DailyPaul/Michael Nystrom Sued in Massive Blogger Shakedown - Be Careful Bloggers [Archive]

libertybrewcity

09-01-2010, 09:23 PM

The DCMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act) could protect him from all litigation.

Among others being sued include Infowars, NORML,, Free Republic, and many others totaling 107.
~~~

The first I heard that I was being sued came in an email from Las Vegas Sun reporter Steve Green. Green and the Las Vegas Sun have been doing a tremendous job covering the saga of Righthaven LLC, a firm that has filed 107 suits against bloggers and website owners since March of this year, including one yesterday against yours truly.

Righthaven's standard shakedown seems to go as follows: The firm goes trolling the web, looking for content that from the Las Vegas Review-Journal that has been reposted on other blogs or websites. Once it finds a match, it acquires the copyright from the Review-Journal, then - without first contacting the accused blogger / website owner - files a lawsuit in Nevada Federal court. The standard damages seem to be for $75,000 and forfeiture of the domain name to Righthaven. I assume that is what I am being sued for as well, though I have yet to see it.

Most of the content on the Daily Paul is user-generated, and my understanding has always been that I am protected by the DMCA against liability for user uploaded content. Under the law, standard procedure is for the copyright holder to contact the website owner and ask that the offending content be removed. This is a request that I have complied with numerous times for other parties. In this particular case, I was never contacted by Righthaven, nor the Las Vegas Review Journal, nor, as far as I can tell, were any of the other 107 defendants.

Continue (http://dailypaul.com/node/143700)

Austrian Econ Disciple

09-01-2010, 09:27 PM

Hey IP defenders..come on out wherever you are!

Anti Federalist

09-01-2010, 09:30 PM

I'm starting to hate lawyers as much as cops, which I didn't think was possible.

low preference guy

09-01-2010, 09:35 PM

Dr.3D

09-01-2010, 09:35 PM

james1906

09-01-2010, 09:35 PM

I'm sure the govt supports this.

james1906

09-01-2010, 09:36 PM

Dr.3D

09-01-2010, 09:37 PM

I'm quoting you, so sue me.

Exactly... but I won't because you quoted me and gave a link to what I originally posted.

low preference guy

09-01-2010, 09:41 PM

If someone copies an article from another website and pastes it here, along with a link to the original website, there shouldn't be a problem with copyright violation. At least that's what I have thought all this time. Am I incorrect?

Michael Nystrom writes (http://dailypaul.com/node/143700)...

In the mean time, I suggest that fellow bloggers and webmasters scour your sites for any links back to lvrj.com. Righthaven has sued websites that published just four paragraphs of a 36 paragraph story, including a link.

I hope Nystrom doesn't sue RonPaulForums for the excerpt I just posted.

low preference guy

09-01-2010, 09:43 PM

although it's really sad this is happening, this is an opportunity to introduce people to the idea of not having any copyright laws at all.

Anti Federalist

09-01-2010, 09:48 PM

"It's unbelievable," says Gibson. "There appears to be a groundswell of interest in our business model." The business in question is based on an unusual shoot-first, ask-questions-later approach to IP litigation that appears to have little, if any, precedent.

Sue me, asshole.

But yeah, maybe not so wacky.

That's our only business anymore, lawyers, porn and weapons systems.

Kludge

09-01-2010, 09:50 PM

although it's really sad this is happening, this is an opportunity to introduce people to the idea of not having any copyright laws at all.

Also a good opportunity to plug EFF for helping those who are being presented with asinine IP lawsuits.

August 27, 2010

* EFF SEEKS TO HELP RIGHTHAVEN DEFENDANTS

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is seeking to assist
defendants in the Righthaven copyright troll lawsuits.
Righthaven has filed hundreds of copyright infringement
lawsuits seeking to shake down bloggers and others for
stiff copyright damages. Righthaven has developed a lawsuit
business model based on searching the internet for stories
and parts of stories from newspapers, purchasing the
copyright for the stories and suing the online location
that republished all or part of the stories. EFF believes
that many of those sued may have strong fair use and other
defenses.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/eff-seeks-righthaven-defendants

Anti Federalist

09-01-2010, 09:50 PM

I'm sure the govt supports this.

Well, since government was on the verge of bailing out the papers as well, I'd be inclined to agree.

Can't have people freely conversing and discussing things, now, can we?

low preference guy

09-01-2010, 09:51 PM

"lawsuit business model". what a joke.

libertybrewcity

09-01-2010, 09:58 PM

Not to cause fear, but this forum could be next:(

Michaels ask all users on the DailyPaul to scan through posts and eliminate all links to LVRJ.com and affiliated sites. It may not be a bad idea for users on RPF.

sailingaway

09-01-2010, 09:59 PM

Michael Nystrom writes (http://dailypaul.com/node/143700)...

I hope Nystrom doesn't sue RonPaulForums for the excerpt I just posted.

I'm sure he won't.

I bet the Las Vegas site loses TONS of traffic this way, since Paulites are pretty careful to link (for politeness and to encourage more stories). I wonder if that is what they really want? Someone should ask them how much traffic they got from DP. I bet it wasn't a small number. We have bloggers TRYING to get us to link to them, all the time.

WaltM

09-01-2010, 10:02 PM

I believe in copyright, and I have little sympathy for Alex Jones, Free Republic, but this is just a shakedown, especially when they've not even made the effort to DMCA notice them.

sailingaway

09-01-2010, 10:04 PM

libertybrewcity

09-01-2010, 10:07 PM

The owner of the Las Vegas Review is STEPHENS MEDIA LLC.

You are encouraged to cancel all newspaper and magazine subscriptions ASAP:
Newspapers by State

Arkansas

* Southwest Times Record, Fort Smith, Ark.
* Pine Bluff Commercial, Pine Bluff, Ark.
* North Little Rock Times, North Little Rock, Ark.
* Press Argus Courier, Van Buren, Ark.
* Jacksonville Patriot, Jacksonville, Ark.
* Sherwood Voice, Sherwood, Ark.
* Maumelle Monitor, Maumelle, Ark.
* Cabot Star-Herald, Cabot, Ark.
* Lonoke Democrat, Lonoke, Ark.
* Carlisle Independent, Carlisle, Ark.
* Hot Springs Village Voice, Hot Springs Village, Ark.
* Van Buren County Democrat, Clinton, Ark.
* Booneville Democrat, Booneville, Ark.
* Charleston Express, Charleston, Ark.
* Greenwood Democrat, Greenwood, Ark.
* Paris Express, Paris, Ark.
* White Hall Progress, White Hall, Ark.
* Lincoln Leader, Lincoln, Ark.
* Farmington Post, Farmington, Ark.
* Prairie Grove Enterprise, Prairie Grove, Ark.

Hawaii

* Hawaii Tribune-Herald, Hilo, HI
* West Hawaii Today, Kailua-Kona, HI
* Big Island Weekly, Hilo, HI
* North Hawaii News, Waimea, HI

Nevada

* [[Las Vegas Review-Journal, Las Vegas, NV
* Las Vegas CityLife, Las Vegas, NV
* El Tiempo, Las Vegas, NV
* Las Vegas Business Press, Las Vegas, NV
* Boulder City Review. Boulder City, NV
* Ely Times, Ely, NV
* Rebel Nation], Las Vegas, NV
* Pahrump Valley Times, Pahrump, NV
* Eureka Sentinal, Eureka, NV
* Tonopah Times-Bonanza, Tonopah, NV

North Carolina

* Courier-Tribune, Asheboro, NC

Oaklahoma/Texas

* The Herald Democrat, Sherman, TX/Denison, OK
* Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise, Bartlesville, OK
* Pawhuska Journal-Capital, Pawhuska, OK
* Anna-Melissa Tribune, Anna, TX
* Grayson County Shopper, Sherman, TX
* Prosper Press, Prosper, TX
* Van Alstyne Leader, Van Alstyne, TX
* Lake Texoma Life, Kingston, TX

Tennessee

* The Daily Herald, Columbia, TN
* The Advertiser News, Spring Hill, TN
* The Value Guide, Columbia, TN
* Franklin Life, Franklin, TN
* Brentwood Life, Brentwood, TN
* Healthy Living, Columbia, TN

Washington

* The Daily World, Aberdeen, WA
* The Vidette, Montesano, WA
* The North Coast News, Ocean Shores, WA
* The South Beach Bulletin, Westport, WA
* East County News, Elma, WA

RideTheDirt

09-01-2010, 10:10 PM

PLEASE READ THIS:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1146844/pg1

and this
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1145812/pg1

I posted this for him, and I think that RPF might want to blacklist the crap in the second link, so we don't have two fronts to fight on.

They also seem to be connected to the Obama Admin.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1144773/pg1

This RightHaven founder Steven Gibson is definitely a "Chicago Guy"...so I did a little digging in the public domain.....

And Guess what Michelle and Steven Gibson both did???
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW...AT THE SAME LAW FIRM...!!!
Apparently Michelle Obama and this guy worked for the same law firm.

WaltM

09-01-2010, 10:19 PM

You know, if he ACTUALLY said this was his 'business model', there might be an easier action against him for malicious prosecution. Whether EFF or not, SOMEONE should fight this. Is DP starting a chip in? Or are we just going to blacklist that one Las Vegas paper as 'it who must not be named'?

Meanwhile, it is not to be considered that DP or RPF should 'give up their domains', for a frivolous action.

Yeah, I'm very surprised how shameless he is about his bullying techniques.

He'll ultimately lose business, and the lawsuits (if he can't prove the actual damage), hopefully somebody countersues them and collects it back.

I can see reposting articles amounting to $1,000 per infringement over time. But not $75,000

Indy Vidual

09-01-2010, 10:20 PM

They also seem to be connected to the Obama Admin.

Obama wants to scare and control bloggers, what a surprise.

sailingaway

09-01-2010, 10:49 PM

Indy Vidual

09-01-2010, 10:51 PM

bump!

Do you have written permission from the company who trademarked the word 'Bump?' :p

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway (or, the Privatization of the English Language) (http://zenhabits.net/feel-the-fear-and-do-it-anyway-or-the-privatization-of-the-english-language/)

What if this were taken to an extreme? What if some billionaire (say, Bill Gates) decided to start trademarking thousands and thousands of phrases, so that he could charge us for each use, or so that we’d have to link back to the Microsoft homepage with each reference? The language, in this scenario, could be entirely privatized if we allow this sort of thing... ~copyright zenhabits.net

sailingaway

09-01-2010, 11:05 PM

bump

WaltM

09-01-2010, 11:08 PM

Something tells me this is not the best business move they ever made.

And what is the use of owning the internet if you don't spread information like that around?

I'm pretty sure it isn't.

And , being cynical and skeptical of everything, I think this time I'm quite confident these shakedowns will end and set a precedent of what's "fair use".

Even if they violated copyright and fair use, the damages they cite are laughable.

Mini-Me

09-01-2010, 11:12 PM

I'm starting to hate lawyers as much as cops, which I didn't think was possible.

You know how police work tends to attract sociopaths? The same goes for law and politics, except they attract the smarter, more cunning sociopaths instead of the dumb, vicious brutes. They're essentially the same monsters, just more clever.

That said, it's probably easier for good people to become lawyers and continue fighting for just causes without being totally washed out by the system, though.

ClayTrainor

09-01-2010, 11:14 PM

Hey IP defenders..come on out wherever you are!

.... Crickets....
YouTube - Cricket Sound (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg)

sailingaway

09-01-2010, 11:20 PM

.... Crickets....
YouTube - Cricket Sound (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg)

I may be a (I forget what it is someone deemed my entire profession, a couple of posts above, sociopaths and what all...) but my IP knowledge is likely only enough to get someone into trouble. There are some people posting on DP, though, and I would chip in to a fund to hire those who do have the information, as I am sure a lot of us would do. There already seems to have been some work done by EFF and others, and those of us commenting here are going blind.

Imperial

09-01-2010, 11:33 PM

WaltM

09-01-2010, 11:39 PM

although it's really sad this is happening, this is an opportunity to introduce people to the idea of not having any copyright laws at all.

which is incredibly absurd.

I believe in copyright, and I don't support this type of suing, especially when the damages they cite are laughably large.

WaltM

09-01-2010, 11:39 PM

They also seem to be connected to the Obama Admin.

Obama wants to scare and control bloggers, what a surprise.

even Democratic Underground?

sailingaway

09-01-2010, 11:40 PM

This isnt the first liberty-leaning website they attacked.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ballot-access.org%2F2010%2F08%2F03%2Findependent-political-report-pays-steep-penalty-for-minor-so-called-copyright-infraction%2F&ei=zDZ_TMiHA8ndnge8xJyqAQ&usg=AFQjCNFHYtUIHt6RL6Q9q6XV8QETMfY2LA

The good thing is I havent seen this become widespread.

If you haven't posted that at DP you might want to, or email it to Michael.

WaltM

09-01-2010, 11:49 PM

If you haven't posted that at DP you might want to, or email it to Michael.

no need, the righthavenlawsuits.com website has it all.

Indy Vidual

09-01-2010, 11:53 PM

Is everyone who ever used to work with Michelle Obama still connected?
No
Are some of those people still "keeping in touch."
Probably

even Democratic Underground?
Yes, even Democratic Underground...

// Obama wants to scare and control bloggers, what a surprise.

IPSecure

09-02-2010, 12:24 AM

So, is Google going to be sued?

Site:google.com lvrj.com (https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3Agoogle.com+LVRJ.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

sailingaway

09-02-2010, 12:32 AM

So, is Google going to be sued?

Site:google.com lvrj.com (https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3Agoogle.com+LVRJ.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

Snicker!

Mini-Me

09-02-2010, 12:34 AM

I may be a (I forget what it is someone deemed my entire profession, a couple of posts above, sociopaths and what all...) but my IP knowledge is likely only enough to get someone into trouble. There are some people posting on DP, though, and I would chip in to a fund to hire those who do have the information, as I am sure a lot of us would do. There already seems to have been some work done by EFF and others, and those of us commenting here are going blind.

I said the profession tends to attract sociopaths, but I didn't say that it's exclusively comprised of them. ;)

IPSecure

09-02-2010, 12:43 AM

Maybe Google ought to sue LVRJ.com...

Site:LVRJ.com google.com (https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3ALVRJ.com+google.com+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

Imperial

09-02-2010, 12:44 AM

All of this is funny in a way. I believe I remember the newspaper making an editorial that claimed their editorials were libertarian-leaning.

sailingaway

09-02-2010, 12:46 AM

I said the profession tends to attract sociopaths, but I didn't say that it's exclusively comprised of them. ;)

Oh, thank you ever so much. :p

Maybe Google ought to sue LVRJ.com...

Site:LVRJ.com google.com (https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3ALVRJ.com+google.com+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

I REALLY like that idea!!!

Captain America

09-02-2010, 01:09 AM

bloggers are press. we have FREEDOM of the press.

WaltM

09-02-2010, 01:19 AM

bloggers are press. we have FREEDOM of the press.

yes, and although that doesn't include freedom to infringe copyright, this is still a clear cut case of shakedown and frivolous.

WaltM

09-02-2010, 01:22 AM

they're suing DOmains By Proxy

What does that mean?

They're too damn lazy to find out who owns a site other than WHOIS, so Domains By Proxy or any other way of sheilding your name from WHOIS can probably protect you :)

WaltM

09-02-2010, 01:35 AM

How NORML settled

(reflecting a settlement amount -- which was accepted by Righthaven -- of $2,185.95 based on the following calculation: no more than 247 persons could have viewed the copy of the article that appeared on NORML’s website, multiplied by the dollar amount charged by the Las Vegas Review Journal to purchase copies of the article from its news archive ($2.95), which was then tripled to remove any doubt regarding the reasonableness of the offer)

In other words, if you're sued, expect to pay $9 per visitor.

Golding

09-02-2010, 01:51 AM

I'm starting to hate lawyers as much as cops, which I didn't think was possible.Only starting? Cops are the footsoldiers of lawyers. Look at the majority of occupations that career politicians have. By and far, most of them are lawyers. It's also no coincidence that theirs is the job that gets regulated least by the government.

awake

09-02-2010, 04:44 AM

The totalitarian and logical outcome of IP law.

legion

09-02-2010, 05:49 AM

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
(a) Signature.

Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name — or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.

(b) Representations to the Court.

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
[b]
(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General.

If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

(2) Motion for Sanctions.

A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.

(3) On the Court's Initiative.

On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).

(4) Nature of a Sanction.

A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.

(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions.

The court must not impose a monetary sanction:

(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or

(B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

(6) Requirements for an Order.

An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.
(d) Inapplicability to Discovery.

This rule does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions under Rules 26 through 37.

-----

Sounds like a risky "business model." I hope it ends up costing this loser his law license.

libertarian4321

09-02-2010, 06:10 AM

This is one company that I would love to see crash and burn.

The guy is a scum bag.

Dr.3D

09-02-2010, 06:35 AM

So do the internet archives get sued for having a copy of all the web sites?

Elwar

09-02-2010, 07:31 AM

Time to start hitting any website that I disagree with and post articles from the Las Vegas Review Journal...

The Internet is about to become a war zone with the LVRJ as their first weapon.

Elwar

09-02-2010, 07:40 AM

I just LVRJed huffingtonpost...

IPSecure

09-02-2010, 07:47 AM

I just LVRJed huffingtonpost...

Link?

:eek:

freshjiva

09-02-2010, 08:19 AM

Epic

09-02-2010, 08:40 AM

Can we now agree that IP is total bunk?

Regardless of "theory" - when being implemented by government - which obviously is what counts - it's a total clusterf*ck.

sailingaway

09-02-2010, 08:55 AM

Well, this blows.

Lawyers are what is wrong with the entire system. I'm beginning to think they are even worse than the politicians, which I didn't ever think was possible.

Moneybomb for DailyPaul/Nystrom if this fringe lawsuit really does go through?

predators exist in every profession from the plumber who convinces you you urgently need repiping you don't need, to similar examples in any walk of life. The system unfortunately encourages this, currently, in the legal field.

Personally, I think they are going after the internet model. I absolutely hope fair use will be clarified favorably. I DO think links should be there, so the traffic ends up back at the cited source, but other than that, I think this is a pure strike suit to inhibit free discussion and make money.

ClayTrainor

09-02-2010, 09:11 AM

Personally, I think they are going after the internet model.
Of course. The internet is a free-market of information and ideas, and we all know how the state feels about free-markets.

I DO think links should be there, so the traffic ends up back at the cited source, but other than that,

To the extent that it should be enforced by armed men in costumes (the state)? :confused:

Elwar

09-02-2010, 09:14 AM

Link?

:eek:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-harry-reid/paving-the-way-to-our-cle_b_657824.html

First comment :)

YumYum

09-02-2010, 09:33 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-harry-reid/paving-the-way-to-our-cle_b_657824.html

First comment :)

lol! That's pretty funny. Now you need to notify LVRJ that their link is on Huffingtonpost.

nobody's_hero

09-02-2010, 09:41 AM

Blogs report what is going on in the world. News is not intellectual property. I don't know how IP even came up in this thread.

pcosmar

09-02-2010, 09:44 AM

Fair Use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]

I suspect that the EFF will use this, but am surprised that so few here know of it. What is worse is that the courts would even entertain this crap.
It should be thrown out on presentation.
:mad:

libertybrewcity

09-02-2010, 11:26 AM

Kludge

09-02-2010, 12:39 PM

Blogs report what is going on in the world. News is not intellectual property. I don't know how IP even came up in this thread.

This is all about IP. Content creation is serious business. Writing well is a skill, just like programming.

This isn't about re-reporting news or using the same methods to achieve ends - it's about reprinting articles, taking others' work for the purpose of boosting traffic (remember what we post on here is not our own - RPFs owns it, and RPFs if ultimately the organization benefiting from it). If it were not, then they would simply post the link to the article as a delivery of news.

