PDA

View Full Version : Filesconic also dead!




cindy25
01-20-2012, 10:21 PM
Fsonic is pleased to announce that it has partnered with Vobile® Inc. in an effort to effectively filter copyrighted content using VDNA® Digital Fingerprinting technology.

By indexing your video and audio files (for which you are the intellectual property owner) through Vobile, the digital fingerprinting technology will allow Fsonic to block your copyrighted materials from being illegitimately shared through its service.

specsaregood
01-20-2012, 10:24 PM
that doesn't sound dead, in fact it sounds like they are talking steps to remain in business.

The Goat
01-20-2012, 10:26 PM
peer to peer

cindy25
01-20-2012, 10:29 PM
that doesn't sound dead, in fact it souns like they are talking steps to remain in business.

its like McDonalds removing Hamburgers and fries from the menu; they might officially remain in business but as a shell (just as Mininova is a shell of its former self)

specsaregood
01-20-2012, 10:30 PM
its like McDonalds removing Hamburgers and fries from the menu; they might officially remain in business but as a shell (just as Mininova is a shell of its former self)

are you suggesting that their business model was based on offering illegal downloads?

onlyrp
01-20-2012, 10:40 PM
going legal, voluntarily, that's good.

Chainspell
01-20-2012, 10:42 PM
are you suggesting that their business model was based on offering illegal downloads?
yes

cindy25
01-20-2012, 10:47 PM
are you suggesting that their business model was based on offering illegal downloads?

yes, but did you have a VHS recorder in the 80s? everyone recorded TV and exchanged/loaned the tapes to their friends.

file sharing is no different except for the volume. I can't watch British or Australian TV, but thru sharing I can. no one downloads something they can watch easily on TV.

or xeroxing a few pages from a college textbook? in the 70s/80s everyone did that
the book publishers could have shut down Xerox and seized the college library based on Hollywood thinking

Aldanga
01-20-2012, 10:49 PM
no one downloads something they can watch easily on TV.
False. Lots of people download shows for indexing.

specsaregood
01-20-2012, 10:50 PM
yes, but did you have a VHS recorder in the 80s? everyone recorded TV and exchanged/loaned the tapes to their friends.

file sharing is no different except for the volume. I can't watch British or Australian TV, but thru sharing I can. no one downloads something they can watch easily on TV.

you can try to justify it all you want, I don't care. All I know is that it seems like a really stupid business model for a legit business.

onlyrp
01-20-2012, 10:52 PM
are you suggesting that their business model was based on offering illegal downloads?

busted!!

onlyrp
01-20-2012, 10:54 PM
False. Lots of people download shows for indexing.

a better response might be, not all people have equal access to TV & subcriptions, but you might be right if you say "not many people would download and save tv shows if they were legally available for streaming".

cindy25
01-20-2012, 11:00 PM
going legal, voluntarily, that's good.

so medical marijuana places in california should stop selling marijuana? and Rosa Parks should have just went to the back of the bus?

cindy25
01-20-2012, 11:02 PM
you can try to justify it all you want, I don't care. All I know is that it seems like a really stupid business model for a legit business.

isn't a bank in the Cayman Islands the same thing? Mitt didn't open his account for a free toaster

in the 60s Danish banks advertised in the Reader's Digest promoting tax-free bank accounts

in the 70s Canadian and Mexican banks welcomed customers in border towns with tax free accounts and higher interest.

it is only now that the USA government acts like a world government; forcing the Swiss and the Austrians to end bank secrecy; forcing things like Megaupload to shut down (I used Mega only a few times, to get a Korean TV series about the Korean War)

one never sees the Japanese or the Koreans or the Canadians or the British doing this. you can watch most BBC programs on youtube. it is only the greedy Hollywood gang that is so nuts about this.

its time for the USA to mind its own business.

onlyrp
01-20-2012, 11:06 PM
so medical marijuana places in california should stop selling marijuana? and Rosa Parks should have just went to the back of the bus?

oh here we go, you're asking me whether somebody should abide by the law? Not encouraging disobedience.

Medical marijuana places are illegal under federal law, it's a shame that state police are not defending them.

Whether you like the law is not my concern, some people choose not to fight, but I'm not stopping you from doing anything, just don't say nobody warned you.

torchbearer
01-20-2012, 11:13 PM
i write on a piece of paper the sentence- "i am alive". you take your piece of paper and write on it "i am alive". you have copied my content and are a criminal.

TheViper
01-20-2012, 11:16 PM
i write on a piece of paper the sentence- "i am alive". you take your piece of paper and write on it "i am alive". you have copied my content and are a criminal.
I am alive.


Does that make it legal since I quoted you?

onlyrp
01-20-2012, 11:18 PM
i write on a piece of paper the sentence- "i am alive". you take your piece of paper and write on it "i am alive". you have copied my content and are a criminal.

you heard of the term "sensitive information"? You think all information are as simple and un-unique as "I am alive"? Or "my name is John"?
To parrot a creationist argument, do you think you can create a DNA sequence of a living organism without copying it?
Not all information and data are equally valuable, and not all acts of replication are for bad purposes.
A good example of a bad purpose is counterfeiting money.

specsaregood
01-20-2012, 11:19 PM
so medical marijuana places in california should stop selling marijuana? and Rosa Parks should have just went to the back of the bus?

Are you suggesting that rosa parks primary motivation was to make money? and medical marijuana dispensaries as well?
Are you seriously comparing somebody fighting racial discrimination and people getting drugs for medical purposes to your desire to download copyright works? Really?

torchbearer
01-20-2012, 11:19 PM
I am alive.


Does that make it legal since I quoted you?

you just copied my digital content. i feel like something has been taking from me. you know it took time out of my finite life to write that. and you just stole it by making a digital copy of it. forget the fact that i haven't lost any property because of it- its just wrong. mmmkay?

specsaregood
01-20-2012, 11:21 PM
you just copied my digital content. i feel like something has been taking from me. you know it took time out of my finite life to write that. and you just stole it by making a digital copy of it. forget the fact that i haven't lost any property because of it- its just wrong. mmmkay?

really seems to fit the standard for fair-use.

onlyrp
01-20-2012, 11:24 PM
you just copied my digital content. i feel like something has been taking from me. you know it took time out of my finite life to write that. and you just stole it by making a digital copy of it. forget the fact that i haven't lost any property because of it- its just wrong. mmmkay?

there's one easily way to prove you wrong. A google search for the phrase shows 50M results. Sure, a lot are repeat, but there's a good reason to believe it wasn't your unique creation. That's just one example to show he didn't need to copy you to write down "I am alive".

