General

Re: Why So Much Anti-Copyright Rhetoric??

AnonLLF — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:15:48 GMT

Sam Armstrong:

I didn't say I owned the pattern. I said I owned the book. If you use my book to copy it, I own the copy because you violated my property rights in the original book, not because the pattern on the book happens to be the same as the one on mine.

I always view IP as a platonist forms type view.

You own the book- the actual physical particular book- but not the ideas contained in it.If someone copies your book their copying the ideas not the particular physical object you own .Thus they haven't deprived you of anything thus it's not theft- depriving someone of property being theft.

Your IP position amounts to:-

1. I own specific physical object X with Y written on it.(here X and Y are combined)- True

2. You copy from object X, pattern Y.

3. because I own X, I own pattern Y.

4. Therefore you have stolen from me because X which I own contains pattern Y.

It's a move from the specific and particular object to the universal and general objects/patterns.

In a platonic sense you truly own the Object X but also which to own pattern (or in platonic terms form) Y -an abstract universal thing.

Re: Why So Much Anti-Copyright Rhetoric??

z1235 — Wed, 05 May 2010 12:21:12 GMT

Layano:
I'm sure it has been already discusses on this thread, but I don't know where...

There has been an IP related thread at least once a month over the last six months. Here's one especially related to your question...The "Avatar" of Capitalism: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/12846.aspx

Re: Why So Much Anti-Copyright Rhetoric??

Wibee — Wed, 05 May 2010 11:44:04 GMT

nirgrahamUK wrote the following post at Tue, May 4 2010 7:45 PM:

>>So why exactly would someone make a costly movie if they can't make money from it ?

maybe they can make money from it? either way its their problem...

I think he touched on it, but I am going to go right out and say it. Slave traders made money selling slaves. Accountants make money on IRS related activities. Engineers make money on military projects. Not saying these are the same, but what I am trying to get at is, perhaps it is an illegitamite business. Maybe it would not exist or not as prominent if IP laws were nonexistant.

Re: Why So Much Anti-Copyright Rhetoric??

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 05 May 2010 00:45:46 GMT

>>So why exactly would someone make a costly movie if they can't make money from it ?

maybe they can make money from it? either way its their problem...

Re: Why So Much Anti-Copyright Rhetoric??

Layano — Tue, 04 May 2010 23:04:05 GMT

I'm sure it has been already discusses on this thread, but I don't know where...

So why exactly would someone make a costly movie if they can't make money from it ? Someone make movies that cost 500 millions dollars to make, he releases it in cinemas, 500,000 people go see it, and 80 millions people watch it on internet. If there's no IP, nobody would invest in making movies, or maybe 1 or 2 movies a year that are made with money from donations....

Re: Why So Much Anti-Copyright Rhetoric??

Wibee — Tue, 04 May 2010 22:38:32 GMT

I think this issue with IP has to be resolved before progress in freedom could move forward. IP is a huge business in itself. Is there a sparknotes version of the argument against IP?

I tried explaining it on another thread, But what I got caught with, is that, When purchasing a DVD, it can be copied onto another DVD. But, the information that is being copied is not mine? Everyone knows this, because there is no way they can recreate what is on the DVD without the original DVD.

Re: Why So Much Anti-Copyright Rhetoric??

I. Ryan — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:22:14 GMT

hayekianxyz:

I Ryan, I'll get to your post soon, sorry to take so long in responding.

No problem; thanks.

Re: Why So Much Anti-Copyright Rhetoric??

hayekianxyz — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:09:35 GMT

I Ryan, I'll get to your post soon, sorry to take so long in responding.

Re: Why So Much Anti-Copyright Rhetoric??

thelion — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 08:42:13 GMT

So basically, you are technically not proficient in any of the literature in logic, economics, or history, and not interested in reading it... However, this is my fault, obviously...

Read the books you have. Why did you buy them as you said if you haven't yet read them? Then:

Make an expanded reading list! Otherwise, you'll end up like mainstream people who are such because they don't read anything but journal articles from the last few months. I have met economics professors from U. of Chicago who haven't read Frank Knight...

