youtube wins case vs hollywood greed

[cindy25]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/23/youtube-viacom-lawsuit-se_n_623256.html

[WaltM]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/23/youtube-viacom-lawsuit-se_n_623256.html

i cant wait to see
bank robbers win against bankers greed
home intruders win against homesteaders greed
shoplifters win against business owners greed

YouTube - Gordon Gekko "Greed is Good" \o/ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vscG3k91s58)

and the whole ruling is really only about "Youtube" as a service provider, did not actively and knowingly infringe, thus not directly liable. This in no way says DMCA is wrong, or that uploaders didn't themselves infringe.

[cindy25]

does not go far enough, but a youtube loss would have been a loss to everyone here. this decision will provide some cover for torrent sites.

Hollywood wanted to ban the VCR. they want complete control.

[dannno]

wooot!

[Promontorium]

I'm against copyright infringement, especially when a corporation makes money and the people who create the material get ZERO return. That is why I am glad those hypocritical scumbags lost the suit. Viacom programs have been hijacking both Google services and Independently made YouTube videos for years. Find me 1 Viacom network that doesn't ubiquitously use google earth, or popular YouTube videos. Chumps the world over have put up great videos only to have Viacom use them to make $millions. Similarly, I haven't seen any Viacom news report not use the revolutionary Google Earth, or Google maps.

[trey4sports]

does not go far enough, but a youtube loss would have been a loss to everyone here. this decision will provide some cover for torrent sites.

Hollywood wanted to ban the VCR. they want complete control.

piss on fucking torrents, i don't like people uploading my copyrighted ebooks


EDIT: that came off a little harsh, nothing personal. I know Torrents can be used for some good purposes

[WaltM]

does not go far enough, but a youtube loss would have been a loss to everyone here. this decision will provide some cover for torrent sites.

Hollywood wanted to ban the VCR. they want complete control.

you'd want control if it were your paycheck too.

last lawsuit involving the biggest torrent site thePirateBay eventually lost, didn't they?

[WaltM]

piss on fucking torrents, i don't like people uploading my copyrighted ebooks


EDIT: that came off a little harsh, nothing personal. I know Torrents can be used for some good purposes

anything that I gain is a good purpose, and vice versa (common sense, human nature, duh!)

[WaltM]

I'm against copyright infringement,


I'm only against it when it's myself at loss.



especially when a corporation makes money and the people who create the material get ZERO return. That is why I am glad those hypocritical scumbags lost the suit.


You can say they're hypocritical, but they're not hypocritical about making money at any possible avenue.



Viacom programs have been hijacking both Google services and Independently made YouTube videos for years. Find me 1 Viacom network that doesn't ubiquitously use google earth, or popular YouTube videos.


Nice try.

Google Earth is a free service to everybody (or if paid, Viacom would pay for it).

Using popular videos is a free service provided by youtube (with certain restrictions even Viacom would be forced to comply).



Chumps the world over have put up great videos only to have Viacom use them to make $millions. Similarly, I haven't seen any Viacom news report not use the revolutionary Google Earth, or Google maps.

some of them didn't upload it voluntarily on their own. But if they did, Youtube means "I want nothing in return, take it" (or else they'd do pay-per-view, DVDs).

I don't think you can point to ONE specific video where a person made a youtube video (on his own, put it nowhere else) and Viacom made millions off it. (You're just generalizing the overall effect).

[trey4sports]

anything that I gain is a good purpose, and vice versa (common sense, human nature, duh!)


I have no clue what you're saying....?

are you arguing for for or against copyright law?

[WaltM]

I have no clue what you're saying....?

are you arguing for for or against copyright law?

I'm for everything that pays me, against everything that doesn't.

Get it?

[trey4sports]

well then produce something and see what it's like to find your hard work being shared for free all over torrents....

[WaltM]

well then produce something and see what it's like to find your hard work being shared for free all over torrents....

oh, I know how it feels, need I tell you to steal something and see what it's like getting something for nothing?

[WaltM]

piss on fucking torrents, i don't like people uploading my copyrighted ebooks


EDIT: that came off a little harsh, nothing personal. I know Torrents can be used for some good purposes

trey, did you personally right those seduction ebooks in your signature?

I dont mean to sound like I'm blaming the victim (even though I am)

But isn't the best way to prevent piracy, keeping things in "hard to copy" format (such as in print)?

Don't give me that "it costs money to store, print, and ship" rant, I know what it's like, that's the price you pay as your "protection fee" against theft. Think about, in return how easy it is to charge $10-20 net without printing a paper, packing a shipment or worrying about taking up space in your garage. Sooner or later you have to deal with competition whether it's legal or not, crooks don't care about the law and you don't care what it takes to stop them (or at least you shouldn't).

Or the 2nd best way to prevent piracy, theft, loss, is to compete with them. (some people are already noticing, it's called getting realistic)

[trey4sports]

trey, did you personally right those seduction ebooks in your signature?

I dont mean to sound like I'm blaming the victim (even though I am)

But isn't the best way to prevent piracy, keeping things in "hard to copy" format (such as in print)?

