True or False: This violates libertarian principles

[nayjevin]

True or false: This violates libertatian principles --

- linking to someone else's website
(on the basis that any surrounding information presents another person's creation in a different light than originally intended)

- building a website that is not entirely of one's own making - for instance using images from google images
(on the basis that one can not always know if the original creator of the image would agree)

- writing a summary
(on the basis that no one person has the right to introduce their own bias to information)

- talking
(on the basis that speaking has the ability to change someone without consent)

- human action
(on the basis that no action can occur without relying somehow on the ideas of another person)

I believe the answers to these questions are central to about everything else we do.

discuss.

[Xenophage]

The only thing you list that could be construed a violation of property rights MIGHT be the 2nd item, although most images you find on google are likely to be in the public domain anyway.

Are you serious about this post, or are you trying to make intellectual property sound absurd by offering strawmen?

[krazy kaju]

There is no such thing as intellectual property.

[nayjevin]

True or false: This violates libertatian principles --

- linking to someone else's website
(on the basis that any surrounding information presents another person's creation in a different light than originally intended)

sometimes sites will give their own banners or widgets so that people can share them in the way the originating author intended.

other times, copyright notices explain the original author's wishes.


- building a website that is not entirely of one's own making - for instance using images from google images
(on the basis that one can never know if the original creator of the image would agree)
not sure it's fair to trust google's standards for copyright evaluation. seems to me it's up to the due diligence of the web author to ensure property is not being used in a way contrary to the original author's intent.

most are flattered that their art is duplicated, but not all.


- writing a summary
(on the basis that no one person has the right to introduce their own bias to information)it is up to each individual to understand that all information gained is painted with the bias of the messenger, and up to the messenger to do his or her best to limit that bias. it does not violate the principles of liberty to attempt to summarize, however. it may help to include a notice to remind the viewer of your summary that you recognize your own limitations and the inherent limitations of such situations.


- talking
(on the basis that speaking has the ability to change someone without consent)again, it is up to the listener to incorporate what you say into their own thinking (or not). it is the speaker's duty to remain as honest as possible, but each listener should be skeptical of all new information and careful about changing at the whim of one's speech.


- human action
(on the basis that no action can occur without relying somehow on the ideas of another person)No action or idea is independent of ideas that came before it from other people. It does not violate the principles of liberty to formulate ideas or take action.


I believe the answers to these questions are central to about everything else we do.so do I :)

[nayjevin]

The only thing you list that could be construed a violation of property rights MIGHT be the 2nd item, although most images you find on google are likely to be in the public domain anyway.

I think I agree here.


Are you serious about this postyes!

, or are you trying to make intellectual property sound absurd by offering strawmen?
not at all, in fact as ravenously righteous as I sound when I formulate an argument, I always try to be open to the potential that I have been wrong all along.

[Xenophage]

The insanity espoused on here about "no such things as intellectual property rights" scares the shit out of me, really. Talk about an anti-life philosophy! Every property is essentially an intellectual property. Anything ever produced that was ever really worthwhile was entirely abstract in nature.

God it fucking baffles me when someone on a libertarian forum says something as fucking STUPID as "There's no such thing as an original idea."

Who's to blame for this bullshit? Murray Rothbard? Lew Rockwell? Its ironic that Mr. Rockwell runs mises.org but Ludwig von Mises himself, a minarchist and a proponent of intellectual property, would be horrified to read most of the shit on that website.

[torchbearer]

The insanity espoused on here about "no such things as intellectual property rights" scares the shit out of me, really. Talk about an anti-life philosophy! Every property is essentially an intellectual property. Anything ever produced that was ever really worthwhile was entirely abstract in nature.

God it fucking baffles me when someone on a libertarian forum says something as fucking STUPID as "There's no such thing as an original idea."

Who's to blame for this bullshit? Murray Rothbard? Lew Rockwell? Its ironic that Mr. Rockwell runs mises.org but Ludwig von Mises himself, a minarchist and a proponent of intellectual property, would be horrified to read most of the shit on that website.

But then, there is the thing with no idea is really a new idea... someone "owned it first".
You see the same shit going on with the tea party.
No one owns the idea.

Now, there is a purpose to protecting copyrights etc... so i'm not for a free for all on people's ideas... just stating its not a black and white issue.