Your posts are massively full of errors if you don't read.

For instance, Chinese government reserving to itself the right to patent any idea and decide who makes it prevented China from remaining ahead of the West. This is a major thesis in economic history of West vs East development! Read any one of David Landes' books, or better yet Karl Wittfogel' masterpiece. IP patents come from this form of technological right-to-produce licensing. Why is why the system must be changed to customary law.

For instance, how can you not know who Hans Kelson is and discuss law? That's like talking physics and not knowing David Bohm, or Bohr, or Landau, or etc.

And so on.

Now, I'll answer this last question about notation.

Modern notation comes from people who were logical positivists. If you do not know what a middle term is, then you must not know any logic literature at all... That is a fundemental term, like value in economics:

A = AB. BC = D. No syllogism possible, because the middle terms don't add up... (that is, cannot say A = D, which a fallacy often caused simply by notation using some or all without specifying the partial identitiy).

Read Boole (you said you have it), then De Morgan's Syllabus (1860; and its free online). Then read Heijenoort, Jean van et al. 1967. From Frege to Godel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Once you see how much better Godel could have written his proof if he used Jevon's logic, you'll appreciate Jevons much more.

Read Leoni or Van Notten or Spencer Heath MacCallum or Hayek's three volume Law and Liberty for what customary law is. It is a form of natural law arrising without formal government, to allow society to convey tacit information.

Re: Why So Much Anti-Copyright Rhetoric??

E. R. Olovetto — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:54:19 GMT

Actually, patents go back to ancient China.

I've never seen any evidence of this. For the most part we've lived without copyright/patents. I made a mistake by a hundred years on "modern copyright law", still if you look back to ~1500 you see the clear connection to state violence in the sporadic use of IP as law. Either way, IP is unjust.

Also, who cares when it became common law. That's a red herring. We are not talking about common law. Only customary law.

Please define customary law, since you brought it up. All I understand from this is law tied to custom, which is inherently akin to polylogism, or it refers to ius gentium as an overarcing law between nations' own positive law. You've decried positive law, but seem to be saying it is more important than common or Roman law. I'll let you clarify.

Kelson's concept of law and all derivatives has been thrown out by Leoni.

I've never said crap about Kelson, and only know about him secondhand through references in Cairn's Legal Philosophy from Plato to Hegel and some other random things. I still don't understand why you brought this up. I mean, I guess I could try to get this book you cite from a library, but I don't see what your point is. It kind of seems like a hayekianxyz-esque appeal to authority in lieu of a substantive argument.

X: "The box is blue." "The box is blue." "The box is blue."

Y: "The box is not blue. Here is why, Here is why, Here is why."

X: "The box is blue! "

I don't know what is more idiotic, this or you saying I "must not like buying books" when I went to dinner and came back an hour later not having acquired Leoni's $45 book. I have literally a ton of good books I haven't read yet that I got from a free bookstore, including Boole's Laws of Thought, if you want to point out something pertinent.

I was repeating "copying is not theft" to show that a concept or pattern is infinitely repeatable. If I type it 10, none, or a million times, the concept is there, just as it was, "copying is not theft". This is the same as AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Show me a scarce concept and I will trade you a square circle for it. You made what I was just showing as a repeatable pattern into an argument, which completely misses the point. Like you said, arguing a point repeatedly doesn't make it so. Show me a scarce idea, and I will prove that it is not. This is all scientific experimentation here, not verbal logic.

Construct a different dynamic signaling argument than mine

A what?

in response that makes use of all existing information without strategic choices, or abstain from arguing.

Still lost here.

I've simply postulated cutomary law will develop BC = B(D,E,F, ..., Z)C in respect to information-as-a-good contracts as required for least costly exchange of information.

Remember, information is economic advantage where it is scarce. We want all of it to be revealed even by those people who may not themselves be willing to act on what they know!
I have merely formalized Mises' and Hayek's reasoning in defense of some sort of IP despite them showing ideas are potentially not scarce.

If you say so. Can you change those letters into words again? I think maybe you tried before, but it made no sense. Also, I don't see how information is a good. I mean, sure, you are about to concoct something, but this isn't how good fits in with economics as I understand it.

