Practicing What We Preach; Property Rights and YouTube Videos

[Knightskye]

Considering we support property rights, I think we should practice what we preach.

By that, I mean recognizing someone's video on YouTube and the comments section as his/her property. Yes, there are important things to notify people of - HR 1207 for example - but people can be upset and label it spam (in more than one way).



*Hides under desk*

[Truth Warrior]

The Philosophy of Ownership (http://americanrevival.org/read/books/ownership.pdf)
Robert LeFevre

[mediahasyou]

Im just really fast at typing.

[Epic]

Physical property is property. Intellectual "property".. not so much

[Bman]

Physical property is property. Intellectual "property".. not so much

Complete matter of opinion. And yes I've done the reading. It's a classifycation process. It's just a well kinown fact that the current classifycation clearly call Intellectual property to be protected property and I agree with that idea. Maybe not all of the laws surrounding it. However, the case against IP does not take into account the time and effort (ones labor) required to achieve IP. They seemingly believe people such as Mozart simply came out of the womb as a virtuoso.

Nor do they take into account that physical production and mental production are still production. There
s a reason I'm not an anarcho-capitolist and it is becasue I see certain roles for government. Protecting property physical, and intellectual is one of those areas I see need.

Has a true free market supporter ever considered that government was the free market solution to some problems with physical and intellectual property?

[Truth Warrior]

"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." - Robert LeFevre

[powerofreason]

Sorry, but IP is a scam. Don't fall for it. Read Against Intellectual Monopoly for more infoz.

[Bman]

Sorry, but IP is a scam. Don't fall for it. Read Against Intellectual Monopoly for more infoz.

I have. I understand the underlying principles. I just flat out disagree that something must be physical to be called property. I believe property to be that which is acquired through work.
There are scenario's were current laws could, should change. However, I will never support a complete dismissal of some form of IP, copyright.

[Epic]

I have. I understand the underlying principles. I just flat out disagree that something must be physical to be called property. I believe property to be that which is acquired through work.
There are scenario's were current laws could, should change. However, I will never support a complete dismissal of some form of IP, copyright.

My ancestor created the wheel after lots of work. I'll start collecting now :)

There is also the tiny problem that a coercive government is required to enforce IP law.

[Bman]

My ancestor created the wheel after lots of work. I'll start collecting now :)

There is also the tiny problem that a coercive government is required to enforce IP law.

Ok and that car you are not using at the moment is mine now.

[RSLudlum]

I have. I understand the underlying principles. I just flat out disagree that something must be physical to be called property. I believe property to be that which is acquired through work.
There are scenario's were current laws could, should change. However, I will never support a complete dismissal of some form of IP, copyright.

So what do you say about 'reputation'? Do you own your reputation, or is it owned by other individuals? Doesn't your reputation depend largely on others perception of your work/labor? If you put labor/time into improving you reputation, like so many politicians, do you own your reputation even though the very definition of reputation is to the contrary? And if so then it seems to follow that you would also have to be for slander laws, of which I find quite problematic in a free society.



REPUTATION: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reputation) overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general b: recognition by other people of some characteristic or ability <has the reputation of being clever>


BTW, I'm playing devil's advocate right now bc. I'm still on the fence about IP and trying to figure it out for myself. ;)

[Bman]

So what do you say about 'reputation'? Do you own your reputation, or is it owned by other individuals? Doesn't your reputation depend largely on others perception of your work/labor? If you put labor/time into improving you reputation, like so many politicians, do you own your reputation even though the very definition of reputation is to the contrary? And if so then it seems to follow that you would also have to be for slander laws, of which I find quite problematic in a free society.



BTW, I'm playing devil's advocate right now bc. I'm still on the fence about IP and trying to figure it out for myself. ;)

Other people may own their perception of you, but you own your reputation. No one else does.

And since you own it should people be able to manipulate it?

I don't know, but say your a school teacher and some crazed out teenager is claiming you raped them. Would, should that be allowed?

[RSLudlum]

Other people may own their perception of you, but you own your reputation. No one else does.

And since you own it should people be able to manipulate it?

I don't know, but say your a school teacher and some crazed out teenager is claiming you raped them. Would, should that be allowed?

Whether it's allowed or not, it may happen and in this case, there is an allegation of force thereby implying a trial to prove or disprove rape. If it goes to trial and it is found that the teacher is innocent, the teenager indeed concocted the allegations and is found to commit perjury while testifying then the matter is settled as best as our current legal system can provide. The teenager's reputation is now 'untrustworthy, liar'.

Now I understand your concern with the teacher's reputation after the trial may still be stigmatized by a skeptical undercurrent of gossip. But is gossip illegal? And what is the real difference between gossip and slander?

[nayjevin]

Other people may own their perception of you, but you own your reputation. No one else does.

I guess that's how it ought to be -- but are you going to put in a Federal Department of Reputation Changing Analysis?

What if I say 'Bman is good'? I have changed your reputation, potentially, and it seems to me by what you said that I had no right to say so for that reason. Am I missing something?


And since you own it should people be able to manipulate it?

I don't know, but say your a school teacher and some crazed out teenager is claiming you raped them. Would, should that be allowed?

science has a better chance at solving that than government, IMO

[Bman]

Whether it's allowed or not, it may happen and in this case, there is an allegation of force thereby implying a trial to prove or disprove rape. If it goes to trial and it is found that the teacher is innocent, the teenager indeed concocted the allegations and is found to commit perjury while testifying then the matter is settled as best as our current legal system can provide. The teenager's reputation is now 'untrustworthy, liar'.

Now I understand your concern with the teacher's reputation after the trial may still be stigmatized by a skeptical undercurrent of gossip. But is gossip illegal? And what is the real difference between gossip and slander? Is it really the government's role to interpret 'intent' ie slander is considered intentional harm by lying, while gossip is considered 'harmless'? We all know how government's 'intents' usually turn out don't we. ;)

Well when someone does something to alter your reputation who should decide intent? It's not perfect, sure. But what would be the free market solution for this? Lets find out is not a viable answer.

[Bman]

I guess that's how it ought to be -- but are you going to put in a Federal Department of Reputation Changing Analysis?

What if I say 'Bman is good'? I have changed your reputation, potentially, and it seems to me by what you said that I had no right to say so for that reason. Am I missing something

How does altering my reputation give you ownership of it?



science has a better chance at solving that than government, IMO

Certainly does as far as did or did not. It doesn't go far in how it effects you, or your reputation. I'm sure Kobe Bryant's out a few million from what happened to him in Colorado.

[RSLudlum]

Well when someone does something to alter your reputation who should decide intent? It's not perfect, sure. But what would be the free market solution for this? Lets find out is not a viable answer.


What if I started a rumor that Big Bad Bill helped a little ole lady across the street, and it ruined his reputation as a mean mofo? Could he take me to court for slander because I ruined his reputation? And what was my intent? Was my intent to make him look better in the public's eye even if he wished it not so or was it to convey to him that he should change his ways for what I percieved the better (or both). Was my intent to harm him? No. Change his reputation? Yes, And maybe even influence his future actions by his seeing the publics' response to the unknowingly "slanderous" lie I produced. My reputation may very well be harmed by doing such a thing but that would be up to those that have a preconceived notion of my reputation.

BTW, I'm not trying to defend lying and other decietful acts; we are subject to the very same by the polical leaders every hour of the day.


I believe reputation is how others percieve you through your own actions; a person may become a slave to reputation (others) if he fears the repercussions of publicly renouncing beliefs that others think he has held in the past. It is this point that really leads me to believe that reputation is not owned by the one its conveyed upon but by those that see his actions and judge them by their own values. I may see you in a postitive light, while another may deem you dispicable and may convince me of your dispicability, is that a violation of your property rights? One person presenting evidence, changing my mind on how I percieve you? Or did he actuall violate my property rights by indeed having influence in changing my mind? ;)

[Conza88]

I have. I understand the underlying principles. I just flat out disagree that something must be physical to be called property. I believe property to be that which is acquired through work.
There are scenario's were current laws could, should change. However, I will never support a complete dismissal of some form of IP, copyright.

You support the Labor theory of value.

Welcome to one of the fundamental premises of Marxism. rofl

http://omgif.gosedesign.net/wp-content/clap.gif

[Bman]

You support the Labor theory of value.

Welcome to one of the fundamental premises of Marxism. rofl

http://omgif.gosedesign.net/wp-content/clap.gif

lol. Same could be said about AIP people who support government sponsored research to create investment.

There are plenty of AIP socialists out there Conza. It's not a direct reflection but you know you are stretching. Exactly how all AIP arguments are. You take a test subject and compare it to another test subject with close resembalance. However, let out that all important part that simular does not mean same.

*EDIT*

had to throw this in.

Typical AIP argument goes something like follows.