The government has decided copyrighted material CAN be taken and reprinted elsewhere under many conditions. The SCOTUS mostly bases their decisions of fair use based on how much the alleged abuser profited and how much potential profit the alleged victim lost. I'm utterly unqualified to say this, but I think Righthaven has a legitimate legal claim here, though it's still asinine to exercise those legal rights as they're doing. Like Walt posted, the defendants are probably only going to lose ~$2-3k on this, likely far less if they can get free legal defense.

WaltM

09-02-2010, 01:03 PM

Michael Nystrom said he wouldn't settle.

good.

I hope nor do the rest, in fact, I hope people countersue them for lack of due process and reasonable time to respond/cooperate.

itshappening

09-02-2010, 01:12 PM

I hope they burn in hell

WaltM

09-02-2010, 01:27 PM

The totalitarian and logical outcome of IP law.

no it's not.

this is a copyright case, how opportunistic that you'd want to throw out all IP just because ONE party chose to abuse (and he has very little legal right to) shakedown lawsuits.

shakedowns don't need to be IP, they can be anything from libel or harassment, even lies. Shakedowns are not totalitarian, they're sadly part of a free society.

WaltM

09-02-2010, 01:29 PM

Blogs report what is going on in the world. News is not intellectual property. I don't know how IP even came up in this thread.

IP shouldn't come up in this thread, it's a lawsuit about copyright & shakedowns.

News are not IP, but news articles are copyrighted, and even that has exceptions to fair use.

Righthaven is engaging in shakedowns, that which they've not even bothered warning people about complying before suing.

WaltM

09-02-2010, 01:30 PM

Fair Use

I suspect that the EFF will use this, but am surprised tat so few here know of it. What is worse is that the courts would even entertain this crap.
It should be thrown out on presentation.
:mad:

they might not even have to.

they can probably argue from the beginning that the standing is questionable, based on the fact the webmasters weren't even so much as NOTIFIED about the infringement.

sailingaway

09-02-2010, 01:42 PM

Of course. The internet is a free-market of information and ideas, and we all know how the state feels about free-markets.

To the extent that it should be enforced by armed men in costumes (the state)? :confused:

I should think politeness would dictate it, even without the state. But there is work in creating content, and fair is fair.

sailingaway

09-02-2010, 01:43 PM

lol! That's pretty funny. Now you need to notify LVRJ that their link is on Huffingtonpost.

I REALLY would not get involved in this. Most major sites probably already have some post or other linking their stuff, in any event. It truly is fair use, and no one thinks anything is wrong about doing that.

low preference guy

09-02-2010, 03:22 PM

This is all about IP. Content creation is serious business. Writing well is a skill, just like programming.

This isn't about re-reporting news or using the same methods to achieve ends - it's about reprinting articles, taking others' work for the purpose of boosting traffic (remember what we post on here is not our own - RPFs owns it, and RPFs if ultimately the organization benefiting from it). If it were not, then they would simply post the link to the article as a delivery of news.

It actually is about reporting the news. It's about reporting the news that some author wrote an article and informing that he/she used these words...

awake

09-02-2010, 03:33 PM

low preference guy

09-02-2010, 03:36 PM

Stupid Actions like this decay the foundation of IP laws... Whats more, IP has it's days marked, the internet is going to out right destroy it. People are going to see the silliness of it all and ignore it - kinda like they are currently doing.

yep. bittorrent alone might destroy it. hopefully the internet is kept free.

also, expect people in the United States to care a lot less about copyright laws as the depression goes on.

WaltM

09-02-2010, 03:54 PM

Stupid Actions like this decay the foundation of IP laws... Whats more, IP has it's days marked, the internet is going to out right destroy it. People are going to see the silliness of it all and ignore it - kinda like they are currently doing.

no, people will not ignore IP just because a troublemaker chose to abuse it.

People abuse labor laws, property laws too, doesn't invalidate those laws (or people's perception of it).

awake

09-02-2010, 03:56 PM

no, people will not ignore IP just because a troublemaker chose to abuse it.

People abuse labor laws, property laws too, doesn't invalidate those laws (or people's perception of it).

Walt you statist you... The state can't protect property rights currently as it is, why do think it can do so here.

WaltM

09-02-2010, 04:06 PM

Walt you statist you... The state can't protect property rights currently as it is, why do think it can do so here.

I don't accept your premise, the state CAN AND DOES protect property as it is, so they CAN and WILL do the same later, in other places, this may or may not be always the case.

awake

09-02-2010, 04:09 PM

I don't accept your premise, the state CAN AND DOES protect property as it is, so they CAN and WILL do the same later, in other places, this may or may not be always the case.

See, there is where you are flat out wrong. You can't have a property expropriating property protector.

They (the state) respect property in the same sense that a viking hoard did not take every last food stuff from the villages they plundered. They wanted the villagers not to starve as they would soon be hurting their own pillaging efforts. I guess you can say that the vikings were protecting the property of the villagers, but only so they could better steal it themselves later.

The state defends IP as it is crucial to information control, especially to the state propaganda departments called media outlets.

WaltM

09-02-2010, 05:01 PM

See, there is where you are flat out wrong. You can't have a property expropriating property protector.

They (the state) respect property in the same sense that a viking hoard did not take every last food stuff from the villages they plundered. They wanted the villagers not to starve as they would soon be hurting their own pillaging efforts. I guess you can say that the vikings were protecting the property of the villagers, but only so they could better steal it themselves later.

The state defends IP as it is crucial to information control, especially to the state propaganda departments called media outlets.

but you'd agree the State would be pro-propaganda and anti-copyright if the information is spread in their favor.

why am I flat out wrong, just because you say so?

awake

09-02-2010, 05:11 PM

but you'd agree the State would be pro-propaganda and anti-copyright if the information is spread in their favor.

why am I flat out wrong, just because you say so?

Sorry, I did't get a scientific consensus and have it peer reviewed...

WaltM

09-02-2010, 05:23 PM

Sorry, I did't get a scientific consensus and have it peer reviewed...

we're not talking about science, so you didn't have to.

you could've at least provided some examples, and drawn a pattern.

awake

09-02-2010, 05:37 PM

You want an example of the state's incompetence in enforcing IP? I just read some copyrighted text today and made a copy in my brain. I told two other coworkers about the text and they made copies in their brain too. I'm not sure how many copies were made after that.

All that copying and not one shakedown as you call it. Incompetence.

WaltM

09-02-2010, 05:42 PM

You want an example of the state's incompetence in enforcing IP?

No, I want an example of a country that lasts without the State protecting property.

I just read some copyrighted text today and made a copy in my brain. I told two other coworkers about the text and they made copies in their brain too. I'm not sure how many copies were made after that.

I am THIS close to calling you a name.

There's a difference between memorizing something (even in verbatim) and making a computer and photocopy.

All that copying and not one shakedown as you call it. Incompetence.

you don't know the difference, so you make these examples, fail.

heavenlyboy34

09-02-2010, 05:46 PM

You know how police work tends to attract sociopaths? The same goes for law and politics, except they attract the smarter, more cunning sociopaths instead of the dumb, vicious brutes. They're essentially the same monsters, just more clever.

That said, it's probably easier for good people to become lawyers and continue fighting for just causes without being totally washed out by the system, though.

This post is full of win! :D:cool:

heavenlyboy34

09-02-2010, 05:47 PM

WaltM

09-02-2010, 05:58 PM

1) IP is not property.
2) States don't protect property. They in fact violate property regularly.

1) denying what's property doesn't make it so, we've been through this

2) you can't protect property without violating it.

Occasionally, governments protect property, but it's more likely for individuals to take measure to protect property.

so why do governments expand? not because the market demands it?

awake

09-02-2010, 05:59 PM

No, I want an example of a country that lasts without the State protecting property.

I am THIS close to calling you a name.

There's a difference between memorizing something (even in verbatim) and making a computer and photocopy.

you don't know the difference, so you make these examples, fail.

True, It is hard to find an example of a stateless territory seeing as every state wishes to spread like a virus upon new hosts yet unslaved - Human beings are harvest-able and it would be wasteful to the state to allow any amount of them to be free from harvest. This isn't to say that the state works, I would say that it works all too well, in destroying any viable threat to its monopoly.

But, you are about to witness what happens when a state pillages too much under the deception of protection. That would be the U.S. Empire.

WaltM

09-02-2010, 06:01 PM

True, It is hard to find an example of a stateless territory seeing as every state wishes to spread like a virus upon new hosts yet unslaved - Human beings are harvestable and it would be wast full to the state to allow any amount of them to be free from harvest. This isn't to say that the state works, I would say that it works all too well, in destroying any viable threat to its monopoly.

But, you are about to witness what happens when a state pillages too much under the deception of protection. That would be the U.S. Empire.

I am a little more responsible than to just blame everything on the State.

aravoth

09-02-2010, 06:14 PM

No, I want an example of a country that lasts without the State protecting property.

Provide an example of a country that lasts whilst insisting on protecting the property of the private individual.

awake

09-02-2010, 06:36 PM

I am a little more responsible than to just blame everything on the State.

If evil can be considered incompetence armed and protected by monopoly, then indeed it does rule our entire world.

Responsibility is the acceptance and payment of the price of ones own actions. The state is the idea that you can make others pay for ones own actions, thus preventing the consequences from ever teaching the proper lesson to the correct recipient. It literally is the original bailout model ; incompetence protecting itself from the competent by threatening to kill, jail or fine their competition.

Think about it, one man can start a war for which he forces thousands of other people not himself to fight and die for his stupid actions. The man who started the war never sets foot any where near the battlefield. The dead solders pay the price for the one mans reckless disregard and incompetence with their lives. The dead men died to bailout one instigator.

runningdiz

09-02-2010, 06:54 PM

Michael Landon

09-02-2010, 07:09 PM

I always thought that you could reprint something as long as state the original source. Can someone tell me if this is correct or not?

- ML

low preference guy

09-02-2010, 07:11 PM

I always thought that you could reprint something as long as state the original source. Can someone tell me if this is correct or not?

- ML

incorrect. read the post michael posted at the Daily Paul.

when i say "incorrect" i mean people who've done that have been sued. i don't know whether you will lose the trial.

Agorism

09-02-2010, 07:14 PM

Once again IP laws pose an increasing threat to freedom of speech and also to private property.

Live_Free_Or_Die

09-02-2010, 07:51 PM

I can see reposting articles amounting to $1,000 per infringement over time. But not $75,000

If an individual posts personal information online does government protect their privacy or is it considered "in the public domain"?

What is the difference between personal information and article information?

Anti Federalist

09-02-2010, 08:35 PM

Sadly, Vin Suprynowicz defends his bosses.

He's just lost a lot of my respect.

I was going to quote it but didn't want anybody to get sued.

I'm not even going to put up an active link to their pos site.

hxxp://www.lvrj.com/blogs/sherm/Protecting_newspaper_content_--_You_either_do_it_or_you_dont.html

hxxp://www.lvrj.com/blogs/sherm/Protecting_Newspaper_Content_II_Thieves_are_thieve s.html

Funny thing was, I used to go the LVJR just to read Vin's columns.

Not any more.

Fuck you Sherm. You don't want anybody "stealing" your shit? Get off the intertubz and focus solely on dead tree printing.

Oh, can't do that because that is not a "viable business model"?

osan

09-02-2010, 08:43 PM

the guy who is suing claims there is a groundswell of interest in his "business model (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8yaUPwP1kRUJ:www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp%3Fid%3D1202466627090+law.com+righ thaven&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)". what a wacko.

You mean, harrassment suits? Seems to work for some.

If one of his suits gets into a court, would he not get his balls roasted on a sewing needle spit when the well established notion of "fair use" got dusted off by some nominally competent lawyer?

libertybrewcity

09-02-2010, 09:05 PM

Look what I found!
http://i56.tinypic.com/afcz6s.jpg

low preference guy

09-02-2010, 09:12 PM

^ what a tool. that image should go viral.

libertybrewcity

09-02-2010, 10:18 PM

http://i51.tinypic.com/149we8x.jpg

ANOTHER!

ronpaulhawaii

09-02-2010, 10:40 PM

http://ninapaley.com/mimiandeunice/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ME_164_SomethingForNothing-640x199.png

:D

WaltM

09-02-2010, 11:01 PM

If an individual posts personal information online does government protect their privacy or is it considered "in the public domain"?

No, "in the public domain" is a pretty strict legal term, when the "owner" releases it and declares it "no longer mine" or when it's ruled by the state that it can no longer be enforced.

posting something online doesn't make it automatically public domain, especially if it was obtained improperly or illegally.

Now, if a person posts something of his own online, he too, has no obligation to forfeit his copyright, though he is advised he'll have a harder time enforcing it.

What is the difference between personal information and article information?

depending on which respect.

in terms of whether they're both information composed of letters and numbers, easy to copy, that's equal.

but the value and legal protection can vary based on the purpose and usage of it.

Not all information are equal, one piece of information only tells you whether the light is on, another can help you located a child molestor. But all information, as long as it's in text form, are about as easy to replicate. Just because it's easy to replicate, doesn't mean it's just as OK to.

Just like leaving trash outside your house on trash day and leaving you car outside your house do not have the same implications, they're just as easy to take away, but nobody would say that parking your car locked is giving people the right to take it or forfeiting ownership.

WaltM

09-02-2010, 11:02 PM

Once again IP laws pose an increasing threat to freedom of speech and also to private property.

do I have the freedom of speech to post your personal information?

would asking me to not post your private information constitute violation of my "private property"?

WaltM

09-02-2010, 11:04 PM

Provide an example of a country that lasts whilst insisting on protecting the property of the private individual.

verbally insisting solely? can't think of one.

Insisting + using force + using the state? Most countries I'd live in.

Sentient Void

09-03-2010, 09:29 AM

do I have the freedom of speech to post your personal information?

would asking me to not post your private information constitute violation of my "private property"?

Inherently as pertaining to natural rights? Yes you do. I would also argue that in terms of property, if such information is in your head (if you know it) or on your physical property somewhere, you have the inherent right to post it on the internet or say it in public.

Would it be very nice of you? Not at all. Would others (friends, et al) ostracize you to a greater or lesser degree for doing that? Probably (depending on who the other person is and why you're doing it).

Anyways, this gets done every day on the internet regardless. In the grand scheme of things - people don't do it randomly or even against other people they don't like, because it's accepted as just wrong (just like using someone else's work that they invested lots of money into, but the point still stands).

It is everyone's own personal responsibility to protect their private information, ideas (if they want to), etc.

You can't truly own an idea, a word, a phrase, a mathematical formula, or an *arrangement* of physical property, etc. That is - if you want to be consistent about natural law and the unalienable rights of self-ownership and sticky property. Otherwise, IP and such ownership is logical slavery and theft, if you're telling me what I can and can't do with my own property and body/speech - as long as I am not committing theft, force, fraud, etc on someone else's body or physical property (property was created to manage *scarce* resources, anyways). This is the moral/principled argument.

If one can't find a legitimate way of refuting the moral/principled argument, one tends to resort to a lesser form of argument - the utilitarian argument. However, once we go down this road - you usually wind up on a logical slippery slope in advocation of tyranny and absurd statism - again, if you want to be logically consistent.

Liberty and freedom in both economic and civil matters is a synergy of morality, principal, utility and consistency.

Deborah K

09-03-2010, 09:40 AM

PLEASE READ THIS:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1146844/pg1

and this
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1145812/pg1

I posted this for him, and I think that RPF might want to blacklist the crap in the second link, so we don't have two fronts to fight on.

They also seem to be connected to the Obama Admin.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1144773/pg1

Apparently Michelle Obama and this guy worked for the same law firm.

I was just thinking, " what are their ties to this administration?"

Deborah K

09-03-2010, 09:43 AM

.... Crickets....
YouTube - Cricket Sound (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg)

uhhhh.....that's a grasshopper...not a cricket....just sayin. :p

Deborah K

09-03-2010, 09:44 AM

even Democratic Underground?

Good point! Will they be going after Huffington Post et. al.? :rolleyes:

WaltM

09-03-2010, 01:07 PM

Inherently as pertaining to natural rights? Yes you do. I would also argue that in terms of property, if such information is in your head (if you know it) or on your physical property somewhere, you have the inherent right to post it on the internet or say it in public.

Would it be very nice of you? Not at all. Would others (friends, et al) ostracize you to a greater or lesser degree for doing that? Probably (depending on who the other person is and why you're doing it).

Anyways, this gets done every day on the internet regardless. In the grand scheme of things - people don't do it randomly or even against other people they don't like, because it's accepted as just wrong (just like using someone else's work that they invested lots of money into, but the point still stands).

It is everyone's own personal responsibility to protect their private information, ideas (if they want to), etc.

You can't truly own an idea, a word, a phrase, a mathematical formula, or an *arrangement* of physical property, etc. That is - if you want to be consistent about natural law and the unalienable rights of self-ownership and sticky property. Otherwise, IP and such ownership is logical slavery and theft, if you're telling me what I can and can't do with my own property and body/speech - as long as I am not committing theft, force, fraud, etc on someone else's body or physical property (property was created to manage *scarce* resources, anyways). This is the moral/principled argument.

If one can't find a legitimate way of refuting the moral/principled argument, one tends to resort to a lesser form of argument - the utilitarian argument. However, once we go down this road - you usually wind up on a logical slippery slope in advocation of tyranny and absurd statism - again, if you want to be logically consistent.

Liberty and freedom in both economic and civil matters is a synergy of morality, principal, utility and consistency.

so if I posted your personal information that could lead to your identity, credit being abused, and your life threatened, I did nothing illegal, just immoral?

Are you against counterfeit? Or gold plated tungsten?

WaltM

09-03-2010, 01:08 PM

Good point! Will they be going after Huffington Post et. al.? :rolleyes:

I think they will if they can.

Sentient Void

09-03-2010, 01:34 PM

so if I posted your personal information that could lead to your identity, credit being abused, and your life threatened, I did nothing illegal, just immoral?

Are you against counterfeit? Or gold plated tungsten?

You did not violate my person or property. You exercised your right to free speech in a public area, and you utilized your property and ownership of your body, your mind, and an arrangement of letters, words, numbers, etc. Would I hate you for it? Absolutely. Would others think you are a scumbag? Yes, and rightly so. You went against your moral obligation to *not* give out such information, but that is all.

If such things *led* to my identity and credit being abused, and my life threatened - I have no right to violate you in return (though I and others may personally dislike you *even more*... but if things 'leading' to abuse by others warranted legal action, this creates quite the logical slippery slope) - but I do have a right to defend myself through litigation or other defense against those who committed the *fraud* that you mentioned, or some potential attack on me. In the end, as I've stated, it is my responsibility to protect my own information from getting out, and trusting others with that information is a decision and a risk I must make on my own.

Fraud is *completely* different. If I lie and say I wrote and came up with an entire book when I didn't (if it was a different author), that's fraud and should be defended against through court (note that 99.9999999999% of the time people don't do this not because it's illegal, but because it's just wrong, stupid and pathetic). However, copying the book is not fraud - I merely copied it (through the use of my own property), I didn't say I wrote it and did all the intellectual work for it, so it's not fraud.

If I knowingly lie and commit fraud in saying something is 100% pure gold when it is actually only gold plated tungsten and sell it to someone through a contractual transaction on that basis, then that is fraud and should be solved voluntarily between the two parties, through commercial ostracism, or through court if need be.

Stop conflating the issue. It's either unintentional (which is fine, hopefully you see my point then), or malicious and would in turn be intellectually dishonest.

WaltM

09-03-2010, 01:39 PM

You did not violate my person or property. You exercised your right to free speech in a public area, and you utilized your property and ownership of your body, your mind, and an arrangement of letters, words, numbers, etc. Would I hate you for it? Absolutely. Would others think you are a scumbag? Yes, and rightly so. You went against your moral obligation to *not* give out such information, but that is all.