Don't give me that "it costs money to store, print, and ship" rant, I know what it's like, that's the price you pay as your "protection fee" against theft. Think about, in return how easy it is to charge $10-20 net without printing a paper, packing a shipment or worrying about taking up space in your garage. Sooner or later you have to deal with competition whether it's legal or not, crooks don't care about the law and you don't care what it takes to stop them (or at least you shouldn't).

Or the 2nd best way to prevent piracy, theft, loss, is to compete with them. (some people are already noticing, it's called getting realistic)

lol this cracks me up, excuses excuses

[WaltM]

lol this cracks me up, excuses excuses

laugh all you want, you're the one crying about losses (unless you're sarcastic)

[Fox McCloud]

well then produce something and see what it's like to find your hard work being shared for free all over torrents....

that's the nature of an idea; if you don't want it shared, then hide it in your head, forever.

It's not right to use the coercive power of the state to impose a state sanctioned monopoly on some infinitely divisible good.

I'd personally recommend Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property" on this matter: http://mises.org/books/against.pdf

in addition to the more technical "Against Intellectual Monopoly" (very good book)--it outlines that authors and musicians both did quite fine before the advent of strong copyright on their works; as a matter of fact, it allowed an era of great improvement of music in a very short time-span, as anyone could take anyone else's work and improve upon in.

some other links:

http://mises.org/daily/3631
http://mises.org/daily/3406
http://mises.org/daily/4008 (this article may be of more importance to you, as it relates to writers).

[WaltM]

that's the nature of an idea; if you don't want it shared, then hide it in your head, forever.

It's not right to use the coercive power of the state to impose a state sanctioned monopoly on some infinitely divisible good.


But it's right to use coercive power of the state to impose a state sanctioned monopoly against counterfeit money, identity theft, and fraud?

Is it right to use coercive power of the state to impose a state sanctioned monopoly against theft, robbery and trespassing?

[Fox McCloud]

But it's right to use coercive power of the state to impose a state sanctioned monopoly against counterfeit money, identity theft, and fraud?

Is it right to use coercive power of the state to impose a state sanctioned monopoly against theft, robbery and trespassing?

Nope, that's up to private courts, defense agencies, and police. ;)

All civil rights stem from property rights, which arise from the simple concept of self-ownership; from here, they arise on their own without the intervention of a state-sponsored monopoly: http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

[Kregisen]

that's the nature of an idea; if you don't want it shared, then hide it in your head, forever.

It's not right to use the coercive power of the state to impose a state sanctioned monopoly on some infinitely divisible good.


I'm not sure what you're saying here....are you saying you're against copyright laws?

Without copyrights or patents, no company would ever produce drugs or music.

[WaltM]

Nope, that's up to private courts, defense agencies, and police. ;)

All civil rights stem from property rights, which arise from the simple concept of self-ownership; from here, they arise on their own without the intervention of a state-sponsored monopoly: http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

whats to stop private defense parties from being abusive, monopolized and corrupt?

(please tell me you got a better answer than "the market will only pay good people")

I've heard it enough times, the best argument for your fantasy world of "let the private sector do its job" is dependent entirely on the assumption that all people want money, nothing else, and only good people pay good people, and nobody makes mistakes (and as long as they don't intend to make mistakes, it won't happen).

Who are you to say the government isn't my (or a corporation's) version of a private defense (that's only abusive because you're complaining about being the loser).

[WaltM]

I'm not sure what you're saying here....are you saying you're against copyright laws?

Without copyrights or patents, no company would ever produce drugs or music.

you're mostly right, lots of creativity and drug discovery is based on profit motivation, which could also mean some produce placebos and remakes if it's cheaper. But just as it's flawed to say that private defense services can't be corrupt because they want money, it's also untrue that there aren't people who do things for non-monetary reasons (we call them suckers, or passionate altruists, or evil people who do things for unmeasurable benefits).

[cindy25]

you'd want control if it were your paycheck too.

last lawsuit involving the biggest torrent site thePirateBay eventually lost, didn't they?

Piratebay lost the court case in Sweden, had to move to a different country

[cindy25]

I'm not sure what you're saying here....are you saying you're against copyright laws?

Without copyrights or patents, no company would ever produce drugs or music.

just against the draconian copyright laws.

I can understand its wrong to download a movie that is currently in a theater. but not a movie 50 or 75 years old.

or something on free tv; or news programs that will never be sold on dvd.

[WaltM]

Piratebay lost the court case in Sweden, had to move to a different country

that's what i meant to say, what country are they in now?
(and is the same thing preventable?)

[WaltM]

just against the draconian copyright laws.

I can understand its wrong to download a movie that is currently in a theater. but not a movie 50 or 75 years old.

or something on free tv; or news programs that will never be sold on dvd.

why the false dichotomy?

what movie do you watch that's 75 years old? The Birth of a Nation? Uncle Tom's Cabin?

Is it wrong to download a film that's 10 years old? (which its DVD is worth less than $5)

Free TV is not free, no more than Hulu is free, it may not cost you anything directly monetarily, but it's sponsored by advertisements.

News programs are a gray area, the effect is opposite, news programs are intended to be spread, not sold, and so are advertisements, that's not to say they do not themselves cost money to produce, nor do they appreciate it if people profit off their work without their consent.