No, it's not whether you've lost any property, it's the fact your content has been copied, and that makes it less valuable (anybody who opposes counterfeit and inflation would know this). He can argue back that he didn't copy it to any place you did not, or use it in any way which he'd have to pay for it, and use it in any way which would decrease the use of your copy, all things to consider when we talk about information, counterfeit, copying, piracy.

torchbearer
01-20-2012, 11:25 PM
really seems to fit the standard for fair-use.

sounds like the fairness doctrine, and fair profits, and affirmative action....
or is it that digital bits being copied doesn't require a loss on my part. as in- if you take my car, i no longer have that car. that is a loss. if you copy my ascii code, i still have my ascii code. there is no loss.

onlyrp
01-20-2012, 11:25 PM
really seems to fit the standard for fair-use.

aside from the fact "I am alive" is not a recent unique creation, yeah. People like to ignore that even today's copyright laws recognize fair use, in attempt to strawman copyright enforcement. (I bet youv'e heard the old crock about how every time you do calculus you must pay newton's heirs a royalty)

onlyrp
01-20-2012, 11:26 PM
sounds like the fairness doctrine, and fair profits, and affirmative action....
or is it that digital bits being copied doesn't require a loss on my part. as in- if you take my car, i no longer have that car. that is a loss. if you copy my ascii code, i still have my ascii code. there is no loss.

So if I counterfeit the dollar bills everybody has, they still have it, no loss. Let's tell the federal reserve to keep printing!!

torchbearer
01-20-2012, 11:26 PM
there's one easily way to prove you wrong. A google search for the phrase shows 50M results. Sure, a lot are repeat, but there's a good reason to believe it wasn't your unique creation. That's just one example to show he didn't need to copy you to write down "I am alive".

No, it's not whether you've lost any property, it's the fact your content has been copied, and that makes it less valuable (anybody who opposes counterfeit and inflation would know this). He can argue back that he didn't copy it to any place you did not, or use it in any way which he'd have to pay for it, and use it in any way which would decrease the use of your copy, all things to consider when we talk about information, counterfeit, copying, piracy.


" i am alive only to quote onlyrp because he is a self-loathing anarchist who is for IP"
unique enough?

onlyrp
01-20-2012, 11:27 PM
" i am alive only to quote onlyrp because he is a self-loathing anarchist who is for IP"
unique enough?

yes, that's more like it.

the fact google can't seem to find even ONE other place with "onlyrp" makes your sentence much more unique. Now, unique and rare does not automatically mean valuable, but valuable almost always requires it to be unique and rare.

torchbearer
01-20-2012, 11:27 PM
So if I counterfeit the dollar bills everybody has, they still have it, no loss. Let's tell the federal reserve to keep printing!!

you are buying stuff with a copy of fake commodity. i purchase nothing with my doctor who episode, nor do i sell it to diminish the value of those being sold.
i wouldn't have bought it to begin with- so no profit lost.
you suck at this game.

onlyrp
01-20-2012, 11:31 PM
you are buying stuff with a copy of fake commodity. i purchase nothing with my doctor who episode, nor do i sell it to diminish the value of those being sold.
i wouldn't have bought it to begin with- so no profit lost.
you suck at this game.

does the fact I can (theoretically, if I used counterfeit) buy stuff with copied notes, rather than earn it at $5 an hour like most people bother you at all?
You CAN trade your Dr. Who episodes for something else of value, just because you chose not to doesn't mean it's of no value.
You wouldn't buy it to begin with, you just bother to download it?
Why do you spend time downloading or saving something or watching it, if it's of no value to you?
No profit lost is not the same as no value diminished, or no value decrease.
Stealing something and saying you didn't do anything valuable to it and with it doesn't change whether you've stolen it or whether it has value to other people.

CaptainAmerica
01-20-2012, 11:32 PM
the WHITE HOUSE has xerox copy machines, and scanners.

cindy25
01-20-2012, 11:33 PM
does the fact I can (theoretically, if I used counterfeit) buy stuff with copied notes, rather than earn it at $5 an hour like most people bother you at all?
You CAN trade your Dr. Who episodes for something else of value, just because you chose not to doesn't mean it's of no value.
You wouldn't buy it to begin with, you just bother to download it?
Why do you spend time downloading or saving something or watching it, if it's of no value to you?
No profit lost is not the same as no value diminished, or no value decrease.
Stealing something and saying you didn't do anything valuable to it and with it doesn't change whether you've stolen it or whether it has value to other people.

would you have downloaded a free copy with commercials if that option was offered?

torchbearer
01-20-2012, 11:34 PM
does the fact I can (theoretically, if I used counterfeit) buy stuff with copied notes, rather than earn it at $5 an hour like most people bother you at all?
You CAN trade your Dr. Who episodes for something else of value, just because you chose not to doesn't mean it's of no value.
You wouldn't buy it to begin with, you just bother to download it?
Why do you spend time downloading or saving something or watching it, if it's of no value to you?
No profit lost is not the same as no value diminished, or no value decrease.
Stealing something and saying you didn't do anything valuable to it and with it doesn't change whether you've stolen it or whether it has value to other people.

the fact that i would have never bought it to begin with and that i won't trade it for anything at all means it has no economic impact on those who created it.
that only thing that has changed is that i have seen it. they didn't lose money because i wasn't going to buy it, i wasn't going to watch it on bbc, and i wasn't going to trade it to someone else who would have watched it otherwise.
had i not downloaded a copy, i just wouldn't have seen it.

specsaregood
01-20-2012, 11:34 PM
sounds like the fairness doctrine, and fair profits, and affirmative action....
or is it that digital bits being copied doesn't require a loss on my part. as in- if you take my car, i no longer have that car. that is a loss. if you copy my ascii code, i still have my ascii code. there is no loss.

oh, you want to talk philosophy. I don't care about that. I just think it is stupid to base a legit business on illegal activity. If one wanted to make a philosophical point and fight to change the law I'd think taking the profit motive out of it would be the best tactic.

torchbearer
01-20-2012, 11:36 PM
would you have downloaded a free copy with commercials if that option was offered?

i'd watch it from a bbc site if it were offered with commercials. i watch tyler perry sitcoms through abcfamily websites.

torchbearer
01-20-2012, 11:37 PM
oh, you want to talk philosophy. I don't care about that. I just think it is stupid to base a legit business on illegal activity. If one wanted to make a philosophical point and fight to change the law I'd think taking the profit motive out of it would be the best tactic.

i was looking at it from a tort/legal perspective. you have to claim damages were caused, physically or financially. neither were incurred.

torchbearer
01-20-2012, 11:39 PM
if my friend has a legit copy of doctor who and i go to his house and watch it, did i steal from the producer because i didn't buy my own copy?

TheViper
01-20-2012, 11:41 PM
if my friend has a legit copy of doctor who and i go to his house and watch it, did i steal from the producer because i didn't buy my own copy?
Don't forget the format battle. Many content providers want you to repurchase the same content if you plan to watch it in a different format.

onlyrp
01-20-2012, 11:46 PM
the fact that i would have never bought it to begin with and that i won't trade it for anything at all means it has no economic impact on those who created it.
that only thing that has changed is that i have seen it. they didn't lose money because i wasn't going to buy it, i wasn't going to watch it on bbc, and i wasn't going to trade it to someone else who would have watched it otherwise.
had i not downloaded a copy, i just wouldn't have seen it.

