YouTube Tyranny

[Conza88]

It has begun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PIEGK0IbA4

This video contains an audio track that has not been authorized by WMG. The audio has been disabled.

Intellectual Property is bullshit.

They've gone and muted a fair few of Avaroths videos. Bastards.

[AmericasLastHope]

I've noticed a few of my Ron Paul videos from last year are missing on youtube now. Their excuse? Song copyright reasons. At least they muted this one. Mine are completely flushed down the memory hole.

[DirtMcGirt]

live leak has philosopher's stone...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=12a_1230157743

[Andrew Ryan]

F YouTube

[TheConstitutionLives]

You've got it backwards. A song is owned by a private business. Sorry, it's not "tyranny" stopping folks from breaking copyright law.

Is it "tyranny" if I don't receive my welfare check? Uh.. no.

[TheConstitutionLives]

If you guys really support freedom then you should actually be praising Youtube for not allowing people to break the law (ie, steal someone else's private property).

You guys sound like socialists if you listen to yourselves.

[Conza88]

You've got it backwards. A song is owned by a private business. Sorry, it's not "tyranny" stopping folks from breaking copyright law.

Is it "tyranny" if I don't receive my welfare check? Uh.. no.

You literally have no idea what you are trying to defend.

I suggest you change that.


If you guys really support freedom then you should actually be praising Youtube for not allowing people to break the law (ie, steal someone else's private property).

You guys sound like socialists if you listen to yourselves.

:rolleyes: Mate, your ignorance is profound. You're the socialist.

You're indirectly calling the Austrian School of Economics, socialist? :rolleyes:

Monopoly Kills Creativity (http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker123.html)
Jeff Tucker on the new frontier in "IP."

Against Intellectual Property (http://mises.org/books/against.pdf) - pdf.

Strongly suggest you educate yourself before calling others socialist. :)

But yes, fuck youtube - thus moving to another site is suggestible, which is why I am highlighting this here, right now. :)

[Jeremy]

omg i saw this on another video but this one? NOOOOOO

[Zolah]

Copyright nazis have been ruining my youtube viewing for a long time now :)

[swatmc]

Yeah, the jerks removed one of my ron paul videos. They didn't even give a reason, it was just gone. :mad:

[cthulhufan]

What's the alternative site to youtube where they still respect the first amendment? It was brought up on the 'boycott youtube' day not too long ago but my search-fu is failing me... Search for topic "youtube", yeah, no. Title search for 'boycott youtube' yields 2 results.

[AdamT]

That's the problem with using copyrighted music in these vids. Gives them a "convenient" reason to ruin the effect of the video.

[Knightskye]

You've got it backwards. A song is owned by a private business. Sorry, it's not "tyranny" stopping folks from breaking copyright law.

Is it "tyranny" if I don't receive my welfare check? Uh.. no.

But they muted Peter Schiff's voice...

That basically kills the video, except for the few parts where there are quotes by Schiff, Paul, or the Founders.

[Liberty Rebellion]

http://www.hulu.com/
http://www.dailymotion.com/us
http://www.liveleak.com/

[Conza88]

http://www.hulu.com/
http://www.dailymotion.com/us
http://www.liveleak.com/

Thanks :)

[tremendoustie]

I think this is fair use, maybe I'd understand them banning full reproductions of copyrighted material, but portions with voiceovers are rediculous. No one's going to download this on their Ipod. Jeez.

It's time to officially switch, for all videos. Which alternative site is best?

Hulu it or it didn't happen!! ;) (just practicing)

[Knightskye]

http://www.hulu.com/
http://www.dailymotion.com/us
http://www.liveleak.com/

You might want to replace Hulu with Metacafe.

You can't upload videos to Hulu.

[tremendoustie]

You might want to replace Hulu with Metacafe.

You can't upload videos to Hulu.

Metacafe it or it didn't happen!!

(I assume metacafe doesn't take stuff down for these kinds of reasons?)

[Conza88]

I think this is fair use, maybe I'd understand them banning full reproductions of copyrighted material, but portions with voiceovers are rediculous. No one's going to download this on their Ipod. Jeez.

It's time to officially switch, for all videos. Which alternative site is best?

Hulu it or it didn't happen!! ;) (just practicing)

Whats the bet videos of Obama, with the same music - haven't been muted?

:rolleyes:

[Jeremy]

Let's figure out how to make epic / dramatic music ourselves D:

[RevolutionSD]

If youtube is removing videos due to "IP", this is a fascist move. IP is a myth, everyone should read up on this especially if you call yourself Libertarian. Wes Bertrand's Complete Liberty does a great job debunking IP: www.completeliberty.com

[Dorfsmith]

http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/2008/12/21/warner-music-group-pulls-the-plug-on-youtube/

[runningdiz]

The video would be better without the music I think. Hopefully he uploads it without the music to still keep the content.

[Anti Federalist]

Lew Rockwell blog is running a reposted version.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/

Here is the reposted version complete with music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y7I5hwdM0U

I was going to make a stink that aravoth got robbed, but now, I'm just glad somebody pinched it and got it back up there.

[Anti Federalist]

Downloading all my favs before they go down the memory hole.

[Jeremy]

i wonder which music piece they muted it for

[Conza88]

Downloading all my favs before they go down the memory hole.

:eek: ! GOOD call.

[mediahasyou]

Fuck youtube. We gave them loads of traffic throughout the last two years and now they are censoring our shit.

[Anti Federalist]

Fuck youtube. We gave them loads of traffic throughout the last two years and now they are censoring our shit.

Yeah, that and RIAA.

This is not, and never was, about "protecting the IP of the artists" this is about the RIAA trying to keep making money off a business model that is as dead as the dodo.

Fuck 'em hard.

[Anti Federalist]

:eek: ! GOOD call.

Get 'em while you can, at least that way they're archived for future use.

Here's a link the premier RP video, Aravoth's "Stop Dreaming".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjBoAQw7bgo

[AutoDas]

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

Couldn't you sue YouTube for doing this?

[Agent CSL]

It's called "fair use" if it's educational and does not turn a profit. It's not stealing, and hell, it isn't even piracy.

Google (and Youtube) has been "memory hole"ing a lot of things lately. Just check the rage going on at the Jeff Rense site. Supposedly a lot of links have been totally wiped from Google, and videos have been deleted or had reduced views.

[aravoth]

I assumed fair use laws applied here.....

They removed stop dreaming from my list...........

[aravoth]

God dammit, this is bullshit. Edited content, not even the full track is what I used with voice overs, directing people to an educational website, without producing any monetary gain for myself. How on gods green earth is that not FAIR FUCKING USE? It took me months of work to do these, 1.7 million views on stop dreaming alone, and now it's fucking gone.

[speciallyblend]

stealing is stealing is stealing,no matter how you guys justify it. if your so concerned with copyrights. Why not ask the artist for permission?? oo yeah because they might say no,so then you cannot use/steal it.

so you figure if you do not ask,then it is ok to take it aka steal it without their permission!!

my question would be ,why can you not make something original instead of stealing it and acting like your doing nothing wrong???

[speciallyblend]

God dammit, this is bullshit. Edited content, not even the full track is what I used with voice overs, directing people to an educational website, without producing any monetary gain for myself. How on gods green earth is that not FAIR FUCKING USE? It took me months of work to do these, 1.7 million views on stop dreaming alone, and now it's fucking gone.

did you ask for premission to use any of the track?? if not why not create some type of original so you do not have to copy someones original!!

[AutoDas]

stealing is stealing is stealing,no matter how you guys justify it. if your so concerned with copyrights. Why not ask the artist for permission?? oo yeah because they might say no,so then you cannot steal it.

so you figure if you do not ask,then it is ok to take it aka steal it without their permission!!

my question would be ,why can you not make something original instead of stealing it and acting like your doing nothing wrong???

Copyright infringement is not theft.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

God dammit, this is bullshit. Edited content, not even the full track is what I used with voice overs, directing people to an educational website, without producing any monetary gain for myself. How on gods green earth is that not FAIR FUCKING USE? It took me months of work to do these, 1.7 million views on stop dreaming alone, and now it's fucking gone.

is there a torrent out there with all your vids at high quality?

[aravoth]

stealing is stealing is stealing,no matter how you guys justify it. if your so concerned with copyrights. Why not ask the artist for permission?? oo yeah because they might say no,so then you cannot use/steal it.

so you figure if you do not ask,then it is ok to take it aka steal it without their permission!!

my question would be ,why can you not make something original instead of stealing it and acting like your doing nothing wrong???

It is not theft, if anything the only thing using an original score under fair use law only equates to more sales for the artist. Ask me how much money I've made off of these. Not one cent, I am not "stealing" anything, nor am I standing on the shoulders of a giant for personal gain. These are not part of a resume, nor are they directing people to my blog, my website or anything else.

[Jeremy]

do you know which song in philosopher's stone made it be muted?

[aravoth]

The all spark. They did the same to house of cards, and took stop dreaming off, all for the same reason.


Your video, U.S. Economy : The Philosopher's Stone, may have audio content from The All Spark by Steve Jablonsky that is owned or licensed by WMG.
As a result, your video has been muted.

Turns out that youtube had a deal worked out with wmg, paying them by the view or something like that. WMG backed out and lobbied a complaint against youtube, who in turn, wiped out all videos on the site with music or film liscensed by WMG.

[steve005]

dude don't worry that much, just take this as a learning expereince AND STOP USING OTHER PEOPLE"S SHIT WITHOUT CONSENT, fuck the fair use laws we already know they don't apply to us, just like bill of rights

[powerofreason]

How sad. Tyrannical IP laws rear their ugly head. Even if the vids don't technically break any laws, youtube still has used them as an excuse to purge them. As libertarians, we all need to take a strong and unapologetic stand against IP. Read Against Intellectual Monopoly (http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm), and get all the ammunition you need. Its The Book That Changes Everything (http://mises.org/story/3298)!

[Anti Federalist]

God dammit, this is bullshit. Edited content, not even the full track is what I used with voice overs, directing people to an educational website, without producing any monetary gain for myself. How on gods green earth is that not FAIR FUCKING USE? It took me months of work to do these, 1.7 million views on stop dreaming alone, and now it's fucking gone.

Tell me you still have the HD orginal...please?

[Anti Federalist]

dude don't worry that much, just take this as a learning expereince AND STOP USING OTHER PEOPLE"S SHIT WITHOUT CONSENT, fuck the fair use laws we already know they don't apply to us, just like bill of rights

Ah, for fuck's sake, if it wasn't this it would have been something else.

[steve005]

Ah, for fuck's sake, if it wasn't this it would have been something else.

well try it, if its all original then you might have grounds for a lawsuit

[amy31416]

Just for the record, and I don't know why I want this on the record, but I read the title of this thread as "YouTube Tranny."

Carry on.

[Conza88]

Just for the record, and I don't know why I want this on the record, but I read the title of this thread as "YouTube Tranny."

Carry on.

Hahah.. you sicken me. http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/4204/maddu7.gif

http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/5751/tounguecj9.gif

Ahhh god fcken damnit youtube! :mad:

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[AdamT]

"Fair Use" pretty much only applies to news-type footage, or things broadcast to the public domain on the airwaves. Then you can supposedly "use" it if what you are doing serves "the public good", say in a documentary format for education on a particular subject. The whole thing is a massive gray area, and from what I've researched there are really no exact set rules to follow. We're dealing with some of this for our documentary. All the music we're using has been cleared with the record labels with contracts, most of which are indie labels stoked on the promotion, rather than getting paid some massive royalty for use. We're not taking any chances with music. All it takes it a cease & desist letter and you're pretty much shut down.

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[Conza88]

Someone needs to go through and pretty much capture every quality Ron Paul youtube video ever made. Then host them in one place, or embed them in their own site or some place.

Memory hole is approaching...

Edit: screw it, I'll do it.

[jrich4rpaul]

Just find an alternative to YouTube... and Google while you're at it.

[ronpaulhawaii]

...

Edit: screw it, I'll do it.

http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w262/gator_momma/Applause.gif

[Anti Federalist]

Bravo Conza!

I'm saving the hell out of them but don't have a place to host them.

EDIT to add: I'm looking for one from 2007 promoting the Tea Party. It featured a soundtrack of "Carol of the Bells" by the Trans Siberian Orchestra. It was posted by member name nihiloexhilo (I think). If you run across a duplicate let me know if you could.


Someone needs to go through and pretty much capture every quality Ron Paul youtube video ever made. Then host them in one place, or embed them in their own site or some place.

Memory hole is approaching...

Edit: screw it, I'll do it.