[Xenophage]

I don't see how you can think physical property is property but not intellectual property.

What makes something property? If you think only physical objects can be property, then you must think there's some physical attribute, like some sort of special moelcule or atomic structure or something, that says "Hey this is so and so's property."

!!!!!!!

Property is entirely abstract. It doesn't exist in nature. The idea of 'property' is a MORAL PRINCIPLE. The Universe doesn't care about property - its all in our heads.

[torchbearer]

I don't see how you can think physical property is property but not intellectual property.

What makes something property? If you think only physical objects can be property, then you must think there's some physical attribute, like some sort of special moelcule or atomic structure or something, that says "Hey this is so and so's property."

!!!!!!!

Property is entirely abstract. It doesn't exist in nature. The idea of 'property' is a MORAL PRINCIPLE. The Universe doesn't care about property - its all in our heads.

You don't own yourself? If you don't.. who does?

[Xenophage]

You don't own yourself? If you don't.. who does?

You didn't seriously just try to pretend that I'm anti-property, did you? I own myself only because I recognize self-ownership as a rational moral principle, and because I recognize property rights as rational moral principles. They are moral principles that apply only to social settings - only when human beings are required to get along with each other. All property ownership, and all rights, are derived from the proper logical conclusion that in order to prosper socially we require non-violent non-coercive interaction with one another: the NAP.

If I was the only human being on Earth, would it make any sense to say "I own myself?" Do you think the bears and tigers will care? Do you think the thunderstorms and earthquakes will give a shit? Only rational creatures that make the CHOICE to own themselves can do so.

[torchbearer]

You didn't seriously just try to pretend that I'm anti-property, did you? I own myself only because I recognize self-ownership as a rational moral principle, and because I recognize property rights as rational moral principles. Self-ownership is a choice. Plenty of people choose to live in slavery.

This?


Property is entirely abstract.

[JoshLowry]

True or false: This violates libertatian principles --

- linking to someone else's website
(on the basis that any surrounding information presents another person's creation in a different light than originally intended)

- building a website that is not entirely of one's own making - for instance using images from google images
(on the basis that one can never know if the original creator of the image would agree)
(edit: one cannot always know, never is inaccurate)

- writing a summary
(on the basis that no one person has the right to introduce their own bias to information)

- talking
(on the basis that speaking has the ability to change someone without consent)

- human action
(on the basis that no action can occur without relying somehow on the ideas of another person)

I believe the answers to these questions are central to about everything else we do.

discuss.

Philosophical Phace Palm.

;) :p :D

[Xenophage]

This?

And?

Show me the "property" particle. Maybe the large hadron collider will finally discover it.

[torchbearer]

And?

Show me the "property" particle. Maybe the large hadron collider will finally discover it.

try to take a bone from a starving wild animal.
poke a cougar with a sharp stick.
watch one bacteria bump into another.

Each organism from its nature protects itself. That is the singular property from which all other property is derived.

[sailor]

The insanity espoused on here about "no such things as intellectual property rights" scares the shit out of me, really. Talk about an anti-life philosophy! Every property is essentially an intellectual property. Anything ever produced that was ever really worthwhile was entirely abstract in nature.

God it fucking baffles me when someone on a libertarian forum says something as fucking STUPID as "There's no such thing as an original idea."

Who's to blame for this bullshit? Murray Rothbard? Lew Rockwell? Its ironic that Mr. Rockwell runs mises.org but Ludwig von Mises himself, a minarchist and a proponent of intellectual property, would be horrified to read most of the shit on that website.

Objectivists and their dogmas.... :rolleyes:

Just as I start thinking I might go easy on them they remind me why I can`t stomach them.

[Elwar]

Copyrights and patents are just a federal subsidy program that rewards new and intelligent ideas.

It's a useful thing, not necessarily libertarian or not.

If you sing a song and it is in my head, I now own the song within my head...you cannot force me not to play the song over and over in my mind. If I then take the song that is in my head and sing it, you cannot stop this action. Once something is in my mind, it belongs to me...no matter the source.

Manufacturing and distribution are the way to promote intillectual property, in a free market way.

[sailor]

Ideas and all other forms of IP are not scarce. You can not own something that is not scarce. You can no more own an idea than you can own stars in the sky.