Nazis believed you needed to eat food to live. Therefore if you believe you need to eat to live you are a Nazi.
C'mon man. Seriously you can do better. But I've been greatly disappointed with your responses in the past, as you typically will pass off a subject to a book reference. Well. I've read a mighty bit at this point and can seriously say I do not agree. Say what you want about me I see no viable measure for not viewing Intellectual property not as property.

Face it we flat out disagree if something not physical can be property. And that would come greatly from how all of us views property. Why there are people who believe that even the physical cannot be called property.

[Bman]

What if I started a rumor that Big Bad Bill helped a little ole lady across the street, and it ruined his reputation as a mean mofo? Could he take me to court for slander because I ruined his reputation? And what was my intent? Was my intent to make him look better in the public's eye even if he wished it not so or was it to convey to him that he should change his ways for what I percieved the better (or both). Was my intent to harm him? No. Change his reputation? Yes, And maybe even influence his future actions by his seeing the publics' response to the unknowingly "slanderous" lie I produced. My reputation may very well be harmed by doing such a thing but that would be up to those that have a preconceived notion of my reputation.

BTW, I'm not trying to defend lying and other decietful acts; we are subject to the very same by the polical leaders every hour of the day.


I believe reputation is how others percieve you through your own actions; a person may become a slave to reputation (others) if he fears the repercussions of publicly renouncing beliefs that others think he has held in the past. It is this point that really leads me to believe that reputation is not owned by the one its conveyed upon but by those that see his actions and judge them by their own values. I may see you in a postitive light, while another may deem you dispicable and may convince me of your dispicability, is that a violation of your property rights? One person presenting evidence, changing my mind on how I percieve you? Or did he actuall violate my property rights by indeed having influence in changing my mind? ;)

You are confusing the idea of thinking well, or poor about someone, fact vs fiction. You know fact vs fraud. Would you say the possibility of fraud against someones reputation does, or does not exist?

[idiom]

Ideas exist in your mind which you do not own. Youtube comments sections exist on servers which cannot be owned.

See, IP doesn't exist.

Mostly you will find IP is opposed by rothbardians for the same reason Global Warming is opposed a priori. There is no easy way to integrate it without a rothbard's head exploding.

[Bman]

Ideas exist in your mind which you do not own.

Who owns a mind.


Youtube comments sections exist on servers which cannot be owned.

Someone owns them there servers.


See, IP doesn't exist.

Contrary to opposing opinion whatever I think exists... to me... truly exists.



Mostly you will find IP is opposed by rothbardians for the same reason Global Warming is opposed a priori. There is no easy way to integrate it without a rothbard's head exploding.


Yes it's hard to reason that someone could not possibly believe something other than what they themselves believe.

Guess we will have to live with the fact that if I create something to sell it. If someone takes that creation and tries to sell it that I will use the law to collect on it.

[AutoDas]

Guess we will have to live with the fact that if I create something to sell it. If someone takes that creation and tries to sell it that I will use the law to collect on it.

This whole scenario just begs the question how was that person able to profit from your IP, but not you; and you do not have a right to collect that profit just because you think someone stole your IP.

[nayjevin]

(It is this point that really leads me to believe that) reputation is not owned by the one its conveyed upon but by those that see his actions and judge them by their own values.

yup


How does altering my reputation give you ownership of it?

If you do not control it, what meaning does your ownership have?

The ownership is in the minds of those who judge you.

The collective 'reputation' is only an estimated conglomerative average of the loudest voices.

If 'reputation' is to have meaning, seems to me it must be defined on an individual basis.

[Bman]

This whole scenario just begs the question how was that person able to profit from your IP, but not you; and you do not have a right to collect that profit just because you think someone stole your IP.

I could profit by selling your car and not giving you the money. How about them apples.

Yes I do have rights to collect. AIP is an idea. Not the law of the land.

http://managementhelp.org/legal/ntlcl_pr/ntlcl_pr.htm

[nayjevin]

You are confusing the idea of thinking well, or poor about someone, fact vs fiction. You know fact vs fraud. Would you say the possibility of fraud against someones reputation does, or does not exist?

the fraud occurs against the individual - not against the theoretical 'reputation', which no one human could ever calculate - nor define change of empirically.

[nayjevin]

Ideas exist in your mind which you do not own. Youtube comments sections exist on servers which cannot be owned.

See, IP doesn't exist.

Mostly you will find IP is opposed by rothbardians for the same reason Global Warming is opposed a priori. There is no easy way to integrate it without a rothbard's head exploding.

ideas exist in my mind alright, but all of the thoughts had by others that helped me come to them are not mine are they?

why yes, they are mine, and yours -- because they were voluntarily entered into the public.

whether someone spent paper dollars on them somewhere means nothing.

[nayjevin]

I could profit by selling your car and not giving you the money. How about them apples.

and you could do the same with my paintings -- but not until I gave you my painting.

Once any other human is given access to a copy of the painting (which is my decision, and responsibility), I lose my exclusive right to sell it.

It is my responsibility to also provide the best free market sale of my own artwork, so that others can only compete by copying and doing the same thing. The free market then boycots the copiers, and purchases mine -- this keeps me from inflating the price artificially.

if a musician decides to get a record deal and charge me $18 for 1/5,000,000th of their creative effort (and not let me buy only the song I want among their other filler trash), they are not doing the best job of selling their own product - and the free market ought take over and get that damn product out there. we shouldn't set up a government to make sure the elite musicians can corner the market.

I guess I can see myself being convinced otherwise here, but that's where I'm at.

That said, I personally would never try to resell copies of someone's art that I made myself without a personal deal with that artist (out of respect - not fear of law). I would distribute it for free if it's good art, though -- I do that all the time. If an artist doesn't like that, well, I contend that's not an artist, that's a resource hog.

[Bman]

the fraud occurs against the individual - not against the theoretical 'reputation', which no one human could ever calculate - nor define change of empirically.

What part of the individual did the fraud effect?

[Bman]

and you could do the same with my paintings -- but not until I gave you my painting.

What makes the painting yours?

[nayjevin]

What part of the individual did the fraud effect?

I meant 'a fraud' . wasn't talking about a specific.

[nayjevin]

What makes the painting yours?

1. a big white beard gave it to me?
2. it was a form in my head and went to my hand and brush?
3. i possess it?
4. i obtained the physical objects necessary for it's production (justly)?
5. it isn't mine, nor anyone elses?
6. it exists in a reality of which I am an integral part?

you tell me.

[nayjevin]

Well when someone does something to alter your reputation who should decide intent? It's not perfect, sure. But what would be the free market solution for this? Lets find out is not a viable answer.

I don't see how 'let's find out' is not a viable answer.

I might get fucked if there were not government, but I don't care, because government is not just, in any form, anywhere == that is, taking property and converting it to rule enforcement for all.

that is an entirely different matter than taking property and converting it to profit,

which is entirely different than taking property and converting it to enlightenment.

Although I may not see how the free market would solve it in the future -- I would be perfectly happy in trusting that it would, i.e. let's find out.

[Bman]

1. a big white beard gave it to me?
2. it was a form in my head and went to my hand and brush?
3. i possess it?
4. i obtained the physical objects necessary for it's production (justly)?
5. it isn't mine, nor anyone elses?
6. it exists in a reality of which I am an integral part?

you tell me.

So you can reason a form of property. So on a certain degree we can agree to disagree on what exactly we each call property. But, let me be objective to my belief. Lets say I go along with the idea that an idea cannot be property since it is not a scarce physical resource. How do you see the compensation for a creator of an idea. I mean were R&D is needed. Time and money are huge investments. And none of the crap well if ideas aren't protected the cost of R&D will go down. Becasue that's a load. A main cost of R&D is not paying for another patent. And even if it did go down it would be negligable.

I want a clear definitive description of how money is actually made for spending time on an invention.

None of the AIP books do this because every situation they bring up is mythical.

I want you to start from the aquired education to the ability to get physical materials, and all other tangibles to create something in the first place and describe how after all of what has been put in to the process, that a person is rewarded for the fruits of their labor, not to mention investment.

Does the current system have flaws? Yes. Can you actually demonstrate a working model of no IP? I'd rather doubt it. But go ahead. If you can clearly explain why I would invest time to create something be my guest.

[Bman]

i.e. let's find out.

I'm not a gambling man. Why would I leave something to chance if I don't have to. Things work better when you know what to expect.

i.e. Lets find out = there is an explanation.

Problem is you want me to play without giving the answer because you can't figure it out?

Sorry man. I try my hardest not to leave much to chance. The other side has an answer. You're going to have to get one before I could ever change opinion.