[Conza88]

Haha, :o. Thanks. :)

~~~ Ron Paul Video Archives ~~~ (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=176829)

Well, first round is kind of up. :)

[amy31416]

Hahah.. you sicken me. http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/4204/maddu7.gif

http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/5751/tounguecj9.gif

Ahhh god fcken damnit youtube! :mad:

Thenkyew.

Oh, and thenkyew for all the archiving you're doing. You may find me sickening, but I dig you. :p

[jcarcinogen]

Youtube is an entity and is entitled to it's property rights as well as whoever owned the music, so I don't really see what the issue is here unless they are subsidized. Youtube is more fair than a regulated government entity (think FCC, TV and radio broadcasts) because of competition and doesn't make me angry or anything.

[UtahApocalypse]

A good educational clip about fair use:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo\

I am LIVID over youtube doi8ng this crap. I really hope that youtube users start a revolt. If anyone has copies of videos that are being muted please create a torrent. I will DL it and up them to youtube 100's of times.

[The_Orlonater]

Maybe we should start "LibertyTube." ;)

[Deborah K]

So does this mean they're going to remove clips from news programs and such? Those are copyrighted aren't they?

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

High-Quality Philosopher's Stone Video:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=J1QFNOP3

Rename .flv to mp4 (I think).

[aravoth]

So does this mean they're going to remove clips from news programs and such? Those are copyrighted aren't they?

Technically yes they are copyrighted.

[UtahApocalypse]

So does this mean they're going to remove clips from news programs and such? Those are copyrighted aren't they?


Technically yes they are copyrighted.

At this point it is only any video with music or video from Warner.

[Deborah K]

Technically yes they are copyrighted.


So technically, they have to do this across the board, otherwise they are exposing themselves as having an agenda...yes?

[UtahApocalypse]

So technically, they have to do this across the board, otherwise they are exposing themselves as having an agenda...yes?

It is across the board. Its been on Digg and hundreds of protest videos. Youtube is removing or muting ALL video that have content copyrighted by Warner.

[nobody's_hero]

At this point it is only any video with music or video from Warner.

Perhaps Warner is the only corporation (so far) which has expressed the fortitude to fight the tireless legal battles associated with internet media copyright infringement.

I don't think Youtube will be choosing to deal with millions of dollars worth of lawsuits over keeping audio in our grassroots liberty videos.

Youtube seems to have adopted the policy of not caring unless someone says something about it, and apparently, Warner's lawyers have said something.

[Deborah K]

It is across the board. Its been on Digg and hundreds of protest videos. Youtube is removing or muting ALL video that have content copyrighted by Warner.


This is going to make disseminating information a lot harder.

[AdamT]

So does this mean they're going to remove clips from news programs and such? Those are copyrighted aren't they?

In the frame of "fair use", copyrighted music and copyrighted news clips are in different camps, with the news clips open to use vs the music not. Note YT didn't pull the entire clips, just muted the sound.

[Josh_LA]

It has begun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PIEGK0IbA4

This video contains an audio track that has not been authorized by WMG. The audio has been disabled.

Intellectual Property is bullshit.

They've gone and muted a fair few of Avaroths videos. Bastards.

youtube is private property, it's not their fault you're dependent on them
you have alternatives such as metacafe, liveleak, and dailymotion, but much less audience.
intellectual property is not bullshit, people who made their work don't owe you any part of it, they can charge you $1000 per song if they feel like it (and you can rob it from them if you can get away with it)

Either way, youtube tyranny is not a bad thing, you can complain all you want, it's only expected that corporations brother with other corporations and together fear the law (or change it to favor themselves)

would I like it if people put guns to the heads of Google, youtube and record company officials? YEAH, but I'm not going to prison for some stupid soundtracks.

[aravoth]

intellectual property is not bullshit

Yeah it kind of is. What if Einstien declared IP over relativity, what if Tesla declared IP over Alternating current. Or the guy that discovered penicillan declared IP? Thats all thier intellectual property, and someone out there thought IP was bullshit, or we wouldn't have solid rocket boosters, power plants, and people would be dropping like flies becuase they got a cold. Pretty sure, Werner Von Braun violated Einstien's intellectual Property rights when he designed the Saturn 5 Rocket. And we all know how badly Enron violated Tesla's, hell they made a shitload of money off it, wonder how much his estate got......

I can guess.....zero.

[angelatc]

Just for the record, and I don't know why I want this on the record, but I read the title of this thread as "YouTube Tranny."

Carry on.

It wasn't just you.

I wonder how YouTube is screening these? There's gotta be a digital signature or something that can be circumvented.

[AmericasLastHope]

I wonder how YouTube is screening these? There's gotta be a digital signature or something that can be circumvented.

It's probably just anti-liberty types who are going through all the Ron Paul videos and flagging them for some BS reason.

[heavenlyboy34]

So does this mean they're going to remove clips from news programs and such? Those are copyrighted aren't they?

News corps pay people (like AP) for use of the clips or hire a freelancer.

[AutoDas]

It's probably just anti-liberty types who are going through all the Ron Paul videos and flagging them for some BS reason.

No, it's any WMG song that is being muted. Even official band channels have their songs muted.

youtube.com/ckymusictv

[jcarcinogen]

No, it's any WMG song that is being muted. Even official band channels have their songs muted.

youtube.com/ckymusictv

Interesting:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/112563-warner-music-group-and-youtube-are-not-hearing-the-same-tune

[UtahApocalypse]

It's probably just anti-liberty types who are going through all the Ron Paul videos and flagging them for some BS reason.


No, it's any WMG song that is being muted. Even official band channels have their songs muted.

youtube.com/ckymusictv

I think its awesome that even bands are having their own music silenced. Why awesome? maybe these bands will 'get it' and tell Warner to blow off.

[Conza88]

youtube is private property, it's not their fault you're dependent on them
you have alternatives such as metacafe, liveleak, and dailymotion, but much less audience.
intellectual property is not bullshit, people who made their work don't owe you any part of it, they can charge you $1000 per song if they feel like it (and you can rob it from them if you can get away with it)

Either way, youtube tyranny is not a bad thing, you can complain all you want, it's only expected that corporations brother with other corporations and together fear the law (or change it to favor themselves)

would I like it if people put guns to the heads of Google, youtube and record company officials? YEAH, but I'm not going to prison for some stupid soundtracks.

A you fcken stupid? It certainly appears so.

I know they are a private organization, and that doesn't change the FACT in the slightest, that I can try organize or boycott them, speak out against them and try get others, including myself to use alternatives, or record stuff before they take it down.

Intellectual Property = is bullshit. Do some reading champ, you might learn something. http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/851/tupus9.gif

[Conza88]

It wasn't just you.

I wonder how YouTube is screening these? There's gotta be a digital signature or something that can be circumvented.

They haven't gotten to mine yet. But then I dunno if any of mine has Warner in it or not... few good music pieces, but I'm assuming they'll just do it anyway.

[Bman]

A you fcken stupid? It certainly appears so.

I know they are a private organization, and that doesn't change the FACT in the slightest, that I can try organize or boycott them, speak out against them and try get others, including myself to use alternatives, or record stuff before they take it down.

Intellectual Property = is bullshit. Do some reading champ, you might learn something. http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/851/tupus9.gif

IP isn't bullshit. Your lack of creativity is apparently the only bullshit. If you don't want a song silienced write it yourself, and don't give anyone else the rights to it. Then your problem would be solved.

Now on my Youtube channel nothing has been silenced. One may ask why? Well because I understand what is legal for me to do with music and what is illegal for me to do with music. And unless I tell you my music is free, well ya better pay for it. =P

PEACE!

[Conza88]

IP isn't bullshit. Your lack of creativity is apparently the only bullshit. If you don't want a song silienced write it yourself, and don't give anyone else the rights to it. Then your problem would be solved.

Now on my Youtube channel nothing has been silenced. One may ask why? Well because I understand what is legal for me to do with music and what is illegal for me to do with music. And unless I tell you my music is free, well ya better pay for it. =P

PEACE!

This is you:

“Contempt prior to investigation will keep a man in everlasting ignorance." - Herbert Spencer

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RESOURCES. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/004055.html)

You've got a lot of reading to do. Enjoy. :D

[Bman]

This is you:

“Contempt prior to investigation will keep a man in everlasting ignorance." - Herbert Spencer

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RESOURCES. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/004055.html)

You've got a lot of reading to do. Enjoy. :D

I can't say I've read everything on the topic, however I have, in light of some recent topics, done some reading on the subject. And clearly I don't agree with the idea. Not that it's a bad theory, but in practical terms I see no other result then serfdom.

If you take the history of IP's you will see an actual increase in development. Now there are many other factors that could be involved. And this could also be said for some more recent countries that have had recent success with eliminating IP's. But I ask you to research what type of governments are behind these eliminated Ip's and who controls the actual work flow.

The other problem with a desire to eliminate IP's is the attempt to catorgorize all forms of intellect in to one big cauldron. This is just lunacy.

Now one could make certain cases on the problem with IP's being government interference on how long it should take before society should have a grab at the new technology. But to think there has to be no happy medium is ridiculous IMHO. Otherwise like I've stated say hello to serfdom. You can't be mad because someone doesn't want you to use there song. You are not restricted from owning instruments or making use of music theory. Just be a little creative and stop blaming creative people for having a chance to get in front of you for wanting to be lazy.

I may need to do some reading. But you need to do some further reasoning. Your idea is not rock solid nor does it have a complete living model that can be pointed to.

[Conza88]

I can't say I've read everything on the topic, however I have, in light of some recent topics, done some reading on the subject. And clearly I don't agree with the idea. Not that it's a bad theory, but in practical terms I see no other result then serfdom.

If you take the history of IP's you will see an actual increase in development. Now there are many other factors that could be involved. And this could also be said for some more recent countries that have had recent success with eliminating IP's. But I ask you to research what type of governments are behind these eliminated Ip's and who controls the actual work flow.

The other problem with a desire to eliminate IP's is the attempt to catorgorize all forms of intellect in to one big cauldron. This is just lunacy.

Now one could make certain cases on the problem with IP's being government interference on how long it should take before society should have a grab at the new technology. But to think there has to be no happy medium is ridiculous IMHO. Otherwise like I've stated say hello to serfdom. You can't be mad because someone doesn't want you to use there song. You are not restricted from owning instruments or making use of music theory. Just be a little creative and stop blaming creative people for having a chance to get in front of you for wanting to be lazy.

I may need to do some reading. But you need to do some further reasoning. Your idea is not rock solid nor does it have a complete living model that can be pointed to.

You're reading starts here:

Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf)

The New Frontier in IP by Jeffrey A. Tucker (http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker123.html)

Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine (http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/anew.all.pdf)

[angelatc]

IP isn't bullshit. Your lack of creativity is apparently the only bullshit.

If you're so freaking creative, figure out how to cash in on your song with out pissing on your fans.

[aravoth]

So if you have a party at your house and invite 50 or so people, and someone pops in the fricken bee gee's, do the bee gees have the ability to charge royalties for that? What if only one person there owns the CD?

[Bman]

You're reading starts here:

Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf)

The New Frontier in IP by Jeffrey A. Tucker (http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker123.html)

Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine (http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/anew.all.pdf)

I'll put some stock into reading it when you can show me a successful working model that is living. I.E. give me a country that has no IP's and I want to evaluate where I see success or failure from that point. Just because a theory sounds good doesn't mean it holds an ounce of evidence to be able to work outside of theory.

My complaint lies fully on the assertion that it would cause serfdom. Yet I have heard no compeling argument against this reasoning. I've seen no demonstration by a valid test method that this would not happen. And I certainly am not going to hang myself out on an idea that could have as serious implications as to force people into slavery based on birth.

Sometimes we see something and forget why it was built. In this case it is such. It's like you have no idea that a dam is keeping the water held up behind it. And think my view would be a lot better if I blew up that dam. Well more power to you. But I don't want to be the one who gets stuck drowning in the after math.

I'm not going fishing through a book for some very specific information. If you want me to think it's a good idea then supply me the knowledge of were I can locate a working model. If it's in your book, give me a page.

And I really still don't see how you'll convince me otherwise.

It's as if someone puts a lifes work into writing a book. And prints it and makes no money off it because someone else with better resources can print the book in a more cost effective manner and sell it for less. I just find the concept to be retarded. Sorry.

[Bman]

If you're so freaking creative, figure out how to cash in on your song with out pissing on your fans.

What. How is selling a song pissing on the fans? Hell, 30 years ago you didn't even have a choice in the matter. Now that you own a cloning machine you expect that the song should now be free?

Under what pretense are you entiltled to the fruit of someone elses labor?

[Bman]

So if you have a party at your house and invite 50 or so people, and someone pops in the fricken bee gee's, do the bee gees have the ability to charge royalties for that? What if only one person there owns the CD?

Actually if you own a bar you have to pay royalties to BMI or ASCAP for the music that is being played there.

[aravoth]

Now that you own a cloning machine you expect that the song should now be free?

Under what pretense are you entiltled to the fruit of someone elses labor?

I don't think they are talking about stealing it from a p2p network....

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

What. How is selling a song pissing on the fans? Hell, 30 years ago you didn't even have a choice in the matter. Now that you own a cloning machine you expect that the song should now be free?

Under what pretense are you entiltled to the fruit of someone elses labor?

If I appreciate their labor, I will reward them so that they may produce more.