Property exists only in relation to things which are scarce, ie something which more people desire than they can have. Eg, land, food, tools, water, maybe in the future even air (but unlikely). But IP will never be scarce.

Simply put if a person A, adopts an idea of a person B, then the person A has not deprived the person B of anything. The person B stil has his idea.

[Xenophage]

Ideas and all other forms of IP are not scarce. You can not own something that is not scarce. You can no more own an idea than you can own stars in the sky.

Property exists only in relation to things which are scarce, ie something which more people desire than they can have. Eg, land, food, tools, water, maybe in the future even air (but unlikely). But IP will never be scarce.

Simply put if a person A, adopts an idea of a person B, then the person A has not deprived the person B of anything. The person B stil has his idea.

What defines scarcity, and why is this concept essential to ownership? What IS ownership? Just because something is scarce, why should we say that it can be owned?

I would like to understand your fundamental argument.

Something doesn't have to be scarce for people to desire more of it than is available, so this definition of property runs into problems right away. Everything in nature is finite within the scope of everyday human experience. Furthermore, at the most fundamental levels everything in physical nature is scarce, and people can covet individual things: There may be LOTS of pebbles on a beach, but the pebble you're holding is the only one just like it.

The Jeffersonian argument that you do not take away from someone by sharing their ideas is, despite my high reverence for Jefferson, quite wrong. You do take something: the productive and creative efforts of the person who generated the idea. You could derive tremendous personal benefit in taking the idea, but in return you offer no compensation.

A person who is the originator of an idea has the right to expect that you abide by whatever conditions they set forth for sharing the idea with you. For instance: that you cannot share it with anyone else unless you have permission. This is a contractual relationship.

[Golding]

I'll quickly address the last two ad ridiculum ones you mentioned, since they should be the easiest to go after. Talking and human behavior are only influential if the person you are talking to (or the person observing your behavior) allows themselves to be influenced. It is not an obstruction of personal choice. It's a contribution to it.

[Original_Intent]

Philosophical Phace Palm.

;) :p :D

Nice alliteration, even if you did have to mis-spell to do it. :)

[Kludge]

There is no such thing as intellectual property.

You (a psuedo-person) are property of the Great Mind, who has constructed the world you believe you live in. You have no rights, and the Great Mind will have no problem worsening your life and then altering your memory so that you believe it "rational".

Submit to the Great Mind. Praise Him enough, and the Great Mind will take interest in you, perhaps granting you immortality.

(Yes to the questions Jay posed. Check for "free" Creative Commons licenses or similar if you want to post an image on a website.)

[LibForestPaul]

The insanity espoused on here about "no such things as intellectual property rights" scares the shit out of me, really. .


"Clause 8. The Congress shall have Power *** To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

"COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS
Scope of the Power

This clause is the foundation upon which the national patent and copyright laws rest, although it uses neither of those terms. So far as patents are concerned, modern legislation harks back to the Statute of Monopolies of 1624, whereby Parliament endowed inventors with the sole right to their inventions for fourteen years. Copyright law, in turn, traces back to the English Statute of 1710, which secured to authors of books the sole right of publishing them for designated periods. These English statutes curtailed the royal prerogative in the creation and bestowal of monopolistic privileges, and the Copyright and Patent Clause similarly curtails congressional power with regard both to subject matter and to the purpose and duration of the rights granted.6 Its power is limited with regard both to subject matter and to the purpose and duration of the rights granted. Only the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors may be protected, and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts. The concept of originality is central to copyright, and it is a constitutional requirement Congress may not exceed. While Congress may grant exclusive rights only for a limited period, it may extend the term upon the expiration of the period originally specified, and in so doing may protect the rights of purchasers and assignees."

Why does Congress steal my "property" after a set amount of time? Why am I not allowed to own it forever? Maybe, every 14 years, people should have the "right" to live in your house.

[nayjevin]

You do take something: the productive and creative efforts of the person who generated the idea. You could derive tremendous personal benefit in taking the idea, but in return you offer no compensation.

Now we are very close to the nexus, IMO

'You do take something' is not true. 'The productive and creative efforts of the person who generated the idea' are not gone when an idea is incorporated into a new idea, nor when the result of that effort (i.e. a recording of a song) is duplicated. The original song, as sung into the recording equipment, was gone after singing it (or i suppose the sound waves only dissipated). The original recording is still in your hands. Duplicates of that recording are the product of someone else's effort!