[nayjevin]

So you can reason a form of property. So on a certain degree we can agree to disagree on what exactly we each call property. But, let me be objective to my belief. Lets say I go along with the idea that an idea cannot be property since it is not a scarce physical resource. How do you see the compensation for a creator of an idea. I mean were R&D is needed. Time and money are huge investments. And none of the crap well if ideas aren't protected the cost of R&D will go down. Becasue that's a load. A main cost of R&D is not paying for another patent. And even if it did go down it would be negligable.

well, when I spend time mentally masturbating on threads such as these, I throw status quo out the window. your questions are not invalid given the current scenario, but entrenched is the idea that wealth is scarce.

Wealth would not be scarce if government didn't exist, in my opinion. Everyone would have plenty of time to do mostly whatever they want, with a bit of time pushing their own works to make sure there is still some income to retain savings -- instead of, oh shit i have to finish this invention and patent it to put food on the table.

Art for profit is inferior to art in personal reflection, IMO.

I just think that, absent of government, folks would create more of what they want themselves than try to create some product that a bunch of people will buy so they can get ahead in the rat race.

But I will answer this question somewhat directly:


I want a clear definitive description of how money is actually made for spending time on an invention.It isn't, because there is no demand for effort, unless that effort goes toward someone elses wishes.


I want you to start from the aquired education to the ability to get physical materials, and all other tangibles to create something in the first place and describe how after all of what has been put in to the process, that a person is rewarded for the fruits of their labor, not to mention investment.

Does the current system have flaws? Yes. Can you actually demonstrate a working model of no IP? I'd rather doubt it. But go ahead. If you can clearly explain why I would invest time to create something be my guest.I would hope that anything you would choose to create, you would do so in your own rational, enlightened, long term self interest.

ex: Newspaper ad: GET RICH SELLING EBOOKS THROUGH NEWSPAPER ADS

ex: Underground Newspaper: I found these articles interesting and have published them here -- I'm probably not the only one! Here's a free copy. If you like it, we can team up and build a garden together, since cooperation reduces effort per unit of food energy produced. If that works, we can coordinate to protect each others families from roving bandits!! ;)


Can you actually demonstrate a working model of no IP?I assume you mean, can I provide an example of a scenario which:
a) has no government protection of IP?
and
b) is just?

well, government = injustice, in my mind, so the rest is immaterial.

[Ninja Homer]

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. 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. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

- Thomas Jefferson

[Conza88]

lol. Same could be said about AIP people who support government sponsored research to create investment.

There are plenty of AIP socialists out there Conza. It's not a direct reflection but you know you are stretching. Exactly how all AIP arguments are. You take a test subject and compare it to another test subject with close resembalance. However, let out that all important part that simular does not mean same.

No. You are literally using the Labor theory of value, to justify intellectual "property".


*EDIT*

had to throw this in.

Typical AIP argument goes something like follows.

Nazis believed you needed to eat food to live. Therefore if you believe you need to eat to live you are a Nazi.
C'mon man. Seriously you can do better. But I've been greatly disappointed with your responses in the past, as you typically will pass off a subject to a book reference. Well. I've read a mighty bit at this point and can seriously say I do not agree. Say what you want about me I see no viable measure for not viewing Intellectual property not as property.

Nope, that's not it. Try again.


Face it we flat out disagree if something not physical can be property. And that would come greatly from how all of us views property. Why there are people who believe that even the physical cannot be called property.

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

Intellectual Property - Right or Myth?
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrdbqfRG94I)

[ItsTime]

Physical property is property. Intellectual "property".. not so much

once it goes into production it is no longer "intellectual property" it is physical property.

[Knightskye]

I don't think anyone read the original post, and instead just went into an argument about intellectual property...

[Xenophage]

I have. I understand the underlying principles. I just flat out disagree that something must be physical to be called property. I believe property to be that which is acquired through work.
There are scenario's were current laws could, should change. However, I will never support a complete dismissal of some form of IP, copyright.

+1

[FrankRep]

Considering we support property rights, I think we should practice what we preach.

By that, I mean recognizing someone's video on YouTube and the comments section as his/her property. Yes, there are important things to notify people of - HR 1207 for example - but people can be upset and label it spam (in more than one way).


I thought YouTube owned it. ;)

[Epic]

Ok and that car you are not using at the moment is mine now.

Aha, but The mental work that went into creating the wheel was not physical, but a car is physical. Hence, your point is invalid.

[Bman]

Aha, but The mental work that went into creating the wheel was not physical, but a car is physical. Hence, your point is invalid.

Not true. Energy has a mass.

Secondly my point is not invalid since something does not need to be considered physical for me to consider it property.
http://www.copyright.gov/

Point out particular place you see a problem with the law.

[Bman]

No. You are literally using the Labor theory of value, to justify intellectual "property".

Then justify your response based on the object s directly presented in my questions.



Nope, that's not it. Try again.


But it is your response. To take something simular that is not the same.


On another note. Why haven't the Mises or Rothbardians who believe in AIP developed a virtual online world to demonstrate their idea in practice?

If the idea works it could be presented so we cna all see the outcome of how exactly the system works and whether or not based on that information one could reevaluate whether or not the system would be viable.

My whole proplem is not your theory. It's whether or not the theory actually works. I theoretically could believe that a rocketship could saftly fly me around the sun. I however, will not jump into that rocket until I see that it actual works for real rather than in theory.

Good luck.

[nayjevin]

Not true. Energy has a mass.

Secondly my point is not invalid since something does not need to be considered physical for me to consider it property.
http://www.copyright.gov/

Point out particular place you see a problem with the law.

are duplicates of that property equal to the property itself, as in the realm of digital content?

[Conza88]

Then justify your response based on the object s directly presented in my questions.

What questions? You didn't have one. You made statements. And they were wrong.


But it is your response. To take something simular that is not the same.

Nope. It wasn't. :)


On another note. Why haven't the Mises or Rothbardians who believe in AIP developed a virtual online world to demonstrate their idea in practice?

If the idea works it could be presented so we cna all see the outcome of how exactly the system works and whether or not based on that information one could reevaluate whether or not the system would be viable.

:confused: Are you smoking crack?

"Why haven't the Mises or Rothbardians who believe in PDA's developed one to the demonstrate their idea in practice?"

:rolleyes:


My whole proplem is not your theory. It's whether or not the theory actually works. I theoretically could believe that a rocketship could saftly fly me around the sun. I however, will not jump into that rocket until I see that it actual works for real rather than in theory.

Good luck.

Noooo. Your problem is with the theory. You believe an idea is someone's property. And that it is theft, if someone else takes the idea and uses it. If someone over hears a song while walking down the street and they then go re-write a song with the same tune. You think it has been stolen.

Lockean homesteading rights. "I respect your right to the land (that you have already homesteaded), but I don't have to respect your dreams. (The man says he will eventually homestead the whole valley)."

Why do you believe in minarchy? Since when has that ever worked? :rolleyes:

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

Intellectual Property - Right or Myth?
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrdbqfRG94I)

[Conza88]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5061004/Woman-who-plays-classical-music-to-soothe-horses-told-to-get-licence.html


Woman who plays classical music to soothe horses told to get licence. Rosemary Greenway has been playing passages of opera and orchestral symphonies on the radio to the animals at her stables for more than 20 years, convinced that it helps soothe them.

While not all of her staff are quite as fond of the output of Classic FM as she is, Mrs Greenway, 62, kept the radio tuned to the station religiously while mucking out because of the apparent benefits.

But she has dropped the practice after being told that she must pay a £99 annual licence fee as it constitutes a "performance".

Because her stables, the Malthouse Equestrian Centre in Bushton, Wilts, employs more than two people it is treated in the same way as shops, bars and cafés which have to apply for a licence to play the radio.

She received a telephone call from the Performing Right Society – now officially known as PRS for Music – which was targeting stables as part of a drive to get commercial premises to pay for licences.

Rather than pay the fee, she now leaves the radio off except on Sundays when she is alone at the stable yard.

I actually use my radio for the benefit of the horses as Classic FM helps them relax," she said.

"The staff are not bothered whether they have the radio on or not, in fact they don't particularly like my music and turn if off when I'm not around."

Mrs Greenway, who keeps 11 horses at the stables, added: “You would have thought that playing music to your own horses was allowable but apparently not.

“Especially on windy days I try to play it - it gives them a nice quiet atmosphere, you can only exercise one horse at a time so it helps the others to stay calm.

“We are right next to the RAF Lyneham air base so it dulls the noise from the aircraft as well.”

A spokeswoman for the society said: "Of course, we don't ask people to pay for music played to animals.

"Mrs Greenway was only asked to pay for music played for staff, like any other workplace."

She added that the stables might qualify for a new reduced fee of just over £50 if there are fewer than four employees.

It is the latest in a series of seemingly unlikely places to be told that they constituted performing venues and were liable for a licence if they played the radio.

Charity shops run by the mental health group Mind were told to switch off their radios last year while the organisation held discussions with the society after discovering that it was liable for licence payments.