If I do not reward them, they will go broke, and I will receive no more labor.

[aravoth]

Actually if you own a bar you have to pay royalties to BMI or ASCAP for the music that is being played there.

Yeah juke box right...

Seriously though, I know this lady who throws parties at her house all summer long, and she puts her music on and blasts it all day, and there are always tons of people there, why is she not being charged royalties?

It virtually the same environment as a bar, except it has a pool, and usually more people.

[Bman]

Yeah juke box right...

Seriously though, I know this lady who throws parties at her house all summer long, and she puts her music on and blasts it all day, and there are always tons of people there, why is she not being charged royalties?

It virtually the same environment as a bar, except it has a pool, and usually more people.

Well If she paid for the album, It was covered that she coud use the song for private use. If she's not profitting off the use of the music she can play it without any problem. For instance if she were to make a video and display the song in a private manner she should have no problem again. So long as she initially purchased the album. It becomes when you use the song publicly which then brings in royalties and residuals that there starts to be a problem. I mean sure people aren't putting their videos on youtube to make money. But Youtube is letting you put up the videos to make money. The problem is the use of medium. And whether or not someone is entitled to control the fruits of their labor.

[aravoth]

Well If she paid for the album, It was covered that she coud use the song for private use. If she's not profitting off the use of the music she can play it without any problem. For instance if she were to make a video and display the song in a private manner she should have no problem again. So long as she initially purchased the album. It becomes when you use the song publicly which then brings in royalties and residuals that there starts to be a problem. I mean sure people aren't putting their videos on youtube to make money. But Youtube is letting you put up the videos to make money. The problem is the use of medium. And whether or not someone is entitled to control the fruits of their labor.

So, for example, I make a video, I use the song American Pie, I don't make money off of it at all, but the video gets close to 2 million views, so youtube generates an income from that. The company that owns the license says, "hey I want a slice of that pie", so they charge youtube royalties. Even though out of 2 million hits more than a few people that watched probably went out and bought a classic rock CD with that song on it. Essentially what I did was freely advertise a song, and generated profit for that company. So not only do they get royalties, now they get sales. And they are upset about it :eek:, so they removed the video I made.

Thing is though, you can't rip the song from the video, there are voice overs, fade outs, the tracks are manipulated. The only way to get access to the original song would be to buy it or pirate it. I own every CD I've used in my videos(paid for them), except I can't do anything with them, other than listen to them in the car with the windows rolled up because if the guy next to me at the stop light hears it and starts rockin' out he might buy it?

What they did on youtube was fucking stupid, period. IP aside, what fucking moron destroys a free advertising medium like that?

At any rate, it worked, I'm never buying shit from that company again, and I won't use anyone's music in my vids anymore. This way I will never be freely advertising and generating sales (no matter how small), while I violate their IP.

[Bman]

So, for example, I make a video, I use the song American Pie, I don't make money off of it at all, but the video gets close to 2 million views, so youtube generates an income from that. The company that owns the license says, "hey I want a slice of that pie", so they charge youtube royalties. Even though out of 2 million hits more than a few people that watched probably went out and bought a classic rock CD with that song on it. Essentially what I did was freely advertise a song, and generated profit for that company. So not only do they get royalties, now they get sales. And they are upset about it :eek:, so they removed the video I made.

Thing is though, you can't rip the song from the video, there are voice overs, fade outs, the tracks are manipulated. The only way to get access to the original song would be to buy it or pirate it. I own every CD I've used in my videos(paid for them), except I can't do anything with them, other than listen to them in the car with the windows rolled up because if the guy next to me at the stop light hears it and starts rockin' out he might buy it?

What they did on youtube was fucking stupid, period. IP aside, what fucking moron destroys a free advertising medium like that?

At any rate, it worked, I'm never buying shit from that company again, and I won't use anyone's music in my vids anymore. This way I will never be freely advertising and generating sales (no matter how small), while I violate their IP.

Maybe so. Doesn't change the fact that you don't get to decide if you use someones elses material because it may turn around and cause free advertisement for them. Look the whole things tricky and the last word certainly hasn't been said. However I see the complete elimination of IP's to not be the answer either.

The best thing to do is get record companies out of the mix. And let bands control their music. If they have a bad business model they will fail. If someone has a better one then they will succeed. As much as a person might dislike IPs, it would also be government interference to enforce no IP's. Free Market truly would give the option to the individual.

[aravoth]

Maybe so. Doesn't change the fact that you don't get to decide if you use someones elses material because it may turn around and cause free advertisement for them.

Thats like saying I can't buy a classic car, fix it up and sell it for a profit. The car is someones intellectual property, but you can alter it, paint it, have flames flying out the tailpipe and ford isn't going to claim that you fucked them over because you tweaked the design.

What the hell is the point of purchasing a CD then if you don't own what is on it? Is a music the only thing on planet earth that you can outright purchase and "own", and not do a single fracken thing with?

[Conza88]

I'll put some stock into reading it when you can show me a successful working model that is living. I.E. give me a country that has no IP's and I want to evaluate where I see success or failure from that point. Just because a theory sounds good doesn't mean it holds an ounce of evidence to be able to work outside of theory.

Give me a pure free market economy, and I'll put some stock into reading about it.

Seriously, get a fcken brain is that your argument? CEREASOUSLY?!!111 like ORLY?

:rolleyes:


My complaint lies fully on the assertion that it would cause serfdom. Yet I have heard no compeling argument against this reasoning. I've seen no demonstration by a valid test method that this would not happen. And I certainly am not going to hang myself out on an idea that could have as serious implications as to force people into slavery based on birth.

Sometimes we see something and forget why it was built. In this case it is such. It's like you have no idea that a dam is keeping the water held up behind it. And think my view would be a lot better if I blew up that dam. Well more power to you. But I don't want to be the one who gets stuck drowning in the after math.

I'm not going fishing through a book for some very specific information. If you want me to think it's a good idea then supply me the knowledge of were I can locate a working model. If it's in your book, give me a page.

And I really still don't see how you'll convince me otherwise.

It's as if someone puts a lifes work into writing a book. And prints it and makes no money off it because someone else with better resources can print the book in a more cost effective manner and sell it for less. I just find the concept to be retarded. Sorry.


Scarcity and Ideas

Like the magically-reproducible lawnmower, ideas are not scarce. If I invent a technique for harvesting cotton, your harvesting cotton in this way would not take away the technique from me. I still have my technique (as well as my cotton). Your use does not exclude my use; we could both use my technique to harvest cotton. There is no economic scarcity, and no possibility of conflict over the use of a scarce resource. Thus, there is no need for exclusivity. Similarly, if you copy a book I have written, I still have the original (tangible) book, and I also still “have” the pattern of words that constitute the book. Thus, authored works are not scarce in the same sense that a piece of land or a car are scarce. If you take my car, I no longer have it. But if you “take” a book-pattern and use it to make your own physical book, I still have my own copy. The same holds true for inventions and, indeed, for any “pattern” or information one generates or has. As Thomas Jefferson—himself an inventor, as well as the first Patent Examiner in the U.S.—wrote, “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”62 Since use of another’s idea does not deprive him of its use, no conflict over its use is possible; ideas, therefore, are not candidates for property rights. Even Rand acknowledged that “intellectual property cannot be consumed.”63

Ideas are not naturally scarce. However, by recognizing a right in an ideal object, one creates scarcity where none existed before. As Arnold Plant explains: It is a peculiarity of property rights in patents (and copyrights) that they do not arise out of the scarcity of the objects which become appropriated. They are not a consequence of scarcity. They are the deliberate creation of statute law, and, whereas in general the institution of private property makes for the preservation of scarce goods, tending . . . to lead us “to make the most of them,” property rights in patents and copyrights make possible the creation of a scarcity of the products appropriated which could not otherwise be maintained.64

This whole book (http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/anew.all.pdf) is a walking rebuttal to your close minded ideology.

Chapter 1: Introduction
An overview of the central theme: intellectual property is in fact intellectual monopoly and hinders rather than helps innovation and creation.
Chapter 2: Creation Under Competition
Would the world be devoid of great or lesser works of art without copyright?
Chapter 3: Innovation Under Competition
What would happen to innovation without patents?
Chapter 4: The Evil of Intellectual Monopoly
Why are patents so bad anyway?
Chapter 5: The Devil in Disney
What is the big deal with copyright?
Chapter 6: How Competition Works
How would artists and innovators get paid without copyrights and patents?
Chapter 7: Defenses of Intellectual Monopoly
What is the conventional wisdom and why it is wrong.
Chapter 8: Does Intellectual Monopoly Increase Innovation?
This is the heart of the matter: there is no evidence that intellectual monopoly serves the purpose that both the U.S. Constitution and economic logic dictates. There is no evidence it "works" to increase creation and innovation.
Chapter 9: The Pharmaceutical Industry
But what about life-saving drugs?
Chapter 10: The Bad, the Good, and the Ugly
A look at various policy options.

Your rebuttals are an utter joke. And until you read this, you ain't got a leg to stand on. Enjoy your willful ignorance. The system you support is immoral and unethical.

[Bman]

Thats like saying I can't buy a classic car, fix it up and sell it for a profit. The car is someones intellectual property, but you can alter it, paint it, have flames flying out the tailpipe and ford isn't going to claim that you fucked them over because you tweaked the design.

What the hell is the point of purchasing a CD then if you don't own what is on it? Is a music the only thing on planet earth that you can outright purchase and "own", and not do a single fracken thing with?

There's a lot of protection for people to be creative using many parts of someone eslse song. For instance there are probably a million songs the follow the chord progression of playing a D chord C chord and G chord. You just can't make a direct copy of it and say it is your song to sell. I'd imagine you'd have a problem if you started making identical ford cars and started to sell them at a reduced price.

[aravoth]

There's a lot of protection for people to be creative using many parts of someone eslse song. For instance there are probably a million songs the follow the chord progression of playing a D chord C chord and G chord. You just can't make a direct copy of it and say it is your song to sell. I'd imagine you'd have a problem if you started making identical ford cars and started to sell them at a reduced price.

Which reminds me....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM&feature=related

With regards to cars, the internal combustion engine is essentially the same whether it's a BMW or an Escort.

[Bman]

Give me a pure free market economy, and I'll put some stock into reading about it.

Seriously, get a fcken brain is that your argument? CEREASOUSLY?!!111 like ORLY?

:rolleyes:




Scarcity and Ideas

Like the magically-reproducible lawnmower, ideas are not scarce. If I invent a technique for harvesting cotton, your harvesting cotton in this way would not take away the technique from me. I still have my technique (as well as my cotton). Your use does not exclude my use; we could both use my technique to harvest cotton. There is no economic scarcity, and no possibility of conflict over the use of a scarce resource. Thus, there is no need for exclusivity. Similarly, if you copy a book I have written, I still have the original (tangible) book, and I also still “have” the pattern of words that constitute the book. Thus, authored works are not scarce in the same sense that a piece of land or a car are scarce. If you take my car, I no longer have it. But if you “take” a book-pattern and use it to make your own physical book, I still have my own copy. The same holds true for inventions and, indeed, for any “pattern” or information one generates or has. As Thomas Jefferson—himself an inventor, as well as the first Patent Examiner in the U.S.—wrote, “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”62 Since use of another’s idea does not deprive him of its use, no conflict over its use is possible; ideas, therefore, are not candidates for property rights. Even Rand acknowledged that “intellectual property cannot be consumed.”63

Ideas are not naturally scarce. However, by recognizing a right in an ideal object, one creates scarcity where none existed before. As Arnold Plant explains: It is a peculiarity of property rights in patents (and copyrights) that they do not arise out of the scarcity of the objects which become appropriated. They are not a consequence of scarcity. They are the deliberate creation of statute law, and, whereas in general the institution of private property makes for the preservation of scarce goods, tending . . . to lead us “to make the most of them,” property rights in patents and copyrights make possible the creation of a scarcity of the products appropriated which could not otherwise be maintained.64

This whole book (http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/anew.all.pdf) is a walking rebuttal to your close minded ideology.

Chapter 1: Introduction
An overview of the central theme: intellectual property is in fact intellectual monopoly and hinders rather than helps innovation and creation.
Chapter 2: Creation Under Competition
Would the world be devoid of great or lesser works of art without copyright?
Chapter 3: Innovation Under Competition
What would happen to innovation without patents?
Chapter 4: The Evil of Intellectual Monopoly
Why are patents so bad anyway?
Chapter 5: The Devil in Disney
What is the big deal with copyright?
Chapter 6: How Competition Works
How would artists and innovators get paid without copyrights and patents?
Chapter 7: Defenses of Intellectual Monopoly
What is the conventional wisdom and why it is wrong.
Chapter 8: Does Intellectual Monopoly Increase Innovation?
This is the heart of the matter: there is no evidence that intellectual monopoly serves the purpose that both the U.S. Constitution and economic logic dictates. There is no evidence it "works" to increase creation and innovation.
Chapter 9: The Pharmaceutical Industry
But what about life-saving drugs?
Chapter 10: The Bad, the Good, and the Ugly
A look at various policy options.

Your rebuttals are an utter joke. And until you read this, you ain't got a leg to stand on. Enjoy your willful ignorance. The system you support is immoral and unethical.

Yeah and serfdom back in the day when we had no IP's was completely moral and ethical. You act as if history has no bearing on why we are were we are.

This is not a claim for a free market. A free market would let the individual decide whether or not to put on IP on their product and see if it would suceed or fail.