[Fox McCloud]

I'm not sure what you're saying here....are you saying you're against copyright laws?

Without copyrights or patents, no company would ever produce drugs or music.

this is something people have been parroting for years and it's just not true--music was widespread before the event of copyright; composers considered it out and out flattery if you took their work, modified it, and made it your own.

As a matter of fact the statistics show the amount of composers dropped off quite dramatically with the advent of copyright, which decreased the amount of music available to the public, not increased.

Drugs are a unique case--here in the US we have patent law for them, but the FDA also has forced disclosure laws (meaning you have to reveal everything in the drug and how it was made). If we removed patent and kept the forced disclosure in place then it would likely cut down on the amount of drugs produced. That said, if patent and forced-disclosure were both removed, we'd likely see the amount of drugs increase. Believe it or not, drugs were amongst the last things to be patentable in a number of countries (minus software and plant species)--the countries that lacked patents on pharmaceuticals ended up having more drugs and a more robust industry than those that did not. Currently the patent system jacks up the price of drugs because it limits the number and it causes the creation of a lot of "me too" drugs; meaning drugs that are basically like a previous drug with only 1-2 ingredients changed (Nexium is a great example of this...it's almost the same exact thing as Prilosect); the reason for this is because it's difficult (or impossible) to take an existing drug and make your own improvements. On a small side note, the authors of "Against Intellectual Monopoly" calculated that if patent were removed nearly all drugs on the market would be more than 50% cheaper than they currently are.


whats to stop private defense parties from being abusive, monopolized and corrupt?

First off, there is a possibility that a whole bunch of them could merge and carry out abuses against the people. I highly doubt, IMHO, this would happen, but even if we assume it's a possibility, I really don't see the problem with it; it'd be no different that our current style of government.

As for what's to stop them? Contracts, mostly--banks, energy related companies, and transit companies (including internet service providers) can lock down their entire operations (can't move or use money, no electricity, and no easy way of travel); this would pretty much cripple a company and make it think twice about its actions--a company can't sustain itself for long without its bank account.

From there if they insist on continuing their abusive behavior, another defense corporation may have to subdue them--it'd have a motive, in part to due this because it could gather many customers and carrying out legitimate actions against another like company that is viewed as illegitimate and aggressive.

I really don't see defense corporations taking over everything though--when is the last time you heard of a security company taking over the bank or building that it protects? A number certainly have the fire-power to do so, but yet I'm not sure if I've ever heard of it happening.


Who are you to say the government isn't my (or a corporation's) version of a private defense (that's only abusive because you're complaining about being the loser).

Fine, but don't force me to be a customer or part of it--currently I have no choice; I'm forced, at the point of a gun to pay for a product that I don't exactly want, nor did I ever sign up for.

If you're for freedom and the free market, then you must be against intellectual property.

At one point in time I was a staunch defender of it, but once I considered the philosophical/ethical reasons for being against it, then looked at the utilitarian approach, I saw it for what it was; a rent-seeking behavior designed to give individuals a monopoly over their product to artificially raise their profit margins (and to stifle your competitors who may want to improve upon your designs).

[dannno]

well then produce something and see what it's like to find your hard work being shared for free all over torrents....

Keep doing what you're doing.. if that many people are pirating your work then that means you are building name recognition. Eventually you'll build enough of a following and perhaps you can begin scheduling paid speaking engagements. You could bring hot girls with you and make them all participatory or something. I dunno, figure out a way to build your income based on your popularity and name recognition rather than just selling ebooks. Maybe you could actually start publishing hard copies soon or something.

Piracy is never going away, but you can use it to your advantage if you're smart.

[ClayTrainor]

Without copyrights or patents, no company would ever produce drugs or music.

Consumer demand would be more likely drive the markets instead of corporate interests.

There would still be plenty of demand for music and drugs, therefore there would still be lots of profit in it. Who gets the profits should be up to consumers, not lawyers.

[trey4sports]

I'm not sure what you're saying here....are you saying you're against copyright laws?

Without copyrights or patents, no company would ever produce drugs or music.

ding ding we have a winner

[ClayTrainor]

Keep doing what you're doing.. if that many people are pirating your work then that means you are building name recognition. Eventually you'll build enough of a following and perhaps you can begin scheduling paid speaking engagements. You could bring hot girls with you and make them all participatory or something. I dunno, figure out a way to build your income based on your popularity and name recognition rather than just selling ebooks. Maybe you could actually start publishing hard copies soon or something.

Piracy is never going away, but you can use it to your advantage if you're smart.

Very good advice.

If people are willing to steal your work, than you are doing something right. These people want to pick your brain for information. You could build a network trying to lead these people to other opportunities.

Try uploading your books to the torrent networks yourself, and include a special invite for them to join your email list to receive updates and new offers (that's just one idea off the top of my head). The internet is forcing many business models to change, and entrepreneurs need to adapt to consumer demand, not the other way around.

[ClayTrainor]

Oh, and to anyone who writes e-books and is complaining about piracy... YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!