The fact you were willing to spend time enjoying it and obtaining means its worth AT LEAST that much to you.
It is a loss to the creator because you utilized something without earning it, the same way it's a loss to you when I print money, rather than sweating for it.
"You have seen it" makes the world's difference! You think anybody cares if you download files and never listen or watch it?
You "just wouldn't have seen it" , now you're trying to downplay it, you were willing to spend time to watch it and download it, that is enough to prove its of SOME economic value to you, so you DID trade time for it, you just don't value time as much.

onlyrp
01-20-2012, 11:48 PM
if my friend has a legit copy of doctor who and i go to his house and watch it, did i steal from the producer because i didn't buy my own copy?

No, you did not. That's allowed under first sale doctrine, your friend can play the film a million times, as long as it's not a public setting, he can let you borrow it , and he can give it to you, he can even resell it, but he cannot make another copy in a way which would allow you both to watch it ar different locations (webcams are challenging that). Again, you are purposely trying to strawman the argument of copyright, when in fact, copyright already allows lots of reasonable exceptions.

onlyrp
01-20-2012, 11:49 PM
i was looking at it from a tort/legal perspective. you have to claim damages were caused, physically or financially. neither were incurred.

is counterfeiting currency (or inflation) causing any loss? Just checking.

torchbearer
01-20-2012, 11:49 PM
The fact you were willing to spend time enjoying it and obtaining means its worth AT LEAST that much to you.
It is a loss to the creator because you utilized something without earning it, the same way it's a loss to you when I print money, rather than sweating for it.
"You have seen it" makes the world's difference! You think anybody cares if you download files and never listen or watch it?
You "just wouldn't have seen it" , now you're trying to downplay it, you were willing to spend time to watch it and download it, that is enough to prove its of SOME economic value to you, so you DID trade time for it, you just don't value time as much.

if i wouldn't buy it, means its value to me is no more that zero. as in, had they said i had to pay something for it, i would have just watched it at my friends house later on. if they had a website broadcasting it, i would have watched it there. for it was more important for me to watch it on an internet based basis at a time of my choosing. and that was the only condition i would watch it otherwise it would wait for a later date at a friends house.
but under no circumstance was i going to watch it on cable(i don't watch it), nor was i going to buy it(i don't want to see it that badly)

Chainspell
01-20-2012, 11:51 PM
i write on a piece of paper the sentence- "i am alive". you take your piece of paper and write on it "i am alive". you have copied my content and are a criminal.
the problem is anyone can write that.

ever tried to write a song
write a book?
share your knowledge on a book?
ever tried to make a movie?
ever tried to act?
do you have the face of tom cruise?
do you have a body like brad pitt?

they paid those people to do some content for them. now it's a business how else are they going to make money if they making things for free?

onlyrp
01-20-2012, 11:51 PM
would you have downloaded a free copy with commercials if that option was offered?

offered as in offered by the copyright holders legally? Yeah, why not. Assuming there are no better or cheaper options.

Whether I would save it is another question, I prefer to stream than save if I don't plan on viewing it again, of course, that distinction is very minor with today's cheap harddrives.

torchbearer
01-20-2012, 11:52 PM
is counterfeiting currency (or inflation) causing any loss? Just checking.

yes, the more dollars there are the more dollars are chasing finite goods like fuel. causing each dollar to lose it value in competition with the others.
if i printed a hundred dollar bill on my printer, and then look at it for an hour, then shredded it- it would have no economic damages on society. if i printed that money and the purchase the rest of the milk from the city store, it would drive up the price for others- robbing them of the value of there dollars.

specsaregood
01-20-2012, 11:52 PM
i was looking at it from a tort/legal perspective. you have to claim damages were caused, physically or financially. neither were incurred.

I don't have to claim anything. I'm not part of the prosecution or defense, I'm part of the jury of public opinion. So far, what I've seen is that the owners of megaupload got rich off of offering a useful service that gets primarily used for illegal purposes. And it sounds like he has been flaunting it. It was only a matter of time until he got shutdown. But hey, he's got Bill Clinton's attorney so who knows how it will turn out.

torchbearer
01-20-2012, 11:54 PM
the problem is anyone can write that.

ever tried to write a song
write a book?
share your knowledge on a book?
ever tried to make a movie?
ever tried to act?

i have 6 albums worth of recorded music. one of my songs is freely used on the movie "For Liberty". all music is free to trade digitally. you only pay if you want the pretty package. which supports the artist to produce more. otherwise- listen to your hearts content.
fyi- my name appears twice in the For Liberty credits.

onlyrp
01-20-2012, 11:55 PM
if i wouldn't buy it, means its value to me is no more that zero. as in, had they said i had to pay something for it, i would have just watched it at my friends house later on. if they had a website broadcasting it, i would have watched it there. for it was more important for me to watch it on an internet based basis at a time of my choosing. and that was the only condition i would watch it otherwise it would wait for a later date at a friends house.
but under no circumstance was i going to watch it on cable(i don't watch it), nor was i going to buy it(i don't want to see it that badly)

Wrong, the fact you spend time to obtain something means it's worth your time. Even if it cost you monetarily nothing.
The fact you'd be willing to wait to go to your friends house, rather than pay 5 cents, means your time waiting is worth less than 5 cents.
"at the time of choosing" is the luxury people pay for, and what you spent time downloading it to get too.
You say you wouldn't "buy it" because you have in your mind that "buying" must mean $5 or $50, you don't consider that it could be 5 cents, or 50 cents, a price low enough that you'd be willing to pay.
You were willing to wait until you can legally watch it free, waiting time no value to you?

Chainspell
01-20-2012, 11:55 PM
i have 6 albums worth of recorded music. one of my songs is freely used on the movie "For Liberty". all music is free to trade digitally. you only pay if you want the pretty package. which supports the artist to produce more. otherwise- listen to your hearts content.
fyi- my name appears twice in the For Liberty credits.
yeah are you usher?

torchbearer
01-20-2012, 11:56 PM
I don't have to claim anything. I'm not part of the prosecution or defense, I'm part of the jury of public opinion. So far, what I've seen is that the owners of megaupload got rich off of offering a useful service that gets primarily used for illegal purposes. And it sounds like he has been flaunting it. It was only a matter of time until he got shutdown. But hey, he's got Bill Clinton's attorney so who knows how it will turn out.

my downloads of tv series is lumped into the same category of piracy of those who profit off of other people's works... i say there is a distinction.
i use peer to peer. it is my friend letting my use his dvd. i don't pay him for it, nor does he make money off of lending it. i wasn't going to buy my own copy as in, i didn't want it that badly.

torchbearer
01-20-2012, 11:57 PM
yeah are you usher?

better than usher, i'm manical. well part of the group.
and included in the special thanks because i went that extra mile to help produce the content that is freely shared on the internet.

Chainspell
01-20-2012, 11:58 PM
better than usher, i'm manical. well part of the group.
and included in the special thanks because i went that extra mile to help produce the content that is freely shared on the internet.
im saying are record companies making money off you?