You're not entitled to something just because it exists. If it's immoral of me to argue against you for having such a complete sense of self entitlement, well then I can except that,

If you were to ask me though I would think you to be the one is being awfully selfish, which I could take the liberty of calling immoral and unethical.

You're not entitled to anything other than yourself. The philosphy of liberty gives me complete control over the fruits of my labor. Now you would like to take that away.

You're idea of imposing your will is interference.

[aravoth]

Yeah and serfdom back in the day when we had no IP's was completely moral and ethical. You act as if history has no bearing on why we are were we are.

This is not a claim for a free market. A free market would let the individual decide whether or not to put on IP on their product and see if it would suceed or fail.

You're not entitled to something just because it exists. If it's immoral of me to argue against you for having such a complete sense of self entitlement, well then I can except that,

If you were to ask me though I would think you to be the one is being awfully selfish, which I could take the liberty of calling immoral and unethical.

You're not entitled to anything other than yourself. The philosphy of liberty gives me complete control over the fruits of my labor. Now you would like to take that away.

You're idea of imposing your will is interference.

Seriously if you bought the cd......I am not following you, do you not own a CD you purchase?

[Anti Federalist]

Seriously though, I know this lady who throws parties at her house all summer long, and she puts her music on and blasts it all day, and there are always tons of people there, why is she not being charged royalties?

FFS sake, don't give them any ideas.:mad::D;)

[Bman]

Seriously if you bought the cd......I am not following you, do you not own a CD you purchase?

Yes but there are terms and limits to the use of the product. I mean seriously if you buy a harry potter book can you but your name on it make copies and start to sell it under your name?

Can you even make copies and hand it out for free amongst your friends?

Now you could certainly take your CD and lend it to a friend or such.

Back to your car. Could you buy a car cloning machine and start giving all your friends free cars. I mean were do we end with this?

This isn't a black and white issue. This topic is filled with shades of grey. It's a matter of quite simply you can't have your cake and eat it too. This system would not work one way or the other if it was Black and white, and now you'd like to throw 100's of years of evolution down the drain because someone wrote something that sounded good to yourself. Well personally I think it's a crackpot idea. And everyone wants to say read this and it will totally negate what you are saying. But yet the people arguing cannot? It's a little fishy to me. Maybe you read something and now it is your bible so you've become completely dogmatic to the issue. But again this issue is not black and white. No one can have it completely one way or the other. If it would work that way you would be able to give me a full working example in current times or through out history because nothing under the sun is new and someone would have tried it.

As a matteer of fact the closet thing I can think of is IBM vs Apple. One went with IP the other did not. Who succeeded? Who is more successful. Well it came down to their business model for the end consumer to make a choice. In all fairness you are trying to regulate the free market with this idea, so stop acting like this should be a bastion of the free market. Because it is not. It is opposite regulation from the current.

Calling me things without realizing you have run out of the ability to be a free thinker on the issue. You can only see it one way. Your Way.

Well let me know how that works for ya because it is complete silliness, if one were to ask me.

[Conza88]

Yeah and serfdom back in the day when we had no IP's was completely moral and ethical. You act as if history has no bearing on why we are were we are.

This is not a claim for a free market. A free market would let the individual decide whether or not to put on IP on their product and see if it would suceed or fail.

You're not entitled to something just because it exists. If it's immoral of me to argue against you for having such a complete sense of self entitlement, well then I can except that,

If you were to ask me though I would think you to be the one is being awfully selfish, which I could take the liberty of calling immoral and unethical.

You're not entitled to anything other than yourself. The philosphy of liberty gives me complete control over the fruits of my labor. Now you would like to take that away.

You're idea of imposing your will is interference.

You fail remarkably in your inability to even comprehend what you are attempting to defend. You're following the typical statist line or approach, that has been around for eons.

"Let’s see how this works. Property rights are protected. Trade is free. People made useful stuff. People bought stuff and used it. They imitated and emulated each other and improved things step by step through investment, profit, and re-investment. That's all. All development since this great age of innovation that preceding software IP has built on this foundation of open-source material. Bill Gates: "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."

You are advocating a monopoly. You aren't advocating Liberty. YOU are interfering with progress, productivity, efficiency and moral actions.

I'll keep on going:


"We can see here that the authors are holding up the computer industry as a model for how things work in a free market. And a super strong case for their position is the open-source software movement, which is a main fuel behind the development we see today. Firms relinquish monopoly to assure longevity in the industry: others can pick up their designs and develop them. This helps build their market. In any case, we all depend on open-source software every day if we use Google: it runs Linux, an open-source OS. There are many others. Indeed, open source dominates the web completely. Some 70% of servers online today run Apache.

But how can they make money? The authors tell the story of Red Hat. It is open source. It has plenty of competitors who offer the exact same product. But because of brand name, Red Hat is still marketable and has more staying power. As B&L say "If you had a problem with software you bought, and had to call the seller for advice – who would you prefer to call – the people who wrote the program, or the people who copied it?" Thus does Red Hat profit and their many competitors come and go, come again and go again.

The authors effortlessly segue from software to books, and here is the part that especially interests me. They provide an alternative explanation for why British literature was so widely circulated in the United States in the 19th century. American publishers could publish without copyright – there were no international copyright agreements – and there was massive competition. It was so intense that American firms would pay authors directly for sending chapters even before they appear in Britain. The amounts they would receive even exceeded their British royalties over a period of years.

As a result, there was huge dissemination of knowledge. And the prices were low: Dickens's A Christmas Carol sold for $.06 in the US and $2.50 in England. And printing technology improved. Literacy improved. Ideas spread. Children and schools could have books, which in turn increased the demand for books, and spurred on new investment and technological improvements. It was a dynamic and wild world of publishing, comparable to what we see with the web today."

Does Monopoly Create Wealth? by Jeffrey A. Tucker (http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker124.html)


"Back up and consider the history of IP. It is a modern invention, whereas music and literature appeared at the dawn of civilization. Music and literature and art thrived for many centuries before IP. The authors don’t go into it, but just imagine if the invention of the musical staff had been copyrighted and patented by the monk Guido d’Arezzo who invented it. Progress would have been set back by a century!

The first signs of IP appeared after the invention of the printing press. Governments used it to suppress political dissent (I suspect that the religion wars had something to do with this). It was a royal mercantilist privilege confer on printers, same as it was conferred on tea, tin, cotton, banking, or any other good. In the day, it seemed reasonable. The ruler wanted to control goods and producers want guarantees. Everyone wins, right? Except that there is no competition, no market process, and hence there is stasis. Mercantilism was refuted by economists and free market emerged and history was changed.

What happened to IP in the age when mercantilism was being repealed? It was not abolished but transferred from kings to producers: the exclusive right to produce was granted to private owners who became responsible for enforcement under the cover of law. This was a huge mistake in the liberal revolution of the 18th century, an inconsistency that continues to haunt us.

This section on IP history should be mandatory reading! "

Yet you want even bother. Keep defending your bullshit. :rolleyes:

RIGHT above, you've been given your "model" you ask for. The WHOLE friggin' book contains historical examples.

[Bman]

You fail remarkably in your inability to even comprehend what you are attempting to defend. You're following the typical statist line or approach, that has been around for eons.

"Let’s see how this works. Property rights are protected. Trade is free. People made useful stuff. People bought stuff and used it. They imitated and emulated each other and improved things step by step through investment, profit, and re-investment. That's all. All development since this great age of innovation that preceding software IP has built on this foundation of open-source material. Bill Gates: "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."

You are advocating a monopoly. You aren't advocating Liberty. YOU are interfering with progress, productivity, efficiency and moral actions.

I'll keep on going:


"We can see here that the authors are holding up the computer industry as a model for how things work in a free market. And a super strong case for their position is the open-source software movement, which is a main fuel behind the development we see today. Firms relinquish monopoly to assure longevity in the industry: others can pick up their designs and develop them. This helps build their market. In any case, we all depend on open-source software every day if we use Google: it runs Linux, an open-source OS. There are many others. Indeed, open source dominates the web completely. Some 70% of servers online today run Apache.

But how can they make money? The authors tell the story of Red Hat. It is open source. It has plenty of competitors who offer the exact same product. But because of brand name, Red Hat is still marketable and has more staying power. As B&L say "If you had a problem with software you bought, and had to call the seller for advice – who would you prefer to call – the people who wrote the program, or the people who copied it?" Thus does Red Hat profit and their many competitors come and go, come again and go again.

The authors effortlessly segue from software to books, and here is the part that especially interests me. They provide an alternative explanation for why British literature was so widely circulated in the United States in the 19th century. American publishers could publish without copyright – there were no international copyright agreements – and there was massive competition. It was so intense that American firms would pay authors directly for sending chapters even before they appear in Britain. The amounts they would receive even exceeded their British royalties over a period of years.

As a result, there was huge dissemination of knowledge. And the prices were low: Dickens's A Christmas Carol sold for $.06 in the US and $2.50 in England. And printing technology improved. Literacy improved. Ideas spread. Children and schools could have books, which in turn increased the demand for books, and spurred on new investment and technological improvements. It was a dynamic and wild world of publishing, comparable to what we see with the web today."

Does Monopoly Create Wealth? by Jeffrey A. Tucker (http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker124.html)


"Back up and consider the history of IP. It is a modern invention, whereas music and literature appeared at the dawn of civilization. Music and literature and art thrived for many centuries before IP. The authors don’t go into it, but just imagine if the invention of the musical staff had been copyrighted and patented by the monk Guido d’Arezzo who invented it. Progress would have been set back by a century!

The first signs of IP appeared after the invention of the printing press. Governments used it to suppress political dissent (I suspect that the religion wars had something to do with this). It was a royal mercantilist privilege confer on printers, same as it was conferred on tea, tin, cotton, banking, or any other good. In the day, it seemed reasonable. The ruler wanted to control goods and producers want guarantees. Everyone wins, right? Except that there is no competition, no market process, and hence there is stasis. Mercantilism was refuted by economists and free market emerged and history was changed.

What happened to IP in the age when mercantilism was being repealed? It was not abolished but transferred from kings to producers: the exclusive right to produce was granted to private owners who became responsible for enforcement under the cover of law. This was a huge mistake in the liberal revolution of the 18th century, an inconsistency that continues to haunt us.

This section on IP history should be mandatory reading! "

Yet you want even bother. Keep defending your bullshit. :rolleyes:

RIGHT above, you've been given your "model" you ask for. The WHOLE friggin' book contains historical examples.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. There's a reason that patents have a temporary monopoly. If they were permanent I'd tend to agree with you. Otherwise why not let the market decide. If someone doesn't like that a company has an IP well they certainly don't have to buy the product.

As said before your ideas on self-entitlement are a bit naive. And more selfish than anything I could ever say.

[aravoth]

Yes but there are terms and limits to the use of the product. I mean seriously if you buy a harry potter book can you but your name on it make copies and start to sell it under your name?

Can you even make copies and hand it out for free amongst your friends?

Now you could certainly take your CD and lend it to a friend or such.

Back to your car. Could you buy a car cloning machine and start giving all your friends free cars. I mean were do we end with this?

This isn't a black and white issue. This topic is filled with shades of grey. It's a matter of quite simply you can't have your cake and eat it too. This system would not work one way or the other if it was Black and white, and now you'd like to throw 100's of years of evolution down the drain because someone wrote something that sounded good to yourself. Well personally I think it's a crackpot idea. And everyone wants to say read this and it will totally negate what you are saying. But yet the people arguing cannot? It's a little fishy to me. Maybe you read something and now it is your bible so you've become completely dogmatic to the issue. But again this issue is not black and white. No one can have it completely one way or the other. If it would work that way you would be able to give me a full working example in current times or through out history because nothing under the sun is new and someone would have tried it.

As a matteer of fact the closet thing I can think of is IBM vs Apple. One went with IP the other did not. Who succeeded? Who is more successful. Well it came down to their business model for the end consumer to make a choice. In all fairness you are trying to regulate the free market with this idea, so stop acting like this should be a bastion of the free market. Because it is not. It is opposite regulation from the current.

Calling me things without realizing you have run out of the ability to be a free thinker on the issue. You can only see it one way. Your Way.

Well let me know how that works for ya because it is complete silliness, if one were to ask me.

I'm not advocating "selling" anything, I just asked a question. By the way I also know a guy who owned an old Beatles LP, he sold it and made a killing, should he have to pay royalties? You are saying that I own the plastic, but not the info on it. I didn't pirate, I didn't put my name on it. Not a single video has my name in the credits.

I didn't sell anything on one single video I made, and I didn't make one cent from them, You are combining comments I made and comments conza made, I haven't called you anything.

The core of your argument is based out of the assumption that what I did was generate profit by standing on the shoulders of a genius, and that did not happen. Not even close.