Chris Doran, senior executive at the British horse Society, said that the organisation had received several calls from stables reporting calls from the society.

"I think they are an easy target because these people are working outside all the time, they are more likely to put the radio on while mucking out or feeding," she said.

She added that because of the "abrupt" tone of some of the calls many stable owners suspected initially that it was a hoax call.

Last year a study at Belfast Zoo found evidence that playing Elgar, Puccini and Beethoven to elephants helped reduce stress related behaviours such as swaying, pacing and tossing their trunks.

An American harpist reported that her music helped calm sick digs at a Florida vet's clinic and one online retailer sells specially selected CDs for cats.

TOO BAD Rosemary, the STATE is just protecting 'property rights'... :rolleyes: !!!!

[Xenophage]

Conza, if you were a songwriter you'd have a very different idea of what is and is not property.

You wouldn't ever be a songwriter though, or at least not a good one, because you couldn't possibly give a shit about songwriting if you believed that once you wrote your song it belonged collectively to the entire human race and you no longer had any personal attachments to it.

[Truth Warrior]

Conza, if you were a songwriter you'd have a very different idea of what is and is not property.

You wouldn't ever be a songwriter though, or at least not a good one, because you couldn't possibly give a shit about songwriting if you believed that once you wrote your song it belonged collectively to the entire human race and you no longer had any personal attachments to it.

The Philosophy of Ownership (http://americanrevival.org/read/books/ownership.pdf)
Robert LeFevre

[Xenophage]

I've read many other such arguments TW. I don't find his position to really be at odds with my own.

He explains the conditional sale of recordings as the following sort of contract: I will trade you this property, but only if you agree to use it in a particular manner.

For most practical things it makes no sense to engage in such a contractual arrangement at the time of sale. Such contracts are not necessary, but they are perfectly moral. For art, it usually makes sense.

Beyond that, however, is the question: do you own the idea you create, by simple virtue of having created it?

For Conza, no ideas are created. All of his ideas are beamed to him from beyond the fifth dimension, probably from Murray Rothbard's dog's ghost, who in turn gets them from Jesus who got them from Super Jesus and so on...

I do believe infinite regression is a logical fallacy.

[Truth Warrior]

I've read many other such arguments TW. I don't find his position to really be at odds with my own.

He explains the conditional sale of recordings as the following sort of contract: I will trade you this property, but only if you agree to use it in a particular manner.

For most practical things it makes no sense to engage in such a contractual arrangement at the time of sale. Such contracts are not necessary, but they are perfectly moral. For art, it usually makes sense.

Beyond that, however, is the question: do you own the idea you create, by simple virtue of having created it?

For Conza, no ideas are created. All of his ideas are beamed to him from beyond the fifth dimension, probably from Murray Rothbard's dog's ghost, who in turn gets them from Jesus who got them from Super Jesus and so on. Ownership is responsibility, authority and control. Without those you're toast. ;) :D That USUALLY precludes "public", keep it private, or NOT at all. :)

[nayjevin]

Conza, if you were a songwriter you'd have a very different idea of what is and is not property.

You wouldn't ever be a songwriter though, or at least not a good one, because you couldn't possibly give a shit about songwriting if you believed that once you wrote your song it belonged collectively to the entire human race and you no longer had any personal attachments to it.

I'm a songwriter dood, and a guitarist, and a painter, and a drawer, and a video producer, and I think out loud.

I want everyone to hear. I don't need paper dollars to feel it was worth it to do the art in the first place.

If I was the last guy on earth I'd be creating just the same - as it helps me learn myself.

Self interest = community interest, when rational and enlightened.

[nayjevin]

Ownership is responsibility, authority and control.

+1

if you claim ownership of something you no longer possess - you must institute an immoral band of thugs (gov't) to protect that claim.

liberty is damned!

[free.alive]

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.

[Xenophage]

Ownership is responsibility, authority and control. Without those you're toast. ;) :D That USUALLY precludes "public", keep it private, or NOT at all. :)

I do agree with this. Very good point.

If I choose to make mp3's available, I do so knowing that they will be downloaded and used by all sorts of people (if they're any good). I do this all the time.

Voluntary relinquishment of control. If I really had a problem with it I wouldn't do it.

[Xenophage]

I'm a songwriter dood, and a guitarist, and a painter, and a drawer, and a video producer, and I think out loud.

I want everyone to hear. I don't need paper dollars to feel it was worth it to do the art in the first place.

If I was the last guy on earth I'd be creating just the same - as it helps me learn myself.

Self interest = community interest, when rational and enlightened.

I'm not even talking about paper dollars. Besides, what if they were gold dollars?

How would you like it if someone took a song you wrote, inserted the words "Vote for Obama," "Hope for America," and "Change you can believe in" on every chorus and then redistributed it or used it in a commercial about how great welfare programs are?

You wouldn't feel like an injustice had been committed?

Finally, self interest does not = community interest. Community interest = people's self interest. Capeesh?

[free.alive]

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. 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. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

- Thomas Jefferson


This is great!

[Bman]

I'm a songwriter dood, and a guitarist, and a painter, and a drawer, and a video producer, and I think out loud.

I want everyone to hear. I don't need paper dollars to feel it was worth it to do the art in the first place.

If I was the last guy on earth I'd be creating just the same - as it helps me learn myself.

Self interest = community interest, when rational and enlightened.

I do the same Nay. Sometimes I do things for money. Some times I do them for free. But it is my choice.

My problem is that I know what went into my creative process. I was just not born able to do the things I can achieve now. It took lots of hard work. Lots of education. The skills and talents, not to mention equipment I need to do what I do is a hefty investment.

My problem with your idea of AIP is that all of that means nothing. In otherwords the fruits of my labor and investment under your philosophy are not mine. Which would then make them worthless, at least to me.

And the fundamental reason is that a was born to a poor family. I've worked hard to aquire what I have and none of it was for free. In your system a child born to a rich family that owned limitless resources would take that which I have created and make an enormous profit off of it and I could do nothing about it. So all of my hard work means nothing because I just cannot afford to produce the item.

That's the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard. And yeah you'll say I got it wrong.

Do I? really? How do you see it playing out? Are resourses distributed evenly? If you create something are you given instant access to the ability to create the object for mass production so can compete in the market place?

If you want to protect physical objects. You have to protect the creative process. Otherwise it does not work. And again you will say I am most certainly wrong. Well I've read your damn books and they do not answer these quetions? You may think they do but they don't.

[Knightskye]

I thought YouTube owned it. ;)

I was trying to make a libertarian argument against spamming comment sections. ;)

[AutoDas]

It took lots of hard work. Lots of education. The skills and talents, not to mention equipment I need to do what I do is a hefty

um Labor Theory of Value comrade?

[nayjevin]

I do the same Nay. Sometimes I do things for money. Some times I do them for free. But it is my choice.

My problem is that I know what went into my creative process. I was just not born able to do the things I can achieve now. It took lots of hard work. Lots of education. The skills and talents, not to mention equipment I need to do what I do is a hefty investment.

My problem with your idea of AIP is that all of that means nothing. In otherwords the fruits of my labor and investment under your philosophy are not mine. Which would then make them worthless, at least to me.

And the fundamental reason is that a was born to a poor family. I've worked hard to aquire what I have and none of it was for free. In your system a child born to a rich family that owned limitless resources would take that which I have created and make an enormous profit off of it and I could do nothing about it. So all of my hard work means nothing because I just cannot afford to produce the item.

That's the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard. And yeah you'll say I got it wrong.

Do I? really? How do you see it playing out? Are resourses distributed evenly? If you create something are you given instant access to the ability to create the object for mass production so can compete in the market place?

If you want to protect physical objects. You have to protect the creative process. Otherwise it does not work. And again you will say I am most certainly wrong. Well I've read your damn books and they do not answer these quetions? You may think they do but they don't.

gotta go to work, sorry, but I'll say this:

the work you do to become a good artist is valuable intrinsically TO YOU. it has ZERO value to anyone else. Trade value only exists when you are capable of producing art that someone wants to purchase.

Effort has no value unless it is for someone else's interests. Learning to be an artists is in your own interest, no one elses. No one owes you for what you chose to learn.

more to come

[Xenophage]

um Labor Theory of Value comrade?

I've heard this over and over again now.

This is not the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value applies to ECONOMIC value, and he is not talking about economic value.

He hasn't said how much his work should trade for. He's simply saying that he owns his work, because he produced it.

Whatever his work is worth to him is a matter of subjective opinion. Likewise for any consumer who would want to trade value for value.

The anti-IP crowd here has basically said that he doesn't own the product of his creative investment.

[Bman]

I've heard this over and over again now.

This is not the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value applies to ECONOMIC value, and he is not talking about economic value.