I've promoted and made good profits off of many www.clickbank.com products. There is a ton of money in this stuff, to this day!

The best selling books are always the most pirated... Coincidence??? The best selling movies are always the most pirate... Coincidence???? The best selling musicians, are always the most pirated... coincidence????

If you offer the people who purchase your book some kind of membership/support that they cant get from a torrent, and boom.... you have a working business model again, not to mention all the free advertising from the torrents. ;)

[Fox McCloud]

ding ding we have a winner

incorrect for reasons enumerated above (also check out the articles I provided).

[fisharmor]

At one point in time I was a staunch defender of it, but once I considered the philosophical/ethical reasons for being against it, then looked at the utilitarian approach, I saw it for what it was; a rent-seeking behavior designed to give individuals a monopoly over their product to artificially raise their profit margins (and to stifle your competitors who may want to improve upon your designs).

It also helps to know of examples where intellectual property doesn't apply (or has been intentionally suppressed) which are either competitive with or superior to the IP model.

A whole lot of the internet runs on LAMP servers at this point. (I'd be really surprised if this site isn't running on one.)
Each letter in LAMP stands for a product (Linux, Apache, MySQL, and Perl/PHP/Python) which represents ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more work invested than anything that authors or musicians do, which is given away for free.
Yet, the companies that maintain these technologies make money just fine.

[Fox McCloud]

It also helps to know of examples where intellectual property doesn't apply (or has been intentionally suppressed) which are either competitive with or superior to the IP model.

A whole lot of the internet runs on LAMP servers at this point. (I'd be really surprised if this site isn't running on one.)
Each letter in LAMP stands for a product (Linux, Apache, MySQL, and Perl/PHP/Python) which represents ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more work invested than anything that authors or musicians do, which is given away for free.
Yet, the companies that maintain these technologies make money just fine.

Good point--IIRC Bill Gates himself specifically stated that Windows wouldn't have ever existed or started up if there were patents on software from the very beginning of software--it's just far too stifling and difficult to navigate...what's sad is that he now takes advantage of this system...

[WaltM]

Consumer demand would be more likely drive the markets instead of corporate interests.

There would still be plenty of demand for music and drugs, therefore there would still be lots of profit in it. Who gets the profits should be up to consumers, not lawyers.

Tell yourself that next time the IRS knocks on your door, give them a good laugh with

"Hey, just because we take away 25% of your income, doesn't mean you have no incentive or motivation to work, you still have over half of it! How greedy do you have to be to want more than that? Don't you care about MY paycheck?"

[WaltM]

Good point--IIRC Bill Gates himself specifically stated that Windows wouldn't have ever existed or started up if there were patents on software from the very beginning of software--it's just far too stifling and difficult to navigate...what's sad is that he now takes advantage of this system...

not sad for him.

[WaltM]

It also helps to know of examples where intellectual property doesn't apply (or has been intentionally suppressed) which are either competitive with or superior to the IP model.

A whole lot of the internet runs on LAMP servers at this point. (I'd be really surprised if this site isn't running on one.)
Each letter in LAMP stands for a product (Linux, Apache, MySQL, and Perl/PHP/Python) which represents ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more work invested than anything that authors or musicians do, which is given away for free.
Yet, the companies that maintain these technologies make money just fine.

just because somebody's stupid enough to give their work away for free doesn't mean all people should.

[WaltM]

Oh, and to anyone who writes e-books and is complaining about piracy... YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!

I've promoted and made good profits off of many www.clickbank.com products. There is a ton of money in this stuff, to this day!

The best selling books are always the most pirated... Coincidence??? The best selling movies are always the most pirate... Coincidence???? The best selling musicians, are always the most pirated... coincidence????

If you offer the people who purchase your book some kind of membership/support that they cant get from a torrent, and boom.... you have a working business model again, not to mention all the free advertising from the torrents. ;)

you're absolutely right, and it's only a matter of time before that market gets to its saturation.

[WaltM]

First off, there is a possibility that a whole bunch of them could merge and carry out abuses against the people. I highly doubt, IMHO, this would happen, but even if we assume it's a possibility, I really don't see the problem with it; it'd be no different that our current style of government.


That's my point, it already HAS happened.

We get monopoly FROM free market, you're just unhappy you're on the wrong end of the deal. You want your version of "justice" and corporations want their own, why shouldn't their private defense services (aka, the government) listen to whoever has more money? (you don't stupidly believe that some things are more important than money, do you? If you do, thank yourself for killing your own "free market" argument)





As for what's to stop them? Contracts, mostly--banks, energy related companies, and transit companies (including internet service providers) can lock down their entire operations (can't move or use money, no electricity, and no easy way of travel); this would pretty much cripple a company and make it think twice about its actions--a company can't sustain itself for long without its bank account.


What's to stop the "power" companies from conspiring with them?
Oh wait, again, ALREADY HAS.
Free market advocates seem to think that consumers only and always make the best decisions (or that the best ones are what's best for them, not what they think it is).



From there if they insist on continuing their abusive behavior, another defense corporation may have to subdue them--it'd have a motive, in part to due this because it could gather many customers and carrying out legitimate actions against another like company that is viewed as illegitimate and aggressive.


