where a lot of the 'pro-ip' people fall down when they offer fleshed out examples.
so where do you stand on the IntellectualMonopolyPrivilege question. is there IP or is there not?
Benjamin Burkley: Benjamin Burkley Copyrite 2009 patent number 1283837175493 This post may not be copied or reproduced in anyway with out my express written concent. By reading this post you have implicetly agreed to these terms. hope all is well.
Benjamin Burkley
Copyrite 2009
patent number 1283837175493
This post may not be copied or reproduced in anyway with out my express written concent.
By reading this post you have implicetly agreed to these terms.
hope all is well.
Unfortunately, you can't copyright work if you can't spell copyright. Just kidding.
Did you read the terms and conditions of your Mises.org membership? I'm fairly certain the entire website is CC 3.0 Attribution licensed. You can't add a license condition on someone else's property, and your post here, is the property of Mises.org to delete, promote, edit etc.
liberty student: GilesStratton:MaxLiberty is quite correct. No he is not. Don't make a fool of yourself.
Get to the post, please.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
nirgrahamUK: GilesStratton: If A, invites B to his house on the grounds that he does not swear in front of the children of A, known as C, and then A swears and C hears, he can not sue B. On the other hand, if B swears and C hears he can take actions against him. Contractual agreements regarding the use of property don't presume to own anything except the property in question. i do agree with you on this part. whcih is where a lot of the 'pro-ip' people fall down when they offer fleshed out examples. so where do you stand on the IntellectualMonopolyPrivilege question. is there IP or is there not?
IP doesn't exist. Property, which individuals may contract with, exists. That's all. You don't need to invent concepts like IP to make the case I am.
GilesStratton:This example is not relevant.
The example is wholly relevant. You're doing exactly what Max does. You're conflating different arguments.
This discussion is about IP. Not the positive or negative property rights obligations of a pub owner in Sheffield to serve a man of jewish ancestry a stout ale.
hi Giles, do you think we disagree on any point? could you state what exactly?
nirgrahamUK: hi Giles, do you think we disagree on any point? could you state what exactly?
Bingo.
Well, do you think I have the right to specify how you may or may not use the property that I am selling you? Because that's the point I'm arguing, that one may. Once again, IP is wholly irrelevant, IP is a state granted monopoly.
liberty student:The example is wholly relevant.
Why is it relevant when the contract hasn't been broken, the whole point of the discussion is whether or not I may set the terms of you buying a certain good from me. If you do, and don't break the contractual agreement we have made there's no issue. Hence, the example is not relevant.
liberty student:ou're doing exactly what Max does. You're conflating different arguments.
Show me how.
liberty student:This discussion is about IP. Not the positive or negative property rights obligations of a pub owner in Sheffield to serve a man of jewish ancestry a stout ale.
It's an analogy, in case you didn't guess already.
GilesStratton: Well, do you think I have the right to specify how you may or may not use the property that I am selling you? Because that's the point I'm arguing, that one may. Once again, IP is wholly irrelevant, IP is a state granted monopoly.
no arguments here. im confident i never contradicted this, but i appreciate that in the rough and tumble of this thread you might have misread the odd argument of mine and concluded that somehow i was opposed to that; im not.. peace out.
nirgrahamUK: GilesStratton: Well, do you think I have the right to specify how you may or may not use the property that I am selling you? Because that's the point I'm arguing, that one may. Once again, IP is wholly irrelevant, IP is a state granted monopoly. no arguments here. im confident i never contradicted this, but i appreciate that in the rough and tumble of this thread you might have misread the odd argument of mine and concluded that somehow i was opposed to that; im not.. peace out.
I merely pointed out your faulty analogy.
GilesStratton:I merely pointed out your faulty analogy.
it was faulty or not depending on your interpretation of the word allow used in the scenario. If A contracts B not to allow others to reproduce the item.
allow could be used inthe dictionary sense of 'admit' i make possible, enable. in which case its passable.
on interpreting allow in the sense of 'refraining from prevension' (there is probably a better discription of this sense but hey..).
it would be a bankcrupt contract if B was obliged to positively prevent others reproductions, i.e. he sees c has come up with it independantly and he must go forth and stop it. if he doesnt stop it. he has allowed it.
GilesStratton:It's an analogy, in case you didn't guess already.
Yes, I was mocking it.
GilesStratton:Why is it relevant when the contract hasn't been broken, the whole point of the discussion is whether or not I may set the terms of you buying a certain good from me.