I prefer not to live in a society where I don't have such a protection.

But the fact you're unwilling to say I did something so wrong worthy of punishment, is pretty scary (for lack of a better word).

If such things *led* to my identity and credit being abused, and my life threatened - I have no right to violate you in return (though I and others may personally dislike you *even more*... but if things 'leading' to abuse by others warranted legal action, this creates quite the logical slippery slope) - but I do have a right to defend myself through litigation or other defense against those who committed the *fraud* that you mentioned, or some potential attack on me.

Why do you have a right to litigate against anybody?

Why can't you just hate them for it?

What is fraud? Do you own your name that I can't use it ?

WaltM

09-03-2010, 01:41 PM

If I knowingly lie and commit fraud in saying something is 100% pure gold when it is actually only gold plated tungsten and sell it to someone through a contractual transaction on that basis, then that is fraud and should be solved voluntarily between the two parties, through commercial ostracism, or through court if need be.

Stop conflating the issue. It's either unintentional (which is fine, hopefully you see my point then), or malicious and would in turn be intellectually dishonest.

I didn't lie when I said it's gold. I believe it's gold, and you have no proof I knew what was inside of it.

Who owns the word gold that I can't call tungsten gold? Is it my fault you didn't know what I was talking about?

You can't force me to be in the court that I never agreed to be in. Plus, I didn't know the price of either gold or tungsten, so I sold it to you for whatever price you gave me.

Sentient Void

09-03-2010, 01:56 PM

I prefer not to live in a society where I don't have such a protection.

But the fact you're unwilling to say I did something so wrong worthy of punishment, is pretty scary (for lack of a better word).

You already live in such a society. The gubment or whoever can say they protect you all they like - but the fact is, there are *tons* of people who know this information about you, me, and tons of other people - and they are completely anonymous on the internet - and they still don't give it out. It has nothing to do with it's alleged illegality. This is proven because people are anonymous on the internet, and they can get away with it - but they still don't. Again, because they are morally obligated not to. Even people who are enemies with other people that have this information, still, 99.99999% of the time - just don't do it.

Why do you have a right to litigate against anybody?

Why can't you just hate them for it?

What is fraud? Do you own your name that I can't use it ?

I own myself. I am me. And saying you are specifically me and using such information to steal my scarce resources is fraud. Plenty of people have the same arrangement of letters that others refer to as a 'name'... however saying you are one person in particular and using such information to usurp their rightfully owned scarce resources that is not your own is quite different, and is fraud, through and through.

Although, I will *also* hate them for it, on top of having a right to litigate against them ;)

It's a very simple concept, Walt. I get the feeling that you are being intellectually dishonest here, and not merely not understanding the point.

Sentient Void

09-03-2010, 02:03 PM

I didn't lie when I said it's gold. I believe it's gold, and you have no proof I knew what was inside of it.

Who owns the word gold that I can't call tungsten gold? Is it my fault you didn't know what I was talking about?

You can't force me to be in the court that I never agreed to be in. Plus, I didn't know the price of either gold or tungsten, so I sold it to you for whatever price you gave me.

In a contractual transaction, there is an implied understanding as to what constitutes the definition and construction of 'gold'. If you are an even quasi-honest person, you would and should remedy the misunderstanding by reversing the transaction and giving my my money back - not only because it would be your moral obligation, but that way so we (and others) might engage in future transactions/social interaction with you.

Good luck defending such a position otherwise in any court or arbitration, private or public.

Also, good luck in convincing them of your internal existential crisis - that is, if there really is one at all and you're not merely being intellectually dishonest or simply malicious :-/

In your refutation of the court process...

On top of that, if you had such a reputation in the first place - there wouldn't be a need for court because I, nor much anyone else, would involve themselves with such a person (whether because you're so disconnected from reality, or just a malicious individual) nor engage in such a transaction with you in the first place.

If you had up to this point maintained such a reputation (with me personally or many others in a business atmosphere) that you are an honest person or business (leading to my decision to engage in the transaction in the first place), chances are you would work to fix the problem that has arisen, or otherwise risk gaining a bad reputation at the expense of your otherwise good one.

This is why courts are 99.9999999% of the time not needed in such matters in the first place.

In the end, your arguments here don't have much of a leg to stand on, Walt - and I'm disappointed in your lack of intellectual honesty in your arguments in your attempt to merely be a contrarian to try and throw an alleged wrench in propertarian philosophy.

Fail. :-/

Live_Free_Or_Die

09-03-2010, 02:16 PM

I prefer not to live in a society where I don't have such a protection.

But the fact you're unwilling to say I did something so wrong worthy of punishment, is pretty scary (for lack of a better word).

Since you do not want to live in a society where government does not protect personal IP could you elaborate on the greatness of the present system protecting the IP of articles and personal information?

Please tell me the grand stories of government protecting so called victims of identity theft.

Please tell me the grand stories of how easy it is to get a new SSN, ID's, and credit reports cleaned up for so called victims of identity theft.

Please tell me the grand stories of how well government treated victims of mistaken identity police abuses.

WaltM

09-03-2010, 02:48 PM

You already live in such a society. The gubment or whoever can say they protect you all they like - but the fact is, there are *tons* of people who know this information about you, me, and tons of other people - and they are completely anonymous on the internet - and they still don't give it out.

they don't give it out because it's illegal and somebody will force them to be punished.

It has nothing to do with it's alleged illegality.

yes, it does.

This is proven because people are anonymous on the internet, and they can get away with it - but they still don't. Again, because they are morally obligated not to. Even people who are enemies with other people that have this information, still, 99.99999% of the time - just don't do it.

What would convince you that morality alone isn't what prevents them from doing so, but the consequences, legal and otherwise (such as it can be done to them back) are more determinant?

I own myself. I am me.

Says you?

How do you own yourself?

(Don't you get all defensive and mad at me, you have no respect for privacy and identity, so let's see how you defend self ownership)

And saying you are specifically me and using such information to steal my scarce resources is fraud.

You're violating my free speech by not allowing me to express whom I believe I am. You don't own your name, or your looks, so you can't say the picture isn't anybody else.

And, I'm not "stealing" anything from you, I never recognized it was yours to begin with (no, not conflating, I don't recognize your physical property either, force me?!)

Plenty of people have the same arrangement of letters that others refer to as a 'name'... however saying you are one person in particular and using such information to usurp their rightfully owned scarce resources that is not your own is quite different, and is fraud, through and through.

Why is it different?

What's the difference between saying "My name is Sentient Void" and "I am Sentient Void, that guy on RPF who denies the illegality of posting personal information"?

Why is one more wrong than the other, EXPLAIN.

Although, I will *also* hate them for it, on top of having a right to litigate against them ;)

You have no right to litigate them by your standards, as you don't own your name, identity, and to claim fraud would be a violation of a person's free speech to claim who he wants to be.

It's a very simple concept, Walt. I get the feeling that you are being intellectually dishonest here, and not merely not understanding the point.

No, I honestly don't understand your point.
I've not met an anti-IPer who's not ultimately contradicting himself when it comes to fraud, identity, counterfeit and property.

RedStripe

09-03-2010, 02:50 PM

Hey IP defenders..come on out wherever you are!

^^

WaltM

09-03-2010, 02:51 PM

Since you do not want to live in a society where government does not protect personal IP could you elaborate on the greatness of the present system protecting the IP of articles and personal information?

No need, it's not perfect but it's better than none.

Please tell me the grand stories of government protecting so called victims of identity theft.

They are considered fraud, and fraud is prosecuted.

The very fact ID theft is considered fraud and prosecuted as such, is the government forcing people to respect ownership of ID against a person's will (and free speech).

Please tell me the grand stories of how easy it is to get a new SSN, ID's, and credit reports cleaned up for so called victims of identity theft.

Have you actually been a victim?

Please tell me the grand stories of how well government treated victims of mistaken identity police abuses.

He can sue for reparations, though harder today.

what's your point though?

WaltM

09-03-2010, 02:57 PM

In a contractual transaction, there is an implied understanding as to what constitutes the definition and construction of 'gold'.

HEY, **** YOUR "implied understanding".

You don't respect the "implied understanding" of copyright protection, why should I respect your "implied understanding" of a transaction?

Do you tip waiters? (I don't, I'm very honest about it)

If you are an even quasi-honest person, you would and should remedy the misunderstanding by reversing the transaction and giving my my money back

No, I'm perfectly honest, I'm just not nice.

Why should I give your money back, you're a person who has no respect for copyright and identity and privacy. I'd be nice to not reveal your information to people who'd not treat people like you very nicely. (According to you, I have every right to).

- not only because it would be your moral obligation, but that way so we (and others) might engage in future transactions/social interaction with you.

I have no intention of having future transactions with a person who doesn't respect copyright, identity protection, privacy...etc.

But I won't give up my chances for others to do the same to you and see how you like it.

Good luck defending such a position otherwise in any court or arbitration, private or public.

Funny you say that, good luck intentionally and openly violating copyright (which nobody in Righthaven has done) and defending it in court (do it with identity theft too, I dare you).

Please brag about violating copyright, and post your personal information, we'll see what side the court is on.

Also, good luck in convincing them of your internal existential crisis - that is, if there really is one at all and you're not merely being intellectually dishonest or simply malicious :-/

that would be you in this case. So you admit you have no argument other than "good luck with it" and I say the same to you.

In your refutation of the court process...
.................

In the end, your arguments here don't have much of a leg to stand on, Walt - and I'm disappointed in your lack of intellectual honesty in your arguments in your attempt to merely be a contrarian to try and throw an alleged wrench in propertarian philosophy.

Fail. :-/

if you're intellectually honest, let's see you defend your positions here, and see how much you'd live up to it.

Live_Free_Or_Die

09-03-2010, 03:12 PM

No need, it's not perfect but it's better than none.

Obviously I am not down with and differ on the "better than none" approach.

They are considered fraud, and fraud is prosecuted.

The very fact ID theft is considered fraud and prosecuted as such, is the government forcing people to respect ownership of ID against a person's will (and free speech).

Wait a minute... who is prosecuted? If I post any of your personal information online am I prosecuted because someone else allegedly steals your identity? Or is someone else prosecuted?

Have you actually been a victim?

of something that is victimless?

WaltM

09-03-2010, 03:25 PM

Obviously I am not down with and differ on the "better than none" approach.

Wait a minute... who is prosecuted? If I post any of your personal information online am I prosecuted because someone else allegedly steals your identity? Or is someone else prosecuted?

of something that is victimless?

post your private information and we'll see who's victimless.

as for prosecution, people try their very best to get every person they can, so people get away, in fact, most people might, do I like it? No. Is there anything I can do about it? Probably not. I can only hope enough people don't do it (and the same can be done to my life and property, regardless of what I believe).

libertybrewcity

09-03-2010, 03:50 PM

Walt, walt, walt. Master troll..tsk, tsk. You're really ruining the thread buddy.

Live_Free_Or_Die

09-03-2010, 03:52 PM

post your private information and we'll see who's victimless.

Just because it's victimless does not mean I advocate stupid behavior.

as for prosecution, people try their very best to get every person they can, so people get away, in fact, most people might, do I like it? No. Is there anything I can do about it? Probably not. I can only hope enough people don't do it (and the same can be done to my life and property, regardless of what I believe).

As I touched on in the PM government does not give a shit about the personal information of individuals.

edit: Unless you are in government.

The government prosecutes identity crimes to protect the interests of the federal reserve.

The government adjudicates on copying articles to protect the interests of corporate partners.

awake

09-03-2010, 03:57 PM

Walt, walt, walt. Master troll..tsk, tsk. You're really ruining the thread buddy.

I'm starting to think that's exactly what he wants to do... When you are carrying on arguments with 4- 6 other forum members in the same thread you might not be in the right forum.

He seems to be expert in every area of debate.

WaltM

09-03-2010, 03:57 PM

Walt, walt, walt. Master troll..tsk, tsk. You're really ruining the thread buddy.

it's not my fault we have IP deniers here who want to seize on the opportunity of shakedown lawsuit to promote the agenda of "No IP" or "no government".

WaltM

09-03-2010, 03:58 PM

I'm starting to think that's exactly what he wants to do... When you are carrying on arguments with 4- 6 other forum members in the same thread you might not be in the right forum.

He seems to be expert in every area of debate.

No, my expertise are

Biology, rights and copyright. (some others, but that's the major 3)

WaltM

09-03-2010, 04:00 PM

Just because it's victimless does not mean I advocate stupid behavior.

Why is it stupid if there's no victim?

As I touched on in the PM government does not give a shit about the personal information of individuals.

edit: Unless you are in government.

Not per se, I agree.

The government gives a shit about what it can afford to protect.

The government prosecutes identity crimes to protect the interests of the federal reserve.

Yeah, and they'll prosecute IP infringement if it protects their interests as well.

The government adjudicates on copying articles to protect the interests of corporate partners.

I don't see the problem.

awake

09-03-2010, 04:00 PM

No, my expertise are

Biology, rights and copyright. (some others, but that's the major 3)

Better start reading a bit more... your expertise leads you to statist solutions.

WaltM

09-03-2010, 04:03 PM

Better start reading a bit more... your expertise leads you to statist solutions.

I'm not an anarchist, so to that, I don't mind being somewhat statist.

awake

09-03-2010, 04:07 PM

I'm not an anarchist, so to that, I don't mind being somewhat statist.

Then your solutions are not solutions, they are more of the problem. If the state is OK, how big must it get, and how many areas must it take over before you start saying too much?

WaltM

09-03-2010, 04:11 PM

Then your solutions are not solutions, they are more of the problem. If the state is OK, how big must it get, and how many areas must it take over before you start saying too much?

your logic is : because the state isn't perfect, it must always be wrong.

How many anarchy do you need?

Where in the world is it better due to lack of a state that you'd rather live in?

awake

09-03-2010, 04:20 PM

your logic is : because the state isn't perfect, it must always be wrong.

How many anarchy do you need?

Where in the world is it better due to lack of a state that you'd rather live in?

That's just it, you can not get away from the state, it literally enslaves the populace of this earth.

Saying that the State isn't perfect is like saying Hannibal Lecture is a little irritable at times. The State is lying , stealing and murdering on such a scale that it is incomprehensible to most and indefensible once unmasked.

All the services they claim to offer can be offered in a free market in defense and security services so cut the BS.

If you are statist then you are here to stir up Sh!t on purpose.

Sentient Void

09-03-2010, 04:24 PM

::sigh::

awake

09-03-2010, 04:26 PM

I have seen the business model of people who are sent to disrupt forums... they usually get paid for responses which would explain the constant prodding.

Sentient Void

09-03-2010, 04:52 PM

I have seen the business model of people who are sent to disrupt forums... they usually get paid for responses which would explain the constant prodding.

You may be right. Either that, or he just likes to stroke his troll boner.

Hell, he's even managed to post over 4x as much as I have, while having been here for almost 1/4 the amount of time? He's definitely found a way to focus a LOT OF TIME simply trolling the hell out of this place with his inane prodding/trolling.

WaltM

09-03-2010, 05:14 PM

That's just it, you can not get away from the state, it literally enslaves the populace of this earth.

Saying that the State isn't perfect is like saying Hannibal Lecture is a little irritable at times. The State is lying , stealing and murdering on such a scale that it is incomprehensible to most and indefensible once unmasked.

All the services they claim to offer can be offered in a free market in defense and security services so cut the BS.

If you are statist then you are here to stir up Sh!t on purpose.

Are the moderators on here statist? I don't think they'll call themselves anarchist.

I don't call myself a statist, I just accepted that as an alternative to anarchist.

Can you name me ONE COUNTRY TODAY that's stateless and still preferable to live for you? (the fact you cannot, is an indication that the fantasy of "free market can do it" is BS)

oyarde

09-03-2010, 05:14 PM

I'm starting to hate lawyers as much as cops, which I didn't think was possible.

Oh, it is possible . I am maybe there and could include judges too .

WaltM

09-03-2010, 05:14 PM

You may be right. Either that, or he just likes to stroke his troll boner.

Hell, he's even managed to post over 4x as much as I have, while having been here for almost 1/4 the amount of time? He's definitely found a way to focus a LOT OF TIME simply trolling the hell out of this place with his inane prodding/trolling.

you couldn't answer my questions, so you've been exposed for your hypocrisy & dishonesty.

libertybrewcity

09-03-2010, 05:26 PM

you couldn't answer my questions, so you've been exposed for your hypocrisy & dishonesty.

And you just exposed you are a troll...once again. How many times do I have to bring out the..
http://www.performanceboats.com/html/youBoat/data/606/Troll_spray.jpg

Sentient Void

09-03-2010, 05:28 PM

you couldn't answer my questions, so you've been exposed for your hypocrisy & dishonesty.

Your inane rhetorical questions have no substance in them, Walt. Your responses are mostly not responses at all and I refuse to waste anymore time with you on them.

Petar

09-03-2010, 05:29 PM

you couldn't answer my questions, so you've been exposed for your hypocrisy & dishonesty.

What if he did answer your question, and he was not exposed for hypocrisy and dishonesty?

libertybrewcity

09-03-2010, 05:35 PM

What if he did answer your question, and he was not exposed for hypocrisy and dishonesty?

I think it is best just to not answer to waltm. He obviously has an agenda here, and has done absolutely nothing for this forum.

WaltM

09-03-2010, 05:59 PM

What if he did answer your question, and he was not exposed for hypocrisy and dishonesty?

I would be SO HAPPY I'd shut up!

(and thank him for it)

WaltM

09-03-2010, 06:01 PM

Your inane rhetorical questions have no substance in them, Walt. Your responses are mostly not responses at all and I refuse to waste anymore time with you on them.

asking you why you can be anti-copyright, but not pro-counterfeit, or pro-fraud, is rhetorical?

Petar

09-03-2010, 06:03 PM

I would be SO HAPPY I'd shut up!

(and thank him for it)

What if you already shut up, and thanked him for it?

WaltM

09-03-2010, 06:05 PM

What if you already shut up, and thanked him for it?

is that true yet?

Petar

09-03-2010, 06:08 PM

is that true yet?

What if it is true yet?

RonPaulIsGreat

09-03-2010, 06:11 PM

It would help if people on both sides, stopped confusing, trademarks, and copyright.

A trademark is essentially a NAME, for some product or service, that the owner has exclusive rights over permanently in use to identify themselves, unless they relinquish use. So, trademarks would be the comparison used to human names, and identity fraud, and common single words aren't trademarks, despite what some companies might wish. Thus Facebook, is a trademark, but book is not, and cannot be a trademark. Google is at risk of losing it's trademark because of the common usage of google in popular languange, as in "Google it", has arguably become a way of saying search for it, whether with google or not.

Also, copyright only applies to creative works, it does not apply to a single instance of a word. Copyright also does not apply to facts. As in the Sentence. "Ron Paul Is Great" is a non-creative statement. However, unique chains of statements can be considered for copyright.

You can't copyright such statements as "The sky is blue". "Books contain pages". "Ronpaulforums.com is an online forum created to support Ron Paul, and others of similiar mindset"

You can copyright any unique thing that shows a level of creativity whether it sucks or not is irrelevant.

As in " Ron Paul walks the world, bringing hope to the boys and girls, from rich to poor, from black to white, Ron Paul will fight for right." Can be copyrighted, and actually is now at the second I wrote it.

Fair use, doesn't cover full copying of articles, it does cover taking a snippet for commentary, and educational purposes, even teachers aren't allowed to copy full textbooks. A newspaper can't copy full AP articles without paying, though they can comment on a portion of an article in an article of their own.

Anyway, both sides are way extreme in their "examples", most do not even remotely apply to copyright.

WaltM

09-03-2010, 06:30 PM

It would help if people on both sides, stopped confusing, trademarks, and copyright.

and identity, patent, ideas.

to this end, agree that not all info are equal.

