Uh, I didn't expect that magnitude of answers to my post...
Since I don't want to read through hundreds of blog posts, does anyone know if my argument got refuted? :P
At the original example, the movie maker can contract with the cinema not to reproduce and the cinema can contract with its customers and employees. If the contracts are broken then the movie maker can get them on fraud charges.
If that is not a safeguard enough, and the only way for the movie maker to get a normal profit is for the government to come in and protect him, that just shows that $150 mil movies are not a sustainable business model. People of the future will have to watch cheaper movies or do something else like play sports or video games.
Tobbog: Uh, I didn't expect that magnitude of answers to my post... Since I don't want to read through hundreds of blog posts, does anyone know if my argument got refuted? :P
It didn't.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
nirgrahamUK: its impossible for me to steal intangibles. i could not do it if i wanted to. p.s. i download films and music all the time just as i download books from mises.org
its impossible for me to steal intangibles. i could not do it if i wanted to.
p.s. i download films and music all the time just as i download books from mises.org
Downloading books from Mises.org is not stealing since they grant you this right. What you are unwilling to do is violate the rights they the explicitly reserve under their license. By your actions, you are recognizing the legitimacy of copyrights.
find a way for me to disrespect their non-esistant rights that doesnt involve me stating untrue facts, and i will consider doing it. until then, consider my posession of information that i copied from people that copied people that may or may not be pirates as the evidence of my words being backed by my actions that you seem to require (lord knows why)
and whenever you are ready.
short and long text is not-property and property respectively, you claim. when will you retract this or defend it?
accomplices need not have played any part in a given act of trespass in order to have earned the appellation 'accomplice to trespass'. when will you retract this or defend it?
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
Stranger, when you're done grasping at straws you might want to answer this:
Stranger: AJ: Maxliberty:...my being forced to share information... You've dismantled your entire position in six words. Because: What actual action are you being forced to perform or refrain from performing when someone copies something from you? (Remember we're assuming no other laws are broken by that person in the process - no trespass, etc.) You are forced to allow them to access your media.
AJ: Maxliberty:...my being forced to share information... You've dismantled your entire position in six words. Because: What actual action are you being forced to perform or refrain from performing when someone copies something from you? (Remember we're assuming no other laws are broken by that person in the process - no trespass, etc.)
Maxliberty:...my being forced to share information...
You've dismantled your entire position in six words. Because: What actual action are you being forced to perform or refrain from performing when someone copies something from you? (Remember we're assuming no other laws are broken by that person in the process - no trespass, etc.)
You are forced to allow them to access your media.
Not when it's out on the net already, or when you don't effectively restrict access. Those are the scenarios being discussed - obviously, as all others would entail violating other laws ("actual property rights") as I wrote above.
Now name the actual action you are forced to perform or refrain from, or you have no argument.
Why anarchy fails
Stranger: nirgrahamUK: its impossible for me to steal intangibles. i could not do it if i wanted to. p.s. i download films and music all the time just as i download books from mises.org Downloading books from Mises.org is not stealing since they grant you this right. What you are unwilling to do is violate the rights they the explicitly reserve under their license. By your actions, you are recognizing the legitimacy of copyrights.
How do you supposed we violate mises.org's copyright?
There are mirrors which mises.org allowed, and bittorrent sources, which mises.org once again allowed. In other words, mises.org make it quite literally hard to violate their copyright right.
The only way to violate copyright is to do it the hard way. Very few people would actually go the length if there was such a convenient and free source.
Mises.org pretty much destory the need for pirates to distribute illegal copies of their book.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Tobbog:Since I don't want to read through hundreds of blog posts
Why not?
Tobbog:does anyone know if my argument got refuted?
It was, numerous times. As far as I can tell, all that is left are strawmen from Max and Stranger. Since Stranger has never admitted an error (that I can recall) this debate can go on for weeks.
AJ: Not when it's out on the net already, or when you don't effectively restrict access.
Not when it's out on the net already, or when you don't effectively restrict access.
Finding an unlocked door is not an excuse for trespassing.
kiba: How do you supposed we violate mises.org's copyright?
Remove the references to the Mises Institute and republish the book under your name.
Stranger: kiba: How do you supposed we violate mises.org's copyright? Remove the references to the Mises Institute and republish the book under your name.
Replacing the author name or replacing the publisher?
Is this a matter of saying who distributed it?
kiba: Replacing the author name or replacing the publisher? Is this a matter of saying who distributed it?
Everything. Stop stalling.