edit : I'm not talking about copying a CD a zillion times and selling them for 3 bucks on a street corner, I'm talking about making a shitty video that doesn't make me any money.

At any rate, it doesn't much matter, I'll just say thank god science doesn't play this retarded IP bullshit, if it did we still wouldn't have light bulbs.

[Bman]

I'm not advocating "selling" anything, I just asked a question. By the way I also know a guy who owned an old Beatles LP, he sold it and made a killing, should he have to pay royalties? You are saying that I own the plastic, but not the info on it. I didn't pirate, I didn't put my name on it. Not a single video has my name in the credits.

I didn't sell anything on one single video I made, and I didn't make one cent from them, You are combining comments I made and comments conza made, I haven't called you anything.

The core of your argument is based out of the assumption that what I did was generate profit by standing on the shoulders of a genius, and that did not happen. Not even close.

Sorry you haven't called me anything. I kinda forgot who I was responding to. Look to me the issue isn't black and white and I don't see how it can be. You may have some valid point but the total dismissal of IP's I just find to be completely naive and a total other form of regulation. Maybe there are some end user situations that would be quite unfair. Personally, I think it should be the decission of the creator of the product.

You'll find most music is free to use on many levels. And some different than others. It seems Warner Bros have decided that you can't use a song for such a reason. Well there's a natural fix for that in the free market. It is called a boycott.

[Zolah]

Today, just now:

"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by WMG. "

Internet is serious business :(

[Conza88]

Not just copyrighted material.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=7299

[mczerone]

What. How is selling a song pissing on the fans? Hell, 30 years ago you didn't even have a choice in the matter. Now that you own a cloning machine you expect that the song should now be free?

Under what pretense are you entiltled to the fruit of someone elses labor?

The "fruit of the labor" is the performance of the music and the creation of the score - not in the digital transcription of the reconstructed performance onto a foil disc.

If someone were taking this music and claiming that it was their own musical product, that would be infringing on the artist's rights. But to use an artist's song to drive an emotional video, when viewers know that the background music has been culled from someone other than the video creator, does not infringe on their rights at all. Even copying and distributing their music is not an infringement - the consumers still know which band they are hearing, they don't think that the guy who burned them a CD actually wrote the music.

Only when there is the claim that one party is the original creator of another party's work is there any infringement on the creator's work. Otherwise, if you don't want your music to be digitally available, don't release it in a digital format. Make analog master tapes and distribute them to radio stations to play. Oh, but then those evil kids will record onto their cassettes to listen when they aren't near the radio, and some might even be bright enough to digitize the recording and upload it for others to listen to. What about that "product of labor"? shouldn't the "pirate" be then entitled to payment for any digital copy downloaded after he uploaded it? He put work into it, for science's sake!

The entire IP area has problems, and YouTube is entirely within their private property rights to mute a video because WMG wants to exercise it's government granted monopoly of force.

The people that benefit aren't the ones who are the best musicians, but the ones that are the quickest to run to nanny-government for a "copyright" patent.

You want better music? Get rid of IP.

You want over processed, market-tested, lowest common denominator pop 'music'? Let the record companies keep calling the shots in the IP arena. They'll make the law however it most benefits their own bottom line.

[satchelmcqueen]

Not just copyrighted material.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=7299

well, this isnt good at all.

we really do need to copy all of our vids on CD for future use after all.

[UtahApocalypse]

Eventually the RIAA and Warner will get to the point where no artists will sign with them since they cannot be heard by fans, or future fans. The more limits put on when, how, and where music can be listened to the less people can hear it.

[Josh_LA]

Yeah it kind of is. What if Einstien declared IP over relativity, what if Tesla declared IP over Alternating current. Or the guy that discovered penicillan declared IP? Thats all thier intellectual property, and someone out there thought IP was bullshit, or we wouldn't have solid rocket boosters, power plants, and people would be dropping like flies becuase they got a cold. Pretty sure, Werner Von Braun violated Einstien's intellectual Property rights when he designed the Saturn 5 Rocket. And we all know how badly Enron violated Tesla's, hell they made a shitload of money off it, wonder how much his estate got......

I can guess.....zero.

Yeah, what IF?

They don't owe us what they found, sure, life would suck today if they DID declare IP, but you have no right to claim usage or ownership of what you didn't spend time or money to discover.

Just because life may be undesirable does not mean it's wrong. Or by this logic, why should there be any property? What IF people never were generous enough to share? wouldn't we all starve because few are too greedy? YES, but that's not enough to say something is WRONG or BULLSHIT unless you're a socialist or communist.

[Josh_LA]

A you fcken stupid? It certainly appears so.

I know they are a private organization, and that doesn't change the FACT in the slightest, that I can try organize or boycott them, speak out against them and try get others, including myself to use alternatives, or record stuff before they take it down.

Same thing I did with Alex Jones, and you complained about me.



Intellectual Property = is bullshit. Do some reading champ, you might learn something. http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/851/tupus9.gif
I might learn what other people's opinions are, but I might not agree.

So you believe in private property but not intellectual property? So you don't believe Roark should've bombed Cortlandt ?

[Josh_LA]

Technically yes they are copyrighted.

yes, and they're smart enough to know, nobody is stupid enough to pay to get brainwashed or lied to. they only pay to be entertained, that's why nobody's selling DVDs of news archives or newspapers, but entertainment sells, that's why they enforce copyright.

[AutoDas]

Yeah, entertainment is what's going to get America out of this recession, not real capital:rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

Here's something from Ben Franklin on IP rights of his "Franklin Stove":

Franklin placed the design in the public domain, as he did with all of his other inventions, and refused offers by others to obtain patents for him. He clearly indicated in his Autobiography his preference in such matters: "As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously."

[angelatc]

What. How is selling a song pissing on the fans? Hell, 30 years ago you didn't even have a choice in the matter. Now that you own a cloning machine you expect that the song should now be free?

Under what pretense are you entiltled to the fruit of someone elses labor?

Fail. You didn't meet the challenge. It is pretty indisputable that the RIAA and the music industry are at odds with the fans and consumers of music. Apparently "artists" want to both sell their products *and* retain control of them forever.

Again, if you're such a creative genius, devise a friendlier business model. The market is requiring it, like it or not.

And PS: I've had the ability to copy music for far longer than 30 years.

[Conza88]

Same thing I did with Alex Jones, and you complained about me.

I can protest the persons "boycotting, speaking out" etc. Aswell. Defend the person against complete retards, who are irrationally trying to attack a patriot :cool:


I might learn what other people's opinions are, but I might not agree.

So you believe in private property but not intellectual property? So you don't believe Roark should've bombed Cortlandt ?

That depends on how open to REASON and LOGIC you are. You can't own ideas. It's not anyones property. <--- Game, set, match. :cool:

[aravoth]

Yeah, what IF?

They don't owe us what they found, sure, life would suck today if they DID declare IP, but you have no right to claim usage or ownership of what you didn't spend time or money to discover.

Just because life may be undesirable does not mean it's wrong. Or by this logic, why should there be any property? What IF people never were generous enough to share? wouldn't we all starve because few are too greedy? YES, but that's not enough to say something is WRONG or BULLSHIT unless you're a socialist or communist.

Are you retarded? They don't owe us what they found? They fucking discovered a natural element of the way things are, and you think they own it now? They didn't fucking create the things they discovered. Ok so let me walk you through this......


Lets say I discover how to break your jaw with a single punch. That discovery is my IP. On another day, you start pissing someone else off by making blanket statements, and talking about things you don't understand. And so that guy discovers on that day how to break your jaw with one punch. I can't claim that he violated intellectual property rights, because eventually someone else would have found the best way to shut you up.

Just like science, if you discover something about the way Nature works, good, it doesn't belong to you though, you didn't invent it. You simply discovered the natural order of things. I hate to tell ya, but that is intellectual property that does not belong to you, period.

[Bman]

I can protest the persons "boycotting, speaking out" etc. Aswell. Defend the person against complete retards, who are irrationally trying to attack a patriot :cool:



That depends on how open to REASON and LOGIC you are. You can't own ideas. It's not anyones property. <--- Game, set, match. :cool:

Hey Conza.

Quick question where do you place "Information liberation
Challenging the corruptions of information power"

by Brian Martin

on a case against IP or how it matches up against some of the books you suggested.

Just trying to get a feel for how my information matches up with your case before I give my educated response on the topic.

[Conza88]

Hey Conza.

Quick question where do you place "Information liberation
Challenging the corruptions of information power"

by Brian Martin

on a case against IP or how it matches up against some of the books you suggested.

Just trying to get a feel for how my information matches up with your case before I give my educated response on the topic.

Hmm Brain Martin's Australian, didn't know that! Well he's writing against IP, so - so far so good... lol

I'd have to check him out etc. The list on LewRockwell.com is pretty much ace though. But yeah, I'd have to check it out. Why though, you've already read it ? :confused:

Christianity and IP by Paul Green (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/green-p1.html)


Imagine the scenario if the person who first invented the wheel lived under a patent/copyright regime like ours. So, for 25 years plus, he is the only one who can make wheels. Anyone else has to pay him for a license.

No matter how bad his business plan or his wheels are, unless he is a complete imbecile, one thing we can be sure of is that by the time 25 years are up, he is going to be running the biggest business on planet earth. Big enough, probably, to influence politicians enough to add another 25 years to the patent monopoly.

You can imagine everyone as this man's slave, because no one can do much without paying him. Yet, rather than blaming the copyright/patent system, some people report unregistered wheels and call for more government regulation, maybe even price controls, on the monopoly. Few can see anything other than a "dog eat dog world of dangerous wheels" if ever the system was "unregulated" and besides, hundreds of thousands of people are employed in the "industry."

"Pirated" wheels are everywhere, of course, as people need them. The news corporations, whose printing or airwave monopolies are granted in similar manner, report regularly that people have been killed by "dangerous pirated wheels," that they are a menace to society and a threat to the "legitimate" economy. Believing this, most of these "pirates" have vaguely guilty consciences, half believing themselves to be thieves while throwing up a few weak excuses. Many decent people with clear (but also ill-informed) consciences and limited means, just walk everywhere. There are calls for the government to provide these people with wheels to make "society more just." There has been some delay however, due to a related lobbying corruption scandal involving affiliates of the Wheel Maker set to benefit from the resulting government contracts.

[Bman]

Hmm Brain Martin's Australian, didn't know that! Well he's writing against IP, so - so far so good... lol

I'd have to check him out etc. The list on LewRockwell.com is pretty much ace though. But yeah, I'd have to check it out. Why though, you've already read it ? :confused:

In all honesty I did a google search on the topic and grabbed the first book that came up rather than checking your links first. I want to see if his arguments are the same as the other arguments.

I made sure to keep an active journal of what I read and point out what I liked and what I didn't like, agreed or didn't agree with.

I can't say there was an overwhelming amount I would consider myself to agree with based on his arguments. They are strawman arguments most of the time. And it seems the book over all is against Media.

I mean to give an example in this book he makes reference to how the scientific community does not widely use IP's. Such an action is frowned upon. But then states that they don't need to make money off of IP's because most of their money comes from salary jobs. I'm not even going to go into who supplies the money. And then says in recent times because of lack of funding some University scientist have started using IP's to try and generate more revenue.

I mean there has to be better arguments then what this guy wrote. I started on one of the books you recommended because I decided that there's no way this man's arguments could be any of the arguments that would have convinced a Ron Paul supporter to believe what you believe. But figured I'd ask just in case you have read the book so at least I know for sure if what he says is a direction you are coming from or not.

I'd have to say I hope not. But if you haven't read any of this book. Don't worry about it. I'll check one of the other books.

Like I said I'm in complete denial that this mans arguments are part of yours. Otherwise I don't understand why you are here unless you would be trying to hijack this movement.

[Conza88]

^ How's the reading coming? :D

But back on topic:



Your video, Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss., may have audiovisual content that is owned or licensed by Viacom.

As a result, your video is no longer live on YouTube.
What should I do?

Please refrain from uploading someone else's copyrighted content to YouTube without authorization. Note that simply purchasing the CD or DVD does not give you this authorization.

Under certain circumstances, you may dispute the copyright claim from Viacom. These may be any of the following:

* the content is mistakenly identified and is actually completely your original creation;
* you believe your use does not infringe copyright (e.g. it is fair use under US law);
* you are actually licensed by the owner to use this content.

I need more information. I want to learn more about the dispute process.

All music was classical. It is utter fcken bullshit. Audiovisual.. all I used was clips from inauguration, and there is basically nothing that isn't fair use..

Fuck you viacom, fucccccccck youuuuuu.

[Conza88]

Pay attention: this is really important.

There are very few valid reasons for disputing a claim. Please review the information below, because submitting an invalid dispute could result in penalties against your account.
Invalid reasons to dispute a claim

* I own the CD / DVD or bought the song online.

Buying a song, CD, DVD, or other piece of media doesn't give you authorization to post that content on YouTube. The content owner still has the right to choose where it is distributed.
* The content was only a part of my video.

In almost all cases, you need written permission from the content owner to use even part of their work in your video. Learn more about Copyright.
* There are other videos on YouTube with the same content. Why can't I use it too?

Copyright is all about the owner's right to decide who can use their content. Someone else's use doesn't give you permission.