Sentient Void

09-03-2010, 06:59 PM

low preference guy

09-03-2010, 07:06 PM

I'm still wondering about it, but I'm thinking trademark is completely compatible with anti-IP. Mostly because it is not ownership of a name itself, as it is the ownership of the 'identity' of a business. An identity (business or personal) is 100% completely unique, and should constitute ownership.

If one business names itself the same name as a different business and proceeds to capitalize on it's reputation or disrupt it's business, etc - that sounds more like identity fraud.

If it was unintentional, then it is in both of the businesses best interests to work something out to ensure their identities are kept separate - and there is no need for State intervention in this regard.

That seems to be a grey area, but the only way you could argue against those people is using fraud arguments. If they let's say have the sign of McDonald's, and before you buy something they somehow tell you that this is not the same as the McDonald's whose HQ is in x's city. Then you wouldn't be able charge them with fraud. And by this I'm not implying that they should be prosecuted if they don't explicitly tell you they are not the real McDonald's.

Sentient Void

09-03-2010, 07:23 PM

That seems to be a grey area, but the only way you could argue against those people is using fraud arguments. If they let's say have the sign of McDonald's, and before you buy something they somehow tell you that this is not the same as the McDonald's whose HQ is in x's city. Then you wouldn't be able charge them with fraud. And by this I'm not implying that they should be prosecuted if they don't explicitly tell you they are not the real McDonald's.

I don't think it's such a gray area, personally. With such a prevalent symbol as the McDonald's sign, if another company decides to copy it in color and form to the point that people would think it were a McDonald's and they went to it as a result - then I would call it identity theft (since they're clearly attracting custoemrs they otherwise wouldn't have due to McDonald's brand recognition), regardless of if they went in and someone told them it wasn't that McDonalds or not. For this to happen, it'd have to be done purposefully.

Of course, determining if it was actually identity theft or not would be left to arbitration - if they felt strongly enough about their symbol, obviously... heh. If it were such an issue that it even might result in requiring arbitration, then it would be in the business' best interest to change it's symbol (the newer company not the established one with the well known symbol).

If they had the same sign, then in big letters right under it, put "This is not the same as the McDonald's whose HQ is in x's city", then I'd say in that case that it's not fraud. But why would any business do that? It's against the whole idea of establishing a brand identity in the first place, and not only do I think this would virtually never happen, but would be in the best interests of a company that if/when it did, it would change it's symbol.

low preference guy

09-03-2010, 07:28 PM

I don't think it's such a gray area, personally. With such a prevalent symbol as the McDonald's sign, if another company decides to copy it in color and form to the point that people would think it were a McDonald's and they went to it as a result - then I would call it identity theft, regardless of if they went in and someone told them it wasn't that McDonalds or not. For this to happen, it'd have to be done purposefully.

Of course, determining if it was actually identity theft or not would be left to arbitration - if they were serious enough about their symbol, obviously... heh. If it were such an issue that it even might result in requiring arbitration, then it would be in the business' best interest to change it's symbol (the newer company not the established one with the well known symbol).

If they had the same sign, then in big letters right under it, put "This is not the same as the McDonald's whose HQ is in x's city", then I'd say in that case that it's not fraud. But why would any business do that? It's against the whole idea of establishing a brand identity in the first place, and not only do I think this would virtually never happen, but would be in the best interests of a company that if/when it did, it would change it's symbol.

Well, I disagree. If there is no charge of fraud, there shouldn't be any charge at all. Defining this case as identity theft seems to me as creating a crime out of thin air in an unprincipled manner. The government's function is to protect people from violence, theft, and violation of contract... and now we add... using someone else's brand!

Plus, why use violence in a case where shaming the people who do that will be easy and effective? People will be outraged if what you said happens.

Sentient Void

09-03-2010, 07:39 PM

Well, I disagree. If there is no charge of fraud, there shouldn't be any charge at all. Defining this case as identity theft seems to me as creating a crime out of thin air in an unprincipled manner. The government's function is to protect people from violence, theft, and violation of contract... and now we add... using someone else's brand!

Plus, why use violence in a case where shaming the people who do that will be easy and effective? People will be outraged if what you said happens.

Well, I didn't say anything about using government force, for one. If there is a charge of fraud brought by someone who alleged fraud, this wouldn't require government - it could be settled with private arbitration between the two parties, and/or commercial and social ostracism (same as you said - shaming) as I said a couple posts back. So I definitely agree with you there :)

Secondly, I was assuming (and perhaps wrongfully so) that in your example it was McDonald's who took note and were alleging fraud. Again, if this were the case, they could bring charges of fraud against the alleged offender and settle voluntarily together or hire arbitration.

low preference guy

09-03-2010, 07:44 PM

Well, I didn't say anything about using government force, for one. If there is a charge of fraud brought by someone who alleged fraud, this wouldn't require government - it could be settled with private arbitration, and/or commercial and social ostracism (shaming) as I said a couple posts back. So I definitely agree with you there :)

Secondly, I was assuming (and perhaps wrongfully so) that in your example it was McDonald's who took note and were alleging fraud.

Oh, an anarchist. We won't agree in the details, such as IP, if we don't agree on whether there should be a state.

Sentient Void

09-03-2010, 07:54 PM

Oh, an anarchist. We won't agree in the details, such as IP, if we don't agree on whether there should be a state.

I don't have to be an anarchist to espouse the statements/views/methods above to go about such a situation.

Not only that, but they were completely in line with everything you said anyways.

low preference guy

09-03-2010, 07:57 PM

I don't have to be an anarchist to espouse the statements/views/methods above to go about such a situation.

Not only that, but they were completely in line with everything you said anyways.

We have a state now and I don't think people who do things others don't like often agree to private arbitration. So I assume that if a state exists and there aren't IP laws, those people would be brought down either by shaming them or after being charged with fraud. I don't expect them to agree to private arbitration.

Sentient Void

09-03-2010, 08:15 PM

We have a state now and I don't think people who do things others don't like often agree to private arbitration. So I assume that if a state exists and there aren't IP laws, those people would be brought down either by shaming them or after being charged with fraud. I don't expect them to agree to private arbitration.

I don't disagree with you on private arbitration on such matters. But as we both recognize and acknowledge, the state isn't needed most of the time in such matters - because of the social and commercial consequences of doing such things (there's simply a moral obligation not to do them). It's also just bad business, and bad for reputation. So whether the state is here or not doesn't seem to matter in that regard.

I'm not even talking about (nor did I mention) an AnCap society, just showing that even in a society with a state, minarchist or not, these things can all be handled effectively by private enterprise (and do even under our current system) - if anything, the state usually gets in the way of property rights or distorts it in favor of special interests.

I've used private arbitration myself with my insurance company in the past to settle some matters (in order to avoid public courts), and it worked out reasonably well and was taken care of relatively quickly (compared to otherwise).

However, if we were to go down the road of an AnCap society, PDA's would handle such things in terms of blatant fraud or force, for the purpose of reconciling damages... but I digress!

Live_Free_Or_Die

09-03-2010, 08:39 PM

This is the current system and it should be used to the fullest extent possible to send this attorney back to the economic stone ages:

If it is not wrong to spend money but it is wrong to spend money under certain circumstances such as purchasing child porn

THEN

It is equally wrong to spend money under certain circumstances on copyrighted material to commit fraud by bringing forth predatory suits without notice of copyright infringement. The matter is compounded by the fact the asshole in question is a member of the private lawyer union and should know better.

Good luck to whatever members of the private lawyer union are retained to defend the matter.

I want to make sure I include my standard legal disclaimer... My opinion on matters of law doesn't mean much because I am not licensed to practice the occupation of law and there is no one lined up outside my door wanting to pay me to practice the occupation of law.

WaltM

09-03-2010, 09:03 PM

I'm still wondering about it, but I'm thinking trademark is completely compatible with anti-IP.

SO how about, take this opportunity to admit,

a) not all information are equal

b) whether we're talking about IP or ID, you agree for different reasons, some information can be owned, protected, and sued for

Sound fair?

Live_Free_Or_Die

09-03-2010, 09:09 PM

Why is it stupid if there's no victim?

Got distracted in other threads...

It would be stupid for me to think I don't presently live in a statist system and making a bunch of personal information available could greatly inconvenience me in the present monopoly system. There is little competition at present in money I can utilize to vote with my feet and wallet to get away from the monopoly federal reserve debt based credit system.

Not per se, I agree.

The government gives a shit about what it can afford to protect.

It would appear there is a loose consensus between us that it is about money, not necessarily government protecting something.

Yeah, and they'll prosecute IP infringement if it protects their interests as well.

Fair enough.

WaltM

09-03-2010, 09:12 PM

Got distracted in other threads...

It would be stupid for me to think I don't presently live in a statist system and making a bunch of personal information available could greatly inconvenience me in the present monopoly system. There is little competition at present in money I can utilize to vote with my feet and wallet to get away from the monopoly federal reserve debt based credit system.

I don't mean to be repetitive, but how the hell is THAT not being a victim?

It would appear there is a loose consensus between us that it is about money, not necessarily government protecting something.

Fair enough.

agreed.

WaltM

09-03-2010, 09:15 PM

- that sounds more like identity fraud and should be settled in court, as well as commercial and social ostracism of the offender.

Sorry to interrupt, but c'mon now.

Who here, anarchist or statist, has EVER said ANYTHING "SHOULDN'T" be settled in court if possible?

Yes, settle in private before/outside court, or violent retaliation (which I do not advocate, though some like to mention it as an option) when it fails still includes the above.

You're not introducing any new concept of "settle in court", are you?

Sentient Void

09-03-2010, 09:16 PM

SO how about, take this opportunity to admit,

a) not all information are equal

b) whether we're talking about IP or ID, you agree for different reasons, some information can be owned, protected, and sued for

Sound fair?

Except, I never said all *information* was equal. I said you can't legitimately own an idea, particularly if you want to be consistent about self-ownership and sticky property. That idea could be a specific arrangement of property, or of letters, words, numbers, an algorithm or formula, et cetera. I've said these things can't be property because they are not scarce resources.

An 'identity' is something completely different, and I've never, not once, said an identity isn't something that can or should be owned (this goes along with the idea of not being able to commit fraud). I absolutely believe in ownership of one's identity. This is also completely compatible with anti-IP.

Live_Free_Or_Die

09-03-2010, 09:16 PM

I don't mean to be repetitive, but how the hell is THAT not being a victim?

inconvenience != harm

am I a victim if I have to take a detour and show up late?

WaltM

09-03-2010, 09:19 PM

Well, I didn't say anything about using government force, for one.

I've said this to everybody.

Ancap or libertarian.

"Using government force" is a semantic debate.
If you believe you have a right worthy of protection, you will ask the government to do it for you.

"Settle in court" is not a solution in and of itself. It depends on whether the court has any authority to begin with. If a court has no force to violate property, it cannot settle or rule anything. If a court must be 100% voluntary, then anybody who refuses to submit to the court, is again, IMMUNE TO ITS RULING.

Unless you think there's a difference between using government force and private force, this distinction is meaningless.

If there is a charge of fraud brought by someone who alleged fraud, this wouldn't require government - it could be settled with private arbitration between the two parties, and/or commercial and social ostracism (same as you said - shaming) as I said a couple posts back. So I definitely agree with you there :)

Secondly, I was assuming (and perhaps wrongfully so) that in your example it was McDonald's who took note and were alleging fraud. Again, if this were the case, they could bring charges of fraud against the alleged offender and settle voluntarily together or hire arbitration.

what if the offender doesn't recognize the authority of the arbiter? (as above stated, what authority and power has this social or business court if it doesn't violate property?)

Live_Free_Or_Die

09-03-2010, 09:20 PM

agreed.

I don't mean to be repetitive, but how the hell is THAT

something the government can do better than a private capitalist market that runs on a profit motive.

Couldn't resist :)

WaltM

09-03-2010, 09:20 PM

inconvenience != harm

am I a victim if I have to take a detour and show up late?

yes.

I don't consider only bodily harm and monetary loss to be loss and harm.

Live_Free_Or_Die

09-03-2010, 09:23 PM

yes.

I don't consider only bodily harm and monetary loss to be loss and harm.

Are you suing, sending a bill, or taking an unspecified tax deduction from your government every time you are inconvenienced or have to take a detour that makes you late on a public road?

WaltM

09-03-2010, 09:27 PM

Except, I never said all *information* was equal. I said you can't legitimately own an idea

then explain to me, first of all.

What you can legitimately own.

How about your name?
How about your land?

Please tell me why this, not that.
(I can explain all of mine on the basis of monetary interest, uniqueness, social recognition, just to name a few)

, particularly if you want to be consistent about self-ownership and sticky property. That idea could be a specific arrangement of property, or of letters, words, numbers, an algorithm or formula, et cetera. I've said these things can't be property because they are not scarce resources.

Second question.

Can you tell me why not all information are equal?
(I can tell you, that because some cost more to produce and can cause harm, they are not equal, even though they may take the same time and energy to replicate)

You said earlier, that your identity, name, SSN, are not a scarce resource, so can you legitimately own it and protect it? (or did I misunderstand you?)

An 'identity' is something completely different, and I've never, not once, said an identity isn't something that can or should be owned

Explain to me then, if you've not already above.

Why an identity can be or should be owned, under your standard that "it's just an arragement of letters"
(if you admit here, that "because it can cause harm and it's better for me to own it rather than not" I will leave you alone, but if you choose to continue, please explain).

(this goes along with the idea of not being able to commit fraud). I absolutely believe in ownership of one's identity. This is also completely compatible with anti-IP.

We'll get back to this later, please answer the questions above.

Sentient Void

09-03-2010, 09:28 PM

I've said this to everybody.

Ancap or libertarian.

"Using government force" is a semantic debate.
If you believe you have a right worthy of protection, you will ask the government to do it for you.

"Settle in court" is not a solution in and of itself. It depends on whether the court has any authority to begin with. If a court has no force to violate property, it cannot settle or rule anything. If a court must be 100% voluntary, then anybody who refuses to submit to the court, is again, IMMUNE TO ITS RULING.

Unless you think there's a difference between using government force and private force, this distinction is meaningless.

what if the offender doesn't recognize the authority of the arbiter? (as above stated, what authority and power has this social or business court if it doesn't violate property?)

::sigh::

Once again, you are derailing the discussion... but I'll bite.

For utilizing govt force (such as police or public courts), libertarians such as myself merely do as such at times of extreme duress simply because the system is set up as such and we have no other recourse (though I personally avoid it as much as possible). Should a slave be called a hypocrite by his fellow slaves simply because he eats the food crumbs his master gives to him to survive? Am I also a hypocrite for using public roads? Do you see why your argument here is ridiculous (this is the same arguments liberals love to try to sue against libertarians as well)?

Many entities, individual and corporate - utilize private arbitration today (to avoid the public courts) in order to settle disputes when they both acknowledge through contract that they will honor the ruling of the arbiter. This is usually done when both parties cannot come to a compromise or settle the dispute on their own. I've done this myself, as I've said in a previous post in this thread - quite successfully, actually (and it was me vs an insurance company).

As for situations you're referring to where people don't recognize the authority of an arbiter, you're going down to territory that we've already discussed, numerous times, in other threads that I care not to repeat. It's *very* frustrating, and this is one of the many reason you are viewed as a miserable troll.

WaltM

09-03-2010, 09:29 PM

Are you suing, sending a bill, or taking an unspecified tax deduction from your government every time you are inconvenienced or have to take a detour that makes you late on a public road?

no, because it would cost me too much to fight them, and I'm forced in many ways to be silent.

whether or not I like something, or whether or not I've done something about it (or can I) has nothing to do with whether I've been wronged. (and I know full well I have no unalienable right from it, just that I prefer not to be if I was asked)

WaltM

09-03-2010, 09:36 PM

::sigh::

Once again, you are derailing the discussion... but I'll bite.

For utilizing govt force (such as police or public courts), libertarians such as myself merely do as such at times of extreme duress simply because the system is set up as such and we have no other recourse (though I personally avoid it as much as possible).

I get it , you make excuses to do things you (claim that you) hate, but the reality is, you know you have no options, so you only complain when you can afford to.

Should a slave be called a hypocrite by his fellow slaves simply because he eats the food crumbs his master gives to him to survive?

If a slave claims he's a purist for never eating it, yes.

But I doubt a slave would be so foolish as to brag about principles when life is at stake.

Am I also a hypocrite for using public roads?

Kind of, but I won't talk about that for now. I got better things to argue with you over just staying on this topic.

Do you see why your argument here is ridiculous (this is the same arguments liberals love to try to sue against libertarians as well)?

No. I don't. Because I can just as much say, I'm a libertarian and conservative, for my excuses, and I'm not one in real life , in ideal. And you'd likely consider me a liar or hypocrite. That's why I am trying to be as honest as I can.

Many entities, individual and corporate - utilize private arbitration today (to avoid the public courts) in order to settle disputes when they both acknowledge through contract that they will honor the ruling of the arbiter.

What if one side refuses? WOn't you have to use force "if necessary"?

This is usually done when both parties cannot come to a compromise or settle the dispute on their own. I've done this myself, as I've said in a previous post in this thread - quite successfully, actually (and it was me vs an insurance company).

And who here ever said that they want to go to court and use government force as DEFAULT, rather than last resort? (why do you act like "settle in a private court" is some new idea you invented and nobody's considering?)

As for situations you're referring to where people don't recognize the authority of an arbiter, you're going down to territory that we've already discussed, numerous times, in other threads that I care not to repeat. It's *very* frustrating, and this is one of the many reason you are viewed as a miserable troll.

Please copy and paste the response, I honestly missed it.

But if it's "last resort, the government or force", than what are we disagreeing about?

Live_Free_Or_Die

09-03-2010, 09:38 PM

no, because it would cost me too much to fight them, and I'm forced in many ways to be silent.

whether or not I like something, or whether or not I've done something about it (or can I) has nothing to do with whether I've been wronged. (and I know full well I have no unalienable right from it, just that I prefer not to be if I was asked)

If we agree:

1) The present system is a monopoly
2) Which only acts where in its best interests when deciding whether or not to steal
3) Capitalism & free markets best serve interests of parties when there is a profit motive
4) You do not like something & I do not like something about the present system

What is your support for government intervention of IP based on?

WaltM

09-03-2010, 09:41 PM

If we agree:

1) The present system is a monopoly
2) Which only acts where in its best interests when deciding whether or not to steal
3) Capitalism & free markets best serve interests of parties when there is a profit motive
4) You do not like something & I do not like something about the present system

I slightly disagree on the "monopoly" part, I think the government is only as powerful as we allow it.

Also, I slightly disagree on profit as always the sole motive to do things.

What is your support for government intervention of IP based on?

the fact that people benefit from the above, to perpetuate and protect their interests. They too, think "its stupid to" release IP for others to abuse, utilize and devalue. IP supporters benefit from using government, the same way many others benefit from protecting their ID.

Sentient Void

09-03-2010, 09:45 PM

then explain to me, first of all.

What you can legitimately own.

How about your name?
How about your land?

Please tell me why this, not that.
(I can explain all of mine on the basis of monetary interest, uniqueness, social recognition, just to name a few)

Off the top of my head, some prominent examples are you at least legitimately own your identity and your justly acquired property (through mixing your labor with unowned resources, or through voluntary trade with other parties).

Please tell me why I should care to go into extreme detail of the most basic fundamentals of propertarian libertarianism with you, especially if it won't make a difference considering you have your fingers stuck in your ears and it won't matter what I say? This has been established as the case with you in the numerous refutations of your statements and inane questions in other threads.

Second question.

Can you tell me why not all information are equal?
(I can tell you, that because some cost more to produce and can cause harm, they are not equal, even though they may take the same time and energy to replicate)

You said earlier, that your identity, name, SSN, are not a scarce resource, so can you legitimately own it and protect it? (or did I misunderstand you?)

I never said identity *wasn't* a scarce resource - if anything, it is, and constitutes property. Your name, SSN, etc may be more along the line of ideas and not protected under the idea of scarce resources as property, however the use of such information to usurp one's identity or property then, is theft and/or fraud.