He hasn't said how much his work should trade for. He's simply saying that he owns his work, because he produced it.

Whatever his work is worth to him is a matter of subjective opinion. Likewise for any consumer who would want to trade value for value.

The anti-IP crowd here has basically said that he doesn't own the product of his creative investment.

Thanks Xeno.

I do have a situation for you AIP people. I will get to it as soon as I have more time to type it all out.

[Bman]

gotta go to work, sorry, but I'll say this:

the work you do to become a good artist is valuable intrinsically TO YOU. it has ZERO value to anyone else. Trade value only exists when you are capable of producing art that someone wants to purchase.

Effort has no value unless it is for someone else's interests. Learning to be an artists is in your own interest, no one elses. No one owes you for what you chose to learn.

more to come

Yes. I certainly cannot charge someone for my education. Nor would I. But that which I am able to produce because of that education will have a price if you want it. Otherwise I'll just keep it.

[AutoDas]

I've heard this over and over again now.

This is not the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value applies to ECONOMIC value, and he is not talking about economic value.

He hasn't said how much his work should trade for. He's simply saying that he owns his work, because he produced it.

Whatever his work is worth to him is a matter of subjective opinion. Likewise for any consumer who would want to trade value for value.

The anti-IP crowd here has basically said that he doesn't own the product of his creative investment.

No, he's trying to make copyright and patent economic issues. He is saying he has a right to make a profit off his idea even if he fails in the free market and someone else succeeds with his idea. We are all workers paid on our marginal utility and not our labor of value. I don't know where you get this malarkey that libertarians think ideas belong to the collective. Patents and copyrights interfere with private property rights. It's not harming anyone and no one entered a contract when they "stole" an idea.

[Conza88]

Conza, if you were a songwriter you'd have a very different idea of what is and is not property.

No I wouldn't.


You wouldn't ever be a songwriter though, or at least not a good one, because you couldn't possibly give a shit about songwriting if you believed that once you wrote your song it belonged collectively to the entire human race and you no longer had any personal attachments to it.

If the idea isn't property, it's not owned at all. It's neither collectively nor individually owned.

:D

[Bman]

If the idea isn't property, it's not owned at all. It's neither collectively nor individually owned.

Music is an idea. A song is creation made from the idea of music.

Property is an idea. Ownership is a creation made from the idea of property.

It's all an idea. It's all what we make of it.

See you want to call physical resources property because they are rare. There's only so much of it, and only one person can use it at a time, typically.

But good ideas are rare. And only one person has them at a time, typically.

You know as well as I do that ideas can have value. So the problem is that if something has value how should the value be attributed and to whom. Everything is an idea. Things get a little more particular after that. You saying you own anything is an idea. There's no truth to it what so ever. From here you and me just have a difference of opinion.

I can't make you understand the ownership I feel when I write a piece of music. And sure we could say well even though I feel that way it can't be owned. But this would rely heavily on how we define ownership. There's no defining attribute to ownership that says something has to be physical. It's the picture you want to paint, but it doesn't mean anything.

I don't know what to tell you. I feel ownership to certain ideas. Just as you. I just have a different opinion on what we can classify as being owned.

[Conza88]

Music is an idea. A song is creation made from the idea of music.

Property is an idea. Ownership is a creation made from the idea of property.

It's all an idea. It's all what we make of it.

See you want to call physical resources property because they are rare. There's only so much of it, and only one person can use it at a time, typically.

But good ideas are rare. And only one person has them at a time, typically.

You know as well as I do that ideas can have value. So the problem is that if something has value how should the value be attributed and to whom. Everything is an idea. Things get a little more particular after that. You saying you own anything is an idea. There's no truth to it what so ever. From here you and me just have a difference of opinion.

I can't make you understand the ownership I feel when I write a piece of music. And sure we could say well even though I feel that way it can't be owned. But this would rely heavily on how we define ownership. There's no defining attribute to ownership that says something has to be physical. It's the picture you want to paint, but it doesn't mean anything.

I don't know what to tell you. I feel ownership to certain ideas. Just as you. I just have a different opinion on what we can classify as being owned.

Physical resources - deal with the Law of Scarcity. An idea doesn't.

Marginal Utility - do you know anything about it? - In regards to your: "only one person can use it at a time, typically." Comment, it doesn't really appear so.

Workers in a factory, there is a machine. (Capital) It is used to work out the productivity of each added persons labor, diminishing law of marginal utility.

"To be able to destroy a thing is to truly own a thing." - Frank Herbert

You can't smash an idea. You can't eat it. Once information has been seen by more than one person, it's a non-scarce resource. You can't destroy it. Copying it deprives no current owner of it of a damned thing. The only thing "at risk" is a boon granted by government / state action.

Until I actually take something from you, you shouldn't have any claim on me. Not that I have any illusion that arbitration will likely tend to decide in the other direction for decades after the government interference goes away.

And copying your bit of information, whatever it is, I haven't intruded on your dwelling, broken into anything of his, or otherwise removed anything. The most that could be claimed is if I violated an attachment contract (EULA type).

[nayjevin]

You know as well as I do that ideas can have value. So the problem is that if something has value how should the value be attributed and to whom.

You don't 'attribute' value. Value is defined when two people agree to make a transaction - and only then.

It seems you propose instituting a set of rules that would define value - which would require instituting a government to enforce - which is inherently oppressive, and contrary to liberty.

[nayjevin]

I'm not even talking about paper dollars. Besides, what if they were gold dollars?

Same thing. Gold's value is inflated -- I nave no use for it, but to brag about how pretty it is - or trade it to someone else who can use it or perceives it as valuable. The real point though is that the effort to produce the music does not have a trade value - only your ability to get it into someone's ears has value. The delivery mechanism is purchased - i.e. the CD, the radio, etc. The free market has shown us that many people will choose limewire or whatever because it's a better delivery mechanism -- not because the people who created the songs put more effort into them there.


How would you like it if someone took a song you wrote, inserted the words "Vote for Obama," "Hope for America," and "Change you can believe in" on every chorus and then redistributed it or used it in a commercial about how great welfare programs are?

I would not like it, but it would be immoral for me to call on an elite squad of gun toters to enforce my dislike of it.

Here are the actions I can take:

Email the person who made the song. Tell them I don't approve (freedom's cease and desist)

If the group accepts, and chooses a new song, do nothing, or build a website, write a letter to the editor, etc. saying what happened, that you appreciate the organization's commitment to liberty.

If the group does not accept, spread the word far and wide that this organization is the antithesis of liberty.

In the free market, there would be a mechanism in place (because there would be a demand) to call out folks who were IMMORAL in regards to respect of the authors of artwork - and likely all you would have to do is summarize the issue on the website -- and the free market would put boycott pressure on that organization.

If we are to accept personal responsibility, we must stop thinking 'what is lawful' and start thinking 'how do we protect liberty and act morally at the same time'


Finally, self interest does not = community interest. Community interest = people's self interest. Capeesh?

I did not state it well.

A society in which all individuals follow their bliss -- where each is free to pursue that which fulfills them in their own enlightened, long term self interest - is a society harmonious.

Ever been in a drum circle dude?

[nayjevin]

He hasn't said how much his work should trade for. He's simply saying that he owns his work, because he produced it.

Whatever his work is worth to him is a matter of subjective opinion. Likewise for any consumer who would want to trade value for value.

The anti-IP crowd here has basically said that he doesn't own the product of his creative investment.

Yes - I own my work - until someone else sees it and has the ability to use it or reproduce it. That is where the transaction takes place.

If I have a car - the transaction takes place with a sale of that physical item. Anyone can walk up to the car, look at it's running lights, and get an idea to use the concept elsewhere. They would have to produce a new physical object, though - but that's good! that's progress.

If I have a book - I can sell it to someone -- and someone can make copies of it! They are increasing the wealth of the world by doing so.

It seems you would argue that, if I sell a song, I need to pay royalties to:

The manufacturer of the guitar, strings, microphone, recording equipment, the inventor of the mp3 format, anyone who ever taught me anything about a guitar.... etc etc

The glove doesn't fit!

[nayjevin]

Yes. I certainly cannot charge someone for my education. Nor would I. But that which I am able to produce because of that education will have a price if you want it. Otherwise I'll just keep it.

or the free market will steal it from you, if it has value to them, because you have failed to provide an adequate delivery system.

[nayjevin]

my backup vocalist needs to pay me royalties. she stole my lyrics!

[Bman]

Physical resources - deal with the Law of Scarcity. An idea doesn't.

Marginal Utility - do you know anything about it? - In regards to your: "only one person can use it at a time, typically." Comment, it doesn't really appear so.

Workers in a factory, there is a machine. (Capital) It is used to work out the productivity of each added persons labor, diminishing law of marginal utility.