So in today's world, where's the competing RIAA, MPAA, Google, UN, Federal Reserve, or even 3rd party in the US?




I really don't see defense corporations taking over everything though--when is the last time you heard of a security company taking over the bank or building that it protects? A number certainly have the fire-power to do so, but yet I'm not sure if I've ever heard of it happening.


Maybe not unilaterally, but you've heard of coupes.

Have you heard of bankers funding abusive military forces, militias?



Fine, but don't force me to be a customer or part of it--currently I have no choice; I'm forced, at the point of a gun to pay for a product that I don't exactly want, nor did I ever sign up for.


Don't force me to respect your property.




If you're for freedom and the free market, then you must be against intellectual property.


No, I'm against property altogether.



At one point in time I was a staunch defender of it, but once I considered the philosophical/ethical reasons for being against it, then looked at the utilitarian approach, I saw it for what it was; a rent-seeking behavior designed to give individuals a monopoly over their product to artificially raise their profit margins (and to stifle your competitors who may want to improve upon your designs).

utilitarian, that says it all.

[ClayTrainor]

you're absolutely right, and it's only a matter of time before that market gets to its saturation.

It'll become consistently more competitive, but I have a hard time imagining any sort of saturation in the info marketplace. There's always a demand for the latest and greatest information, which is always changing.

[Fox McCloud]

That's my point, it already HAS happened.

No, it hasn't; we currently have the State which is an entity entirely separate from any institution in the market-place.


We get monopoly FROM free market, you're just unhappy you're on the wrong end of the deal. You want your version of "justice" and corporations want their own, why shouldn't their private defense services (aka, the government) listen to whoever has more money? [B](you don't stupidly believe that some things are more important than money, do you? If you do, thank yourself for killing your own "free market" argument)

What's to stop the "power" companies from conspiring with them?
Oh wait, again, ALREADY HAS.
Free market advocates seem to think that consumers only and always make the best decisions (or that the best ones are what's best for them, not what they think it is).

So in today's world, where's the competing RIAA, MPAA, Google, UN, Federal Reserve, or even 3rd party in the US?[/quote]

You're tilting against wildmills here Walt--all of what you're describing is within the current framework of the State, as it has the monopoly on the use of force; I've been attempting to explain how this would be different under a system of competing law and competing defense/police agencies, but you seem to ignore all logic here and instead go gallivanting about topics that don't really have anything to do with the topic at hand or you twist/modify the current structure of the topic to fit some odd strawman. I've already addressed a number of things you've said, but you have clearly chosen to out and out ignore them.


Maybe not unilaterally, but you've heard of coupes.

Have you heard of bankers funding abusive military forces, militias?

You're ignoring my point in your first statement, completely. As for your second statement? Sure, I've heard of that happening, and I don't rule out the possibility that it could lead to problems, but I find it unlikely to happen as it doesn't go on, on a large scale within the current structure since banks lack legitimacy (and in a free and competing market, it's unlikely anyone will ever develop legitimacy).




Don't force me to respect your property.

No, I'm against property altogether.



utilitarian, that says it all.


Then you're effectively a Communist if you don't believe in property at all. Also, in that case, you have no grounds to oppose someone coming up to you and blowing your head right off, since you do not recognize property---all property stems from self-ownership; if you recognize self-ownership then you must recognize private property; if you do not, you're either contradicting yourself, being a contrarian, or you're insane. A lack of property leads only to conflict and tribalism as nothing is owned by anyone and everyone has an equally legitimate claim to anything.

And thanks for taking my last statement completely out of context (you seem to love doing that to other people's posts as well); I said I examined it from a philosophical+ethical standpoint and utilitarian one; both were taken into account in reaching my decision; at the end of the day ethical+philosophical is more important, as utilitarianism can and does lead to contrary conclusions against ethical+philosophical ones.

[WaltM]

No, it hasn't; we currently have the State which is an entity entirely separate from any institution in the market-place.


Not entirely separate if they can use their time, energy and power to participate in it.



You're tilting against wildmills here Walt--all of what you're describing is within the current framework of the State, as it has the monopoly on the use of force;


Only as much as the market allows it.



I've been attempting to explain how this would be different under a system of competing law and competing defense/police agencies, but you seem to ignore all logic here


Yes, you've been ATTEMPTING to do it. And you fail at it be showing that inevitably, private companies will be abusive, monopolized and in effect replace the government we have today. (as if our current government has a magical way of getting where they are)

[ClayTrainor]

Yes, you've been ATTEMPTING to do it. And you fail at it be showing that inevitably, private companies will be abusive, monopolized and in effect replace the government we have today. (as if our current government has a magical way of getting where they are)

In Canada there are competitive private security agencies that protect private property. They sell alarm systems, armored and guarded property transportation, surveillance systems, Guard protection services, etc. They are not trying to monopolize and take on the role of the state, their profit interests lie solely in protecting property. They don't have agents that will lock me into a tiny cell for having the wrong kind of agriculture in my pocket. They have no authority to violate anyones property rights, just as no one should.

www.brinks.ca

www.adt.ca

etc...