* I gave credit in the description. Isn't that enough?

No. Giving credit does not give you authorization to upload the content.
* I'm not selling my video or trying to make money.

Whether or not you benefit financially from using the content doesn't matter. Unless you have permission from the owner, it's not yours to use.

I still need more information. Take me to the YouTube Copyright Help Center.
Valid reasons to dispute a claim

* The content was misidentified.

Your original content was misidentified; for example, your family picnic was mistakenly identified as a scene from The Godfather. Mistakes of this type are very rare but possible.
* You have the right to use the content online.

You have written permission from the content owner to use the material on YouTube.
* Fair Use / Fair Dealing

If you believe your use meets the legal requirements for exemption from copyright under appropriate law, you can dispute the claim. If you are unsure, you should seek legal counsel before submitting a dispute.

I have a valid reason to dispute this claim. Take me to the dispute form.


SO, anywhere I can upload it, and where they can't get their dirty mitts on it?

[Invalid]

We need to do away with copyright laws I think. I don't think you can own an idea.

[pcosmar]

DRM and IP "rights" have been twisted out of proportion. It sucks. :(

Get a cover band to 'Cover" the song and redo the videos. F**k em.

[Xenophage]

You literally have no idea what you are trying to defend.

I suggest you change that.



:rolleyes: Mate, your ignorance is profound. You're the socialist.

You're indirectly calling the Austrian School of Economics, socialist? :rolleyes:

Monopoly Kills Creativity (http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker123.html)
Jeff Tucker on the new frontier in "IP."

Against Intellectual Property (http://mises.org/books/against.pdf) - pdf.

Strongly suggest you educate yourself before calling others socialist. :)

But yes, fuck youtube - thus moving to another site is suggestible, which is why I am highlighting this here, right now. :)

Do people own what they create?

[Xenophage]

We need to do away with copyright laws I think. I don't think you can own an idea.

A song is more than "an idea." Its LOTS of ideas organized into a complex framework.

Its a product. It took effort, talent, and time. If the products of human effort are not commodities to be traded; if they are free goods available to anyone, what sort of economic system do you end up with?

Austrian economists who rail against intellectual property are self-defeating.

[Xenophage]

Let me add: I do think IP laws need reform. That doesn't mean IP doesn't exist.

[Conza88]

Do people own what they create?

You don't CREATE ideas. You discover them. :cool:

No you can't own the Pythagoras' theorem. Or the concept of the wheel. Or the patent on how a machine you designed works.


A song is more than "an idea." Its LOTS of ideas organized into a complex framework.

Its a product. It took effort, talent, and time. If the products of human effort are not commodities to be traded; if they are free goods available to anyone, what sort of economic system do you end up with?

Austrian economists who rail against intellectual property are self-defeating.

Fail. Do you own the pattern to the order those notes were in? Do you OWN NOTES? MUSICAL NOTES, CAN YOU OWN THEM?! :rolleyes:

And how is railing against a Mercantilistic, government monopoly self-defeating?

God damnit, you "objectivists" are retarded.

Stephan Kinsella: Rethinking IP Completely (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=280262988255234681)

^ Start your education now.

You are a 'CREATIONIST'. 15min mark +.

[Xenophage]

You don't CREATE ideas. You discover them. :cool:

No you can't own the Pythagoras' theorem. Or the concept of the wheel. Or the patent on how a machine you designed works.



Fail. Do you own the pattern to the order those notes were in? Do you OWN NOTES? MUSICAL NOTES, CAN YOU OWN THEM?! :rolleyes:

And how is railing against a Mercantilistic, government monopoly self-defeating?

God damnit, you "objectivists" are retarded.

Stephan Kinsella: Rethinking IP Completely (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=280262988255234681)

^ Start your education now.

You are a 'CREATIONIST'. 15min mark +.

Highly illogical. I fail? You avoided my questions, for lack of being able to answer them, and then called ME stupid.

Let's try again:

Does music take effort and skill to create? Do people own the products of their efforts?

If ideas are 'discovered,' where do they originate? God? I think YOU are the Creationist.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

SO, anywhere I can upload it, and where they can't get their dirty mitts on it?

Aren't there some sites called ronpaularchives or megaupload? Or, could you just make a torrent for it and be sure to connect your torrent to as many trackers as possible?

[Conza88]

Highly illogical. I fail? You avoided my questions, for lack of being able to answer them, and then called ME stupid.

Negative. You're the one whose being illogical. Yes, you do fail. I addressed the root premise of your question. I destroyed it. And look who is ignoring it now... :cool:



Does music take effort and skill to create? Do people own the products of their efforts?

If ideas are 'discovered,' where do they originate? God? I think YOU are the Creationist.

Yes, music takes effort and skill to create - but you only own the copy you make, for eg. you do a recording of a song, you burn it onto a disc and try sell it. You OWN THOSE COPIES, in terms of their PHYSICAL CONTENT. You do NOT OWN THE NOTES, or the PATTERN THE NOTES ARE IN. YOU DON'T OWN THE NOTES. Thus copyright and patents are bunk. :cool:

If you use your labor to make a wheel, you own THAT SPECIFIC WHEEL. You don't own the IDEA of the wheel, you can't FORCE OTHERS TO NOT MAKE WHEELS = WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.

You violate the nap with your bullshit.

They originate in their existence. Pythagoras's theorem was found a priori, it was logically deduced. It was always there. It just needed to be discovered.

So yes, you fail. ;)

[Xenophage]

Negative. You're the one whose being illogical. Yes, you do fail. I addressed the root premise of your question. I destroyed it. And look who is ignoring it now... :cool:




Yes, music takes effort and skill to create - but you only own the copy you make, for eg. you do a recording of a song, you burn it onto a disc and try sell it. You OWN THOSE COPIES, in terms of their PHYSICAL CONTENT. You do NOT OWN THE NOTES, or the PATTERN THE NOTES ARE IN. YOU DON'T OWN THE NOTES. Thus copyright and patents are bunk. :cool:

If you use your labor to make a wheel, you own THAT SPECIFIC WHEEL. You don't own the IDEA of the wheel, you can't FORCE OTHERS TO NOT MAKE WHEELS = WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.

You violate the nap with your bullshit.

They originate in their existence. Pythagoras's theorem was found a priori, it was logically deduced. It was always there. It just needed to be discovered.

So yes, you fail. ;)

Grats on failing. You failed so many times you make AIG look well capitalized.

Music takes effort and skill to create you said, but you didn't address the question. Do people own what they produce? You say, "You own the physical recording," for whatever reason, but you say you don't own the music itself. Why? The music itself took no effort? No skill?

Let's extend this to a novel. What are your thoughts on plagiarism? If you own the physical copies of your typewritten novel, and I buy one, then I make my OWN copies and change the name of the author to my own, have I done anything wrong?

You sir, are the one in violation of the NAP. The NAP extends to property. You define only physical things as potential properties, but this is notion falls flat on its face if you consider you own your thoughts and your feelings as well.

Where intellectual property fails is in its definitions. I agree with your wheel analogy, albeit with stipulations because there can be many types and forms of wheels. I agree with Pythagoras' theorem. I even agree that these things are DISCOVERED, and THAT is why they are not property. I believe people have a proper expectation to be recognized for their discoveries in the field of science just as explorers around the globe were, but it doesn't mean they own their discoveries.

Art is something quite different. It isn't discovered, its created. Its produced through effort and skill, the same way any physical object is. As we advance into a more virtualized lifestyle, physical property itself may become an obsolete notion. But I am not a collectivist, and I believe ideas are owned by their creators.

This entire train of thought from you is surprising and makes me think you may have more in common with socialists than you realize. This is the first time I've met an "anarcho-capitalist" that I really did believe had collectivist, anti-liberty notions.

[ProBlue33]

I noticed some of my long time favorite videos were either missing, wouldn't load or were silenced within only the last few months when they where fine before.

This is corporate greed at it's very worst.

During Ron Paul's primary run many awesome vids were made, with great music, some of which I had never heard before, and now I was interested not only in the video but the music too, who was the artist, what other songs do they play or sing.

It is a form of advertising that's free, don't they understand that.

Copyright has it's place I agree, but music to custom homemade videos is not one of them.

[Conza88]

Grats on failing. You failed so many times you make AIG look well capitalized.

You failed so hard, you think the State is a social institution.


Music takes effort and skill to create you said, but you didn't address the question. Do people own what they produce?

I did address the question. I just jump light years ahead of you, and addressed the underlying premise. You do own what you produce, but you DON'T PRODUCE IDEAS.


Dictionary: pro·duce
# To bring forth; yield: a plant that produces pink flowers.
#

1. To create by physical or mental effort: produce a tapestry; produce a poem.
2. To manufacture: factories that produce cars and trucks.

You discover them. You can't own them. If you own an idea, and I get the idea. Have I stolen it from you? Have I taken "YOUR" / "property", it must be THEFT then, right? ;) But it's not. You've still got the idea in your head, and now I have it too.


You say, "You own the physical recording," for whatever reason, but you say you don't own the music itself. Why? The music itself took no effort? No skill?

OH FFS, are you dense?


Yes, music takes effort and skill to create - but you only own the copy you make, for eg. you do a recording of a song, you burn it onto a disc and try sell it. You OWN THOSE COPIES, in terms of their PHYSICAL CONTENT. You do NOT OWN THE NOTES, or the PATTERN THE NOTES ARE IN. YOU DON'T OWN THE NOTES. Thus copyright and patents are bunk. :cool:

Why can't you own the musical note, A or E, a low octave or a high octave, the natural harmonic sounds / notes? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PROPERTY.

What you do then, is say someone discovers a new note, pitch whatever... you would allow them to put a PATENT on it?

AND FORCE WITH COERCION TO STOP OTHERS PLAYING OR USING THE NOTE. THAT IS WHAT IP IS ABOUT YOU DOLT. YOU VIOLATE THE NAP, YOU FAIL. </caps> ;)


Let's extend this to a novel. What are your thoughts on plagiarism? If you own the physical copies of your typewritten novel, and I buy one, then I make my OWN copies and change the name of the author to my own, have I done anything wrong?

Yes, possible fraud claim against.

But more importantly, you can do that right now. Someone can take Aristotles works, put their name as the title and try and sell it. Why doesn't anyone do it?

A) They'd be considered an idiot
B) They wouldn't sell any
C) They'd be considered an idiot

More importantly; The 100-Year Sentence by Jeffrey A. Tucker (http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker145.html)


You sir, are the one in violation of the NAP. The NAP extends to property. You define only physical things as potential properties, but this is notion falls flat on its face if you consider you own your thoughts and your feelings as well.

LMFAO! Amazing refutation and argument you put forward there Good sir! :rolleyes:

You own your thoughts, you own your feelings. But you do not own your reputation. It is the cultivation of others thoughts & feelings.

You cannot own an idea. It is not your property. Get that through your thick skull.



Where intellectual property fails is in its definitions. I agree with your wheel analogy, albeit with stipulations because there can be many types and forms of wheels. I agree with Pythagoras' theorem. I even agree that these things are DISCOVERED, and THAT is why they are not property. I believe people have a proper expectation to be recognized for their discoveries in the field of science just as explorers around the globe were, but it doesn't mean they own their discoveries.

Intellectual "property" = a state imposed monopoly on patterns.

Ohhh goody @ the bold, you concede, good on you. :D


Art is something quite different. It isn't discovered, its created. Its produced through effort and skill, the same way any physical object is. As we advance into a more virtualized lifestyle, physical property itself may become an obsolete notion. But I am not a collectivist, and I believe ideas are owned by their creators.

Physical property - obsolete notion? You've been watching too much Zeitgeist Addendum, you pseudo-technocratic fool. :)

Ideas - discovered... Someone may come up with it, but that doesn't mean they own it and can force others to not use it.


This entire train of thought from you is surprising and makes me think you may have more in common with socialists than you realize. This is the first time I've met an "anarcho-capitalist" that I really did believe had collectivist, anti-liberty notions.

The irrational train of thought from you is unsurprising.

IP: It's a Market Failure Argument by Jeffrey A. Tucker (http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker135.html)

I'm saying the market hasn't failed. YOU ARE.

WHOSE THE COLLECTIVIST?


Retard. :rolleyes:

[Xenophage]

You failed so hard, you think the State is a social institution.



I did address the question. I just jump light years ahead of you, and addressed the underlying premise. You do own what you produce, but you DON'T PRODUCE IDEAS.



You discover them. You can't own them. If you own an idea, and I get the idea. Have I stolen it from you? Have I taken "YOUR" / "property", it must be THEFT then, right? ;) But it's not. You've still got the idea in your head, and now I have it too.



OH FFS, are you dense?



Why can't you own the musical note, A or E, a low octave or a high octave, the natural harmonic sounds / notes? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PROPERTY.

What you do then, is say someone discovers a new note, pitch whatever... you would allow them to put a PATENT on it?

AND FORCE WITH COERCION TO STOP OTHERS PLAYING OR USING THE NOTE. THAT IS WHAT IP IS ABOUT YOU DOLT. YOU VIOLATE THE NAP, YOU FAIL. </caps> ;)



Yes, possible fraud claim against.

But more importantly, you can do that right now. Someone can take Aristotles works, put their name as the title and try and sell it. Why doesn't anyone do it?

A) They'd be considered an idiot
B) They wouldn't sell any
C) They'd be considered an idiot

More importantly; The 100-Year Sentence by Jeffrey A. Tucker (http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker145.html)



LMFAO! Amazing refutation and argument you put forward there Good sir! :rolleyes:

You own your thoughts, you own your feelings. But you do not own your reputation. It is the cultivation of others thoughts & feelings.

You cannot own an idea. It is not your property. Get that through your thick skull.



Intellectual "property" = a state imposed monopoly on patterns.

Ohhh goody @ the bold, you concede, good on you. :D



Physical property - obsolete notion? You've been watching too much Zeitgeist Addendum, you pseudo-technocratic fool. :)

Ideas - discovered... Someone may come up with it, but that doesn't mean they own it and can force others to not use it.



The irrational train of thought from you is unsurprising.

IP: It's a Market Failure Argument by Jeffrey A. Tucker (http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker135.html)

I'm saying the market hasn't failed. YOU ARE.

WHOSE THE COLLECTIVIST?


Retard. :rolleyes:

I'm really bored with name-calling lately so I'll simply respond to the most fundamental part of the argument.

You say you can't own a note, which is correct, but you confuse the concept of a note with that of a song.

A "note" is a description of a physical property. It represents and describes the motion of pressure waves through a physical medium, and also the auditory sensation produced in the human ear. Sounds exist in nature, whether humans are around or not. We can discover and describe these things the same way we can discover and describe the concept of a "tree" or a "planet" without referring to a specific tree or planet. A song, by contrast, is a specific and man-made pattern of notes. It is the product of the effort of its producer, and in a free-market all of the efforts of producers are commodities to be traded freely rather than exploited by notions of entitlement or stolen through force.