Again, stop conflating the issue and stop putting words in my mouth.

Explain to me then, if you've not already above.

Why an identity can be or should be owned, under your standard that "it's just an arragement of letters"
(if you admit here, that "because it can cause harm and it's better for me to own it rather than not" I will leave you alone, but if you choose to continue, please explain).

We'll get back to this later, please answer the questions above.

I never said an identity is simply an 'arrangement of letters or numbers'. Once again - stop putting words in my mouth. I've said a name, address, etc are. These things are not your identity - though they may be some information corresponding to your identity. Again, if you use such information, or someone's signature, to usurp their identity or to steal their property - then that is fraud or theft. Simply having such information in someone else's head, in data, or on paper does not constitute theft or fraud - it's the *use* of it to usurp someone's identity that constitutes it.

I work at a financial institution and have access to *all* of this information, very easily. Tons of people do, actually. They are not stealing peoples' identities, are they? Of course not - however if they used such information to usurp their identities, then they would be.

Again, Walt - it's a very simple concept, and you;re trolling.

Can you explain to me why you're not a troll?

Can you explain to me why people in this forum shouldn't be sick and tired of your BS, when it's obvious that they are?

Live_Free_Or_Die

09-03-2010, 09:50 PM

I slightly disagree on the "monopoly" part, I think the government is only as powerful as we allow it.

No disagreement. Majority of force makes the rules in the real world.

Also, I slightly disagree on profit as always the sole motive to do things.

I don't know what your argument is in relation to capitalism but I do not disagree profit is always the sole motive.

the fact that people benefit from the above, to perpetuate and protect their interests. They too, think "its stupid to" release IP for others to abuse, utilize and devalue. IP supporters benefit from using government, the same way many others benefit from protecting their ID.

People have to show their ID and release personal information all the time. No one is in control of their personal information. The only thing you are in control of is who you directly release it to but once you share information you are no longer in control.

I am not a fan of one group of people benefiting by making another group of people pay for shared information the first group wants to treat as if it hasn't been shared.

Sentient Void

09-03-2010, 10:01 PM

I get it , you make excuses to do things you (claim that you) hate, but the reality is, you know you have no options, so you only complain when you can afford to.

If a slave claims he's a purist for never eating it, yes.

But I doubt a slave would be so foolish as to brag about principles when life is at stake.

Kind of, but I won't talk about that for now. I got better things to argue with you over just staying on this topic.

No. I don't. Because I can just as much say, I'm a libertarian and conservative, for my excuses, and I'm not one in real life , in ideal. And you'd likely consider me a liar or hypocrite. That's why I am trying to be as honest as I can.

What if one side refuses? WOn't you have to use force "if necessary"?

And who here ever said that they want to go to court and use government force as DEFAULT, rather than last resort? (why do you act like "settle in a private court" is some new idea you invented and nobody's considering?)

Please copy and paste the response, I honestly missed it.

But if it's "last resort, the government or force", than what are we disagreeing about?

I'm a realist - I acknowledge the current situation with the State and avoid it as much as I can while advocating for more freedom for individuals and trying to settle matters as much as possible while avoiding state intervention.

You've missed the point with the slave - it doesn't make the slave a hypocrite if he desires and advocates freedom and tries to gain it through whatever means he can while staying alive in the process.

I don't think you're a liar or hypocrite, just intellectually lazy. Or just a troll.

Except I've always found ways to avoid the state in disputes between myself and commercial entities. As for social situations, I don't initiate aggression on anyone so I've not often had to deal with such situations. It's rare, but there have been times that I've defended myself or a family member from force from others.

If it came to having to deal with the state - it's only because I've had no choice. Like using public roads.

I never said it was some original idea - stop acting like a douche - I'm merely restating the fact that most things are done without the need of the state.

As for the response you want me to copy and paste? No thanks, I've done enough work for you - do it yourself. But such things have been explained to you a number of times before. It's not my fault if you have a tendency to plug your ears and just inanely question every little detail about the most basic shit.

WaltM

09-03-2010, 10:06 PM

Off the top of my head, some prominent examples are you at least legitimately own your identity and your justly acquired property (through mixing your labor with unowned resources, or through voluntary trade with other parties).

Ok, I'll read on.

Please tell me why I should care to go into extreme detail of the most basic fundamentals of propertarian libertarianism with you, especially if it won't make a difference considering you have your fingers stuck in your ears and it won't matter what I say? This has been established as the case with you in the numerous refutations of your statements and inane questions in other threads.

No, I'm listening, what I'm missing is your honest admission of your inconsistency.

Why should you go into extreme detail? Because that's how you'll honestly examine the facts and basis for your claims and know whether you're consistent.

Don't do it for me, learn to defend these views to people who know even less than me.

I never said identity *wasn't* a scarce resource - if anything, it is, and constitutes property.

So identity IS a scarce resource? (or is there a 3rd option?)

I apologize.

Why is ID scarce? Is it not as scarce as my articles and my ideas? Aren't they all information, equally easy to copy?

Your name, SSN, etc may be more along the line of ideas and not protected under the idea of scarce resources as property, however the use of such information to usurp one's identity or property then, is theft and/or fraud.

So can I defend IP on the grounds of fraud?
(such as plagiarism)
I'm asking you a serious question.

Again, stop conflating the issue and stop putting words in my mouth.

I didnt mean to, I really thought, in chat, you told me ID isn't scarce.
But correct me and tell me what you believe, so I can't put words in your mouth.

I never said an identity is simply an 'arrangement of letters or numbers'. Once again - stop putting words in my mouth.

Ok then, tell us what else it is.

I've said a name, address, etc are. These things are not your identity - though they may be some information corresponding to your identity. Again, if you use such information, or someone's signature, to usurp their identity or to steal their property - then that is fraud or theft.

please explain why.

Information corresponding to your ID, which can be used, practically to BE your identity, are they not arrangements of letters?

If so, whats wrong with copying and using them?
If not, what else is it?
Is it scarce?

Simply having such information in someone else's head, in data, or on paper does not constitute theft or fraud - it's the *use* of it to usurp someone's identity that constitutes it.

CORRECT.

and simply memorizing a book or song doesn't constitute copyright infringment.

Making a copy, and distributing it in a way that it can be utitlized AS THE ORIGINAL FOR THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE (such as a book to read and a song to listen to) constitutes copyright infringement.

Do we disagree?

I work at a financial institution and have access to *all* of this information, very easily. Tons of people do, actually. They are not stealing peoples' identities, are they?

No, nor is a library of books. Until they use it wrongly, and they acquired it justly, if they misuse it, they've violated the agreement that they won't abuse the information.

Of course not - however if they used such information to usurp their identities, then they would be.

Ok, so can you tell me what's wrong about the current concept of copyright?

Again, Walt - it's a very simple concept, and you;re trolling.

Can you explain to me why you're not a troll?

yes, because I ask serious questions and you've, not until now, gave serious answers to them.

Can you explain to me why people in this forum shouldn't be sick and tired of your BS, when it's obvious that they are?

because some are not, and the ones are not know why.
I ask people questions to get them to defend their ideas, why is that bad?
I despise hypocrites and liars, so I will expose them any time I can.
I am not calling you one, but you shouldn't have a problem with me unless you are one.

WaltM

09-03-2010, 10:09 PM

I'm a realist - I acknowledge the current situation with the State and avoid it as much as I can while advocating for more freedom for individuals and trying to settle matters as much as possible while avoiding state intervention.

You've missed the point with the slave - it doesn't make the slave a hypocrite if he desires and advocates freedom and tries to gain it through whatever means he can while staying alive in the process.

I don't think you're a liar or hypocrite, just intellectually lazy. Or just a troll.

Except I've always found ways to avoid the state in disputes between myself and commercial entities. As for social situations, I don't initiate aggression on anyone so I've not often had to deal with such situations. It's rare, but there have been times that I've defended myself or a family member from force from others.

If it came to having to deal with the state - it's only because I've had no choice. Like using public roads.

I never said it was some original idea - stop acting like a douche - I'm merely restating the fact that most things are done without the need of the state.

but until it's necessary , right?

As for the response you want me to copy and paste? No thanks, I've done enough work for you - do it yourself. But such things have been explained to you a number of times before. It's not my fault if you have a tendency to plug your ears and just inanely question every little detail about the most basic shit.

I don't think you actually answered me, so you pretend like you "can but won't".
That won't work here, if you know what you said, where, why, how, SHOW ME, I honestly don't know where it is. If you have an answer, PLEASE SHOW ME SO I WON'T ASK AGAIN.

I will ask again, and everybody is free to answer :
What good is a court , public or private, voluntary or not, if it hasn't the most basic function : the authority and power to violate property?

Every "solution" or "alternative" I've heard from libertarians, ancaps alike, have failed to meet this basic requirement, which is why I find their ideas laughably unrealistic.

WaltM

09-03-2010, 10:11 PM

No disagreement. Majority of force makes the rules in the real world.

I don't know what your argument is in relation to capitalism but I do not disagree profit is always the sole motive.

People have to show their ID and release personal information all the time. No one is in control of their personal information. The only thing you are in control of is who you directly release it to but once you share information you are no longer in control.

I am not a fan of one group of people benefiting by making another group of people pay for shared information the first group wants to treat as if it hasn't been shared.

fair enough.

I'm not a fan either, but I learn to accept life.

Can you tell Mr. Void I'm trying to have a sincere discussion , and not troll, given your experience with me?

Live_Free_Or_Die

09-03-2010, 10:23 PM

fair enough.

I'm not a fan either, but I learn to accept life.

Can you tell Mr. Void I'm trying to have a sincere discussion , and not troll, given your experience with me?

I can't claim to know you personally in the sense we have ever met face to face or all of your views. I can claim I heard you on Skype for the first time during the Theocrat debates and we have talked about some topics or just personally bs'd on skype on occasion since.

I do not consider you a troll. I can understand why other people think you are a troll because you often seem to argue a minority view (at least what would be considered minority on this forum). Personally I don't mind someone that can think for themselves challenging my views. In the discussions I have had with you we agree where we agree and if there are better facts have no problem reconsidering a position.

WaltM

09-03-2010, 10:25 PM

I can't claim to know you personally or all of your views. I can claim I heard you on Skype for the first time during the Theocrat debates and we have talked about some topics or just personally bs'd on skype on occasion since.

I do not consider you a troll. I can understand why other people think you are a troll because you often seem to argue a minority view (at least what would be considered minority on this forum). Personally I don't mind someone that can think for themselves challenging my views. In the discussions I have had with you we agree where we agree and if there are better facts have no problem reconsidering a position.

thanks, that's all I wanted.

Matt Collins

09-04-2010, 01:30 PM

I don't think that DP will lose. But the problem is that they'll have to pay to fight it and that will cost them money.

And who are the real pirates of copyright?

Sentient Void

09-04-2010, 05:07 PM

I can't claim to know you personally in the sense we have ever met face to face or all of your views. I can claim I heard you on Skype for the first time during the Theocrat debates and we have talked about some topics or just personally bs'd on skype on occasion since.

I do not consider you a troll. I can understand why other people think you are a troll because you often seem to argue a minority view (at least what would be considered minority on this forum). Personally I don't mind someone that can think for themselves challenging my views. In the discussions I have had with you we agree where we agree and if there are better facts have no problem reconsidering a position.

Maybe he isn't a troll. Maybe he is genuinely trying to have a discussion.

Also, I don't hate the guy, I do however find his method and delivery of rhetorical questioning *extremely* inane and frustrating. It sure seems troll-like.

It doesn't help that seemingly *none* of the answers given to his line of questioning ever seem to stick. It seems that he continues to ask the same questions over and over, leading to a circular discussion - which I find particularly irritating. Especially when I and others are asked to restate our answers over and over again - and especially so when it serves to derail the thread.

Perhaps he's just an unintentional troll? It's like a troll that's in denial about it, thinks he's human, wants to be human, but just isn't?

WaltM

09-04-2010, 06:20 PM

Maybe he isn't a troll. Maybe he is genuinely trying to have a discussion.

Also, I don't hate the guy, I do however find his method and delivery of rhetorical questioning *extremely* inane and frustrating. It sure seems troll-like.

It doesn't help that seemingly *none* of the answers given to his line of questioning ever seem to stick. It seems that he continues to ask the same questions over and over, leading to a circular discussion - which I find particularly irritating. Especially when I and others are asked to restate our answers over and over again - and especially so when it serves to derail the thread.

Perhaps he's just an unintentional troll? It's like a troll that's in denial about it, thinks he's human, wants to be human, but just isn't?

can you consider I am not satisfied with your answer and wanted you to be more specific, and to prevent me from putting words in your mouth?

I've not yet clearly understood :
(from you, I know my own answers)
a) whether all info is non-scarce resource
b) if some are not, why not
c) if all are non-scarce, should any be protected (illegal to copy and abuse)
d) why copyright can't be enforced, but ID theft, counterfeit fraud can
(By the way, you've failed miserably telling me why it's wrong or what you'd do if a person sold gold plated tungsten as gold)

You don't need to reply here, and I don't want to keep bumping this thread, but I wanted to make sure I didn't ignore you.

Petar

09-04-2010, 06:26 PM

WaltM

09-04-2010, 06:32 PM

What if you are satisfied with his answer?

I already told you, are you blind, or just not paying attention?

If I was satisified, I'd shut up. But since I'm not, I've asked again.

heavenlyboy34

09-04-2010, 06:32 PM

Petar

09-04-2010, 06:38 PM

I already told you, are you blind, or just not paying attention?

If I was satisified, I'd shut up. But since I'm not, I've asked again.

What if you did not ask again?

WaltM

09-04-2010, 06:39 PM

a) Yes, knowledge is non-scarce by its nature. In fact, there is such thing as "Common Knowledge" and related legal classes of information that cannot even be copyrighted under the current system.

I didn't say knowledge, I said information

IS all information knowledge?
If not, is all information non-scarce?
If so, is ALL knowledge non-scarce?

c) although I've answered the first part of this question in section a, the second part can be answered thusly-if creators of information really want to protect their "creations", they should simply not sell it, or force buyers to sign a contract (both of these will negatively impact sales).

You assume the creator is always out for profit. And you assume all information is sellable. (as if nothing can be protected for other purposes and intentions)

So if you don't want your identity given to everybody, just don't sell it.
That doesn't sound like a permanent solution.

Just because I parked my car on a street doesn't mean I'm asking people to steal it (and yes, stealing means taking without asking, not just when it's on my property).

d) The reason copyright can't be enforced is that the very concept is redundant. 2 people cannot lay claim to the same piece of property (IP or otherwise).

Can ID protection be enforced? Or is it redundant?

Can 2 people lay claim to the same piece of ID?

If not, can it be stolen or ever misused?

If, as in the case of IP, the creator can use the force of law to compel the buyer to use the IP in certain ways, this is a violation of the purchaser's rights to do what he wants with his property (provided he doesn't violate another person's rights).

There you go again "(provided he doesn't violate another person's rights)."
I fully agree, we just disagree on what counts as "violate another's rights"

Can I beat somebody and say I didn't violate his rights?
If not, why can you infringe copyright and claim you didn't violate a person's rights?

This concept was understood for centuries until the Copyright act was passed.

Bad analogy, as the past did not permit copying technology to do the same work as today.

Furthermore, life was fine centuries before road signs too, are you willing to go back to that (without giving up any other traffic conditions where you live)?

That is why, prior to the advent of IP law, we find so many creators copying and imitating each other (such as "Variations on a theme by Paganini"). IP law, by its nature, interferes with the natural spread of culture and knowledge.

Wrong.

Not all information are equal. (until you realize this, you'll keep conflating the fact there was no copyright with, there should be no information protection whatsoever).

Creative works, identity, facts discovered, whether something is real gold, are not all protected by copyright, or identity, or fraud.

WaltM

09-04-2010, 06:40 PM

What if you did not ask again?

do you have a point?

Petar

09-04-2010, 06:41 PM

do you have a point?

What if I have a point?

WaltM

09-04-2010, 06:42 PM

What if I have a point?

then get to it, or you're wasting my time, your time.

or i can ignore you, if you want that.

TheEvilDetector

09-04-2010, 06:43 PM

I'm starting to hate lawyers as much as cops, which I didn't think was possible.

I think your capacity to hate classes of people is still under utilised.

Petar

09-04-2010, 06:44 PM

then get to it, or you're wasting my time, your time.

or i can ignore you, if you want that.

What if you are ignoring me?

Sentient Void

09-04-2010, 07:07 PM

can you consider I am not satisfied with your answer and wanted you to be more specific, and to prevent me from putting words in your mouth?

I've not yet clearly understood :
(from you, I know my own answers)
a) whether all info is non-scarce resource
b) if some are not, why not
c) if all are non-scarce, should any be protected (illegal to copy and abuse)
d) why copyright can't be enforced, but ID theft, counterfeit fraud can
(By the way, you've failed miserably telling me why it's wrong or what you'd do if a person sold gold plated tungsten as gold)

You don't need to reply here, and I don't want to keep bumping this thread, but I wanted to make sure I didn't ignore you.

Except, I'm not here to satisfy you, Walt.

But anyways, as this is a much better format to present your questions - I don't personally mind answering them as such. So I'll bite... again.

a) Yes, all *information*, in and of itself, *is* a non-scarce resource.

b) I'm coming to the conclusion that I don't consider an 'identity' as 'information' at all. It's more of an abstract concept, and would put it more along the lines property than information. I would also label an 'identity' as a scarce resource - since it is truly unique and is owned. Also, to simply have information *about* someone's identity doesn't mean you actually own their identity - however it might mean that you can use such information to usurp or violate their identity and property through fraud/theft. Once such actions are taken, then you have identity theft, which is the same, in my view, as property theft.

c) I think it would be smart to personally protect such *information* (and who you give it to and where) since it may lead to fraud or theft, but no one has any such 'right' to own such information. To claim one can own such information and to claim it as property, would constitute a violation and theft of others' property. Copyright, IP, patents, etc are a violation of my property - through and through - since it is telling me what I can or can't do with my property, or how I can arrange it.

d) Copyright shouldn't be enforced because it violates my scarce resources by telling me what I can or can't do with them or how I am not allowed to arrange my justly acquired scarce resources. Copyright is based on information. An identity is a scarce resource, and is actual property - and the existence / acknowledgement of it as such also doesn't violate the property of others. Merely copying a book is not theft of scarce resources, since information is not a scarce resource. Claiming a book to have been created or written by you, when it hasn't, is fraud and theft of property / identity (which, again, is a scarce resource).

Also, I didn't 'fail miserably' at your gold example. You didn't like my answer. I don't care if you didn't like it - it was answered (based on how contracts are *universally* understood to work), and you mixed a red herring and a strawman in response since you had no legitimate rebuttal against it. Fail.

BTW, you keep talking of anti-IP hypocrasy / logical inconsistency. I don't see it. Now the burden of proof is on you. Explain yourself, or admit you're either trolling or don't know what you're talking about.

awake

09-04-2010, 07:37 PM

An interesting experiment in identity; open your purse or wallet, or what ever you keep your identifications in. Look at how many are forced by the government for you to have, or some like minded regulation. Then look at the optional voluntary ones... see what I mean.

Sentient Void

09-04-2010, 10:03 PM

awake

09-05-2010, 05:37 AM

Is your identity these cards? or is your identity the recognition of all those who know you to see you?

My identity is impossible to steal amongst my friends and family. A person may try, but they would be found ridiculously insane for pressing the charade.

Only when you are given these state identifications do they become a means for which identity theft arises. The identity thief must get state mandated identities to steal from the original holder. More importantly the state must continuously issue more 'secure' identity so that it may track you more efficiently (property) to conduct the very same theft operations itself (taxes and wealth tracking). The state may counterfeit, you may not. The state issues identifications to more easily track and expropriate the forced identity holders, when other people use the identifications to do the same the state gets territorial.

Live_Free_Or_Die

09-05-2010, 05:45 PM

Is your identity these cards? or is your identity the recognition of all those who know you to see you?