[fisharmor]

just because somebody's stupid enough to give their work away for free doesn't mean all people should.

Nobody is forcing Mr. Starving Artist to give his work away for free.
He can keep his work all to himself, locked up in his head, until he dies.
Or he can contract with other people to give his work away for money.
He can even contract to give his work away as many times as he can get paid for it.

You misunderstand me: the people who work on these products don't necessarily work on them for free. They are in many cases getting paid to work on the products - paid by a company seeking solutions to other problems, and the best solution is often to enhance an existing product. They are encouraged to work on existing products because
a) the existing work that was done is open for anyone to analyze, and
b) it costs them nothing but time to get acquainted with the product and start using it.

The products are are what is given away for free. Not the work, necessarily.

There's the rub: they are getting paid to work, instead of working once and expecting that the state is going to throw people who don't pay them in perpetuity into the rape dungeon.

Under the IP model, if there is no existing solution, the company is going to spend thousands of times more money and effort trying to implement a solution.

[awake]

Once anything is in one's a zeros it effectively can be infanitly reproduced with little effort; virtually a free good. It is a lost war...this was one of many battles.

The Star trek replicator effect.

[WaltM]

In Canada there are competitive private security agencies that protect private property. They sell alarm systems, armored and guarded property transportation, surveillance systems, Guard protection services, etc.


If you're talking about Brinks & ADT as home security systems, all they do is monitor and report, your security is ONLY as good as your local law enforcement can respond (not armed protection on their own).



They are not trying to monopolize and take on the role of the state, their profit interests lie solely in protecting property. They don't have agents that will lock me into a tiny cell for having the wrong kind of agriculture in my pocket.


So they're useless against people who aren't stopped unless they are forced to.



They have no authority to violate anyones property rights, just as no one should.

www.brinks.ca

www.adt.ca

etc...

which makes them useless in protecting my interests (and some other peoples')

[awake]

"You can tell that intellectual property rights are not real property rights just from this very interesting item on BoingBoing, a report on round one of the Google vs. Viacom case. With real property rights, people do not usually go around actively violating their own rights in order to collect from innocent defendants. I’m not even sure I understand how that would work in a case of real property rights. But in this Viacom case:

Filings in the case reveal that Viacom paid dozens of marketing companies to clandestinely upload its videos to YouTube (sometimes “roughing them up” to make them look like pirate-chic leaks). Viacom uploaded so much of its content to YouTube that it actually lost track of which videos were “really” pirated, and which ones it had put there, and sent legal threats to Google over videos it had placed itself.

Why would Viacom have done that if the company really believed that these postings were hurting its business? Perhaps they believed they would help the business: promoting its product and creating an opportunity for legal blackmail."

Jeff Tucker

[WaltM]

Nobody is forcing Mr. Starving Artist to give his work away for free.
He can keep his work all to himself, locked up in his head, until he dies.


Yes, some are, pirating is exactly that, taking something for giving nothing, without the permission of the "owner".

Your argument is "I never recognized you as the owner", and so is a communist's argument against your property.




Or he can contract with other people to give his work away for money.
He can even contract to give his work away as many times as he can get paid for it.

You misunderstand me: the people who work on these products don't necessarily work on them for free. They are in many cases getting paid to work on the products - paid by a company seeking solutions to other problems, and the best solution is often to enhance an existing product. They are encouraged to work on existing products because
a) the existing work that was done is open for anyone to analyze, and
b) it costs them nothing but time to get acquainted with the product and start using it.

The products are are what is given away for free. Not the work, necessarily.

There's the rub: they are getting paid to work, instead of working once and expecting that the state is going to throw people who don't pay them in perpetuity into the rape dungeon.


Are you saying that nobody should be thrown in a rape dungeon for not paying? Or this just isn't one of them?




Under the IP model, if there is no existing solution, the company is going to spend thousands of times more money and effort trying to implement a solution.

that may be, and that's their choice to make.
Are you against stupid , self destructive decisions?

[WaltM]

Then you're effectively a Communist if you don't believe in property at all. Also, in that case, you have no grounds to oppose someone coming up to you and blowing your head right off, since you do not recognize property---all property stems from self-ownership;


You're EXACTLY RIGHT.

You're an intellectual property communist, and you have no grounds for somebody copying your work (I bet you have nothing valuable).

As for whether I have grounds to oppose somebody who wishes to rob me, I know I don't, other than the fact I'm fortunate enough to have a government and people who care about me.





if you recognize self-ownership then you must recognize private property; if you do not, you're either contradicting yourself, being a contrarian, or you're insane. A lack of property leads only to conflict and tribalism as nothing is owned by anyone and everyone has an equally legitimate claim to anything.


If you recognize private property, you MUST recognize intellectual property.
If you do not, you're either a person who has nothing to lose, or a person who is happy to be taken advantage of.

[ClayTrainor]

If you're talking about Brinks & ADT as home security systems, all they do is monitor and report, your security is ONLY as good as your local law enforcement can respond (not armed protection on their own).


Only because the state enforces a coercive monopoly on those services.



So they're useless against people who aren't stopped unless they are forced to.


Why do you think Brinks hires armed guards in their trucks? For show?