You would expect songwriters to write their music and have no say in how the music is used. This is compulsory servitude, no different in theory or in practice than putting a man in shackles and sending him to an iron mine. The difference is that instead of enslaving the man's body, you're enslaving his mind. You would expect all the benefits that a songwriter's abilities and intellect brings to you emotionally, and pay nothing in return. This is parasitic and collectivist.

You are in violation of the NAP on many levels. This entire train of reasoning is in contradiction with the rest of your philosophy, and I question whether or not you've actually given it consideration or whether or not you've simply attempted to rationalize your own copyright violation on the internet. You also avoided the question of whether or not plagiarism was morally acceptable, instead asserting, "Well, its legal to plagiarize Aristotle! People just don't do it because they are concerned with looking silly." Answer the question!

Patterns are and HAVE to be considered property if you recognize that our very IDENTITIES are nothing more than neuronal patterns. Do you own your consciousness, or just the physical medium within which it resides?

If slave markets existed you'd argue that the market hasn't failed to produce good, cheap labor. I'd say the market failed quite a bit. But, you know, this is partly why we need a minarchist government, to protect people from slavers like you.

[Conza88]

I'm really bored with name-calling lately so I'll simply respond to the most fundamental part of the argument.

No, can you actually respond to it all? It's not hard to ignore four words, "pseudo-technocratic fool" and "retard". ;)

Don't sweep aside the arguments.


You say you can't own a note, which is correct, but you confuse the concept of a note with that of a song.

Song = many notes. LOL


A song, by contrast, is a specific and man-made pattern of notes. It is the product of the effort of its producer, and in a free-market all of the efforts of producers are commodities to be traded freely rather than exploited by notions of entitlement or stolen through force.

Yes, exactly why I don't support a state imposed monopoly on patterns, which would use force and coercion to get another person to pay the "patent" *COUGH* "imaginary property" owner. EVEN if that person come up with the same notes, in the same pattern and plays better.

:cool:

Do you own an idea? If I tell you it, or you get it yourself, has it been stolen?

= MATE, a three year old knows the answers to these questions.


You would expect songwriters to write their music and have no say in how the music is used.

They'd be paid for their services, buy the person who hired them to write the song. If their work is broadcasted, they are going to get more work. No? Fans will try make the originator paid, so they can support the artist and get more songs etc.

It's like if someone releases a book, and then someone uses the same idea, i.e A young teenage wizard goes to a magical school. So, fcken, what? They have tried to rip off J. K Rowlings work. What do you think would happen, if the retarded system we have in place didn't exist?

Whereas you would force that person, USING COERCION and BREAKING THE NAP, to stop their book from hitting the shelves. Because they "STOLE" the idea... lmfao :rolleyes:

What would actually happen, if it was better than the Harry Potter series, then why is that a bad thing?

And if it's not, which it won't be... then the fans of J. K Rowlings work would ravage it with bad reviews, it's lame etc.. and they would support the better work... so they can support the author, so they can get new books they like.


This is compulsory servitude, no different in theory or in practice than putting a man in shackles and sending him to an iron mine. The difference is that instead of enslaving the man's body, you're enslaving his mind. You would expect all the benefits that a songwriter's abilities and intellect brings to you emotionally, and pay nothing in return. This is parasitic and collectivist.

You are in violation of the NAP on many levels. This entire train of reasoning is in contradiction with the rest of your philosophy, and I question whether or not you've actually given it consideration or whether or not you've simply attempted to rationalize your own copyright violation on the internet.

Patterns are and HAVE to be considered property if you recognize that our very IDENTITIES are nothing more than neuronal patterns. Do you own your consciousness, or just the physical medium within which it resides?

Negative. You fail remarkably. Same bullshit different story. ;)


The irrational train of thought from you is unsurprising.

IP: It's a Market Failure Argument by Jeffrey A. Tucker (http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker135.html)

I'm saying the market hasn't failed. YOU ARE.

WHOSE THE COLLECTIVIST? ;)

[Xenophage]

No, can you actually respond to it all? It's not hard to ignore four words, "pseudo-technocratic fool" and "retard". ;)

Don't sweep aside the arguments.



Song = many notes. LOL



Yes, exactly why I don't support a state imposed monopoly on patterns, which would use force and coercion to get another person to pay the "patent" *COUGH* "imaginary property" owner. EVEN if that person come up with the same notes, in the same pattern and plays better.

:cool:

Do you own an idea? If I tell you it, or you get it yourself, has it been stolen?

= MATE, a three year old knows the answers to these questions.



They'd be paid for their services, buy the person who hired them to write the song. If their work is broadcasted, they are going to get more work. No? Fans will try make the originator paid, so they can support the artist and get more songs etc.

It's like if someone releases a book, and then someone uses the same idea, i.e A young teenage wizard goes to a magical school. So, fcken, what? They have tried to rip off J. K Rowlings work. What do you think would happen, if the retarded system we have in place didn't exist?

Whereas you would force that person, USING COERCION and BREAKING THE NAP, to stop their book from hitting the shelves. Because they "STOLE" the idea... lmfao :rolleyes:

What would actually happen, if it was better than the Harry Potter series, then why is that a bad thing?

And if it's not, which it won't be... then the fans of J. K Rowlings work would ravage it with bad reviews, it's lame etc.. and they would support the better work... so they can support the author, so they can get new books they like.



Negative. You fail remarkably. Same bullshit different story. ;)

I'll just assume you couldn't reply to the end of my last post, slaver.

You furthermore avoided the question of plagiarism AGAIN. You posited some OTHER notion of someone writing something similar, but you have YET to respond to the question of plagiarism. IS PUTTING YOUR NAME ON A COPY OF ANOTHER PERSON'S BOOK AND THEN PASSING IT OFF AS YOUR OWN MORALLY ACCEPTABLE?

If you can't answer this very simple question its clear to me you've put NO thought into this. Your only logically consistent answer is: YES. Perfectly fine!

This is the bullshit conclusion your train of thought leads to. If you find that this seems contradictory somehow with the rest of your philosophy may I remind you to check your premises.

Some ideas can be owned - specifically, the ideas you CREATE.

[Xenophage]

Also, why don't you define property for me if you don't own what you create.

Yeah, you keep saying "Sure, music takes effort to produce, and you own what you create... but uh, you don't own the music you create! Just the recording." Jesus Christ man, listen to yourself. Apparently coming up with the PATTERN OF NOTES took no skill and no effort, just PLAYING it did.

Alright Mr. Mozart, sit down with a pen and pen me out an Opera. No harder than writing bullshit on ronpaulforums, right?

[Conza88]

I'll just assume you couldn't reply to the end of my last post, slaver.

You can assume all you what, you presented EXACTLY the same argument as your previous post. BROKEN, RECO---RECOR-RECOR-RECORDDDDDD


You furthermore avoided the question of plagiarism AGAIN. You posited some OTHER notion of someone writing something similar, but you have YET to respond to the question of plagiarism. IS PUTTING YOUR NAME ON A COPY OF ANOTHER PERSON'S BOOK AND THEN PASSING IT OFF AS YOUR OWN MORALLY ACCEPTABLE?

WRONG. AGAIN. And I quote from this thread, once again. You just don't get it. Not my problem is cognitive dissonance is your best friend.


Yes, possible fraud claim against.

But more importantly, you can do that right now. Someone can take Aristotles works, put their name as the title and try and sell it. Why doesn't anyone do it?

A) They'd be considered an idiot
B) They wouldn't sell any
C) They'd be considered an idiot

More importantly; The 100-Year Sentence by Jeffrey A. Tucker (http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker145.html)


If you can't answer this very simple question its clear to me you've put NO thought into this. Your only logically consistent answer is: YES. Perfectly fine!

No, it's not, my logically consistent answer is that there is a potential fraud claim. :) You have no idea what you're on about.

WATCH, THE, GOD DAMN LECTURE, YOU TOOL.

Everything you've said has been addressed.

EVERY-THINNNNNNNNNNNNNG.

Stephan Kinsella: Rethinking IP Completely (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=280262988255234681)


This is the bullshit conclusion your train of thought leads to. If you find that this seems contradictory somehow with the rest of your philosophy may I remind you to check your premises.

HAHAHA, more retardedness. I said it ages ago. It's potentially fraud, misrepresentation.


Some ideas can be owned - specifically, the ideas you CREATE.

Negatory. If you own it, then it is property. Then it would be theft, if I used the exact same idea. But it's not. So you fail again.

[Xenophage]

You can assume all you what, you presented EXACTLY the same argument as your previous post. BROKEN, RECO---RECOR-RECOR-RECORDDDDDD



WRONG. AGAIN. And I quote from this thread, once again. You just don't get it. Not my problem is cognitive dissonance is your best friend.





No, it's not, my logically consistent answer is that there is a potential fraud claim. :) You have no idea what you're on about.

WATCH, THE, GOD DAMN LECTURE, YOU TOOL.

Everything you've said has been addressed.

EVERY-THINNNNNNNNNNNNNG.

Stephan Kinsella: Rethinking IP Completely (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=280262988255234681)



HAHAHA, more retardedness. I said it ages ago. It's potentially fraud, misrepresentation.



Negatory. If you own it, then it is property. Then it would be theft, if I used the exact same idea. But it's not. So you fail again.


Its worse than fraud, its theft.

The entire human race depends upon people who use their rational minds to CREATE new ideas. We are not just physical brutes. You are asking every person who works entirely within the realm of the intellectual to sacrifice all of his productive capacity for the good of others. You are saying that you are entitled to the designs of the architect, the software engineer, the works of the author, the playwright, the songwriter. You are laying claim on the PRODUCTS of CREATIVE EFFORT THAT WERE NOT YOU OWN, and then deriving the benefits having offered nothing in trade. You're saying because these things are intangible, they are not property. I say, go ahead and exist without them.

May I remind you that the greatest and most influential socialist thinkers agree? For a socialist, the products of human achievement are not for the selfish benefit of the creator, but for the benefit of all mankind. You believe in altruism, and this is just a form of collectivism. "I do not recognize your right to one second of my life."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4&feature=related

If I don't want the Republican Party to use my song supporting a political candidate I despise, I have the right to tell them NO. Regardless of whether or not they own a physical recording. Their ownership of a physical recording is of no consequence.

[PeterSchiffVideos]

Look at YouTube censoring Philosopher's Stone again.

85 ratings, 40 comments, yet 278 views. Similarly, when you search for "Ron Paul" or "Peter Schiff" by "date added," the video doesn't show up. It was uploaded 12 hours ago @ 12pm the 28th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEFzYxDPf0A

[Conza88]

Its worse than fraud, its theft.

No, it's fraud. You can't steal an idea. It is not property. You can't own it. If I have an idea, and you think of the same idea. Or I tell you. You still have the idea. It isn't theft. You fail.


The entire human race depends upon people who use their rational minds to CREATE new ideas. We are not just physical brutes. You are asking every person who works entirely within the realm of the intellectual to sacrifice all of his productive capacity for the good of others. You are saying that you are entitled to the designs of the architect, the software engineer, the works of the author, the playwright, the songwriter. You are laying claim on the PRODUCTS of CREATIVE EFFORT THAT WERE NOT YOU OWN, and then deriving the benefits having offered nothing in trade. You're saying because these things are intangible, they are not property. I say, go ahead and exist without them.

DISCOVER. Again with the strawmen, I "say this, I say that" - funny, how it's all bs. Quit projecting. And finally you then end with a non sequitur.



May I remind you that the greatest and most influential socialist thinkers agree? For a socialist, the products of human achievement are not for the selfish benefit of the creator, but for the benefit of all mankind. You believe in altruism, and this is just a form of collectivism. "I do not recognize your right to one second of my life."


May I remind you that the greatest and most influential socialist thinkers agree =
You are the one who is using the LABOR THEORY OF VALUE, which MARXISM is built on it, to support IP and your completely irrational conclusions.

Ayn Rand uses the Labor Theory of Value to defend IP. You, fail, remarkably.

You don't create ideas, you discover them. You don't own the idea of the wheel. Or Pythagoras theorem. Which you conceded btw. ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4&feature=related

If I don't want the Republican Party to use my song supporting a political candidate I despise, I have the right to tell them NO. Regardless of whether or not they own a physical recording. Their ownership of a physical recording is of no consequence.

Stephan Kinsella: Rethinking IP Completely (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=280262988255234681)

[Josh_LA]

No, it's fraud. You can't steal an idea. It is not property. You can't own it. If I have an idea, and you think of the same idea. Or I tell you. You still have the idea. It isn't theft. You fail.


Steal does not literally mean take so I don't have any more

I can mean take without permission or depriving of appropriate compensation without consent.



DISCOVER. Again with the strawmen, I "say this, I say that" - funny, how it's all bs. Quit projecting. And finally you then end with a non sequitur.




May I remind you that the greatest and most influential socialist thinkers agree =
You are the one who is using the LABOR THEORY OF VALUE, which MARXISM is built on it, to support IP and your completely irrational conclusions.

Ayn Rand uses the Labor Theory of Value to defend IP. You, fail, remarkably.


Wait, hold on.

Slow down, let me get this straight.

So you're saying both Marx and Rand use LTV to defend IP, and you disagree with both?



You don't create ideas, you discover them. You don't own the idea of the wheel.

semantics. Created or discovered, you did it first. (the "so what" part is up for debate, I agree).

[Conza88]

Steal does not literally mean take so I don't have any more

I can mean take without permission or depriving of appropriate compensation without consent.

LMFAO! :D


Dictionary: steal
v.tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
v.intr.
1. To commit theft.


Wait, hold on.

Slow down, let me get this straight.

So you're saying both Marx and Rand use LTV to defend IP, and you disagree with both?

No, I said - exactly what I said. Rand uses the Labor Theory of Value to defend IP.

LTV is chief component of Marxism. Marx's take on it would be the same as all his others I gather, considering if he was also under the delusion that it is actually "property". He'd probably want to abolish it. But this is the same retard that believes the STATE, PROTECTS PRIVATE PROPERTY. And that's why it should be abolished. Aaaaaaaahhhhhhahahaha


semantics. Created or discovered, you did it first. (the "so what" part is up for debate, I agree).

You may do it first, that's not the point. You may do it last, but you get a patent on it - you can then FORCE others to stop, those who where doing it before you.