No. The discussion is and was whether or not ownership of a non-good can be contracted. If you agree that I own the sky, and sign a contract to that effect, do I in fact own the sky, and can I enforce that contract against 3rd parties?
And taking it to Max's next step, once the contract is signed, this is proof that I value the sky, and thus it must be ownable, because things with value must be property.
And the final piece of the argument, that I am able to protect my ownership of the sky by signing a contract with you. That being proof that owning and protecting the sky contractually through the market not only is possible, it is valid and rational.
So after all of this discussion you have conceded. Now if we could just get LS to acknowledge his errors. It is funny that if I say I can sell you a piece of paper that has a song on it then that is not IP. You and LS have some bizarre defintion of IP that I think has nothing to do with what the majority of people are discussing when they discuss IP.
If you just you and LS could develop your alternate reality you would be set.
nirgrahamUK: allow could be used inthe dictionary sense of 'admit' i make possible, enable. in which case its passable.
Yes, good idea when in doubt use the dictionary. Or you could just make up defintions for your own alternate reality.
nirgrahamUK: it would be a bankcrupt contract if B was obliged to positively prevent others reproductions, i.e. he sees c has come up with it independantly and he must go forth and stop it. if he doesnt stop it. he has allowed it.
I don't think anyone else but you and the gutless coward LS could have warped the scenario in that way.
i dont think you realise what me and giles where talking about. i have not reversed on any position i ever held. IP is nonsense
No, it was fallacious because you assumed MaxLiberty's position had anything to do with third parties. It didn't.
liberty student:No. The discussion is and was whether or not ownership of a non-good can be contracted.
And here is why you consistently contradict yourself and the debate continues. You say you agree with Giles and then say nope you can't have a contract like that by creating some completely absurd unrelated scenario. Are you equating buying the sky with selling a song or blueprints to a building?
Keep running and hiding gutless.
well, im glad it didnt. forgive me for believing Max had overstated his case. in that regard he is unimpeachable. of course, his beliefe that there exists IntellectualProperty is absurd. i wonder why he even offered the example if it shed no light on whether he is right or wrong to claim that IP makes sense. IT seems he wasted my time with it.
liberty student:Yes, I was mocking it.
Correct, because refuting it was far more difficult.
liberty student:No. The discussion is and was whether or not ownership of a non-good can be contracted. If you agree that I own the sky, and sign a contract to that effect, do I in fact own the sky, and can I enforce that contract against 3rd parties?
No, that's a strawman, I don't have to own any words, or collection of words to make a contract saying that if you buy my goods you can show them to others. Only the good in question. Unless, you believe that I have to own the sky to make a bet that if it is sunny tomorrow you owe me 5 Euro.
liberty student:And taking it to Max's next step, once the contract is signed, this is proof that I value the sky, and thus it must be ownable, because things with value must be property.
You're not arguing with MaxLiberty now, so I don't care.
The fact of the matter is that if I own an apple I can sell you the apple on the condition that you don't eat it. Silly you for signing the contract, but it's my right to do so.
nirgrahamUK: i dont think you realise what me and giles where talking about. i have not reversed on any position i ever held. IP is nonsense
The problem is that your fantasy definition of what IP is, is not what the market defintion of IP is. Which is why you are unable to deal with real world scenarios.
Maxliberty:Keep running and hiding gutless.
You could make things easier for yourself, you know that right?
hi max, of course physical items can be property, and physical acts/behaviours can be contracted.
yet, ideas cant be property.
Maxliberty:The problem is that your fantasy definition of what IP is, is not what the market defintion of IP is. Which is why you are unable to deal with real world scenarios.
you are accusing me of having a fantasy definition of some Oxymoron, and you argue that it differs from the market definition of that Oxymoron.
well, its an oxymoron, its self contradictory. its a squarecircle.
nirgrahamUK: hi max, of course physical items can be property, and physical acts/behaviours can be contracted. yet, ideas cant be property.
Nor need they be.
If a businessman can make a business model without using IP, than the whole discussion about whether or not IP is property is a moot question. Because one lone example is enough to prove that people will earn money in a world without IP. All it need are entrepenuers who will replicate the lone businessman and change it and adapt it to their situtation.
Even if 99% of artists thinks they will really starve without IP and they actually do. We shouldn't prop up their business because clearly they sucks at entrepeneurship. If the market in fact doesn't want those goods in the absence of IP, than it shouldn't be produced.