Chainspell
01-21-2012, 12:00 AM
are people going nuts trying to get your cd?

torchbearer
01-21-2012, 12:01 AM
im saying are record companies making money off you?

radio stations have made money off of me, and movie vendors have made money off of me, and bar owners/venue owners have made money off of me.
record companies are distribution companies, and i did the distribution myself, so i made money off of me in their capacity.

torchbearer
01-21-2012, 12:02 AM
are people going nuts trying to get your cd?

well, try getting a copy for yourself: http://www.amazon.com/Danyule/dp/B00005IA3F/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327125697&sr=8-1

Chainspell
01-21-2012, 12:02 AM
so you're saying popular artists can actually make money even if they don't try to make money

torchbearer
01-21-2012, 12:04 AM
so you're saying popular artists can actually make money even if they don't try to make money

if their albums were sold as limited prints. they could make a ton. thats how we did it.
numbered and signed.
sure, you can get our music online for free, but to have an album is a rare treasure worth the money to a collector,.

Chainspell
01-21-2012, 12:08 AM
hmm i guess, but i still think it's justifiable for people to do whatever they want with their content. if they want to make money off it that's their choice and saying that you have the right to get what they made for free when they dont want you to get it for free is wrong.

torchbearer
01-21-2012, 12:14 AM
hmm i guess, but i still think it's justifiable for people to do whatever they want with their content. if they want to make money off it that's their choice and saying that you have the right to get what they made for free when they dont want you to get it for free is wrong.

well, i don't get it for free. the internet service provider makes a good sum off of my bandwidth...
the record company/tv producers inability to capitalized on a internet ready market is their loss and suddenlinks gain.
i will get the content i want to see, either by paying for it- if i want it enough to own a copy and want more content from that provider, or by borrowing it from a friend that bought it because i don't care that much, or by copying it from a stranger because it really didn't matter too much to begin with.
if you copied my songs and sent them to millions of people, i wouldn't feel cheated because there are ways for me to profit from such exposure. each type of way requires actually work on my part beyond sitting in a studio and playing an instrument. it really didn't take much to write the song. just a brain.

Chainspell
01-21-2012, 12:15 AM
well, i don't get it for free. the internet service provider makes a good sum off of my bandwidth...
the record company/tv producers inability to capitalized on a internet ready market is their loss and suddenlinks gain.
i will get the content i want to see, either by paying for it- if i want it enough to own a copy and want more content from that provider, or by borrowing it from a friend that bought it because i don't care that much, or by copying it from a stranger because it really didn't matter too much to begin with.
if you copied my songs and sent them to millions of people, i wouldn't feel cheated because there are ways for me to profit from such exposure. each type of way requires actually work on my part beyond sitting in a studio and playing an instrument. it really didn't take much to write the song. just a brain.
so a scientist or an inventor who invents something doesn't have any right to what he invented? just because you're willing to give it away for free?

torchbearer
01-21-2012, 12:18 AM
so a scientist or an inventor who invents something doesn't have any right to what he invented?

the idea or the product?
the idea is a build up of all ideas before it- did that scientist pay every scientist before him for the ground work that led to his idea?
i'll pay for the materials and effort of actually producing the product.
but anyone who claims an idea as his own and doesn't "pay" every person before him that generated the knowledge the preceded his idea is a hypocrite for demanding money for the dots he put together.

Chainspell
01-21-2012, 12:19 AM
the idea or the product?
the idea is a build up of all ideas before it- did that scientist pay every scientist before him for the ground work that led to his idea?
i'll pay for the materials and effort of actually producing the product.
but anyone who claims an idea as his own and doesn't "pay" every person before him that generated the knowledge the preceded his idea is a hipocrit for demanding money for the dots he put together.
well the people who invented the stuff before him got paid, regardless of special circumstance, if you invent something good and worthwhile you get paid.

just because you're willing to give out your work for free doesn't mean you should force other people to give out their stuff for free.

what about consultants? they work to use their brains, should they offer their services for free?

torchbearer
01-21-2012, 12:21 AM
well the people who invented the stuff before him got paid, regardless of special circumstance, if you invent something good and worthwhile you get paid.


really? anyone who uses a 10 based number system pays for the use of that idea? everyone who used relativity as the bases for their idea pays for it?
anyone who used the ideas of the periodic chart pays for it?

Chainspell
01-21-2012, 12:22 AM
really? anyone who uses a 10 based number system pays for the use of that idea? everyone who used relativity as the bases for their idea pays for it?
anyone who used the ideas of the periodic chart pays for it?
yeah you're right you've convinced me to make stuff for free. this is how the market works.

torchbearer
01-21-2012, 12:24 AM
yeah you're right you've convinced me to make stuff for free. this is how the market works.

well apparently you think some ideas should be free and some shouldn't. i guess you get to decide which is which.

Chainspell
01-21-2012, 12:25 AM
well apparently you think some ideas should be free and some shouldn't. i guess you get to decide which is which.
so who gets to decide? nobody? everything is free?

why cant we let the creator decide what he wants to do with his creation?

im a content creator, and i decide if I want to give my stuff away for free.

The Free Hornet
01-21-2012, 12:26 AM
I am alive.


Does that make it legal since I quoted you?

Yes. One thousand times. This is why copyright used to be a civil matter. It would be a waste of time to go after you for that violation as a civil matter. A criminal complaint will succeed because the goal won't be to get a guilty verdict on that specific point. Rather, it is how they throw the book at you, take your servers and any other electronic equipment, shut you and your business down, make you wait in jail, etc. At that point, they have already won. The law won't matter when you are treated like a murderer as your Happy Birthday (C) party gets swat raided.

Quote too much from the wrong person, and you'll see. How about us documenting MSM media bias? Fair use or are we copying it because Hannity is so fucking entertaining?

torchbearer
01-21-2012, 12:27 AM
so who gets to decide? nobody? everything is free?

ideas are free, production is not.
best case scenario, you keep your idea on the DL, and produce it yourself first. produce it better- and you get to produce it forever.
the rewards would go to the person who makes the production of the idea the most efficient.

Chainspell
01-21-2012, 12:28 AM
ideas are free, production is not.
base case scenario, you keep your idea on the DL, and produce it yourself first. produce it better- and you get to produce it forever.
the rewards would go to the person who makes the production of the idea the most efficient.
well i can go with ideas are free but production is not. what about videos? is that an idea or a production

Chainspell
01-21-2012, 12:29 AM
what about singing is that an idea or a production?

torchbearer
01-21-2012, 12:38 AM
what about singing is that an idea or a production?

the recording is considered production. i give your that. the song or video itself is an idea.
but a painting is a production of an idea. but if you make a digital copy of it, the digits are free. the cost of providing a flickr account is free. the value is less the the worth of a penny.
the cost of unlimited prints is minimal and cost would be minimal.
the cost of limited prints would be minial but profits massive.and the sell of original only material would be tremendous.

one can argue all production has a value, but a third of a cent as value is hardly a case for imprisonment. moralist? i guess. but all the producer has to do is bundle banner and ads and they get ten fold.


a person ability to market an idea as a product should be considered, because some ideas will encourage copying while some ideas will encourage purchase of produce material.

my band decided to make produced materials rare. so we could get $40 a cd. we did sell out. but that is a limited print. you own a copy. you have something of rarity.