Why? Plagiarism is not in anyone's interest. In any case, IP laws are not about plagiarism or fraud, they are about using force to prevent would be competitors from creating improvements on an arbitrarily defined product.
Stranger: AJ: Not when it's out on the net already, or when you don't effectively restrict access. Finding an unlocked door is not an excuse for trespassing.
We already ruled out trespassing. Context. Or do you want to define some new crime that includes reading over people's shoulders?
Stop equivocating. And your also repeating yourself. We've already gone over this. You think Argumentum ad nauseam is productive? Honestly it's not worth anyone's time or effort to go through and scrutinize all the pathetic strawmen made here. Whatever good case you had has been destroyed by the quality of the posts as of late.
Taras Smereka: Why? Plagiarism is not in anyone's interest. In any case, IP laws are not about plagiarism or fraud, they are about using force to prevent would be competitors from creating improvements on an arbitrarily defined product.
My belief is that the book without any reference to the Mises Institute is an improvement. I take the book, remove everything but the title, republish it. What have I done wrong?
Without IP, I have done nothing wrong, as information is apparently not a scarce and rivalrous good.
Stranger: Taras Smereka: Why? Plagiarism is not in anyone's interest. In any case, IP laws are not about plagiarism or fraud, they are about using force to prevent would be competitors from creating improvements on an arbitrarily defined product. My belief is that the book without any reference to the Mises Institute is an improvement. I take the book, remove everything but the title, republish it. What have I done wrong? Without IP, I have done nothing wrong, as information is apparently not a scarce and rivalrous good.
That is called "fraud". We have already gone over this.
filc:Whatever good case you had has been destroyed by the quality of the posts as of late.
Don't make it personal please.
filc:You think Argumentum ad nauseam is productive?
Stranger is not going to admit he is wrong under any circumstance. He has never owned up to an error in thinking in the entire time I have been here. That is simply a fact. Thinking that you can get him to change his mind or admit an error is unproductive.
Any third party can see his arguments lack merit and that great arguments have been made in response. By getting petty and vicious, you undermine the credibility of what you have written, and possibly the intellectual monopoly argument at large.
Please just let it go.
Stranger: My belief is that the book without any reference to the Mises Institute is an improvement. I take the book, remove everything but the title, republish it. What have I done wrong? Without IP, I have done nothing wrong, as information is apparently not a scarce and rivalrous good.
What you have done is expanded the audience of said information. You ahve made it possible to reach and service additional consumers. You have in a sense raised the standard of living and increased the quantity of goods overall.
That you plagerized is a strawmen but doesn't deter from the fact that the economy is better off overall as now more product of the same quality is available.
Now due to the competative nature plagerization won't be a big deal. As many people want you to cite where you got your information from. If the person who was the original author did alot of research, but you didnt, you won't be able to address concerns specifically over that research and will have to defer to the original author if you want to please your consumers. If people find out that you lied to them and copied his work they will loose faith in your ability to defend it's arguments and to expand on it in the future. Consumers may then naturally move back toward the original author. So even still through the profit motive you have intensive to be honest.
Other than that though you have essentially increased the volume of goods on the market and offered a selection of vendors to the consumer. Your playing capitalism, thats exactly what you did. Good job.
filc: Other than that though you have essentially increased the volume of goods on the market and offered a selection of vendors to the consumer. Your playing capitalism, thats exactly what you did. Good job.
It is "you're", not your.
kiba: That is called "fraud". We have already gone over this.
No it's not. I am not claiming I am the author, I am only removing references to the authors.
Stranger: kiba: That is called "fraud". We have already gone over this. No it's not. I am not claiming I am the author, I am only removing references to the authors.
Right. If I just say "distributed by Kiba", than I broken copyright law. I am golden.
I didn't do anything wrong. I just offered an inferior product.
Stranger: Tobbog: Uh, I didn't expect that magnitude of answers to my post... Since I don't want to read through hundreds of blog posts, does anyone know if my argument got refuted? :P It didn't.
It did.
nirgrahamUK:its impossible for me to steal intangibles. i could not do it if i wanted to.