Good question as I do not consider any information scarce including paperwork with names and numbers on them.

WaltM

09-06-2010, 12:53 AM

Good question as I do not consider any information scarce including paperwork with names and numbers on them.

but you no less, consider it "stupid" to share such information.

why, if it is neither scarce nor owned by you?

WaltM

09-06-2010, 01:03 AM

Except, I'm not here to satisfy you, Walt.

But anyways, as this is a much better format to present your questions - I don't personally mind answering them as such. So I'll bite... again.

a) Yes, all *information*, in and of itself, *is* a non-scarce resource.

progress, thanks

b) I'm coming to the conclusion that I don't consider an 'identity' as 'information' at all.

so is identity scarce or non-scarce?

It's more of an abstract concept, and would put it more along the lines property than information.

Why is it property, not information?

What constitutes property that IP does not, and identity does?

DO explain this to heavenlyboy and whoever says only physical and tangible objects are property (which I disagree, and tell us how idenity, non-tangible and non-physical is property, I believe identity is property and so can information be)

I would also label an 'identity' as a scarce resource - since it is truly unique and is owned.

How so, any more than a dollar bill or book, or movie?

Also, to simply have information *about* someone's identity doesn't mean you actually own their identity - however it might mean that you can use such information to usurp or violate their identity and property through fraud/theft.

I agree.

So let's not get into semantics.

You may be unable to actually steal an idea, or identity, or song.
But you can copy and misuse in a way which causes financial loss and in effect be the similar (if not same) result as stealing.

Once such actions are taken, then you have identity theft, which is the same, in my view, as property theft.

So how convenient, simply saying "it's not information" and "it's property" allows you to own something and prevent people from copyting it.

Why can't I say my creative work is "not information, but property" and protect it as such?

c) I think it would be smart to personally protect such *information* (and who you give it to and where) since it may lead to fraud or theft, but no one has any such 'right' to own such information.

Say it in a positive sentence :

"I don't have a right to own my SSN, name, sensitive info such as birth date, bank account PIN, but its smart for me to protect it"

Did I say it right?

To claim one can own such information and to claim it as property, would constitute a violation and theft of others' property.

I disagree.

Just like you said above, a person is not allowed to commit ID theft or fraud, and nobody considers anti-fraud, ID protection measures as anti-freedom or anti-property.

Copyright, IP, patents, etc are a violation of my property - through and through - since it is telling me what I can or can't do with my property, or how I can arrange it.

anti-ID theft, anti-fraud is no different, unless you can tell me what the difference is

I'll reply up to here until you explain why the above is true.

Why ID is not info, and why ID is property.

Sentient Void

09-06-2010, 11:12 AM

Why is it property, not information?

What constitutes property that IP does not, and identity does?

DO explain this to heavenlyboy and whoever says only physical and tangible objects are property (which I disagree, and tell us how idenity, non-tangible and non-physical is property, I believe identity is property and so can information be)

Because property are scarce resources, information is not. An 'identity', although certainly an abstract concept (whereas information is easily defined and not abstract), is a scarce resource because it cannot be duplicated. It can be violated/usurped through the misuse of some information pertaining to an identity - but an identity in and of itself cannot actually be copied, much like physical scarce resources cannot be copied. This is what makes it scarce as opposed to non-scarce.

Also, remember - IP is based on an 'idea' or information, which is a non-scarce resource. In order to enforce IP laws, one must violate the property of others. In order to protect one's identity, it does not require a violation of others' property.

How so, any more than a dollar bill or book, or movie?

How many times do I have to say this? This is the shit I'm talking about, Walt - you repeat the same essential questions over and over again, and we go in fucking circles. It's extremely irritating and trollish, whether you realize it or not.

To protect and enforce one's identity does not require the violation of scarce resources of others (which in turn allows you to protect your physical scarce resources and wealth from theft). To protect and enforce 'IP laws' requires the violation of scarce resources of others (by telling others through government mandate in what way they can or cannot arrange their justly acquired physical property). How many more ways can I reword this until you get it, or at least stop asking the same question?

You may be unable to actually steal an idea, or identity, or song.
But you can copy and misuse in a way which causes financial loss and in effect be the similar (if not same) result as stealing.

Once again - the only reason one can 'steal' an 'idea' or a 'song' is because government mandated monopoly IP laws make it so. But in actuality, it's a mandate telling those with their own property what they can and can't do with it. Identity theft is, again, completely different and has been explained to you as to why.

So how convenient, simply saying "it's not information" and "it's property" allows you to own something and prevent people from copyting it.

Why can't I say my creative work is "not information, but property" and protect it as such?

::sigh::

Once again, an identity is an *abstract concept* that defines who, in fact, someone is (and an actual identity is not merely some information pertaining to it) - an *identity* is is a unique resource that can only truly be owned by the original - this makes it a scarce resource - it *cannot* be copied. I would go as far as to say that an 'identity' is an 'inalienable possession', like self-ownership.

Your creative work *is information*, and thus not a scarce resource and thus cannot be owned, because it *can* be copied (though again, remember that claiming work is yours when it is someone else's is identity theft, and is different), without any violation of your scarce resources, through the use of my own scarce resources.

If I even *read* or *look at* your creative work - I've effectively made a copy of it in my brain, which is my scarce resource and owned by me (self-ownership). How is such any different than copying such information on my hard drive so I can view it, or onto pieces of my owned paper?

Your logic is entirely inconsistent, and this is why your 'analogy' fails utterly. You can't argue from logic, principle or morality - because you'll be completely inconsistent. So stop trying to support your position through such means - because you can't Now, if you want to argue from a point of utilitarianism - we can go down that road as well - but be assured that your position does not even have a utilitarian net benefit for society - but actually a net negative - and will not have a leg to stand on in that regard as well.

Say it in a positive sentence :

"I don't have a right to own my SSN, name, sensitive info such as birth date, bank account PIN, but its smart for me to protect it"

Did I say it right?

Sure. But only because such information is sensitive and can lead to the theft of your scarce resources. You don't actually own the information, though - but it wouldn't be smart to give it to those who you don't trust.

I disagree.

Just like you said above, a person is not allowed to commit ID theft or fraud, and nobody considers anti-fraud, ID protection measures as anti-freedom or anti-property.

Disagree all you want, but it doesn't change the reality that I've pointed out to you your logical inconsistency in thinking so, and the violation of others' scarce resources that results.

WaltM

09-06-2010, 01:54 PM

Because property are scarce resources, information is not.

Explain to me please, why identity, or "information which represents and can be used as de facto identity" is "non-scarce"

(Do you see how much explaining you have to do just to defend this differentiation?)

An 'identity', although certainly an abstract concept (whereas information is easily defined and not abstract)

Please define and explain what is abstract about identity (or "information which represents and can be used as de facto identity") which is not abstract about information (and why it matters whether "abstractness" is the defining factor of whether something is ownable).

, is a scarce resource because it cannot be duplicated.

I can grant you that identity on its own cannot be duplicated, but "information which represents and can be used as de facto identity" can be, can you disagree?

It can be violated/usurped through the misuse of some information pertaining to an identity - but an identity in and of itself cannot actually be copied, much like physical scarce resources cannot be copied. This is what makes it scarce as opposed to non-scarce.

Ok. Let's get this straight first.

Do you agree that
"information which represents and can be used as de facto identity" is duplicatable, and is as non-scarce as all other information?

Also, remember - IP is based on an 'idea' or information, which is a non-scarce resource. In order to enforce IP laws, one must violate the property of others. In order to protect one's identity, it does not require a violation of others' property.

I disagree, to protect ID, and "information which represents and can be used as de facto identity", would also require violation of property (you just are ok with it, and find it less problematic).

How many times do I have to say this? This is the shit I'm talking about, Walt - you repeat the same essential questions over and over again, and we go in fucking circles. It's extremely irritating and trollish, whether you realize it or not.

Let's hear it again.

To protect and enforce one's identity does not require the violation of scarce resources of others (which in turn allows you to protect your physical scarce resources and wealth from theft).

But to enforce one's protection of "information which represents and can be used as de facto identity" requires violation of property, does it not?

Are you not violating my body, mind, time and property if you say I cannot use your "information which represents and can be used as de facto identity"?

Yes or no? Or is there a 3rd option?

To protect and enforce 'IP laws' requires the violation of scarce resources of others (by telling others through government mandate in what way they can or cannot arrange their justly acquired physical property). How many more ways can I reword this until you get it, or at least stop asking the same question?

Until you clarify what constitutes violation of property, and are all violations equally unacceptable.

Is requiring that I can't use a gun (even when unloaded) to point at somebody to get what I want a "violation of my scarce resources"? Why is it OK for you or the government to tell me what I can or can't do with my gun?

Once again - the only reason one can 'steal' an 'idea' or a 'song' is because government mandated monopoly IP laws make it so.

Wrong.

People who recognize the ownership and enforcement of it will enforce it any way they can, even without the government.

The same way one can say "the only reason one can steal an identity, be charged with fraud for selling gold plated tungsten, or be charged for counterfeit for printing Fed Res Notes, is because government mandated monopoly on such protections"

Nonsense, the government does what the market demands. If the market demanded otherwise, it would be changed either by vote or by funds or by force (and the fact it is as such means, THE MARKET HAS ALLOWED IT)

But in actuality, it's a mandate telling those with their own property what they can and can't do with it. Identity theft is, again, completely different and has been explained to you as to why.

No, it's not, and you've not explained why.

I'll wait until you reply the above before replying any more below. You got lots of explaining to do.

WaltM

09-06-2010, 01:58 PM

If I even *read* or *look at* your creative work - I've effectively made a copy of it in my brain, which is my scarce resource and owned by me (self-ownership). How is such any different than copying such information on my hard drive so I can view it, or onto pieces of my owned paper?

yes, but until you can produce an exact copy based solely on your memory, you've not violated copyright protection.

You're intentionally trying to show that "just because you can't regulate it all the way, you shouldn't do it at all".

Copyright protection as it stands today, allows LOTS of exceptions and gray areas (which you intentionally ignore and push to the extreme absurd).

Fair use, limited use, non-commercial use...etc

Do you SERIOUSLY not know the difference between "memorizing" something, and "photographing" something? (Yes, even if you have photographic memory, I'd like to see you demonstrate you can make the exact duplication, with in mind, that not all information are equal, you memorize and sentence, but not a 900 page book, some can, but you cannot.)

WaltM

09-06-2010, 02:03 PM

Sure. But only because such information is sensitive and can lead to the theft of your scarce resources. You don't actually own the information, though - but it wouldn't be smart to give it to those who you don't trust.

Let's play a role game.

If you are V (for victim)
I am T (for thief)
And another person is S (for seller)

If T, took the sensitive information of V, and purchased a car using the resources which V has in his name.
S sold the car to him, all he cares of , is his wallet, he got paid, so he lets the car go to T.

Has S done anything wrong, or should he care about whether T wasn't stealing from V?

T of course, NEVER EVER claimed he was V, he merely said, "I have the right to use the funds of V, nobody said I cannot, to say I cannot, would be a violation of what I can or can't do with my time, energy and brain".

S says "I don't care who you are, I just care if I get paid, if I'm paid, I let go of my merchandize, V cannot touch me because I never dealt with him and I never stole anything from him, nor is it my responsibility to compensate him for his funds, I after all, made a legitimate transaction where T & S agreed".

Did T or S do ANYTHING WRONG TO EACH OTHER?
(if you say yes, you can't be anti-copyright. If you say no, then good, don't cry when it happens to you, T & S will not care what V says, nor will V have any standing to sue either party).

newbitech

09-06-2010, 02:39 PM

WaltM

09-06-2010, 02:49 PM

Fair use. Bogus lawsuits are bogus, but unfortunately cost money. This is exactly how the court system fucks up people's live every day. All this sue happy business model is about is making threat cost more than the settlement.

Make it cheaper to settle the threat than to defend the threat and then BAM, instant profits.

Correct, which is why, at some point (hopefully now), these defendants will stand up to fight, even if it costs them in the short run, to prevent precedent of future abuse, and set the standard (which is already existent) of reasonable time to cooperation (such as a warning e-mail).

For instance, it is going to cost me more to defend myself against a speeding ticket than to just pay the ticket. Or,

If it's an isolated incident, you are right.

Righthaven fucked themselves for
a) bragging about how they intent to shake people down
b) actually doing it all at once, inviting a class action

It is going to cost me more to defend myself against the false accusations of a cop than to just admit to some lesser charge.

So what we get is people being paranoid about driving, people paranoid about being around cops and NOW people paranoid about posting blogs or online discussions.

what happened to "freedom isn't free"?

The courts need to immediately disbar any lawyer who uses threatening lawsuits to try and extract settlement because of the cost of defending against the borderline claim is higher than the offered settlement. This means that once a settlement offer is made, then the limit on judgement cannot exceed that settlement less the cost of defense. Would this mean less settlements? Yeah it would. Would this put a greater burden on the courts to try more cases? Yeah it would. So now, if you lose your lawsuit, you should be responsible for the cost of the defendant and the defendant is not required to counter sue to recoup.

That sounds good in theory, but eventually may lead to taking away people's rights to sue. (which actually hardly exists, the point is, some measure, no matter how arbitrary, should be taken, I prefer on costs basis)

In California there was a proposed legislation to prevent shakedowns, but wasn't voted for, as it was worried by people they'll lose their "right to sue".

Clearly the intent of these lawsuits is not to protect the copyright, but to generate profit via lengthy court battles. Posting anything online that does not require a subscription or a password to access should be considered prima facie evidence that the posted content is NOT protected by copyright, 1.) because it relies on the good will of others 2.) because there is a very easy mechanism for copy protection

they even BRAG ABOUT IT.

they didn't so much as NOTIFY THE ALLEGED INFRINGER THAT HE'S WRONG.
they didn't so much as research if they're suing the right person.

Sitasen

09-06-2010, 02:59 PM

newbitech

09-06-2010, 03:02 PM

Correct, which is why, at some point (hopefully now), these defendants will stand up to fight, even if it costs them in the short run, to prevent precedent of future abuse, and set the standard (which is already existent) of reasonable time to cooperation (such as a warning e-mail).

If it's an isolated incident, you are right.

Righthaven fucked themselves for
a) bragging about how they intent to shake people down
b) actually doing it all at once, inviting a class action

what happened to "freedom isn't free"?

That sounds good in theory, but eventually may lead to taking away people's rights to sue. (which actually hardly exists, the point is, some measure, no matter how arbitrary, should be taken, I prefer on costs basis)

In California there was a proposed legislation to prevent shakedowns, but wasn't voted for, as it was worried by people they'll lose their "right to sue".

they even BRAG ABOUT IT.

they didn't so much as NOTIFY THE ALLEGED INFRINGER THAT HE'S WRONG.
they didn't so much as research if they're suing the right person.

You can sue all you want, but if your lawsuit starts out with, "Pay me and I won't sue", then whatever amount you set for settlement should be the cap on how much you can get if you win. Its not really a settlement if the intent of the offer was to put the alleged defendant under duress and that offer is accepted under duress. I think any civil legal action should require the accuser to pay the defendants legal fees in the event their case is thrown out or the judgement goes against the accuser.

Right now, there is practically no risk at all for the accuser if they lose their case. Imagine if the State had to reimburse attorneys fees to defendants when they lost their prosecution. Imagine if cops were held accountable when the charges they brought against a defendant were dropped because the cops were wrong and did not properly enforce the law.

I know none of this will happen. People have been abused for far too long in these courts to accept a different reality. Innocent until proven guilty has been destroyed in all matters, civil and criminal, when it comes to the courts. Now its just innocent until proven broke.

WaltM

09-06-2010, 03:03 PM

newbitech

09-06-2010, 03:16 PM

"Clearly the intent of these lawsuits is not to protect the copyright, but to generate profit via lengthy court battles."

Could the intent also be more sinister as to trying to silence the passing of information that may be damaging to Obama's grand scheme? Is it only coinsidence that this is starting up as the internet is now being used to fight Obama on his home turf. And if so, it will be interesting to see if all those progressive bloggers we saw in Vegas last month are the least bit concerned as everyone else.

No, I really don't think so. I mean maybe, but to me, the silencing of passing information is only an unintended consequence of well intended laws.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Now you just have a guy who is striking while the iron is hot. He was smart enough to realize the content producing trends that are happening on the internet with the battle over Net Neutrality. All he is doing is abusing and all ready ragged out legal system.

The "business model" as he puts it, while being absolutely abusive and sinister, is also brilliant for the times we are living in. There is no limit to the amount of domains and people he can sue. All he needs is to get the ball rolling.

Nothing short of an Act of Congress is going to stop this once he has a few successful lawsuits with the model under his belt.

This is also going to get supported by the MSM because now they will have a conduit for profiting off of non-subscriber based content. Add in the fact that they will be able to find their most popular content and then sell that to the highest bidder, and that new lawyered up content "owner" can retro-actively sue for damages? Wow.

I think what needs to happen during the discovery process is that sites like the Daily Paul that are being sued, need force the ORIGINAL content provider to open up their books and show their web analytics. This way, they can defend themselves by creating a conflict of interest between the accuser and the actual SOURCE.

If someone bought that original content, and that content is still be hosted by the originator, then I believe it can be proven that Daily Paul is actually owed money for sending traffic to that source and adding to the value of that content.

In this regard, by forcing the distributors of the content, Daily Paul, to stop distributing that content, they are actually causing the value of that content to decrease.

Also, if it can be proven that the original content provider paid for a link building SEO campaign for any other articles on its site, then I believe this is also prima facie evidence that the original content provider intended to have its content freely copied and distributed without any expectations of a claim to not reproduce.

Also, if the content is still being hosted by the original provider, then how does the person suing make any claim at all regarding ownership of that content for the purposes of establishing legal standing and the right to sue for copyright protection?

Nah, I don't see a wider scheme going on here other than the implications this would have for large corporate content providers and the networks that distribute the content vis a vis fair use and Network Neutrality.

Though I am sure that "the government" wants to control this too.

WaltM

09-06-2010, 03:41 PM

You can sue all you want, but if your lawsuit starts out with, "Pay me and I won't sue", then whatever amount you set for settlement should be the cap on how much you can get if you win.

which is why they start with $75,000

an outrageous amount if they win, and too risky for the defendant if he loses, knowing that it's far greater than the actual damages any reasonable computer can estimate.

Its not really a settlement if the intent of the offer was to put the alleged defendant under duress and that offer is accepted under duress. I think any civil legal action should require the accuser to pay the defendants legal fees in the event their case is thrown out or the judgement goes against the accuser.

It probably isn't.

In most countries, they do require such, it's called "losers pay" to prevent people from wasting time and harassing other people. Even such measures are useless against rich parties which have less to lose.

Right now, there is practically no risk at all for the accuser if they lose their case.

yes, there's some risk, if they lose more than a few times, they can make themselves a good target for countersuit. The people who won against them can now sue for harassment or wasting their time.

(this is why, when they settle, the agreement is, they cannot countersue, making it an outright shakedown)

Imagine if the State had to reimburse attorneys fees to defendants when they lost their prosecution. Imagine if cops were held accountable when the charges they brought against a defendant were dropped because the cops were wrong and did not properly enforce the law.

If that were ever the case, justice would be for the highest bid.

The ACLU knows this all too well, which is why they regularly shakedown and harass school districts who have no time to deal with them.

I know none of this will happen. People have been abused for far too long in these courts to accept a different reality.

Not just that, but the alternative could have equally bad consequences (frequency and cost may be different)

Innocent until proven guilty has been destroyed in all matters, civil and criminal, when it comes to the courts. Now its just innocent until proven broke.

even in a country that has the highest number of lawyers per capita.

WaltM

09-06-2010, 03:44 PM

No, I really don't think so. I mean maybe, but to me, the silencing of passing information is only an unintended consequence of well intended laws.

It is.

There's an important distinction between the right to speak, and the right to copy.

Copyright was NEVER about limiting speech or dissent, but always about protecting profits.