Chainspell
01-21-2012, 12:39 AM
okay we can agree that ideas should be free and production is the choice of whoever produced it.

torchbearer
01-21-2012, 12:40 AM
okay we can agree that ideas should be free and production is the choice of whoever produced it.

yes. and that medium is a factor in its actual value.

cindy25
01-21-2012, 12:44 AM
what about ink refills? Japan banned these to please the printer makers

what about used paperback books? illegal to be sold in the UK below the cover price to protect the book industry

torchbearer
01-21-2012, 12:50 AM
what about ink refills? Japan banned these to please the printer makers

what about used paperback books? illegal to be sold in the UK below the cover price to protect the book industry

kinda different issue. those laws are protectionist an immoral.
second hand market are for those who want those kind of products.
but after saying that-
in a free market a market price of zero is acceptable in the equation of the economy. as in, i wouldn't consume your product unless it was free, should be considered in supply/demand equations. especially when it comes to digital content.

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 01:14 AM
yes, the more dollars there are the more dollars are chasing finite goods like fuel. causing each dollar to lose it value in competition with the others.
if i printed a hundred dollar bill on my printer, and then look at it for an hour, then shredded it- it would have no economic damages on society. if i printed that money and the purchase the rest of the milk from the city store, it would drive up the price for others- robbing them of the value of there dollars.

why is that so easy for you to understand, but when it comes to copyright, you don't?

You might tell me that the purpose of a dollar bill is to be used as money, and the purpose of the TV episode is to be watched.
In which case, if you don't put the counterfeit bill on the market for use, nothing is done to rob any value, but if you do, you have.
Similarly, if you never use the TV episode by watching it, simply downloading it and deleting it, no harm is done, but my using it, you are robbing the producers and buyers of their value. The same way spending a dollar on the market robs dollar holders of their value.

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 01:19 AM
i have 6 albums worth of recorded music. one of my songs is freely used on the movie "For Liberty". all music is free to trade digitally. you only pay if you want the pretty package. which supports the artist to produce more. otherwise- listen to your hearts content.
fyi- my name appears twice in the For Liberty credits.

not all music are equal, some people pay to listen to music, some people pay to block out the noise. Whether your music is worth paying for is the market's choice, but it's not the market's choice, or anybody else's choice, to take it from you and use as they wish without your permission. The fact you created it makes ownership, but not necessarily value.

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 01:22 AM
what about ink refills? Japan banned these to please the printer makers

what about used paperback books? illegal to be sold in the UK below the cover price to protect the book industry

Ink refills is a violation of the manufacturer's terms of service, meaning, the printer maker did not agree to sell you the printer unless you agreed to only use their ink. they can't force you to buy their printer, they can only force you to uphold the agreement. "I never signed the agreement" is not a defense, and "I paid for it" doesn't mean you bought and own it. Most countries don't enforce printer monopolies, but they allow printer makers to enforce their warranty, that is to say, if you ever use a non-factory ink or toner, they reserve the right to not support your product and if it breaks, they are not liable.

It's pretty stupid to price fix books, and in the US, first sale doctrine has taken care of it, is it illegal to give books away if you're willing to take a loss?

noneedtoaggress
01-21-2012, 04:09 AM
The fact you created it makes ownership, but not necessarily value.

But you need to take into account the difference between physical property and IP (that and the act of creating something doesn't necessarily mean you own what you produce, capitalism is based on people selling their labor to create things for other people using their property). The difference is you're talking about owning patterns, not physical property. We have the institution of property to reduce conflict due to material scarcity. You own physical objects (your computer's hard drive), you have the right to configure your property however you want.

What you're proposing is that someone has the right to monopolize the representation of a pattern, which assumes that they have the right to control other people's actual physical property to prevent them from configuring it in a way that resembles "your" pattern.

What you're actually doing is not defending property, but undermining it with this concept that "owning patterns" is more fundamental than owning physical objects and gives you the right to control other people's property due to your attachment to a pattern you've configured.


Similarly, if you never use the TV episode by watching it, simply downloading it and deleting it, no harm is done, but my using it, you are robbing the producers and buyers of their value.

You don't have property rights in value, which is really just the subjective preferences of individuals. If I'm a Romney supporter and I go on about how great I think his book is, and you convince me it's terrible should Romney be able to charge you with "robbing" him of "his value"? Robbery describes theft of property. You influence demand all the time, and you're essentially saying that reducing it should be considered criminal. Copying is not theft, and copyright laws don't purport to protect against theft, they're "copyright violations".


The same way spending a dollar on the market robs dollar holders of their value.

The dollar is monopoly money. If there were a free currency market, like Ron is pushing for, then counterfeiting would be less of a problem because people could freely choose a more solid currency to trade with. The Fed's monopoly money is being forced upon us by the state.

IP is a monopoly by government privilege in the same way, look up the origins of IP. It's an institution used to prop up and consolidate power into large media institutions like Disney or Time Warner and contributes to how powerful the mainstream media has become. It's going to become increasingly obvious that IP is an institutional dinosaur in the age of the internet.

cindy25
01-21-2012, 04:44 AM
kinda different issue. those laws are protectionist an immoral.
second hand market are for those who want those kind of products.
but after saying that-
in a free market a market price of zero is acceptable in the equation of the economy. as in, i wouldn't consume your product unless it was free, should be considered in supply/demand equations. especially when it comes to digital content.

Broadcast media is not a free market; neither is cable; these are regulated monopolies.

asurfaholic
01-21-2012, 06:38 AM
The way I see it is the music/movie/video producers make their money by selling to people who want to buy their products. Certain shows that I like, I buy them when they come out. Music that I really enjoy I buy the album because I like it like that. However, if im not sure if I will like something, then i'll find it and download it. If these priducers put a product out that can be copied and redistributed just as easy as putting a sheet of paper in a copy machine, then that's the market situation they have to deal with. Making laws that criminalize behavior that hurt or physically steal from nobody wont fix the problem. I guess the argument is whether or not the copied and redistributed work is actually stealing. My humble opinion is no. If the producers build a strong loyal base of customers who are WILLING to buy the product, then that's how the money is made. If not, then you are spitting out something that is just easilly copied, unfortunately for the producer.

I really do understand the other side of the argument, but this is real life, and the producer needs to be willing to accept it.

To me, if I write out beautiful poetry and print it out and try to sell it, then I can only hope that people like it enough to pay for it. If 5 people buy it, and one makes a copy of it, then gives it to all 1300 of his online friends, I just don't see how I could have any right to go after that person. I produced a product that can be easilly copied and redistributed.

On the other hand, I would still expect to be given credit for the work, if they copied my work, then claimed themselves to be the author, then proceeded to profit from it, its a classic case of copywrite infringment.

Most illegal music and tv downloads don't distort who the real producer is. If the stuff is being traded for free, the producer should really just consider it free advertising. I know at least several albums that I purchased, then continued to purchase new releases after getting hooked to a song I downloaded.

SurfsUp
01-21-2012, 07:58 AM
yes, but did you have a VHS recorder in the 80s? everyone recorded TV and exchanged/loaned the tapes to their friends.

file sharing is no different except for the volume. I can't watch British or Australian TV, but thru sharing I can. no one downloads something they can watch easily on TV.

or xeroxing a few pages from a college textbook? in the 70s/80s everyone did that
the book publishers could have shut down Xerox and seized the college library based on Hollywood thinking

Good points.

UK4Paul
01-21-2012, 09:53 AM
Question.