Now, you made it easy for them, true. They may not have as much time invested, true. But it is because of a faulty economic model that this effort on their part will provide them far greater wealth than you -- not because they have done anything that should be punished.


A person who is the originator of an idea has the right to expect that you abide by whatever conditions they set forth for sharing the idea with you. For instance: that you cannot share it with anyone else unless you have permission. This is a contractual relationship.

A person has the right to expect anything he or she wishes -- but it is not practical to expect someone to abide by your conditions -- just look at Napster! No way you can logically expect society to abide by copyrights.

Now I do believe that it is my duty to respect the copyright wishes of others. Many times I do not. The proper course of action would be too time consuming to be worth it -- so in many of these occasions it is pure laziness which allows me to violate my own principles.

Proper course of action, IMO
- contact original producer of art
- ask for permission
- if permission is not granted, attempt to convince that it is in artist's best interest to share
- if that doesn't work, boycott that artist (if they are super rich) or enjoy my copy in peace and stop raising a stink.

I could be wrong!

[Original_Intent]

Duplicates of that recording are the product of someone else's effort!

Those duplicates COULD NOT be made without the original effort of the individual.
This is what gives them the right to compensation. I think the anti IP arguments, if implemented, would have results similar to socialism. Talented creative people are going to say "Why bother?" if we just say piracy is all fine and dandy.

Without the talent and the likely many years of effort to hone that talent, you have nothing to duplicate - the only reason this concept is hard to grasp is due to motivation to get something for nothing.

[nayjevin]

"Clause 8. The Congress shall have Power *** To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

"COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS
Scope of the Power

This clause is the foundation upon which the national patent and copyright laws rest, although it uses neither of those terms. So far as patents are concerned, modern legislation harks back to the Statute of Monopolies of 1624, whereby Parliament endowed inventors with the sole right to their inventions for fourteen years. Copyright law, in turn, traces back to the English Statute of 1710, which secured to authors of books the sole right of publishing them for designated periods. These English statutes curtailed the royal prerogative in the creation and bestowal of monopolistic privileges, and the Copyright and Patent Clause similarly curtails congressional power with regard both to subject matter and to the purpose and duration of the rights granted.6 Its power is limited with regard both to subject matter and to the purpose and duration of the rights granted. Only the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors may be protected, and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts. The concept of originality is central to copyright, and it is a constitutional requirement Congress may not exceed. While Congress may grant exclusive rights only for a limited period, it may extend the term upon the expiration of the period originally specified, and in so doing may protect the rights of purchasers and assignees."

Why does Congress steal my "property" after a set amount of time? Why am I not allowed to own it forever? Maybe, every 14 years, people should have the "right" to live in your house.

This law would not be necessary in a truly free market.

After a couple artists got burned, a company would rise up and give new authors a way to have their art marketed in a way no one else could compete, like uploading the text of a book straight to a website that formats it, binds it, makes a cover, and sells it for you at $3 a copy - giving you $2.50 or whatever.

Who would attempt to compete with that?

Ah but it costs so much to enter the market, because of regulations regulations regulations = government.

[nayjevin]

Those duplicates COULD NOT be made without the original effort of the individual.
This is what gives them the right to compensation. I think the anti IP arguments, if implemented, would have results similar to socialism. Talented creative people are going to say "Why bother?" if we just say piracy is all fine and dandy.

Without the talent and the likely many years of effort to hone that talent, you have nothing to duplicate - the only reason this concept is hard to grasp is due to motivation to get something for nothing.

no, because in a free market we would not be stuck in the model of selling CD's. we would give mp3's away for free and accept donations, or give live performances and draw sponsorship money, or host them on our own websites with advertisements.

the free market solves all these problems -- if we don't regulate it with copyright laws.

[nayjevin]

Those duplicates COULD NOT be made without the original effort of the individual.
This is what gives them the right to compensation.

they could not be made without the duplicator either. other duplicates could be made - but there must be a duplicator.

how many times should a person be able to sell a thing? ONCE, imo

[nayjevin]

it does all come down to IP doesn't it? :)