Righthaen lawsuits are not even within the original intents of a person who intends to protect his profits (because it goes out of its way to chase profits it never had, asking for damages it never incurred).

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Now you just have a guy who is striking while the iron is hot. He was smart enough to realize the content producing trends that are happening on the internet with the battle over Net Neutrality. All he is doing is abusing and all ready ragged out legal system.

The "business model" as he puts it, while being absolutely abusive and sinister, is also brilliant for the times we are living in. There is no limit to the amount of domains and people he can sue. All he needs is to get the ball rolling.

Nothing short of an Act of Congress is going to stop this once he has a few successful lawsuits with the model under his belt.

No. Good lawyers and good judges can stop it too.

Most Americans understand that traditionally, judges and juries and usually biased against the rich guy, especially in cases of landlord, employer, and product malfunction.

newbitech

09-06-2010, 03:47 PM

It is.

There's an important distinction between the right to speak, and the right to copy.

Copyright was NEVER about limiting speech or dissent, but always about protecting profits.

Righthaen lawsuits are not even within the original intents of a person who intends to protect his profits (because it goes out of its way to chase profits it never had, asking for damages it never incurred).

No. Good lawyers and good judges can stop it too.

Most Americans understand that traditionally, judges and juries and usually biased against the rich guy, especially in cases of landlord, employer, and product malfunction.

I just don't think the lawyers and judges have the domain specific knowledge to handle these types of cases. Clearly, technology has once again left jurisprudence in the dust.

By definition, the act of viewing a web page is copyright infringement.

WaltM

09-06-2010, 03:55 PM

I just don't think the lawyers and judges have the domain specific knowledge to handle these types of cases. Clearly, technology has once again left jurisprudence in the dust.

By definition, the act of viewing a web page is copyright infringement.

sadly, that's mostly true.

but some lawyers ARE good at dealing with these issues.

No, viewing a webpage, or viewing an advertisement, or reading a book, is NOT copyright infringement (even if it were pay-per view)

The act of reproducing an identical, confuseable, comparable copy of a product, such that it can be utilized in the same way as the original, thus bypassing the need for purchasing one (such as subscription, pay per view), would be copyright infringement.

it is not the copying itself, but the way you copy and distribute the product, that constitutes infringment of the person's privileges (namely, for profit purposes).

newbitech

09-06-2010, 04:20 PM

sadly, that's mostly true.

but some lawyers ARE good at dealing with these issues.

No, viewing a webpage, or viewing an advertisement, or reading a book, is NOT copyright infringement (even if it were pay-per view)

The act of reproducing an identical, confuseable, comparable copy of a product, such that it can be utilized in the same way as the original, thus bypassing the need for purchasing one (such as subscription, pay per view), would be copyright infringement.

it is not the copying itself, but the way you copy and distribute the product, that constitutes infringment of the person's privileges (namely, for profit purposes).

The fact is that the only copy of the material that I see on my computer is a local copy. This means that it doesn't matter if I get your content on the dailypaul or on the LVRJ, that content must first be copied locally for me to see it.

So regardless of where I find the source of the information, I am copying it. LVRJ gave away its copyright for free by allowing anyone who views their page to copy the material on the page.

On the one hand, LVJR is saying no one is allowed to copy our material, on the other hand, they are saying here come to our website and copy it for free.

So once they have given me the right to copy their stuff, now they want to come along and tell me what I am or am not allowed to do with it?

The inherent problem is that the internet is designed to be distributed via copying. When an article is posted online, the success of that article is measured by how many times it gets copied. What these online newspapers need to do is completely abandon the http protocol for distributing their copyright works. They need to create an application for people to download and only allow access to their "creative works" through that application.

You cannot on one hand argue that you are using http for a wider distribution audience and on the other hand argue that your distribution method enables copyright infringement.

You can't rely on the good will of the people you allow to copy your stuff to not redistribute your stuff without permission, when the fact is you encouraged the redistribution of your stuff simply by making it available via http.

You also aren't serious about protecting your creative works if you don't even bother to use the simplest form of protection, password protected content with a subscription model, and pages that don't allow right click copying. Better yet, why not just make your articles .jpg or .gif files?

See that was easy..

WaltM

09-06-2010, 04:30 PM

The fact is that the only copy of the material that I see on my computer is a local copy. This means that it doesn't matter if I get your content on the dailypaul or on the LVRJ, that content must first be copied locally for me to see it.

Wrong.

That was taken into consideration, that a person viewing your page will have a cached local copy.

HOWEVER, to compensate for this "usage" sites usually ask for subscription fees or place advertisements. So the fact other sites copy it in its entirety (if that's the case, I don't think it's the case in righthaven suits, AT ALL)

If a site intentionally bypasses the advertisement and subscription to deliver the content to others, it's in effect stealing. This is no different than streaming your cable TV over your webcam to a person who didn't pay for the cable service.

So regardless of where I find the source of the information, I am copying it.

There are varying degrees of copying, not all over which are illegal and unauthorized.

Just as you can memorize a sentence, you can have a cached temp save in your computer. These are not prosecutable under fair use and copyright as far as I know.

LVRJ gave away its copyright for free by allowing anyone who views their page to copy the material on the page.

No they didn't.

In the United States, copyright is the default position unless otherwise stated. On the internet, there's an understanding NOT to copying an article in its complete entirety for copyright reasons.

To "give away your copyright for free" one must actually announce his permission, or his rights are reserved.

On the one hand, LVJR is saying no one is allowed to copy our material, on the other hand, they are saying here come to our website and copy it for free.

That's because advertisements place on their site compensates for people viewing their site "without paying in money" but pays them no less.

So once they have given me the right to copy their stuff, now they want to come along and tell me what I am or am not allowed to do with it?

Quit conflating the varying methods of copying.

I won't reply more until you read & understand the above (and see how I grilled Sentient Void over his hypocrisy about IP vs ID protection, he had to say "ID isn't information" in order to justify owning identity)

WaltM

09-06-2010, 04:33 PM

You can't rely on the good will of the people you allow to copy your stuff to not redistribute your stuff without permission, when the fact is you encouraged the redistribution of your stuff simply by making it available via http.

You do not know whether they actually encourage one over the other.

You also aren't serious about protecting your creative works if you don't even bother to use the simplest form of protection, password protected content with a subscription model, and pages that don't allow right click copying. Better yet, why not just make your articles .jpg or .gif files?

See that was easy..

Do you actually know if they DIDN'T do such protections?
If they did, would bypassing and hacking those protections be prosecuteable?

Making articles in JPG or GIF makes it harder to track where it has been copied.
and copiers CAN make it harder to track their piracy by saving articles as jpg. gif, but its no less illegal.

newbitech

09-06-2010, 04:44 PM

no walt, I think you miss my point. Copyright laws are not designed for regulating a media that is based on copying.

Once that creative work is digitized and made available through http protocol the only thing useful you can do with it is copy it.

Its too bad that those creative authors do no understand this. Maybe its time we stop selling news? Maybe its time for "creative authors" to focus on just the facts.

WaltM

09-06-2010, 04:49 PM

no walt, I think you miss my point. Copyright laws are not designed for regulating a media that is based on copying.

It wasn't , and it shouldn't be applied exactly the same way.

Once that creative work is digitized and made available through http protocol the only thing useful you can do with it is copy it.

what is useful defined by?

Its too bad that those creative authors do no understand this. Maybe its time we stop selling news? Maybe its time for "creative authors" to focus on just the facts.

maybe and maybe, but are you implying that everything within http should be fair game to copy and plagiarize?

Sentient Void

09-06-2010, 06:08 PM

It wasn't , and it shouldn't be applied exactly the same way.

what is useful defined by?

maybe and maybe, but are you implying that everything within http should be fair game to copy and plagiarize?

Oh, God... here we go...

newbitech... get out while you still can - before you get sucked into the black hole of inane rhetorical questioning *incarnate* that is 'WaltM'... you are getting close to his event horizon...

I've given up, but hope to retain some aspect of self-control in the future so I don't get sucked into his trollish ways again - but that's me.

WaltM

09-06-2010, 06:11 PM

Oh, God... here we go...

newbitech... get out while you still can - before you get sucked into the black hole of inane rhetorical questioning *incarnate* that is 'WaltM'... you are getting close to his event horizon...

I've given up, but hope to retain some aspect of self-control in the future so I don't get sucked into his trollish ways again - but that's me.

you're unable to show why identity (and information which can be used as it) is "abstract and non-scarce" and "protection of it" isn't a "violation of property" in the same way protecting copyright IS (according to you, which I disagree).

you're still free to correct me, but so far, YOU ARE THE HYPOCRITE EXPOSED.

Sentient Void

09-06-2010, 06:17 PM

you're unable to show why identity (and information which can be used as it) is "abstract and non-scarce" and "protection of it" isn't a "violation of property" in the same way protecting copyright IS (according to you, which I disagree).

you're still free to correct me, but so far, YOU ARE THE HYPOCRITE EXPOSED.

I have absolutely explained it, and I've tried to break it down for you as much as possible, and repeated myself several times over. My answer(s) didn't conform to your views, and you didn't like that. You're logically inconsistent, and intellectually dishonest.

Sorry. :rolleyes:

forsmant

09-06-2010, 06:21 PM

What if the copyrighted material is a manual for building a house? certainly you can do a lot with that manual other than copy it? Forgive me, i just read the last three posts and inserted some bs

WaltM

09-06-2010, 07:12 PM

I have absolutely explained it, and I've tried to break it down for you as much as possible, and repeated myself several times over. My answer(s) didn't conform to your views, and you didn't like that. You're logically inconsistent, and intellectually dishonest.

Sorry. :rolleyes:

whoever saw Sentient Void explain why identity (and information represented it) is scarce, not information and can be owned (in any way which doesn't conform to the same standards as IP, copyright), please copy and paste it so I can be shown intellectually dishonest or inconsistent.

I've asked you for it, and you simply assert "this is true" without providing ANY reason why.

I even gave you an opportunity to answer this one :

Let's play a role game.

If you are V (for victim)
I am T (for thief)
And another person is S (for seller)

If T, took the sensitive information of V, and purchased a car using the resources which V has in his name.
S sold the car to him, all he cares of , is his wallet, he got paid, so he lets the car go to T.

Has S done anything wrong, or should he care about whether T wasn't stealing from V?

T of course, NEVER EVER claimed he was V, he merely said, "I have the right to use the funds of V, nobody said I cannot, to say I cannot, would be a violation of what I can or can't do with my time, energy and brain".

S says "I don't care who you are, I just care if I get paid, if I'm paid, I let go of my merchandize, V cannot touch me because I never dealt with him and I never stole anything from him, nor is it my responsibility to compensate him for his funds, I after all, made a legitimate transaction where T & S agreed".

Did T or S do ANYTHING WRONG TO EACH OTHER?
(if you say yes, you can't be anti-copyright. If you say no, then good, don't cry when it happens to you, T & S will not care what V says, nor will V have any standing to sue either party).

WaltM

09-06-2010, 07:12 PM

Sentient Void

09-06-2010, 07:49 PM

whoever saw Sentient Void explain why identity (and information represented it) is scarce, not information and can be owned (in any way which doesn't conform to the same standards as IP, copyright), please copy and paste it so I can be shown intellectually dishonest or inconsistent.

I've asked you for it, and you simply assert "this is true" without providing ANY reason why.

I even gave you an opportunity to answer this one :

Let's play a role game.

If you are V (for victim)
I am T (for thief)
And another person is S (for seller)

If T, took the sensitive information of V, and purchased a car using the resources which V has in his name.
S sold the car to him, all he cares of , is his wallet, he got paid, so he lets the car go to T.

Has S done anything wrong, or should he care about whether T wasn't stealing from V?

T of course, NEVER EVER claimed he was V, he merely said, "I have the right to use the funds of V, nobody said I cannot, to say I cannot, would be a violation of what I can or can't do with my time, energy and brain".

S says "I don't care who you are, I just care if I get paid, if I'm paid, I let go of my merchandize, V cannot touch me because I never dealt with him and I never stole anything from him, nor is it my responsibility to compensate him for his funds, I after all, made a legitimate transaction where T & S agreed".

Did T or S do ANYTHING WRONG TO EACH OTHER?
(if you say yes, you can't be anti-copyright. If you say no, then good, don't cry when it happens to you, T & S will not care what V says, nor will V have any standing to sue either party).

There's no need to copy and paste. It's there. Not my problem if you refuse to acknowledge it and stick your fingers in your ears. I provided reasons for you, and broke it down as much as I could. Don't know what else to tell you. I won't waste much more time with it, because no matter what I tell you - you won't listen. You're a troll, through and through.

As for your roleplay - if S knew he was working with an identity thief and didn't care, then he was an accomplice to identity and property theft and did something wrong. What he says is irrelevant. If he didn't know, then he did nothing wrong.

As for T, his view or perception of the situation doesn't matter - if he used scarce resources that were not his (they were owned by V) to buy an item, he engaged in theft. Period. The information he used is relevant only because it allowed him to steal V's scarce resources - and it's in the theft of scarce resources that created the crime (not the theft of the personal information pertaining to V). If he did not use such information in such a way - no theft would have taken place - much the same way I attain and view vast amounts of people's private information all the time at my financial institution (SSNs, addresses, DOBs, account and investments history and numbers, etc).

In the end, T or S didn't wrong eachother - however T obviously wronged V, and *iff* S knew T was stealing scarce resources from V, then he is an accomplice and also wronged V. And V will absolutely have standing to sue T (I don't see what makes you think he doesn't), as well as S iff he had sufficient knowledge of the situation (whether it was sufficient or not comes down to any such investigation - private or public).

I don't see what was so complex or allegedly insightful about your roleplay there.

:rolleyes:

WaltM

09-06-2010, 08:29 PM

There's no need to copy and paste. It's there. Not my problem if you refuse to acknowledge it and stick your fingers in your ears. I provided reasons for you, and broke it down as much as I could. Don't know what else to tell you. I won't waste much more time with it, because no matter what I tell you - you won't listen. You're a troll, through and through.

As for your roleplay - if S knew he was working with an identity thief and didn't care, then he was an accomplice to identity and property theft and did something wrong. What he says is irrelevant. If he didn't know, then he did nothing wrong.

Can you prove that he knew?

Why is it the responsibility of S to care where his money is coming from?

Is T actually an identity theif if he, like you, deny that a person can own his identity (the same way you deny a person can own his book, song, movie)?

As for T, his view or perception of the situation doesn't matter - if he used scarce resources that were not his (they were owned by V) to buy an item, he engaged in theft.

I don't accept your premise that he used a scarce resource.
No more than you accept that copying a song and giving it away is using a scarce resource.

I DO agree, that his perception is irrelevant, if he's caused a person financial loss, he has to pay.

Period. The information he used is relevant only because it allowed him to steal V's scarce resources - and it's in the theft of scarce resources that created the crime (not the theft of the personal information pertaining to V).

Did anybody say to him, or did he ever agree he would NOT use V's identity?
Why are you forcing him to respect V's identity information as ownership against his will?

I still do NOT get (and I've not heard you say) how "information representing identity" is scarce (saying it doesnt make is so).

If he did not use such information in such a way - no theft would have taken place - much the same way I attain and view vast amounts of people's private information all the time at my financial institution (SSNs, addresses, DOBs, account and investments history and numbers, etc).

In the end, T or S didn't wrong eachother

Ok, good.

T & S didn't wrong each other.

Thanks, that's mainly what I was getting at.

So V will have to take it up with T, he cannot accuse S.
Which is EXACTLY what V does in real life, he goes after the pirate.

- however T obviously wronged V

and a pirate obviously wronged the copyright owner.

, and *iff* S knew T was stealing scarce resources from V, then he is an accomplice and also wronged V. And V will absolutely have standing to sue T (I don't see what makes you think he doesn't)

I meant, he has no standing to sue T for what T did with S.

As T & S NEVER INVOLVED V, WHICH IS NONE OF HIS BUSINESS.

, as well as S iff he had sufficient knowledge of the situation (whether it was sufficient or not comes down to any such investigation - private or public).

I don't see what was so complex or allegedly insightful about your roleplay there.

:rolleyes:

You're admitting that V, has the right to sue T, even if T & S did nothing wrong to each other.

So you're defending the argument that a copyright owner has standing to sue T, the infringer.

Nothing insightful, it's really dumbed down to get you to admit the obvious. You do not tolerate ID theft, you however, do not respect copyright. You have no objective, non-arbitrary reason why one is scarce, so you conveniently define what is scarce, to make your argument as to what is OK to take, steal, own.

libertybrewcity

09-06-2010, 08:37 PM

WaltM, stop trolling and ruining the thread.

Sentient Void

09-06-2010, 09:04 PM

Can you prove that he knew?

Why is it the responsibility of S to care where his money is coming from?

Is T actually an identity theif if he, like you, deny that a person can own his identity (the same way you deny a person can own his book, song, movie)?

It's the responsibility of those hired to do the investigation to determine if he knew. I never said it's his responsibility to know where the money comes from, though if he knew or was involved with T and knew the situation, then he's creating a whole lot of hassle that surely may not be in his best interest to be involved with, and may result in his imprisonment. not to mention, that if he knew, then it's just wrong and his moral obligation to not involve himself. Anyways, this is kinda irrelevant to the real discussion at hand, so I'll just end it there.

I don't accept your premise that he used a scarce resource.
No more than you accept that copying a song and giving it away is using a scarce resource.

I DO agree, that his perception is irrelevant, if he's caused a person financial loss, he has to pay.

I don't care that you don't accept my premise. A song (information) isn't a scarce resource. The money stolen by T was. It's very simple, Walt. Not really a hard concept.

Did anybody say to him, or did he ever agree he would NOT use V's identity?
Why are you forcing him to respect V's identity information as ownership against his will?

I still do NOT get (and I've not heard you say) how "information representing identity" is scarce (saying it doesnt make is so).

I'm not forcing him to respect V's identity *information*. I never said anything of the sort. The information isn't the scarce resource - I've said this numerous times. He must respect V's scarce resources themselves, however - by not stealing them through the use of such information.

I've never said information representing identity is scarce. Stop putting words into my mouth. I've said the identity itself is what is scarce, and V's property is what is scarce - *not* the information pertaining to the identity. That is merely what grants access to the use of V's scarce resources and is not his identity itself nor the scarce resources.

Ok, good.

T & S didn't wrong each other.

Thanks, that's mainly what I was getting at.

So V will have to take it up with T, he cannot accuse S.
Which is EXACTLY what V does in real life, he goes after the pirate.

and a pirate obviously wronged the copyright owner.

He can only accuse S along with T if S is found to have been an accomplice. The difference between this analogy is that V's scarce resources are being stolen - whereas in real life, the copying of songs or other *information* is not a theft of scarce resources. Get it, yet?

You're admitting that V, has the right to sue T, even if T & S did nothing wrong to each other.

So you're defending the argument that a copyright owner has standing to sue T, the infringer.

Nothing insightful, it's really dumbed down to get you to admit the obvious. You do not tolerate ID theft, you however, do not respect copyright. You have no objective, non-arbitrary reason why one is scarce, so you conveniently define what is scarce, to make your argument as to what is OK to take, steal, own.

I'm not defending that a 'copyright owner' has a standing to sue T - because your analogy involves the theft of scarce resources, whereas your real world example ('copyright infringement'), involves non-scarce resources - aka information. They are completely different - and is the basis of the discussion/disagreement behind anti-IP vs IP. Information is non-scarce and cannot be owned as 'property'. Scarce resources can be owned as property.

The concept of property was created in order to manage scarce resources - that was the point. IP distorts the whole concept for the privelage of govt granted monopolies at the expense of the market, competition, consumers, and rightful property owners.

WaltM

09-06-2010, 09:15 PM

It's the responsibility of those hired to do the investigation to determine if he knew. I never said it's his responsibility to know where the money comes from, though if he knew or was involved with T and knew the situation, then he's creating a whole lot of hassle that surely may not be in his best interest to be involved with, and may result in his imprisonment. not to mention, that if he knew, then it's just wrong and his moral obligation to not involve himself. Anyways, this is kinda irrelevant to the real discussion at hand, so I'll just end it there.