Wait, you can't "steal" my safe-lock combination, my social security #, my credit card numbers, my bank account numbers, and "sell" them to the highest bidder in the open (free) market? You would merely "copy" them with your own pen and paper -- the ONLY property that matters, right? I mean, I still have them, after all, so who am I to complain? Just like Avatar producers and their piddly (non-scarce, free-floating-in-the universe for anyone to arrange) 10gig long sequence of 0s and 1s, right? Just a bunch of numbers, ideas, patterns, i.e. worthless intangibles. A DVD with 10gig of 0s or with 10gig of randomly (white noise) generated 0s and 1s is indistinguishable from a DVD with 10gig of 0s and 1s representing Avatar, right? To an 18 century tomato grower, perhaps.
nirgrahamUK:p.s. i download films and music all the time
For free? Why am I not surprised? Could the dividing line in this particular discussion be as simple as the one between actual IP producers (capitalists, defending IP) and actual free-munchers (communists, attacking IP but mostly because they never have nor they ever intend to exert any effort or risk any capital to create it, YET firmly clasping their "privilege" to enjoy/consume it for free)? "From everyone according to their abilities (Cameron, take notice), and to everyone according to their (Avatar) needs." Who needs IP capitalism when everyone could (should?) have IP for free? Anti-IP proponents of the world, unite!
Z.
z1235:Could the dividing line in this particular discussion be as simple as the one between actual IP producers (capitalists, defending IP) and actual free-munchers (communists, attacking IP but mostly because they never have nor they ever intend to exert any effort or risk any capital to create it, YET firmly clasping their "privilege" to enjoy/consume it for free)?
Please don't pretend to speak for all IP capitalists as though they are of one mind on monopoly or of one model with their businesses. That's sloppy argumentation.
z1235:Who needs IP capitalism when everyone could (should?) have IP for free?
What is IP capitalism?
z1235:Wait, you can't "steal" my safe-lock combination, my social security #, my credit card numbers, my bank account numbers,
Do you actually own any of those things? Maybe your safe lock combination, but can you really claim that every combination (pattern/idea) is unique? Wouldn't you have a claim against someone else with the same lock combination based on your theory?
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Now, reconcile that with the concept of defensive copyright. In the sense that it defends you from making copies outside of terms of the license, it is just like any other copyright and is enforcement of intellectual property. They could easily release it into the public domain if they chose to. They do not. They exercise intellectual property rights.
Daniel Muffinburg: Now, reconcile that with the concept of defensive copyright.
Now, reconcile that with the concept of defensive copyright.
In the sense that it defends you from making copies outside of terms of the license, it is just like any other copyright and is enforcement of intellectual property.
They could easily release it into the public domain if they chose to. They do not. They exercise intellectual property rights.
No, a defensive copyright is when you copyright a work so that no one can copyright it and impose the copyright onto you. You can't simply give up a copyright because current laws do no allow you to do so.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Tobbog, how much do you pay in royalties to use that image of Ralph as your avatar?
Daniel Muffinburg:Tobbog, how much do you pay in royalties to use that image of Ralph as your avatar?
Busted!
Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: Uh, I didn't expect that magnitude of answers to my post... Since I don't want to read through hundreds of blog posts, does anyone know if my argument got refuted? :P Tobbog, how much do you pay in royalties to use that image of Ralph as your avatar?
FOX put it online for free, among other pictures of Simpsons characters, to promote the Simpsons-movie. If I copied an advertising spot to show it to my friends, it wouldn't be theft either, since, first, the owner of the spot gave it to the public for free, and second, the owner will love to see his advertisement be distributed widely.
Back to the original topic: in the no-IP world of Kinsella and others, there would be only extremely low-budget films. Thinking about it, I prefer our present IP world :)
liberty student:Please don't pretend to speak for all IP capitalists as though they are of one mind on monopoly or of one model with their businesses. That's sloppy argumentation.
I did no such thing. My suggestion (and not a provable argument, btw) was that perhaps the ones who are not themselves involved in the production of IP (information, patterns, i.e. intangibles) are simply unaware of how much work and capital goes into creating it, whereas the ones involved are aware and find it absurd to accept mere thieves as "competitors".
And please stop using "monopoly" as if that's somehow going to hurt the feelings of a free market IP supporter. The number of ALL possible 10gig combinations of 0s and 1s is larger than the number of all atoms in the known universe. Most of these combinations are garbage, but SOME -- like the pattern of Avatar -- are not and customers are willing to pay to experience it. Everyone is absolutely free to invest in their own prospecting tools and dive into this vast digital universe to find the next pattern of 0s and 1s for which customers will pay. There's no monopoly on 10gig patterns, or any size patterns for that matter.
Nitpickers come in and say, "But what if I took Avatar and changed one bit (out of the billions)? Can I claim THAT pattern as mine, then?" -- as if this somehow shows the absurdity of the concept of information as property. Does the vagueness of homesteading (What piece of land did you exactly "mix your labor" with? How about these two square feet? Did you mix your labor there too?), land ownership (How deep underground? How high in the sky?) make the concept of tangible property ridiculous, as well? Just as in the case of tangible property, not all answers are there (nor they need to be). People will know. Arbiters will know. The market will figure it out.