They're there to protect property, not to violate property.



which makes them useless in protecting my interests (and some other peoples')

Do your interests involve initiating aggression and force on people that have committed no crime?

[WaltM]

Only because the state enforces a coercive monopoly on those services.


So you can't argue with the fact that IF they didn't have such a monopoly, ADT would be like Blackwater, using their power to whatever they can.



Why do you think Brinks hires armed guards in their trucks? For show?


Only for banks and big money, I dare them fight law enforcement when it comes down to it.



They're there to protect property, not to violate property.


You can't protect property without violate another's.



Do your interests involve initiating aggression and force on people that have committed no crime?

yes.

Ask yourself this question, must a person commit a crime to violate you?

[ClayTrainor]

So you can't argue with the fact that IF they didn't have such a monopoly, ADT would be like Blackwater, using their power to whatever they can.


Yes I can. You don't need to legalize theft to a monopoly, in order to protect people from theft.

It's worth noting that Blackwaters #1 client is the state and state-connected corporations like halliburton. The state is who gives them the authority they have, not the market.


Only for banks and big money, I dare them fight law enforcement when it comes down to it.


I fail to see a valid point here...

They are not suicidal, and yes your beloved monopoly has far more hired guns who also have the legal authority to threaten innocent people.



You can't protect property without violate another's.


Nonsense. What's the purpose of a lock on your door?



yes.


Than I am done with you, and no longer wish to converse. Consider this my last response to you.



Ask yourself this question, must a person commit a crime to violate you?

Violate seems very open to interpretation.

Initiating Aggressive coercion, force and fraud are criminal acts. If you endorse this type of behavior, than you are not worth my time.

[WaltM]

Yes I can. You don't need to legalize theft to a monopoly, in order to protect people from theft.


I guess it depends on how much theft we're trying to prevent.



It's worth noting that Blackwaters #1 client is the state and state-connected corporations like halliburton. The state is who gives them the authority they have, not the market.


and in turn, the government is pretty much allowed to exist by the market.




I fail to see a valid point here...

They are not suicidal, and yes your beloved monopoly has far more hired guns who also have the legal authority to threaten innocent people.


So you agree that private security can't exceed the status quo monopoly.



Nonsense. What's the purpose of a lock on your door?


To stop people nice enough not to pick the lock or shoot my door down.



Than I am done with you, and no longer wish to converse. Consider this my last response to you.

Violate seems very open to interpretation.

Initiating Aggressive coercion, force and fraud are criminal acts. If you endorse this type of behavior, than you are not worth my time.

Property is also up to interpretation.

[ChaosControl]

Good, but then its Google on the winning side so I am not going to be all that happy about it.

[ClayTrainor]

I guess it depends on how much theft we're trying to prevent.


All of it. Obviously there will always be some, but our goal should be to reduce all of it as much as possible. Permitting a select group the right to steal/extort from others, is not a rational solution.



and in turn, the government is pretty much allowed to exist by the market.


The state is funded by taxing/extorting from the marketplace. If you refuse to pay them a cut, armed men in uniform will show up to steal your property and possibly throw you into a tiny cell for a few years.

As a business owner, I don't "allow" for this, i merely pay up out of fear of punishment and losing everything I've worked for.



So you agree that private security can't exceed the status quo monopoly.


In the same way private Iraqi forces can't overcome American Troops. This in no way legitimizes the action or existence of American Troops in Iraq.



To stop people nice enough not to pick the lock or shoot my door down.


In other words, it is a measure to protect your property from unwanted guests. In other words, there are means to protect your property without initiating violence and coercion on others, and your previous point is debunked.


You can't protect property without violate another's.



Property is also up to interpretation.

To what degree? Is there any objective or rational basis for private ownership, whatsoever?

Just because you may interpret the world in a way that makes you think you have a right to break into my house and steal my TV, doesn't make it a valid or rational concept.

[ClayTrainor]

I know I said this before, but this is the last one. WaltM, I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts. You've already made it clear that you think initiating force and aggression against innocent people is a valid concept, so I have no interest in rationalizing or associating with you. I'm sure you're going to try to rationalize this position with a subjective communal theory of property ownership now...

Good luck!

[Kregisen]

this is something people have been parroting for years and it's just not true--music was widespread before the event of copyright; composers considered it out and out flattery if you took their work, modified it, and made it your own.

As a matter of fact the statistics show the amount of composers dropped off quite dramatically with the advent of copyright, which decreased the amount of music available to the public, not increased.

But suddenly if you spend your life creating songs, and once you sell one copy, it gets copied and downloaded everywhere for free, how is the $1 you sold it for gonna support you?

It won't. There would no longer be any professional musicians. Sure, people will still make music as a hobby, but it would no longer be a business, and that hurts much of the incentive to create good music.



Consumer demand would be more likely drive the markets instead of corporate interests.

There would still be plenty of demand for music and drugs, therefore there would still be lots of profit in it. Who gets the profits should be up to consumers, not lawyers.