It's Jevons formalization of De Morgan and Boole.

Nothing better for deductive argument.

...

The whole purpose of the notation is to force the user to notice all unshared middle terms, and not to make poor substitutions.

Why can't you use contemporary notation? Also, I don't understand the last sentence. Something is a scarce good or it is not. Like that? S V ~S

Re: Why So Much Anti-Copyright Rhetoric??

thelion — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:19:41 GMT

However, that would be logical positivism, as Blanshard showed in Reason and Analysis.

Implies in the sense of not strict identity means empirical correspondence.

"Grass is green in Cleveland implies the Putin is a Stalinist"

True; but is that what we really want to show with "Grass" "Green", that is, G₁G₂ ?

Blanshard showed (well, actually De Morgan and Jevons did, but they died before Russell and Whitehead could invent their mess) how arbitrary non identical implication is.

I'll summarize Jevon's Laws of Quality.

Jevon's thesis was: 1. logic is primary to number,

2. Identity is what we mean in any relation. (A ~ B) = (A = b), where be of course is a list of everyhting else. Thus, we realize, if we use matrix notation, that A ~ B ~ C tells us nothing about relation of A to C.

A = b, b = C, but we know b is a list. Since we don't have identical middle terms on both sides (we don't know which not-B is in fact A and which is in fact C, we cannot state A = C).

3. De Morgan and Jevons had to correct Boole, since Boole thought number existed before logic, so Jevons published his "Logic of quality". Basically, the argument is that Boole's logic needed to be modified, else Jevons showed we get nonsense like:

"Caesar was leader of rome" and "Caesar crossed the Rubicon" = "Caesar was leader of rome" or "Caesar crossed the Rubicon" if we take addition to be primary or identical to "and" .

Instead, De Morgan's Law is correct that "not A and B" = not A or not B". That is the correct relation. (X ~ AB) = (X = aB, X = Ab).

4. Jevons in a later book even suggested the modern idea that constent logic is always incomplete--problems will aways be found that require us people to formulate new premises in addition to a list of all premises we know, which then in turn repeats (of course he thought it obvious and did not set out to prove Godel's proof, since no one at his time argued otherwise.)

Re: Why So Much Anti-Copyright Rhetoric??

nirgrahamUK — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:26:05 GMT

AB->ABC seems far superior........

Re: Why So Much Anti-Copyright Rhetoric??

thelion — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:04:38 GMT

It's Jevons formalization of De Morgan and Boole.

Nothing better for deductive argument.

= means identity. o = contradiction. Ex) Aa = o. ~ means difference. A means A. a means not-A.

AB means combination A and B.

Jevons even built a computer around it (posted the famous article in another thread).

The whole purpose of the notation is to force the user to notice all unshared middle terms, and not to make poor substitutions.

In AB = ABC, we say all AB is C, but not all C is AB.

Re: Why So Much Anti-Copyright Rhetoric??

nirgrahamUK — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:03:35 GMT

have you invented novel notation?

AB=ABC

therefore? C=1 or AB=0 or something..........

Re: Why So Much Anti-Copyright Rhetoric??

thelion — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:02:59 GMT

Olovetto,

Actually, patents go back to ancient China.

Also, who cares when it became common law. That's a red herring. We are not talking about common law. Only customary law. Kelson's concept of law and all derivatives has been thrown out by Leoni.

X: "The box is blue." "The box is blue." "The box is blue."

Y: "The box is not blue. Here is why, Here is why, Here is why."

X: "The box is blue! "

Construct a different dynamic signaling argument than mine in response that makes use of all existing information without strategic choices, or abstain from arguing.

I've simply postulated cutomary law will develop BC = B(D,E,F, ..., Z)C in respect to information-as-a-good contracts as required for least costly exchange of information.

Remember, information is economic advantage where it is scarce. We want all of it to be revealed even by those people who may not themselves be willing to act on what they know!

I have merely formalized Mises' and Hayek's reasoning in defense of some sort of IP despite them showing ideas are potentially not scarce.