Is it morally OK to take one of Ron Paul's copyrighted books, remove Ron's name, and sell it as my own book?

If not, why not? Which parts do you not agree with, and why?

(I appreciate this is legally wrong as the law stands, but some of you are advocating that this should essentially be legal, right?)

Chainspell
01-21-2012, 10:06 AM
Question.

Is it morally OK to take one of Ron Paul's copyrighted books, remove Ron's name, and sell it as my own book?

If not, why not? Which parts do you not agree with, and why?

(I appreciate this is legally wrong as the law stands, but some of you are advocating that this should essentially be legal, right?)

Haha i don't get how some people can put their thoughts into cohesive words so easily.. Thanks for making it clearer.

KingRobbStark
01-21-2012, 10:19 AM
Question.

Is it morally OK to take one of Ron Paul's copyrighted books, remove Ron's name, and sell it as my own book?

If not, why not? Which parts do you not agree with, and why?

(I appreciate this is legally wrong as the law stands, but some of you are advocating that this should essentially be legal, right?)

That would be on the borderline of fraud. A better question should be;

Can I redistribute MY Ron Paul book, and still give credit to Ron Paul?

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 12:50 PM
That would be on the borderline of fraud. A better question should be;

Can I redistribute MY Ron Paul book, and still give credit to Ron Paul?

why would it be fraud? who is to say, and how can you prove, the seller didn't write the book himself?

Since you can credit yourself, there's no reason you can't credit somebody else.

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 12:54 PM
The dollar is monopoly money. If there were a free currency market, like Ron is pushing for, then counterfeiting would be less of a problem because people could freely choose a more solid currency to trade with. The Fed's monopoly money is being forced upon us by the state.

IP is a monopoly by government privilege in the same way, look up the origins of IP. It's an institution used to prop up and consolidate power into large media institutions like Disney or Time Warner and contributes to how powerful the mainstream media has become. It's going to become increasingly obvious that IP is an institutional dinosaur in the age of the internet.

Counterfeit is still going to be a problem, and you admit it. So, tell me, why is counterfeiting wrong? How is copying currency, or duplicating information, in any way harming people who have currency in their hands?

IP was created to protect profits when reproduction technology became accessible and affordable, if we did not have copy machines, scanners, digital cameras, video recorders as we do today (like we didn't in shakespeare's time), then we would not need IP protection. So when people say "Why didnt shakespeare need IP" they fail to mention the context of history, which is that most people know NOBODY ELSE in shakespeares time due to lack of technology, and similarly, most 99.99% of the people had no access whatsoever to printing technology, making piracy and fraud near impossible.

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 12:57 PM
Most illegal music and tv downloads don't distort who the real producer is. If the stuff is being traded for free, the producer should really just consider it free advertising. I know at least several albums that I purchased, then continued to purchase new releases after getting hooked to a song I downloaded.

they probably should consider it free advertising, but just because they're not smart enough to appreciate the help, does not mean they should be forced to accept it. The whole concept of property is that a person is free to make stupid choices to hurt themselves, and not forced to accept anything even if it benefits them.

producers dont mind free advertising, as long as its advertsing to buy, not advertising for more free downloads

Lishy
01-21-2012, 01:01 PM
I have copyrighted content under ©BlackLilium

Will my own work be removed?

Dustancostine
01-21-2012, 01:02 PM
so medical marijuana places in california should stop selling marijuana? and Rosa Parks should have just went to the back of the bus?

Rosa Parks and Medical Marajuana Dealers are not stealing.

Dustancostine
01-21-2012, 01:07 PM
you are buying stuff with a copy of fake commodity. i purchase nothing with my doctor who episode, nor do i sell it to diminish the value of those being sold.
i wouldn't have bought it to begin with- so no profit lost.
you suck at this game.

Common, think in terms of economics. You value entertainment and if you couldn't have gotten your entertainment for free from illegal download, you would have picked something else, probably something you had to pay for. So while you might not have chosen the thing you got for free, you would have increased demand for entertainment in general, while downloading it for free you are decreasing demand and profits for entertainment.

heavenlyboy34
01-21-2012, 01:09 PM
you can try to justify it all you want, I don't care. All I know is that it seems like a really stupid business model for a legit business.
It works for Mises Institute. When they began offering digital copies of their books for free the sales of hard copy books went up. It is my understanding that file sharing of music has boosted ticket sales. The principle works similarly with movies/TV as long as the publishers offer something of value that cannot be easily copied. This is just another reason why IP is such an epic fail.

heavenlyboy34
01-21-2012, 01:13 PM
Common, think in terms of economics. You value entertainment and if you couldn't have gotten your entertainment for free from illegal download, you would have picked something else, probably something you had to pay for. So while you might not have chosen the thing you got for free, you would have increased demand for entertainment in general, while downloading it for free you are decreasing demand and profits for entertainment.
That's not economic thinking. When a piece of entertainment can be copied infinitely (like film/music), its value goes to zero. People who are interested in making profit on IP should focus on being prolific instead of using the strong arm of the State to enforce their selfish whims (like people who work in other fields do). Provide value, and you can expect to be compensated for it.

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 01:15 PM
It works for Mises Institute. When they began offering digital copies of their books for free the sales of hard copy books went up. It is my understanding that file sharing of music has boosted ticket sales. The principle works similarly with movies/TV as long as the publishers offer something of value that cannot be easily copied. This is just another reason why IP is such an epic fail.

do you ever consider it's because nobody wants to read their books except 1% of the population?
Not all books are as in low demand as their books, people offer things for sale when they can, and give it away if they cannot.

Wesker1982
01-21-2012, 01:16 PM
ideas are not scarce

/IP debate

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 01:17 PM
That's not economic thinking. When a piece of entertainment can be copied infinitely (like film/music), its value goes to zero. People who are interested in making profit on IP should focus on being prolific instead of using the strong arm of the State to enforce their selfish whims (like people who work in other fields do). Provide value, and you can expect to be compensated for it.

yes, the value becomes zero when its copied too many times, why isnt that a reason to prevent it? You don't have a problem preventing counterfeit, impersonation, or misrepresentation, why is this different?

Yes, I agree people who want to profit from IP should be smarter, but using government isn't always wrong, it should just be LAST resort, not first.

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 01:18 PM
ideas are not scarce

/IP debate

not all information are ideas, and not all ideas, information are equal.

try again

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 01:20 PM
Rosa Parks and Medical Marajuana Dealers are not stealing.

Rosa Parks was stealing from the white man's privilege to sit where they want, and medical marijuana is stealing from drug dealers by competition, if you really wanna put it that way. its amazing how people flip to the other side when talking about copyright, but have no problem opposing and punishing counterfeit, but then back Ron Paul's campaign when they want to sue a youtube user NHliberty4paul , talk about serial hypocrisy and flipflopping!

noneedtoaggress
01-21-2012, 07:12 PM
Counterfeit is still going to be a problem, and you admit it.

Huh? I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here.


So, tell me, why is counterfeiting wrong? How is copying currency, or duplicating information, in any way harming people who have currency in their hands?