"To be able to destroy a thing is to truly own a thing." - Frank Herbert

You can't smash an idea. You can't eat it. Once information has been seen by more than one person, it's a non-scarce resource. You can't destroy it. Copying it deprives no current owner of it of a damned thing. The only thing "at risk" is a boon granted by government / state action.

Until I actually take something from you, you shouldn't have any claim on me. Not that I have any illusion that arbitration will likely tend to decide in the other direction for decades after the government interference goes away.

And copying your bit of information, whatever it is, I haven't intruded on your dwelling, broken into anything of his, or otherwise removed anything. The most that could be claimed is if I violated an attachment contract (EULA type).

Law of scarcity does not dictate the law of ownership. We do.

[Bman]

or the free market will steal it from you, if it has value to them, because you have failed to provide an adequate delivery system.

Oh so you admit theft has been comitted! Thanks.

[Bman]

my backup vocalist needs to pay me royalties. she stole my lyrics!

Way to twist. I'm sure you can see your bottom from where your looking.

[nayjevin]

You know as well as I do that ideas can have value. So the problem is that if something has value how should the value be attributed and to whom. Everything is an idea. Things get a little more particular after that. You saying you own anything is an idea. There's no truth to it what so ever. From here you and me just have a difference of opinion.

No - ownership is a real world occurrence - not man made. It is defined by truthwarrior above.


I can't make you understand the ownership I feel when I write a piece of music.

I understand it - because I feel it too. It's greed, and I am constantly struggling to overcome it.

Now, you own your talent for sure, and that is something to be proud of. Others will appreciate it and make sure you don't die of starvation so you can keep using it. But once you enter the result of your talent into the public domain - you no longer have ownership of it, by definition.


And sure we could say well even though I feel that way it can't be owned. But this would rely heavily on how we define ownership. There's no defining attribute to ownership that says something has to be physical. It's the picture you want to paint, but it doesn't mean anything.

No, ownership HAS NO MEANING if it is not defined as TruthWarrior did above:


Ownership is responsibility, authority and control.

If you cannot be responsible for it (someone else using it in a video), you don't have authority over it (can't define what brand of CD player it's used in) and don't have control over it (you don't even possess the copy of the mp3 anymore!) you do not have ownership - therefore you do not have the ability, much less a government given right - to make decisions on it.

All you can do is tell the world how you think it should be used - and use your purchasing power and ability to disseminate ideas to create boycott pressure on those who you feel use it immorally.


I don't know what to tell you.

Tell me we're still friends :)

[nayjevin]

Oh so you admit theft has been comitted! Thanks.

'steal'

that's a twist

[nayjevin]

Here is a real world working model:

http://www.strike-the-root.com/republish.html


If you're a webmaster and you liked the column you just read, feel free to link to it. That's how the Web works: You link to me and I link to you. STR pays for many, if not most, of the columns that are published here. These columns are the property of STR and the author, and re-publishing them on your site without permission from both is theft. If you do so, your site will be permanently shunned; STR will never link to anything on your site, and in the future may include the name of your site on a list of sites that have stolen columns from STR.The author states his opinion that it is theft only without permission.

I maintain that it is 'theft' only when a government declares it so - in the absence of government, we can call it theft, but we only have our ability to shun to protect ourselves. That's okay -- there are sacrifices to be made if we are to accept liberty.

[Bman]

'steal'

that's a twist

Haha.

When I think of property I think of it as displayed by the Philosophy of Liberty.

"Property is the fruit of your labor. The product of your time, energy, and talents"

By such a standard. A song I write is my property.

[Roxi]

i would like to point out that many music artists upload their own music to limewire so people can download it... especially non-mainstream artists, and local bands.

I can't say i have any experience with really popular mainstream artists. but as a band promoter many of my clients wanted at least a few of their songs "put out there" so people could hear a few songs and maybe go out and buy the entire album. I have heard through the business wire that many mainstream artists do this as well but I can't verify or prove that.

I do know that if I released an album, i would put some of my stuff out there, if only for the reason that someone might download it and spread word of mouth that my stuff was good.

[Conza88]

Law of scarcity does not dictate the law of ownership. We do.

And what is your law of ownership?

What's your definition of property?

:rolleyes:


Physical resources - deal with the Law of Scarcity. An idea doesn't.

"To be able to destroy a thing is to truly own a thing." - Frank Herbert

You can't smash an idea. You can't eat it. Once information has been seen by more than one person, it's a non-scarce resource. You can't destroy it. Copying it deprives no current owner of it of a damned thing. The only thing "at risk" is a boon granted by government / state action.

Until I actually take something from you, you shouldn't have any claim on me. Not that I have any illusion that arbitration will likely tend to decide in the other direction for decades after the government interference goes away.

And copying your bit of information, whatever it is, I haven't intruded on your dwelling, broken into anything of his, or otherwise removed anything. The most that could be claimed is if I violated an attachment contract (EULA type).

[nayjevin]

Haha.

When I think of property I think of it as displayed by the Philosophy of Liberty.

"Property is the fruit of your labor. The product of your time, energy, and talents"

By such a standard. A song I write is my property.

But the fruit is not the tree, nor the air, nor the sunshine. It is the fruit. If there were a cloning machine, would eating the second fruit make the first fruit disappear?

Note 'the product' of your time, energy, and talents -- not the time, energy, and talents themselves.

The song is yours -- but any recording of it is not, by any societal standard that can morally be guarded by men.

[nayjevin]

notice people say, 'who originally sang that?' when they hear a cover --- they don't say 'who's song is this' unless they are talking about the current performer.

[nayjevin]

IFor Conza, no ideas are created. All of his ideas are beamed to him from beyond the fifth dimension, probably from Murray Rothbard's dog's ghost, who in turn gets them from Jesus who got them from Super Jesus and so on...

i don't care who ya are that's funny right there :D

[nayjevin]

Do I own my fart when you smell it?

[Bman]

And what is your law of ownership?

What's your definition of property?

:rolleyes:

The Philosophy of Liberty.

"Property is the fruit of your labor. The product of your time, energy, and talents"

[Bman]

But the fruit is not the tree, nor the air, nor the sunshine. It is the fruit. If there were a cloning machine, would eating the second fruit make the first fruit disappear?

Note 'the product' of your time, energy, and talents -- not the time, energy, and talents themselves.

The song is yours -- but any recording of it is not, by any societal standard that can morally be guarded by men.

You're really stretching to try and make your point.

The whole premise of your argument is that you have decided that only a physical object can be called property. I reject this notion. Not becasue I am right and you are wrong. But because there is no right or wrong. And from my perspective trying to make money off what someone else has done without an agreement is wrong. Your whole idea of idea is just too damn simplistic for myself.

[danberkeley]

bman, read these:

AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY by Stephan Kinsella
http://mises.org/books/against.pdf

The Case Against Intellectual Property by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine
http://www.dklevine.com/papers/intellectual.pdf

[Bman]

bman, read these:

AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY by Stephan Kinsella
http://mises.org/books/against.pdf

The Case Against Intellectual Property by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine
http://www.dklevine.com/papers/intellectual.pdf

Done and done. It just doesn't work for me. I mean it is a compeling argument. But it's based on perception and view. One that I do not share. Just because a copy can be made doesn't give a person rights to a copy.

[danberkeley]

Done and done. It just doesn't work for me. I mean it is a compeling argument. But it's based on perception and view. One that I do not share.

*blank stare* So it doesn't work for you because you do not share the same perception and view? Btw, what's that perception and view that you do not share?



Just because a copy can be made doesn't give a person rights to a copy.
So? What's that got to do with anything? Who said it DID give a person the right to copy? Please expand.

I just read your other posts and most of the posts don't follow, are vague, are ambiguous, and/or are unclear.

Your argument boils down to, "I do not agree with you, therefore, you are wrong". We could give you Webster's definition for "theft" and, if you didn't agree with that definition, we would be wrong. lol

[Conza88]

For Conza, no ideas are created. All of his ideas are beamed to him from beyond the fifth dimension, probably from Murray Rothbard's dog's ghost, who in turn gets them from Jesus who got them from Super Jesus and so on...

I do believe infinite regression is a logical fallacy.

Yes it is. Which is why I avoid it, unlike you just did. ;)


The Philosophy of Liberty.

"Property is the fruit of your labor. The product of your time, energy, and talents"

Yeah I know, and Lockean Homesteading rights don't apply to I"P".

Watch, the, fcken, video.. it addresses your fallacies, 15min in.

You are a Libertarian creationist.

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

[danberkeley]

Other people may own their perception of you, but you own your reputation. No one else does.