Free markets ALREADY treat information as property. And that's only going to increase as percentage of global GDP. This argument is already finished.
z1235: liberty student:Please don't pretend to speak for all IP capitalists as though they are of one mind on monopoly or of one model with their businesses. That's sloppy argumentation. I did no such thing. My suggestion (and not a provable argument, btw) was that perhaps the ones who are not themselves involved in the production of IP (information, patterns, i.e. intangibles) are simply unaware of how much work and capital goes into creating it, whereas the ones involved are aware and find it absurd to accept mere thieves as "competitors".
Oh please. Lot of people here, including myself, are computer programmers. We know how much work and capital goes into creating software, thank you very much.
kiba:Oh please. Lot of people here, including myself, are computer programmers. We know how much work and capital goes into creating software, thank you very much.
Indeed. I only produce specialized digital products and services, probably on a scale that dwarfs nearly everyone here, and I find it very amusing that I am being lectured on how my business and industry runs.
z1235:For free? Why am I not surprised? Could the dividing line in this particular discussion be as simple as the one between actual IP producers (capitalists, defending IP) and actual free-munchers (communists, attacking IP but mostly because they never have nor they ever intend to exert any effort or risk any capital to create it, YET firmly clasping their "privilege" to enjoy/consume it for free)? "From everyone according to their abilities (Cameron, take notice), and to everyone according to their (Avatar) needs." Who needs IP capitalism when everyone could (should?) have IP for free? Anti-IP proponents of the world, unite!
Add one more reason: to destroy their competition. Banning IP is about creating a less competitive marketplace where consumers have fewer choices and must rely on those businesses that only work in secret.
Daniel Muffinburg: No, a defensive copyright is when you copyright a work so that no one can copyright it and impose the copyright onto you. You can't simply give up a copyright because current laws do no allow you to do so.
And yet, the copyright on Mises book is still more restrictive than a purely open license to transform the work. Now why would people who are against copyright do that?
Stranger:No it's not. I am not claiming I am the author, I am only removing references to the authors.
It sounds like you are attempting to make a book more difficult to search for - I don't think the market would consider you've "added value," and they'd likely prefer the original source over your version. also, what kiba said.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
meambobbo: Stranger:No it's not. I am not claiming I am the author, I am only removing references to the authors. It sounds like you are attempting to make a book more difficult to search for - I don't think the market would consider you've "added value," and they'd likely prefer the original source over your version. also, what kiba said.
Actually I want to publish a print edition of the book, and removing all references to the original authors allows me to save on ink and paper, thus offering a better price to consumers.
Why is the Mises Institute limiting my ability to compete with them?
Tobbog: Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: Uh, I didn't expect that magnitude of answers to my post... Since I don't want to read through hundreds of blog posts, does anyone know if my argument got refuted? :P Tobbog, how much do you pay in royalties to use that image of Ralph as your avatar? Back to the original topic: in the no-IP world of Kinsella and others, there would be only extremely low-budget films. Thinking about it, I prefer our present IP world :)
Well, I prefer high-budget sandwiches, therefore, the state should impose some law that forces all sandwiches to be high-budget. See where I'm going with this? Btw, I prefer Rothbard as my avatar, the state should impose some law that forces everyone to have an avatar of Rothbard. You're avatar of Ralph is bringing down the quality of avatars worldwide.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: No, a defensive copyright is when you copyright a work so that no one can copyright it and impose the copyright onto you. You can't simply give up a copyright because current laws do no allow you to do so. And yet, the copyright on Mises book is still more restrictive than a purely open license to transform the work. Now why would people who are against copyright do that?
Your ignorance of current IP laws is obvious. There is no "purely open" license possible under current laws.
liberty student: kiba:Oh please. Lot of people here, including myself, are computer programmers. We know how much work and capital goes into creating software, thank you very much. Indeed. I only produce specialized digital products and services, probably on a scale that dwarfs nearly everyone here, and I find it very amusing that I am being lectured on how my business and industry runs.
So, kiba. After you've spent a year of work and significant capital in creating your pattern of 0s and 1s, I came in, copied it and started selling it right next to you. Would you consider me as a mere competitor in a free market or a thief (or something else?). Do you regularly invest work and capital into creating communal entities available for all to use (or profit from) for free? How long have you lasted in business like this?
LS, it wasn't my intention to lecture anyone, though I'd feel flattered if someone learned something from me.
I wish I had more time to allocate to this thread but looks like Stranger and Max have already completed the job without me.