It's not the copying part that's wrong. That's like saying it's wrong to take things from someone because stealing is wrong, but by "take things" you were including receiving a gift or something due to trade. We're forced to use the Federal Reserve, which is wrong. Counterfeiting a voluntary currency would be wrong due to fraud. If you publicly declared that you were going to be diluting your currency and your customers were aware of it, then it wouldn't be wrong, it would just be silly of them to keep holding on to it.


IP was created to protect profits when reproduction technology became accessible and affordable, if we did not have copy machines, scanners, digital cameras, video recorders as we do today (like we didn't in shakespeare's time), then we would not need IP protection. So when people say "Why didnt shakespeare need IP" they fail to mention the context of history, which is that most people know NOBODY ELSE in shakespeares time due to lack of technology, and similarly, most 99.99% of the people had no access whatsoever to printing technology, making piracy and fraud near impossible.

Haha what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623

[edit] You should check this book out:
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521127262/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327194909&sr=8-1

noneedtoaggress
01-21-2012, 07:30 PM
yes, the value becomes zero when its copied too many times, why isnt that a reason to prevent it?

Um, you're conflating price with value. Air is abundant enough to not be economically scarce, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't want it.

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 07:33 PM
Huh? I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here.

It's not the copying part that's wrong. That's like saying it's wrong to take things from someone because stealing is wrong, but by "take things" you were including receiving a gift or something due to trade. We're forced to use the Federal Reserve, which is wrong. Counterfeiting a voluntary currency would be wrong due to fraud. If you publicly declared that you were going to be diluting your currency and your customers were aware of it, then it wouldn't be wrong, it would just be silly of them to keep holding on to it.



Haha what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623

[edit] You should check this book out:
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521127262/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327194909&sr=8-1

you said it would be less of a problem, not no problem at all. So that's admission the problem would exist.

Tell, me, what is fraud, and how is counterfeiting fraud? Who are you to say a person can't make currency that looks like your own, unless you have ownership over it? Who are you to say a person can't claim he too owns the rightful copies or originals of the currency, unless you have ownership? The logical extension of "you can't own ideas or information from being copied" is you cannot prevent or protect against counterfeiting.

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 07:36 PM
Um, you're conflating price with value. Air is abundant enough to not be economically scarce, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't want it.

I AM conflating price with value. When are they different? Air is abudant and easily accessible, if you were able to make it scarce or hard to obtain, you can bet people will pay good money for it, this happens when you are indoors, or in high altitudes. But as long as air (specifcally oxygen) is abundant, nobody would pay for it. It's valuable and necessary, but luckily there's enough.

cindy25
01-21-2012, 07:37 PM
suppose someone downloads End the Fed, for free; and because of that votes for Ron.

did he win or lose because of it?

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 07:38 PM
suppose someone downloads End the Fed, for free; and because of that votes for Ron.

did he win or lose because of it?

he lost on the royalties, but won on a vote. How much is a vote worth? Depends on where and when you live.
How much is his royalties worth? About a buck per copy usually.

noneedtoaggress
01-21-2012, 07:42 PM
you said it would be less of a problem, not no problem at all. So that's admission the problem would exist.

Ok? What does that have to do with anything?


Tell, me, what is fraud, and how is counterfeiting fraud? Who are you to say a person can't make currency that looks like your own, unless you have ownership over it?

If you're intentionally giving your product to people who believe it's my product, you're deceiving them, it's fraudulent.

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 07:44 PM
Ok? What does that have to do with anything?

If you're intentionally giving your product to people who believe it's my product, you're deceiving them, it's fraudulent.

you asked me why I said counterfeit would still be a problem, so I answered you.

I'm not decieving them, you don't own the word of your name, so I can claim my name is your name. You don't get to tell me what I can tell other people, and I don't force them to intrepret what I say, it's not my fault they mistakenly believe I am referring to you, you can't prove I meant to "decieve" them.

Is this fraud? It's not, unless you beleive trademarks are protected from false claims, which assumes names and words can be owned and controlled. Otherwise you are violating a person's free speech rights to call their clay pads "iPads".
http://www.techspot.com/news/47112-ipad-2-fakes-made-of-clay-turning-up-in-canadian-stores.html

noneedtoaggress
01-21-2012, 07:48 PM
I AM conflating price with value. When are they different?

Uh, what? So are you saying the only things you value cost money in a market? You don't value your relationship with anyone?


Air is abudant and easily accessible, if you were able to make it scarce or hard to obtain, you can bet people will pay good money for it, this happens when you are indoors, or in high altitudes. But as long as air (specifcally oxygen) is abundant, nobody would pay for it. It's valuable and necessary, but luckily there's enough.

Yep. And because copying can make things abundant while keeping the original in tact, people can find something valuable even if it's not economically scarce.

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 07:54 PM
Uh, what? So are you saying the only things you value cost money in a market? You don't value your relationship with anyone?

Yep. And because copying can make things abundant while keeping the original in tact, people can find something valuable even if it's not economically scarce.

The things I value will cost me money if its available on the market, yes I value relationships just like I value time, and both can be taken away from me, and if they are, I'd pay money to get it back if I could.

So money doesn't become un-valuable just because it's less scarce, got it. Inflation is a conspiracy theory and lie.

noneedtoaggress
01-21-2012, 08:02 PM
The things I value will cost me money if its available on the market, yes I value relationships just like I value time, and both can be taken away from me, and if they are, I'd pay money to get it back if I could.

Right and if air could be restricted so that someone had a monopoly on it, they could demand a high price. IP is artificial scarcity.


So money doesn't become un-valuable just because it's less scarce, got it. Inflation is a conspiracy theory and lie.

Are you seriously trying to imply that I'm arguing that?

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 08:05 PM
Right and if air could be restricted so that someone had a monopoly on it, they could demand a high price.

Are you seriously trying to imply that I'm arguing that?

Oh, you're NOT arguing that? So DOES money become less valuable by printing more? Yes or no?

Yes, luckily air isn't monopolized. But it can be, depending on where you live. Clean water and hot water is not as abundant, and therefore people pay for it, there is no natural right to it, even though you need it to survive.

noneedtoaggress
01-21-2012, 08:15 PM
Oh, you're NOT arguing that? So DOES money become less valuable by printing more? Yes or no?

My argument had nothing to do with that. You were talking about "value dropping to zero", and I was explaining that just because it's economically abundant doesn't mean that there is no value in it.


Yes, luckily air isn't monopolized. But it can be, depending on where you live. Clean water and hot water is not as abundant, and therefore people pay for it, there is no natural right to it, even though you need it to survive.

Yep. And you're essentially saying that something that doesn't have to be economically scarce, should be, because people should have the right to monopolize patterns. Which undermines the concept of (real, physical) property, because it requires that people lose their right to control and arrange their property, and flies in the face of the purpose of property in the first place.

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 08:19 PM
My argument had nothing to do with that. You were talking about "value dropping to zero", and I was explaining that just because it's economically abundant doesn't mean that there is no value in it.

Yep. And you're essentially saying that something that doesn't have to be economically scarce, should be, because people should have the right to monopolize patterns.

Ok, let's back up a little. "Dropping to zero" is the result of "dropping" after a long time, do you agree or disagree that copying and counterfeiting DECREASE THE VALUE OF SOMETHING? If so, wouldn't it eventually drop to near zero?