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reputation


Main Entry: rep·u·ta·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌre-pyə-ˈtā-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English reputacion, from Anglo-French, from Latin reputation-, reputatio consideration, from reputare
Date: 14th century
1 a: overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general b: recognition by other people of some characteristic or ability <has the reputation of being clever>
2: a place in public esteem or regard : good name <trying to protect his reputation>
— rep·u·ta·tion·al \-shnəl, -shə-nəl\ adjective


Guess we will have to live with the fact that if I create something to sell it. Not a complete sentance.


If someone takes that creation and tries to sell it that I will use the law to collect on it.

How does that follow from your previous sentance?


.... Lets say I go along with the idea that an idea cannot be property since it is not a scarce physical resource. How do you see the compensation for a creator of an idea. I mean w[h]ere R&D is needed. Time and money are huge investments. And none of the crap well if ideas aren't protected the cost of R&D will go down. Becasue that's a load. A main cost of R&D is not paying for another patent. And even if it did go down it would be negligable.

Unintelligible.



I want a clear definitive description of how money is actually made for spending time on an invention.

Someone would pay you for developing the invention.


I want you to start from the aquired education to the ability to get physical materials, and all other tangibles to create something in the first place and describe how after all of what has been put in to the process, that a person is rewarded for the fruits of their labor, not to mention investment.

Go read a book on how prices are determined. (spoiler: prices are determined by subjective value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value) and not by the number of hours worked)


... Can you actually demonstrate a working model of no IP? ...

What does it mean for a "model of no IP" to work?


+1

Makes sense, Randtard. :D I kid. I kid.



On another note. Why haven't the Mises or Rothbardians who believe in AIP developed a virtual online world to demonstrate their idea in practice?

B'cuz dey haz died?


My whole proplem is not your theory. It's whether or not the theory actually works.

What does it mean for a "theory to work"?


Conza, if you were a songwriter you'd have a very different idea of what is and is not property.

Proven false.


You wouldn't ever be a songwriter though, or at least not a good one, because you couldn't possibly give a shit about songwriting if you believed that once you wrote your song it belonged collectively to the entire human race and you no longer had any personal attachments to it.

You're missing the point. The song isn't property. But the instruments used to play the song are property. The paper on which a physical representation of the song is written is property.


I've read many other such arguments TW. I don't find his position to really be at odds with my own.

He explains the conditional sale of recordings as the following sort of contract: I will trade you this property, but only if you agree to use it in a particular manner.

For most practical things it makes no sense to engage in such a contractual arrangement at the time of sale. Such contracts are not necessary, but they are perfectly moral. For art, it usually makes sense.

Why arn't such contracts necessary?


Beyond that, however, is the question: do you own the idea you create, by simple virtue of having created it?

You don't. But you can choose to not tell the idea to anyone.


For Conza, no ideas are created. All of his ideas are beamed to him from beyond the fifth dimension, probably from Murray Rothbard's dog's ghost, who in turn gets them from Jesus who got them from Super Jesus and so on...

Rothbard wasn't a meestical.


Sometimes I do things for money. Some times I do them for free.

Everything has a cost.


My problem is that I know what went into my creative process. I was just not born able to do the things I can achieve now. It took lots of hard work. Lots of education. The skills and talents, not to mention equipment I need to do what I do is a hefty investment.

Here's a cookie. Btw, if I spend 2 years builing a table, does society owe me something?


My problem with your idea of AIP is that all of that means nothing. In otherwords the fruits of my labor and investment under your philosophy are not mine. Which would then make them worthless, at least to me.

Sure. Do you want protectionism to ensure you make a profit? When Edison invented the light bulb (for the sake of arguement, say he did), he owned the physical lightbulb. However, he didnt own all the glass that could be used to make ligtbulbs.


And the fundamental reason is that a was born to a poor family. I've worked hard to aquire what I have and none of it was for free. In your system a child born to a rich family that owned limitless resources would take that which I have created and make an enormous profit off of it and I could do nothing about it. So all of my hard work means nothing because I just cannot afford to produce the item.

Resources are scarce.


Are resourses distributed evenly? If you create something are you given instant access to the ability to create the object for mass production so can compete in the market place?

You cant have conficting rights. If you invent the cotton gin, under IP, I wouldnt be able to use MY wood and MY metal to make a cotton gin. Instead, YOU would have de facto rights to MY wood and MY metal for the purposes of making a cotton gin.



He hasn't said how much his work should trade for. He's simply saying that he owns his work, because he produced it.

He is also saying is that since he invented something, HE has rights to MY property for the purpose of making said invetion. In other words, if HE invents the cotton gin, I can use MY property to make a cotton gin.


The anti-IP crowd here has basically said that he doesn't own the product of his creative investment.

What's "creative investment"?


Yes. I certainly cannot charge someone for my education. ...

What does it mean to "charge someone for [your] education"?



Property is an idea. Ownership is a creation made from the idea of property.

Sure. But ideas are not literately property.


It's all an idea. It's all what we make of it.

You are wrong because I disagree with you. (ha! i'm using your logic against you)


But good ideas are rare. And only one person has them at a time, typically.

But they arent scarce. Scarce doesnt not equal rare.


You know as well as I do that ideas can have value.

Figuratively, they do.


So the problem is that if something has value how should the value be attributed and to whom. Everything is an idea. Things get a little more particular after that. You saying you own anything is an idea. There's no truth to it what so ever. From here you and me just have a difference of opinion.

There's no truth to your statement whatsoever.



I can't make you understand the ownership I feel when I write a piece of music.

Oh! So ownership is based on feelings now?
I'm sure GM feels really bad when it loses money. Maybe we should guarantee it a profit. :rolleyes:


... I just have a different opinion on what we can classify as being owned.

That's a matter of opinion. :rolleyes:


Law of scarcity does not dictate the law of ownership. We do.

What if WE disagree?


The Philosophy of Liberty.

"Property is the fruit of your labor. The product of your time, energy, and talents"

If you produce an orange THEN sell it, does that orange continue to be property? Using your logic, it wouldnt because the new posesor did produce it.


The whole premise of your argument is that you have decided that only a physical object can be called property. I reject this notion. Not becasue I am right and you are wrong. But because there is no right or wrong.

Property cannot "only be a physical object" because there is no right or wrong?


And from my perspective trying to make money off what someone else has done without an agreement is wrong. Your whole idea of idea is just too damn simplistic for myself.

/facepalm. You: "there is no right or wrong".


Complete matter of opinion. And yes I've done the reading. It's a classifycation process. It's just a well kinown fact that the current classifycation clearly call Intellectual property to be protected property and I agree with that idea. Maybe not all of the laws surrounding it. However, the case against IP does not take into account the time and effort (ones labor) required to achieve IP. They seemingly believe people such as Mozart simply came out of the womb as a virtuoso.

Your thinking is all over the place.


Nor do they take into account that physical production and mental production are still production.

What exactly is "mental production"?


Theres a reason I'm not an anarcho-capitolist and it is becasue I see certain roles for government. Protecting property physical, and intellectual is one of those areas I see need.

So what you are saying that anacrho-capitalism doesnt protect property? You are wrong. And even if ti were true, the state fails to protect property too, thereby defeating the purpose of having the state.


Has a true free market supporter ever considered that government was the free market solution to some problems with physical and intellectual property?

What the hell are you talking about? The state, by definition, is a violator of rights.


...
There are scenario's were current laws could, should change.

Unintelligible


However, I will never support a complete dismissal of some form of IP, copyright.

Of course not. A business that is dependent on protectionism would never support the abolition of protectionism.

[Bman]

Dan,

First let me shake your hand for being Mister Obvious. I am not a linguist. Or an orator with profound skills. But, thanks anyway. I may have forgotten without your reminder.





Resources are scarce.


Yes they are. And your system does not work if resources are the only thing that can be owned.

I had asked about a virtual world. Kind of an out in left field sort of thought, huh. Well I have played video games that have had markets were IP did not exist. You'll never guess what happened. Prices did not go down. They went up. You know why? Hoarding. If resourses are the only thing of true value. They will all be owned controlled and manipulated. Just like I personally did in the game. Now I know right away you'll have to assume that there would be important parts in the game missing to make it irrelevant.

However, so is this argument in the first place.

You want to know why? Well I'm going to tell you anyway. The most fundamental understanding of property is that something is someones and if you take it, touch or use it you will get beat up.

It seems to me that your just being a crybaby because something is of value and you cannot have it for free. Lets face it if it didn't have value you wouldn't want it. There are so many other problems I have with your idea that my head is about ready to explode.

Simple fact. Property is whatever we call it. You get a say just like I do. How does it feel to be losing.

[danberkeley]

Yes they are. And your system does not work if resources are the only thing that can be owned.

What do you mean by that? Btw, humans are property too.



I had asked about a virtual world. Kind of an out in left field sort of thought, huh. Well I have played video games that have had markets were IP did not exist. You'll never guess what happened. Prices did not go down. They went up.

Price of what? Please clarify.