The IP supporters of course disbelieve any working business model because they alway thought every "what if" scenerios despite the numerous examples throughout history and present history. They alway think there is some scenerio that warrant "IP". This is very much like asking an anarchist to explain how anarchy will deal with every possible "what if" scenerios. Sooner or later it will emerges into "what if that thug have bigger guns than everybody".
We should also know that IP is actually a propogranda term. IP consists of patents, trademarks, and copyright, which have totally different rules and apply to different things.
NDA, non-compete agreements, DRM, copyright, patent and all these tools are clearly unneccessary for the success of the entrepeneurs as some were able to thrive without these tools anyway. It is not even central to Coca Cola's survival because clearly I will pay for a preminum for the coke brand.
Entrepeneurs may indeed believe these tools help them, so these tools have some values on the market. However it is not the same thing as working or even making a positive outcome on their business.
In reality, as I and many others can atest, IP and other tools are just a bunch of cargo cult. There are far more dangerous and real risk to face in runnning an enterprise.
The government nor anyone should not penalize the hardworking entrepeneurs who did not use any of these tools to win their place in the business world. Patents and other monopoly privilleges make these entrepneurs' survival ability perilious at the benefit of losers who probably can't sell candys on the free market, much less produce goods that people actually want.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
GilesStratton:Nor need they be.
tell that to Max !
Maxliberty:You and LS have some bizarre defintion of IP that I think has nothing to do with what the majority of people are discussing when they discuss IP.
That's about the 10th time you have made an argumentum ad populum. It's a logical fallacy.
This is it in a nutshell. Max believes the majority opinion dictates reality, that A is not A. A is whatever the market wants it to be.
But whatever, the dude is a troll. No sense in feeding him further.
MaxLiberty is a big boy, he can make up his own mind.
There is no practical distinction. You have made an intellectual distinction because you have read it in a book somewhere. The market does not care what your intellectual wording is nor does it care what you think. The physical manifestation of the idea is what people are discussing when they discuss IP not the idea in your head. Do you really think that when people discuss IP in the case of music that they are referring to the song in the persons head, or the song that has been written or communicated in some way. Even the state protected IP requires some physical manifestation of the idea before it can be acknowledged. It is the physical manifesation of the idea that is the issue with relation to IP, thats all there is.
How would one know what the idea was if there was not a physical manifestation to communicate the idea?
there is no practical distinction between something 'x' being property and 'x' not beingproperty. thanks Max. learn something new everyday.
say to someone "listen buddy, there is no practical distinction between that house being property(.. your property), and it not being your property; watch me drive this bulldozer through that house thats not anyones property"
oh wait, on second thoughts....
liberty student: Maxliberty:The problem is that your fantasy definition of what IP is, is not what the market defintion of IP is. Which is why you are unable to deal with real world scenarios. This is it in a nutshell. Max believes the majority opinion dictates reality, that A is not A. A is whatever the market wants it to be. But whatever, the dude is a troll. No sense in feeding him further.
No the point is gutless, is that you have created an artificial definition that virtually no one else is using.
Maxliberty:No the point is gutless, is that you have created an artificial definition that virtually no one else is using.
dude, we reject the incoherent label that virtually 'everyone' is using.
when people define 'society' to be ' the super organism which is composed of us and has its own characteristics'
we reject their definition and choose something logically coherent like 'society' = ' the set of atomistic individuals underconsidereation'
mainstream definitions arent always coherent, and shouldnt always be used. IP is an excellent example of bad language that needs be jettisoned. bad language that tells a lie over how to properly think through the issues. please join us in shedding this false concept.
Virtually no one is using Austrian economics either. Your point is?
Oh yeah, Argumentum ad populum. Keep those logical fallacies coming Max!
nirgrahamUK: there is no practical distinction between something 'x' being property and 'x' not beingproperty. thanks Max. learn something new everyday. say to someone "listen buddy, there is no practical distinction between that house being property(.. your property), and it not being your property; watch me drive this bulldozer through that house thats not anyones property" oh wait, on second thoughts....
You are just making a pointless distinction between at what point the idea gets communicated. Your arguement is that if the idea is only in my head then its not property but if I write the idea down on a piece of paper then it becomes property. The point is that at the moment I decide to communicate my idea to another person I have the right to contractually obligate the other person so that they are restricted in how they use the information/idea. That's it, that is all IP protection is about. So if I have the ability to obligate the other person in exchange for sharing the idea I am for all practical purposes the owner of that idea in that moment.
liberty student: Keep those logical fallacies coming Max!
Just drop it. Max is wrong, but to the extent that you believe contractual obligations regarding the use of property are contrary to libertarianism, so are you.