Or try this, if the price of dollars are lowered by printing more, does the VALUE also decrease? Or can you retain value of dollars even after printing more?

I wasn't narrowing it to patterns, or ideas, or information. I was saying whatever a person CAN control, is whatever you can't say you're entitled to. And you basically said a person has a right to accuse another person of fraud, deception, just because he claims words or names that you decided are trademarks. You have yet to explain why that is, and how that is different than "monopolizing on patterns or words"

noneedtoaggress
01-21-2012, 08:21 PM
So what if the price drops?

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 08:23 PM
Which undermines the concept of (real, physical) property, because it requires that people lose their right to control and arrange their property, and flies in the face of the purpose of property in the first place.

You assume personal property is somehow absolute. It's no more absolute than travel or use of your body. You don't get to use your body or physical property in a way which conflicts with another's rights or freedoms.

Saying you can't walk on another person's land is not a violation of your travel rights, it's protection of his property rights. And there is no reason travel is any less of a right than his ownership of land, they are arbitrarily decided in priority by the country you live in.

Saying I can't copy and counterfeit your money or products UNDERMINES my right to free speech and free trade, further, like you said, undermines how i can use my paper, tools and materials. Accusing me of fraud undermines me right to do what I choose with my property. Had enough?

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 08:24 PM
So what if the price drops?

so what if inflation? I thought you said inflation is a problem, isn't a conspiracy theory, and isn't a lie, SO WHAT then?

noneedtoaggress
01-21-2012, 08:38 PM
You assume personal property is somehow absolute. It's no more absolute than travel or use of your body. You don't get to use your body or physical property in a way which conflicts with another's rights or freedoms.

Right, because you'd be infringing on the (property) rights of someone else. If you used your body to punch someone, you are claiming to have the right to control (in this case damage) someone else's physical body. All rights stem from property rights.


Saying you can't walk on another person's land is not a violation of your travel rights, it's protection of his property rights. And there is no reason travel is any less of a right than his ownership of land, they are arbitrarily decided in priority by the country you live in.

Saying I can't copy and counterfeit your money or products UNDERMINES my right to free speech and free trade, further, like you said, undermines how i can use my paper, tools and materials. Accusing me of fraud undermines me right to do what I choose with my property. Had enough?

No, if you've deceived me by claiming your product is another product you've effectively stolen from me, and we have a dispute. If you sold me a defective product and told me it was in good condition, you can't claim it's "violating your free speech and free trade".

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 08:42 PM
Right, because you'd be infringing on the (property) rights of someone else. If you used your body to punch someone, you are claiming to have the right to control (in this case damage) someone else's physical body. All rights stem from property rights.

No, if you've deceived me by claiming your product is another product you've effectively stolen from me, and we have a dispute. If you sold me a defective product and told me it was in good condition, you can't claim it's "violating your free speech and free trade".

You admit property rights undermine a person's absolute right to use his body and tools?
But I never decieved you, I have a right to say what I want, it's not my responsibility to translate what you think I said.
The fact you are willing to force me to use the word "defective" when I am free to say "good" is your undermining of my right to speak. Do you own the word good or defective? How can you tell me what to say and how to use my mouth?
I await you explain to me, without owning words or legislating speech codes, how I am obligated to speak the way you expect, and accuse me of fraud or deception based on what you don't like to hear.

noneedtoaggress
01-21-2012, 08:56 PM
You admit property rights undermine a person's absolute right to use his body and tools?

What, no? I said all rights stem from property rights.


But I never decieved you, I have a right to say what I want, it's not my responsibility to translate what you think I said.
The fact you are willing to force me to use the word "defective" when I am free to say "good" is your undermining of my right to speak. Do you own the word good or defective? How can you tell me what to say and how to use my mouth?
I await you explain to me, without owning words or legislating speech codes, how I am obligated to speak the way you expect, and accuse me of fraud or deception based on what you don't like to hear.

LOL, owning words? Are you trying to claim IP is necessary to prevent deception? You can speak however you want. If I feel you've deceived me we have a dispute which needs to be arbitrated.

onlyrp
01-21-2012, 09:01 PM
What, no? I said all rights stem from property rights.



LOL, owning words? Are you trying to claim IP is necessary to prevent deception? You can speak however you want. If I feel you've deceived me we have a dispute which needs to be arbitrated.

I disagree all rights stem from property rights, otherwise property rights would never have limits (and it clearly does).

Saying I decieved you doesn't make it so. Accusing me of a crime I didn't commit based on me speaking my voice is your idea of "freedom"?

As for whether IP is necessary to prevent deception, I'm not sure you even know what deception is. So until you tell me, I can't answer that. I'll try this one anyway : IP, anti-counterfeit, and anti-fraud rules all depend on controlling what people can say, what information can be used, for what purpose, not all information are equal, and IP is not "monopoly on patterns" as you'd like to put it. No more than anti-fraud is "monopoly on words" or anti-counterfeit is "monopoly on money, value and artwork".

noneedtoaggress
01-21-2012, 09:22 PM
I disagree all rights stem from property rights, otherwise property rights would never have limits (and it clearly does).

Well that's a whole new can of worms...


Saying I decieved you doesn't make it so. Accusing me of a crime I didn't commit based on me speaking my voice is your idea of "freedom"?

I never said it did.


As for whether IP is necessary to prevent deception, I'm not sure you even know what deception is. So until you tell me, I can't answer that.

How about intentionally convincing someone that your product is something it's not. If I feel you've lied to me by telling me that something is brand new when it's broken, because you've redefined "brand new" as "broken" and I receive a broken product when I thought I was getting something brand new, we're going to have a dispute which needs to be arbitrated.


I'll try this one anyway : IP, anti-counterfeit, and anti-fraud rules all depend on controlling what people can say, what information can be used, for what purpose, not all information are equal, and IP is not "monopoly on patterns" as you'd like to put it. No more than anti-fraud is "monopoly on words" or anti-counterfeit is "monopoly on money, value and artwork".

That's... great. This is obviously going nowhere.

onlyrp
01-22-2012, 12:37 AM
Well that's a whole new can of worms...

I never said it did.

How about intentionally convincing someone that your product is something it's not. If I feel you've lied to me by telling me that something is brand new when it's broken, because you've redefined "brand new" as "broken" and I receive a broken product when I thought I was getting something brand new, we're going to have a dispute which needs to be arbitrated.

That's... great. This is obviously going nowhere.

its going nowhere because you'll never admit your obvious double standard and cognitive dissonance.

Do you believe in forcing me to use your definitions? Or do you respect my use of words however I see fit?

noneedtoaggress
01-22-2012, 02:37 AM
You can use whatever words you want as long as the concept behind it is being effectively communicated and that definition is mutually understood.

onlyrp
01-22-2012, 01:21 PM
You can use whatever words you want as long as the concept behind it is being effectively communicated and that definition is mutually understood.

so you agree a person isn't allowed to use words as he pleases, and it doesnt require a "monopoly" on words, as long as both sides understand?
Let's try this, does using a word in a way which is not mutually understood a violation of anybody's rights?