You know why? Hoarding. If resourses are the only thing of true value. They will all be owned controlled and manipulated. Just like I personally did in the game. Now I know right away you'll have to assume that there would be important parts in the game missing to make it irrelevant.

IP laws prevent hoarding of resources?




You want to know why? Well I'm going to tell you anyway. The most fundamental understanding of property is that something is someones and if you take it, touch or use it you will get beat up.

I suppose that's true if you are 5 years old.


It seems to me that your just being a crybaby because something is of value and you cannot have it for free. Lets face it if it didn't have value you wouldn't want it.
The property I own has value to me. That is one reason why I do not support IP laws that would allow a patent holder to prevent me from using my property as I see fit.


There are so many other problems I have with your idea that my head is about ready to explode.
Good. Maybe it'll do away with all the useless parts of your brain.



Simple fact. Property is whatever we call it. You get a say just like I do. How does it feel to be losing.

I disagree with you, therefore, you are wrong. :p :D

[Bman]

Price of what? Please clarify.


Resources poindexter.



IP laws prevent hoarding of resources?

Not exaclty. But it prevents resources from being more than the product.





I suppose that's true if you are 5 years old.

No that's true no matter how old you are and that is the problem with talking to you. You are a tard.


So I understand you don't like being creative. You'd prefer to take somone elses idea. So here let me give you one. And this one is IP free.

Go run around in traffic.:p

[nayjevin]

But because there is no right or wrong.

Bman, I think I like you alot, but I fear you're going down the wrong path.

This is a clear fallacy that has been the cornerstone of the worst evils this world has ever seen.

Watch your own rationalizations - it is lying to the self.

[nayjevin]

Simple fact. Property is whatever we call it. You get a say just like I do. How does it feel to be losing.

Do you truly believe that nothing is definable?

What human effort has meaning in such a case?

[nayjevin]

It seems to me that your just being a crybaby because something is of value and you cannot have it for free.The amount of money I can spend on art is fixed. If all art was free, I would have unlimited access.

How would this hurt the world? Why do you want to hurt the world, Bman? :)


So I understand you don't like being creative. You'd prefer to take somone elses idea.

Please explain to me how it is possible to do anything in this world without using someone else's idea.

Watch Milton Friedman's 'Power of the Market - The Pencil'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8&feature=player_embedded

Honestly, there is ample evidence in this thread that you are ignoring facts, and devolving to ad hominem attacks.

Happens to the best of us - when we can't admit we're wrong.

Peace out

[Roxi]

Do I own my fart when you smell it?


actually no... ownership of your fart is distributed evenly among those who smell it.. because when you smell something that means the particles of that are in your mouth... so therefore a person is in complete ownership of the particles in their mouth

the free market at work :D

[Conza88]

actually no... ownership of your fart is distributed evenly among those who smell it.. because when you smell something that means the particles of that are in your mouth... so therefore a person is in complete ownership of the particles in their mouth

the free market at work :D

Ok, this was on facebook.

Coincidence indeeeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZuTbC31hgU

[nayjevin]

actually no... ownership of your fart is distributed evenly among those who smell it.. because when you smell something that means the particles of that are in your mouth... so therefore a person is in complete ownership of the particles in their mouth

the free market at work :D

nice, nice. Can I borrow your olfactories?

[danberkeley]

epic /facepalm @ bman.

[nayjevin]

I don't think anyone read the original post, and instead just went into an argument about intellectual property...


By that, I mean recognizing someone's video on YouTube and the comments section as his/her property. Yes, there are important things to notify people of - HR 1207 for example - but people can be upset and label it spam (in more than one way).

sorry bout that, Knightskye - ends don't justify the means.

[Conza88]

Let's Create a Copyright Crisis
Posted by Karen DeCoster at April 4, 2009 08:22 PM

Obama and his administration hacks are insane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yPmtQDWZ1s

^ YOU SUPPORT THAT BMAN and XENO.

You support the Obama / Communist Administrations right to search laptops and anything and everything... because it is all "stolen" "property" content.

You fools!

[Bman]

Let's Create a Copyright Crisis
Posted by Karen DeCoster at April 4, 2009 08:22 PM

Obama and his administration hacks are insane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yPmtQDWZ1s

^ YOU SUPPORT THAT BMAN and XENO.

You support the Obama / Communist Administrations right to search laptops and anything and everything... because it is all "stolen" "property" content.

You fools!

No I do not support that.

You and me clearly don't understand each other and that is fine with me. However, don't assume exactly what I believe. I find very little black and white, and more things belonging to shades of gray. Has IP laws gone too far. Well, quite possibly it has. Do I think that a system that has rewards and first right of refusal to be a good thing. Yes. Do I think no IP to be a good idea. No. Why? Because in test scenario's the resources always become worth more than the products. In otherwords a monopoly on resources is the final outcome I see of any complete elimination of IP.

[nayjevin]

No I do not support that.

You and me clearly don't understand each other and that is fine with me. However, don't assume exactly what I believe. I find very little black and white, and more things belonging to shades of gray. Has IP laws gone too far. Well, quite possibly it has. Do I think that a system that has rewards and first right of refusal to be a good thing. Yes. Do I think no IP to be a good idea. No. Why? Because in test scenario's the resources always become worth more than the products. In otherwords a monopoly on resources is the final outcome I see of any complete elimination of IP.

But enforcing IP reduces individual liberty.

Even if it can be agreed that it's bad that resources become worth more than the products, and even if it can be admitted that it must always be this way, we should not use government (force) to impose preference. Total liberty brings maximum justice. I am surprised others don't see it this way.

We agree more than we disagree, I'm sure.

[Bman]

We agree more than we disagree, I'm sure.

I'm sure also. I'm completely cool with you Nay, and starting not to mind Conza as much. Dan just entered the debate firing insults. I should not have even wasted my time.

I don't like government enfourcement any more than the next. I just can't see my way through to a complete elimination.

# of things I would have to see to even consider AIP.

Assured credit to creator.

Balanced competitive field from the beginning(at the very least).

Which ties into equal access to resources. In other words full elimination of nepotism. No birthrights, or inheritance.

[Conza88]

No I do not support that.

Rofl. Because... ? And address it to the actual scenario.

You propagate that the State must protect property rights and intellectual "property rights". Well, they are being violated. The state is trying to protect the "owners".

What's wrong with that? So someone is breaking the "law", but you don't think it should be enforced?

Enlighten me here. :rolleyes::rolleyes:



Because in test scenario's the resources always become worth more than the products. In otherwords a monopoly on resources is the final outcome I see of any complete elimination of IP.

And how the hell did you come to that conclusion.

You support the notion that the market has failed, and thus needs government intervention. You support the LTV.

I'm fine with you having your opinions. Just don't be under the delusion you're supporting Free Markets while you do it.

[nayjevin]

I don't like government enfourcement any more than the next. I just can't see my way through to a complete elimination.

that sums it up. the age old argument :)

[Conza88]

that sums it up. the age old argument :)

:D

[Bman]

Rofl. Because... ? And address it to the actual scenario.

You propagate that the State must protect property rights and intellectual "property rights". Well, they are being violated. The state is trying to protect the "owners".

What's wrong with that? So someone is breaking the "law", but you don't think it should be enforced?

Enlighten me here. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

ok. I don't think that merely copying something is a crime. I believe distributing or trying to profit off of someone else's work without permission is a crime.



And how the hell did you come to that conclusion.

Playing mmorpg's.


You support the notion that the market has failed, and thus needs government intervention. You support the LTV.

No. I differ in opinion of what can be considered a form of property.



I'm fine with you having your opinions. Just don't be under the delusion you're supporting Free Markets while you do it.

You don't support any level of government? Exactly how do you reconcile property violations under your definition.

[Conza88]

ok. I don't think that merely copying something is a crime. I believe distributing or trying to profit off of someone else's work without permission is a crime.

So you have no problem with someone distributing someone elses work without permission, if it isn't for a profit? ;)


Playing mmorpg's.

Figures.


No. I differ in opinion of what can be considered a form of property.

By using the LTV. And subsequently you need government intervention to 'protect' it according to you. :rolleyes:


You don't support any level of government? Exactly how do you reconcile property violations under your definition.

Private Courts. And now we enter into another vast area where you need to educate yourself on.

[Bman]

So you have no problem with someone distributing someone elses work without permission, if it isn't for a profit? ;)


or not and.


Figures.

Do you have any experience in mmorpg's?



By using the LTV. And subsequently you need government intervention to 'protect' it according to you. :rolleyes:

Well, you set the value of what you think your time and efforts are. Than someone decides if what you offer is worth what you are charging. If you have no takers you reevaluate your stance or most likely starve.



Private Courts. And now we enter into another vast area where you need to educate yourself on.

What if you don"t want to use the court?