NAP violation. Auto fail. And yes before you respond with your bullshit, I know you don't follow the NAP. It's mainly directed at the tools who think they are following it.

[Xenophage]

No, it's fraud. You can't steal an idea. It is not property. You can't own it. If I have an idea, and you think of the same idea. Or I tell you. You still have the idea. It isn't theft. You fail.



DISCOVER. Again with the strawmen, I "say this, I say that" - funny, how it's all bs. Quit projecting. And finally you then end with a non sequitur.




May I remind you that the greatest and most influential socialist thinkers agree =
You are the one who is using the LABOR THEORY OF VALUE, which MARXISM is built on it, to support IP and your completely irrational conclusions.

Ayn Rand uses the Labor Theory of Value to defend IP. You, fail, remarkably.

You don't create ideas, you discover them. You don't own the idea of the wheel. Or Pythagoras theorem. Which you conceded btw. ;)



Stephan Kinsella: Rethinking IP Completely (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=280262988255234681)

Some things you discover, some things you create.

Why do you think nothing is ever created?

If the human mind never creates anything, than the human race never creates anything, period. Ideas don't spontaneously pop into our heads by divine intervention.

I said, "go ahead and exist without them," to mean: you think you can disrespect the efforts of the creators and productive achievers of the world by laying claim to their products for nothing in return - but this ultimately leads to the destruction of creative effort. So go ahead and live without enjoying the fruits of the creative people you rip off; see where your philosophy leads you.

You like to use the word "straw man" inappropriately whenever you can't defend yourself.

And no, there is no labor theory of value here. Demonstrate where I have made any such reference?

[nayjevin]

Sorry you haven't called me anything. I kinda forgot who I was responding to. Look to me the issue isn't black and white and I don't see how it can be. You may have some valid point but the total dismissal of IP's I just find to be completely naive and a total other form of regulation. Maybe there are some end user situations that would be quite unfair. Personally, I think it should be the decission of the creator of the product.

You'll find most music is free to use on many levels. And some different than others. It seems Warner Bros have decided that you can't use a song for such a reason. Well there's a natural fix for that in the free market. It is called a boycott.

the simple fact is that you are advocating a government solution. this flies in the face of liberty.

people should be allowed to voluntarily participate in both the creation and dissemination of all works they feel will bring enlightenment to others.

artists who want to corner the market to 'beat the rat race' by gaining more paper dollars than other humans are RESOURCE HOGS. their greed gets in the way of their ability to disseminate their artwork.

what value has artwork if it does not enlighten?

what value has enlightening artwork if it is not seen?

what implications does it have to require an elite group who can afford your art to be the sole enjoyers of said artwork?

it might take you a while -- but you'll see the light.

[nayjevin]

If I don't want the Republican Party to use my song supporting a political candidate I despise, I have the right to tell them NO.

only if some government gives you that 'right'

what you do have the right to do (if we lived in true liberty, i.e. where the individual is the only valid political unit) is call out the Republican Party for not asking you first! make a website and defend your beliefs! the free market will decide.

let me tell you -- if this were the case - I GUARANTEE YOU people like me would send you money for your work if you made this case against the Republican Party. EDIT: (in true liberty, they would call you and ask you what type of currency you would like it in as well)

But I'll be DAMNED if my lack of money is going to keep me from spreading your artwork - should it be enlightening.

If your artwork is seen, you benefit - because the world begins to align with your beliefs as your thoughts are reflected upon it. (assuming your work is enlightening - and assuming your art truly reflects yourself and beliefs).

arrr!

pirates are an artist's best friend. (the just ones)

[nayjevin]

I said, "go ahead and exist without them," to mean: you think you can disrespect the efforts of the creators and productive achievers of the world by laying claim to their products for nothing in return - but this ultimately leads to the destruction of creative effort.

'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery'

It is not disrespect to share your work with others because I like it - quite the opposite.

It is not laying claim, (absent of plagiarism)

The return is that humans see your artwork (oh, you were expecting your talent to make you richer than other animals?) ;) EDIT: capitalism is fine - but my purchasing power would go to those who make what they need to survive, then distribute the rest to others who preserve liberty and enlighten others

and it does not lead to the destruction of creative effort.

The effort is over as soon as the song is played. Why should the artist continue to profit from that effort? Profit should come with your effort to get that art in front of the eyes of others - for that is where the true demand is to the consumer.

[Xenophage]

'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery'

It is not disrespect to share your work with others because I like it - quite the opposite.

It is not laying claim, (absent of plagiarism)

The return is that humans see your artwork (oh, you were expecting your talent to make you richer than other animals? ;)

and it does not lead to the destruction of creative effort.

The effort is over as soon as the song is played. Why should the artist continue to profit from that effort? Profit should come with your effort to get that art in front of the eyes of others - for that is where the true demand is to the consumer.

I think I'm beginning to see the fallacies in YOUR theory of value.

There are two parties to every transaction, not just the consumer.

ANYWAY...

Effort does not = value. Value = whatever the hell I think it is, as the producer OR the consumer. Of course the producer factors his own efforts into whatever he thinks something he produced is worth TO HIM.

Creative effort involved in writing a piece of music is also not in the least bit equal to the physical effort involved in playing the music. The performer and the writer are not equals; the performance and the score are not the same. The latter takes considerable more effort and talent.

[free.alive]

(posted in another thread)

A copy is not theft. Theft is removing the original. Copying only recreates the original.

In fact, using music, tv clips etc. in a youTube video to create something new is altogether different, and its restriction by intellectual monopolists is supported by Austrian theorists as another example of the state interfering in voluntary activity, private markets and the advancement of culture and industry.

If had the time to take other people's work and reconfigure it in a new way to make something entertaining or informative, and violated all the "respectable" memes regarding intellectual property, I would be practicing what I preach as a strict defender of property rights.

Especially considering that all human knowledge is predicated on the intellectual activity and discoveries which others previously contributed, as assert the fact that no one has the right to prevent me from manifesting my own original ideas.

[nayjevin]

I think I'm beginning to see the fallacies in YOUR theory of value.

point them out please? I'm not infallible


There are two parties to every transaction, not just the consumer.yes. the artist's transaction occurs from hand to paper. this effort has NO demand in the free market! I don't want to buy your hand movements - I want to buy your art!

the delivery mechanism is where the profit comes, because that is where the demand lay. This forces artists to be their own businessmen - and if they provide a good model for getting their art in front of the eyes of people (such as giving it away for free) people will like them and make sure they don't die of starvation. Trust volunteerism!


ANYWAY...

Effort does not = value. Value = whatever the hell I think it is, as the producer OR the consumer. Of course the producer factors his own efforts into whatever he thinks something he produced is worth TO HIM.To me, this clearly shows you do not understand value. I may not have clarified well before, but here is what I believe:

The consumer determines value -- not the supplier. There is no value until a trade takes place -- and the consumer makes the decision to buy or not to buy - thereby determining the value of the item sold.

The creator can decide the price - but the higher she makes it, the more people think she's unjust, attempting to corner the market to become richer than other people instead of spread the message of her works.


Creative effort involved in writing a piece of music is also not in the least bit equal to the physical effort involved in playing the music. The performer and the writer are not equals; the performance and the score are not the same. The latter takes considerable more effort and talent.yes - but there is no demand for 'effort'. the sound coming out of your instrument, however, does have demand. once it stops coming out of your instrument, only the recording equipment on which your art is preserved has a demand.

So you better set a good price for it - and establish a good delivery mechanism -- or the free market will buy it somewhere else.

[nayjevin]

p.s. -- if your music is good -- sit on a chair and play it for me while I tend your garden and make you dinner.

[Xenophage]

p.s. -- if your music is good -- sit on a chair and play it for me while I tend your garden and make you dinner.

You think all songwriters are performers?

[Xenophage]

point them out please? I'm not infallible

yes. the artist's transaction occurs from hand to paper. this effort has NO demand in the free market! I don't want to buy your hand movements - I want to buy your art!

the delivery mechanism is where the profit comes, because that is where the demand lay. This forces artists to be their own businessmen - and if they provide a good model for getting their art in front of the eyes of people (such as giving it away for free) people will like them and make sure they don't die of starvation. Trust volunteerism!

To me, this clearly shows you do not understand value. I may not have clarified well before, but here is what I believe:

The consumer determines value -- not the supplier. There is no value until a trade takes place -- and the consumer makes the decision to buy or not to buy - thereby determining the value of the item sold.

The creator can decide the price - but the higher she makes it, the more people think she's unjust, attempting to corner the market to become richer than other people instead of spread the message of her works.

yes - but there is no demand for 'effort'. the sound coming out of your instrument, however, does have demand. once it stops coming out of your instrument, only the recording equipment on which your art is preserved has a demand.

So you better set a good price for it - and establish a good delivery mechanism -- or the free market will buy it somewhere else.

Your theory of value ignores the producer entirely?

Take the opposite of what you said, and look at it like this: If a consumer offers too low a price to purchase an item, the producer has the right to say NO. Not worth it. Likewise, the producer even has the right never to share the fruits of his labor with anyone.

There are TWO sides in every transaction like I said before. Both will attempt to maximize their own personal gain, but for a voluntary transaction to take place they must both AGREE.

[Conza88]

Some things you discover, some things you create.

You've extended the breadth of it, from metaphysical into the physical realm.


Why do you think nothing is ever created?

It is transformed, not created. You don't "create" a table. You cut the tree down, transform it into planks, boards, shape it until it's the end product. This is physical realm though. Ideas are not.


If the human mind never creates anything, than the human race never creates anything, period. Ideas don't spontaneously pop into our heads by divine intervention.

Discover, not create. No-one 'created' the concept of the wheel. It was always there.


I said, "go ahead and exist without them," to mean: you think you can disrespect the efforts of the creators and productive achievers of the world by laying claim to their products for nothing in return - but this ultimately leads to the destruction of creative effort. So go ahead and live without enjoying the fruits of the creative people you rip off; see where your philosophy leads you.

Have you come up with all of your ideas or did you build them using ideas that have come before yours?


You like to use the word "straw man" inappropriately whenever you can't defend yourself.

No, just when what is being erected is fallacious and particularly made of a weak substance. i.e Straw.


And no, there is no labor theory of value here. Demonstrate where I have made any such reference?

Someone mixed his labor with the manuscript. He can do whatever the fuck he wants with a manuscript, whether try and print up a thousand copies of it, attempt sale of it to a publisher, or shove it up his ass.

I see theft as the deprivation of use. IP says you not only use the idea, you maintain ownership of it after you've sold it. And copying an idea causes zero deprivation.


If I mix my labor with a computer, I don't get paid every time someone turns the fucking thing on.

If I mix my labor with someone's plumbing, I don't get paid every time somebody takes a shower.

If I mix my labor and discover an idea, I don't get paid every time someone uses it.

IP laws aren't required for authors to get paid. one major example? j.r.r. Tolkien. He failed to secure American copyright, and one of the publishers took advantage of that to sell his books without royalties. He later, after the market already had copies of his book on it, made a deal with another publisher. No copyright attached, still, and they paid him royalties just fine.

Publishers are willing to pay a premium to be first-to-market.

Now let's say someone invents a sexual technique. lol Do they get paid for it? Nope. But if a prostitute uses that technique, they'll be the ones getting paid. Not the person who figures it out.

But really, if you don't get all that... it's probably time you put forth an objective theory of ownership and value.

;)

[Josh_LA]

You've extended the breadth of it, from metaphysical into the physical realm.



It is transformed, not created. You don't "create" a table. You cut the tree down, transform it into planks, boards, shape it until it's the end product. This is physical realm though. Ideas are not.



Discover, not create. No-one 'created' the concept of the wheel. It was always there.



Have you come up with all of your ideas or did you build them using ideas that have come before yours?



No, just when what is being erected is fallacious and particularly made of a weak substance. i.e Straw.



Someone mixed his labor with the manuscript. He can do whatever the fuck he wants with a manuscript, whether try and print up a thousand copies of it, attempt sale of it to a publisher, or shove it up his ass.

I see theft as the deprivation of use. IP says you not only use the idea, you maintain ownership of it after you've sold it. And copying an idea causes zero deprivation.


If I mix my labor with a computer, I don't get paid every time someone turns the fucking thing on.

If I mix my labor with someone's plumbing, I don't get paid every time somebody takes a shower.

If I mix my labor and discover an idea, I don't get paid every time someone uses it.

IP laws aren't required for authors to get paid. one major example? j.r.r. Tolkien. He failed to secure American copyright, and one of the publishers took advantage of that to sell his books without royalties. He later, after the market already had copies of his book on it, made a deal with another publisher. No copyright attached, still, and they paid him royalties just fine.

Publishers are willing to pay a premium to be first-to-market.

Now let's say someone invents a sexual technique. lol Do they get paid for it? Nope. But if a prostitute uses that technique, they'll be the ones getting paid. Not the person who figures it out.

But really, if you don't get all that... it's probably time you put forth an objective theory of ownership and value.

;)

Dan, isn't around.

So I'll ask you to sum this for me.

Are you saying because it's impractical to enforce, it should be completely ignored?

Sounds a lot like that.

How do you "own" or "earn" something in any way that can't be denied by your logic above? (please try not to say "natural law" without more words to back it up)

[nayjevin]

what if all objects in the known universe could be duplicated in a 3-D xerox machine for 1 penny?