It takes literally billions of $ on research before making a drug. If a company can, instead of spending billions on research, just copy a drug created by another company, no company will ever be the one to research and create it first. That's why we have patent laws. Fox McCloud may have had some good points on the drug topic though, I haven't done research on it so all I can say is what I've already said.

[WaltM]

But suddenly if you spend your life creating songs, and once you sell one copy, it gets copied and downloaded everywhere for free, how is the $1 you sold it for gonna support you?

It won't. There would no longer be any professional musicians. Sure, people will still make music as a hobby, but it would no longer be a business, and that hurts much of the incentive to create good music.


It takes literally billions of $ on research before making a drug. If a company can, instead of spending billions on research, just copy a drug created by another company, no company will ever be the one to research and create it first. That's why we have patent laws. Fox McCloud may have had some good points on the drug topic though, I haven't done research on it so all I can say is what I've already said.

you're absolutely right.

and even though many drug research costs are BECAUSE of regulations, that's only necessary to be safe for consumers. there are certain areas in drug patents that are abusive, but that's the nature of all property, some people get abusive.

[WaltM]

I know I said this before, but this is the last one. WaltM, I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts. You've already made it clear that you think initiating force and aggression against innocent people is a valid concept, so I have no interest in rationalizing or associating with you. I'm sure you're going to try to rationalize this position with a subjective communal theory of property ownership now...

Good luck!

I think we agree more than we disagree.

We both understand that though we're not convinced by some party (government, robbers, or each other) what's a valid concept, legitimate use of force, it's all useless when we're forced to comply out of fear and threat.

[ClayTrainor]

It takes literally billions of $ on research before making a drug.

Drugs are one of the most heavily regulated industries. There are ridiculous FDA regulations that prevent drugs from being tested properly in the marketplace, which would greatly reduce costs.

YouTube - How to Reduce Healthcare Costs by 80% Overnight (Without Spending $2 Trillion) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpkqHvc7kBw)

Nobodies losing an arm and a leg paying for Tylenol and it's competition, but I would imagine they have invested billions into researching their products. Also, there's billions being made and to be made in drugs, so there's no reason they can't be researched in the free-marketplace.


If a company can, instead of spending billions on research, just copy a drug created by another company, no company will ever be the one to research and create it first.

Why? The consumers in the market would still demand new solutions to their problems. There would still be profit in delivering those solutions. They would be allowed to use the latest and greatest information to their own advantage, if it wasn't protected by a corporate monopoly.

As it stands now, a Doctor could go to jail for trying to help a patient with information protected by a patent.


That's why we have patent laws. Fox McCloud may have had some good points on the drug topic though, I haven't done research on it so all I can say is what I've already said.

Patent laws protect corporate interests from consumer demand.

There are plenty of ways to profit from and protect entrepreneurial ideas, without using the government to dictate your private interests through force.

[ClayTrainor]

I think we agree more than we disagree.

We both understand that though we're not convinced by some party (government, robbers, or each other) what's a valid concept, legitimate use of force, it's all useless when we're forced to comply out of fear and threat.

You're right, I'm glad we agree on that. I was thrown off when you said that you'd like to initiate coercion and force against people though.

To me, that seems very irrational. :)

[Fox McCloud]

But suddenly if you spend your life creating songs, and once you sell one copy, it gets copied and downloaded everywhere for free, how is the $1 you sold it for gonna support you?

It won't. There would no longer be any professional musicians. Sure, people will still make music as a hobby, but it would no longer be a business, and that hurts much of the incentive to create good music.

This will never happen; we live in an age where this is already a possibility--if you don't have the 'net, you know someone who does (or a place that does)--if you want to get your paws on the music, for free, you can.

There's other ways of making money; you can go to concerts (which can never be replicated and infinitely reproduced), and you won't get any special goodies a company many decide to package with a "special edition" CD either. There's other ways of making money than by just selling the songs on a specific medium.

There's other ways for the musician to earn money, as well--for example, a lot of sports players don't make their millions from playing sports so much as they do from their own unique product line--their skill in sports makes them famous, and the product they tie to that skill is what is the big money maker---musicians can do the same thing.

And again, I'll point out that before the advent of copyright, music was fairly easily copyable; the printing press was alive and well by that time and it was easy to get a hold of another musicians work...and yet they had more musicians prior to the advent of copyright than after; if copyright is so powerful and "good" from a utilitarian perspective, we wouldn't see this across the board statistic.



It takes literally billions of $ on research before making a drug. If a company can, instead of spending billions on research, just copy a drug created by another company, no company will ever be the one to research and create it first. That's why we have patent laws. Fox McCloud may have had some good points on the drug topic though, I haven't done research on it so all I can say is what I've already said.


the thing is, drugs aren't instantly copyable; it takes time to reverse engineer them then remake them; there's a thing called the "first mover advantage" that is more powerful than people understand--even with generic drugs that can be copied by anyone and everyone, the original company still usually earns the most amount of money (tylenol is a good example of this).

Also, a company is going to more likely want to copy a drug to improve upon it a tiny bit and sell that...after all, what's likely to earn you more money--a duplicate product or one that's better? To use an example of an LCD television...which are you more likely to purchase; the TV that's exactly the same as the competitor, or the one that has one extra feature?