I don't care that you don't accept my premise. A song (information) isn't a scarce resource. The money stolen by T was. It's very simple, Walt. Not really a hard concept.

We're talking about your identity.

If you want to measure it be money, than IP theft which results in financial loss is also scarce resource.

PWND.

I'm not forcing him to respect V's identity *information*. I never said anything of the sort. The information isn't the scarce resource - I've said this numerous times. He must respect V's scarce resources themselves, however - by not stealing them through the use of such information.

Ok, so you can copy a song, or a book, BUT YOU CAN'T GIVE the copy AWAY AND YOU MUST BUY A COPY FIRST, fair enough?

As long as you don't cause any financial loss that I can argue out, I'll be OK. But as long as I can, you're stealing, just as you stated above about ID theft

I've never said information representing identity is scarce. Stop putting words into my mouth. I've said the identity itself is what is scarce, and V's property is what is scarce - *not* the information pertaining to the identity. That is merely what grants access to the use of V's scarce resources and is not his identity itself nor the scarce resources.

So why can't a person use another's identity related information (which is not scarce) to obtain what he is able to?

Did he ever agree he wouldn't? Isn't telling him what he can't do with info he has, a violation of his property?

He can only accuse S along with T if S is found to have been an accomplice. The difference between this analogy is that V's scarce resources are being stolen - whereas in real life, the copying of songs or other *information* is not a theft of scarce resources. Get it, yet?

No, because songs are of value (or else you'd not copy it).

Songs were not made free for you, they were intended for sale, protected by copyright, and bypassing the transaction is no different than trespassing, or frauding (as I've shown above).

If you really made the copy of a song and not used it, nobody would know, but if you shared it with another person, sold it for money, how is it any different than using a person's identity info for a transaction?

I'm not defending that a 'copyright owner' has a standing to sue T - because your analogy involves the theft of scarce resources, whereas your real world example ('copyright infringement'), involves non-scarce resources - aka information.

you admitted earlier not all information is equal.
you also admitted some information is of value and worth protecting.

Why is it you can see that the car transaction costs V money, whereas copying a song, bypassing the sale, you cannot see that the copyright owner has lost money?

They are completely different - and is the basis of the discussion/disagreement behind anti-IP vs IP. Information is non-scarce and cannot be owned as 'property'. Scarce resources can be owned as property.

Did I understand you correctly?

I can copy your ID information as long as I don't use it to deprive you or cost you anything in money?

If so, that's EXACTLY HOW COPYRIGHT IS WORDED.

The concept of property was created in order to manage scarce resources - that was the point. IP distorts the whole concept for the privelage of govt granted monopolies at the expense of the market, competition, consumers, and rightful property owners.

IP wasn't invented by the government, it was, like you said "created in order to manage scarce resources" (namely profits).

Sentient Void

09-06-2010, 09:53 PM

I'm done. I'm not going to sit here and try to debate with an intellectually dishonest and intellectually lazy individual as he tries to redefine what is a scarce resource and what isn't (information isn't a scarce resource, no matter how much you'd like it to be while you flip-flop on it), what property is and what isn't (the concept of property was created to manage scarce resources, not to manage 'potential profits' as you would like to redefine it to fit your worldview), and what I'm saying vs what I'm not saying. I can't break it down any further for you, nor do I have the energy to repeat myself further for an umpteenth time.

Walt, you are truly and utterly an epic fail, and your vast strawmen and other logical fallacies continue to expose your intellectual dishonesty and extreme trolldom.

You've officially drained me of my energy to deal with you any further as I have officially fallen into the event horizon of your black hole of incessant inane questioning and circular reasoning.

WaltM

09-06-2010, 10:01 PM

Walt, you are truly and utterly an epic fail, and your vast strawmen and other logical fallacies continue to expose your intellectual dishonesty and extreme trolldom.

I kept asking you to correct me.

I'm done. You've officially drained me of my energy to deal with you any further as I have officially fallen into the event horizon of your black hole of incessant inane questioning and circular reasoning.

you're the one using circular reasoning, or else you'd have a good definition and reason as to why property must be defined by scarcity, and why copyright can't be enforced, but ID protection can.

You keep making the rant that "government IP monopoly" is what makes IP, as if the market couldn't demand it voluntarily.

You're the one with the skewed views that property can be protected without violating others (which leads you to dismantle the idea of any property which you think is enforced by violating another as illegitiamate)

WaltM

09-06-2010, 10:04 PM

I'm done. I'm not going to sit here and try to debate with an intellectually dishonest and intellectually lazy individual as he tries to redefine what is a scarce resource and what isn't

No, I never wanted it defined, I never wanted property based on scarcity, YOU STARTED IT, AND YOU HAVE TO CLEAN UP YOUR OWN MESS.

(information isn't a scarce resource, no matter how much you'd like it to be), what property is and what isn't (the concept of property was created to manage scarce resources, not to manage 'potential profits' as you would like to redefine it to fit your worldview),

Property wasn't created to manage potential profits?

I seriously never heard that.

Are profits not property?

and what I'm saying vs what I'm not saying. I can't break it down any further for you, nor do I have the energy to repeat myself further for an umpteenth time.

I wish you didn't have to. But you've failed to make the distinction, and you've offered at best, your own reasons why you recognize one property but not the other. (very unconvincing and inconsistent)

Sentient Void

09-06-2010, 10:10 PM

lol :rolleyes:

Whatever floats your boat, buddy.

WaltM

09-06-2010, 10:15 PM

lol :rolleyes:

Whatever floats your boat, buddy.

the very fact you refuse to share your info, means you know some info is of value and worth protecting, and that's why it's defined in our society as property, to protect property.

you continue to deny this and try to say "it's information, not scarce, but ... but ... but..." then give up.

your inconsistency is obvious (and you know it).

Sentient Void

09-06-2010, 10:23 PM

the very fact you refuse to share your info, means you know some info is of value and worth protecting, and that's why it's defined in our society as property, to protect property.

you continue to deny this and try to say "it's information, not scarce, but ... but ... but..." then give up.

your inconsistency is obvious (and you know it).

If you keep telling yourself that - then maybe, just maybe - it'll become true. :rolleyes:

WaltM

09-06-2010, 10:25 PM

If you keep telling yourself that - then maybe, just maybe - it'll become true. :rolleyes:

I don't need to.

the car transaction was the best illustration that you'd still sue the person for misusing your information despite never being told or agreed otherwise, whereas you expect people to leave you alone about copying their work, saying it'll violate your property by telling you what you can't do.

HYPOCRISY.

newbitech

09-06-2010, 10:39 PM

What if the copyrighted material is a manual for building a house? certainly you can do a lot with that manual other than copy it? Forgive me, i just read the last three posts and inserted some bs

what if the copyrighted material was a treasure map to the secret location of the stolen gold from Ft. Knox?

It shouldn't matter. If people are concerned about sharing information with only those whom they want to share, then why post it where everyone could and would share it?
If that is what you want then make sure that the only way someone can get that manual is if they ask you for it.

Don't just throw a house building manual out on the market and invite people to come and copy it, then get pissed when someone does.

Of course you can do a lot more with that manual besides copy it. That is the point of the manual, copy the instructions and replace these pictures with actual pieces of wood. Yay that manual sure was useful. Yeah I need to get me a copy of that manual, I want to build a house based on this design. So would I need to put a hyperlink to the address where I got the manual from on my mailbox?

Thinking about this giant plagiarism shakedown going on right now, is it possible that there is a better solution to protect copyright other than through lawsuits?

Sentient Void

09-06-2010, 10:43 PM

I don't need to.

the car transaction was the best illustration that you'd still sue the person for misusing your information despite never being told or agreed otherwise, whereas you expect people to leave you alone about copying their work, saying it'll violate your property by telling you what you can't do.

HYPOCRISY.

Because ignoring facts and actual responses are fun, right Walt?

You are officially on my *ignore list*.

/problem solved.

WaltM

09-06-2010, 10:49 PM

Because ignoring facts and actual responses are fun, right Walt?

nope, not fun.

which is why I didn't ignore them, I asked for them and you've had nothing to show.

Promontorium

09-06-2010, 11:24 PM

WaltM

09-06-2010, 11:42 PM

Austrian Econ Disciple

09-07-2010, 01:49 AM

If you can't see a difference between reproducing to a t and claiming ownership of, and profiting from someone else's work, vs. reproducing disseminated material fully ascribed for the purpose of critical analysis, then there really is no discussion to have.

Austrian Econ, you want the entire nation dismantled, and along with the rest of the anarchists, you exhibit a dishonesty when you don't actually want a solution. You don't want free IP, you want there to be absolutely no capacity for anyone to even come up with the term "property".

That is dishonesty, and essentially trolling. It's as intellectually dishonest as kangaroo courts and fixed elections. You don't want some chipping paint dealt with, you want to level the building.

Your problem is that your idea of how the world should be is insane and impossibe so you try to keep your motives secret while you hope you can continuously prod and nudge people in your direction (the popular term is 'moving the goalposts').

IP impedes on property. It is very easy to demonstrate. If you were an Engineer working in the computer field, self-employed and bought all the requisite materials to make something that was "patented" by another person, the State says that you cannot use your property to reproduce and sell that specific recipe even though at any given time anyone around the world, could think of such an idea. Idea's unlike property, are subject to no scarcity. The only limiting factor is our imagination and ingenuity two things that you have no more a right over than another. IP produces monopolistic institutions, not to mention it costs tens of billions of dollars a year. There was no IP during the time of Bach, Tchaichovsky, Michaelangelo, etc.

How is it any less work for you to produce a firm capable of producing these goods? Why has one man more right to his property than another? (And when I say property I am talking about tangible items)

I am not against Industry association NDA's as a form of IP. It is between consenting parties. I am against State-enforced monopolistic parasitism that is IP today. I have never signed, nor explicitly agreed to not reproduce a given patented good, and thus should not be under the commands of an outside entity who forces upon the whole of the people this legalized monopolistic privilege. It is a State-privilege, no different than under British rule and the East India Trading Company.

I want the Individual to reign supreme, over all else. I want voluntary actions to be paramount and considered the standard guiding principle of the individual. I want liberty, and freedom. I oppose coercive, involuntary institutions, regimes, ideas, etc. You support such things under the misguided notion of "property", but you cannot have sole ownership over an idea in your brain. Property requires scarcity and tangible goods. IP meets none of this criteria. I am also not against consenting parties creating a bond between each other to secure their inventions, however, any party not privy to that agreement should not be bound by it. It is just like the "Social Contract". It has its stench everywhere. It is the antithesis of individualism, choice, and voluntary interactions.

How the fuck can you say I have no solution? You are being the one dishonest right now.

If you believe in IP then it means you prefer ideas over tangible scarce goods. In other words there is an ordered property arrangement. Ideas supercede anyones physical property. This is lunacy to me, but I guess not to others.

TheEvilDetector

09-07-2010, 07:29 AM

If you were an Engineer working in the computer field, self-employed and bought all the requisite materials to make something that was "patented" by another person, the State says that you cannot use your property to reproduce and sell that specific recipe even though at any given time anyone around the world, could think of such an idea.

If you have invested a lot of time as well as tangible resources into developing something new and unique with the goal of making a living from selling it, how would you feel about someone purposefully copying what you have created (no original research or effort) and (by being far superior to you in marketing and networking) almost completely crowding you out in the market place and accordingly taking a lion's share of the money that you would have otherwise made with YOUR invention?

If you say you wouldn't mind then you are more altruistic than I first thought.

If you say you would mind, then I might say that you are a hypocrite.

I am not against Industry association NDA's as a form of IP. It is between consenting parties. ...

So how about a notice on all unique products released stating that before you can purchase such goods or services you agree not to reproduce them.

That's IP between consenting parties. Don't like the terms attached to a product do not buy it.

Do you believe someone offering his products to market has a right to attach terms to the sale of the product?

I can't imagine you would say no.

Obviously this requires keeping track of whats really unique or not and means of resolving disputes and you find yourself in the situation where an authority resolves and deals with these issues.

I suppose you could have a sale terms sticker on every uniquely designed good or a poster at the doorway of every business that provides a unique service.

If Walmart had a notice on the doorway saying you can't copy what you see/buy here, would your respect for property rights extend to not walking into the door?

Or would you feel that you are entitled to walk in anyway and copy whatever you want?

Do you think its best for everyone to feel entitled to do whatever they want when it comes to notices displayed at private businesses specifying entry conditions including ignoring them?

If you had a policy that required people to take off their shoes upon entry into your house (eg. keep floors as clean as possible due to little children or traditional values), would it be ok with you if some didn't?

If you feel that your policy should always be obeyed but another entity's policy is subject to personal interpretation, then are you being consistent?

I find that with idealistic arguments that I often see here, there is much hypocrisy and contradiction to be discovered.

Austrian Econ Disciple

09-07-2010, 07:39 AM

If you have invested a lot of time as well as tangible resources into developing something with the goal of making a living from selling it, how would you feel about someone purposefully copying what you have created (no original research or effort) and (by being far superior to you in marketing and networking) almost completely crowding you out in the market place and accordingly taking a lion's share of the money that you would have otherwise made with YOUR invention?

If you say you wouldn't mind then you are more altruistic than I first thought.

If you say you would mind, then you are a hypocrite.

:-)

How is this any different from any competition anywhere? All businessman invest a lot of time into their chosen field. No one has a right to succeed over another. Why are you defending State-monopoly privileges? I do not understand..if you purport to favor the Market, then you cannot at the same time favor State-IP.

Let us take the example of gasoline. Should at the time of its inception been patented by Exxon would you as another businessman who would like to enter into that industry be punished for not being the first to come up with such an idea? Why should all the rest who come after be prohibited from using their property as they fit? I am sure no businessman likes the idea of being out-competited, it is why many of the Industry-Moguls of the late 19th and early 20th Century sought out Anti-trust legislation, higher taxes, regulation, etc. to crowd out competition. I thought us as Free-Marketeers were against such heinous abuses? I suppose if you throw around the word "property" then it makes monopolization ok? No one has the right over your property unless you grant them specific privilege with your own uncoerced consent. I have not agreed with Industry leaders in not using my property for specific purposes, thus it should not be illegal.

I am not altruistic. Everyone is self-motivated and self-interested. I realize it is in my better interests as I am not in the ruling class, to push for the greatest amount of competition. I also argue that it is in fact, better for the body of people for an unhampered market place, and that means no legalized enforcement of non-contractual IP. It is simple really. I believe that tangible real goods, are property, and recipes are not, for the ideas inside our brains are limitless whereas our real goods are scarce and limited. At any time any one person could conceivably think of another such idea as another person, and so on. Why should one person be granted State-privilege for being the first to patent and preclude competition?

I am sorry, but you do not own my wiring, wood, steel, labor, etc. I shall do with it as I please. Thank you.

Austrian Econ Disciple

09-07-2010, 07:50 AM

If you have invested a lot of time as well as tangible resources into developing something new and unique with the goal of making a living from selling it, how would you feel about someone purposefully copying what you have created (no original research or effort) and (by being far superior to you in marketing and networking) almost completely crowding you out in the market place and accordingly taking a lion's share of the money that you would have otherwise made with YOUR invention?

If you say you wouldn't mind then you are more altruistic than I first thought.

If you say you would mind, then you are a hypocrite.

:-)

So how about a notice on all unique products released stating that before you can purchase such goods or services you agree not to reproduce them.

That's IP between consenting parties. Don't like the terms attached to a product do not buy it.

Obviously this requires keeping track of whats really unique or not and means of resolving disputes and you find yourself in the situation where an authority resolves and deals with these issues.

How would you feel if you had to pay 20$ everytime you spoke? Someone, somewhere had to invent the English language. Using Hoppes Argumentation Ethics we can clearly see how in its most purest form IP destroys society. If everything everyone ever thought up was solely and expressly their own protected by a racket of thieves our lives would never have progressed. Can you not see the benefits of non-IP? The competition, the flourishing of ideas, etc.

Bach never had IP, yet he still created wonderful masterpieces, was paid handsomely and is remembered today. How is this possible in your world view? No one needs IP to succeed, and even if they did, I oppose the use of aggressive force against another. There is no moral standing, or propertarian standing to support IP. IP purports to be property, but how can one property intercede another property? Why is your idea more important than my wood? Or my labor? Or even my own ingenuity? What about my real tangible goods? Why is your idea superceding my real scarce goods? There is no basis in property for such a claim, and it defies why we have property in the first place -- to allocate scarce resources in the most efficient and beneficial manner possible.

PS: The only one being a hypocrit here is yourself. You obviously speak the English language, and someone had to create it, thus by the very nature of our discourse you acknowledge a disregard for IP. It is a fact of our very nature and discourse that IP is anti-civilization, anti-progress, anti-market, anti-liberty, and a tool used by businesses to crowd out others. *And no if Wal-Mart had such policies I would not buy from Wal-Mart, however, if someone gave me something they bought from Wal-Mart I am under no obligation of the agreement that those two parties were under. So, in the real-world such attempts would be futile and would hamper, not help business. Besides, it would turn a great many people off because no one would be buying things, everyone would be leasing things which is absurd, but whatever.

WaltM

09-07-2010, 08:21 AM

IP impedes on property. It is very easy to demonstrate. If you were an Engineer working in the computer field, self-employed and bought all the requisite materials to make something that was "patented" by another person, the State says that you cannot use your property to reproduce and sell that specific recipe even though at any given time anyone around the world, could think of such an idea.

I've heard this one. I understand the possibility of arriving at inventions independently, however rare, that it's possible in the abstract sense (not in the precise way)

That does not however, justify copying a whole book , giving away it's duplicates, and/or claiming it to be your own.

Are you against plagiarism? How about selling gold plated tungsten?

Idea's unlike property, are subject to no scarcity.

Is the word gold owned by anybody? If not, can I sell you gold plated tungsten?

Is your name subject to scarcity? Can it be owned? Can I claim to be you?

The only limiting factor is our imagination and ingenuity two things that you have no more a right over than another. IP produces monopolistic institutions, not to mention it costs tens of billions of dollars a year. There was no IP during the time of Bach, Tchaichovsky, Michaelangelo, etc.

There were also no road signs and traffic lights, your point?

IP doesn't produce monopolistic institutions, monopolistic institutions are the natural result of ANY property enforcement.

Let's start with copyright, do you believe it's OK to copy an entire 500 page book, and sell it as your own? Claiming its your own? Do you believe it's OK to copying a whole 500 page book and give it away, to devalue the price of a book? (if so, how can you be against counterfeiting currency)

How is it any less work for you to produce a firm capable of producing these goods?

Let's see you invent light bulbs, or write just 2 of my favorite books, and we'll see how it's "any less work" to copy than it is to create.

Why has one man more right to his property than another? (And when I say property I am talking about tangible items)

So your SSN, name, address, sensitive information which can be used as your identity "are not tangible, nor scarce" should be shared, cannot be owned and cannot be protected if I use it in any way I like?

I am not against Industry association NDA's as a form of IP. It is between consenting parties. I am against State-enforced monopolistic parasitism that is IP today.

Do you tip? There's no law saying you have to.
Do you only do what you're legally forced to do?
I'm against State enforced monopolistic parasitism that is property, trademark and anti-counterfeit too. (nonsense, there is no inherent monopoly, the market demands it)

I have never signed, nor explicitly agreed to not reproduce a given patented good, and thus should not be under the commands of an outside entity who forces upon the whole of the people this legalized monopolistic privilege. It is a State-privilege, no different than under British rule and the East India Trading Company.

And I never agreed not to murder, am I free to do it?
I never agreed not to use your name, SSN, other info to purchase goods, create credit...etc. According to you, that's not wrong or illegal.

I never agreed NOT to call gold plated tungsten, simply gold.

I want the Individual to reign supreme, over all else. I want voluntary actions to be paramount and considered the standard guiding principle of the individual. I want liberty, and freedom. I oppose coercive, involuntary institutions, regimes, ideas, etc.

So do I, I just don't live in the same fantasyland.

Now, answer my questions above.