Anarchists: Please read regarding Copyright/IP

[TheGrinch]

Because there still seems to be this idea that copyrights are unnatural and thus you should be able to use whoever's copyrighted work you want, even though it's in essence theft to do so without permission. Please read and understand Rothbard's position on this, because I don't have the time to read through all of these threads and dispute like the one below. Copyrights are essential to a free market, just as are property rights.

Please take note of the bolded in particular:



Which of the two (patents and copyrights), if either, is consonant with the purely free market, and which is a
grant of monopoly privilege by the state? In this part, we have been analysing the economics of the purely
free market, where the individual person and property are not subject to molestation. It is therefore
important to decide whether patents or copyrights will obtain in the purely free, noninvasive society, or
whether they are a function of government interference.

Almost all writers have bracketed patents and copyrights together. Most have considered both as grants of
exclusive monopoly privilege by the state; a few have considered both a part and parcel of property right on
the free market. But almost of everyone has considered patents and copyrights as equivalent: the one as
conferring an exclusive property right in the field of mechanical inventions, the other as conferring an
exclusive right in the field of literary creations.93 Yet this bracketing of patents and copyrights is wholly
fallacious; the two are completely different in relation to the free market.

It is true that a patent and a copyright are both exclusive property rights and it is also true that they are both
property rights in innovations. But there is crucial difference in their legal enforcement. If an author or a
composer believes his copyright is being infringed, and he takes legal action, he must "prove that the
defendant had 'access' to the work allegedly infringed. If the defendant produces something identical with the
plaintiff's work by mere chance, there is no infringement."94 Copyrights, in other words, have their basis in the
prosecution of implicit theft. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant stole the former's creation by
reproducing it and selling it himself in violation of his or someone else's contract with the original seller. But if
the defendant independently arrives at the same creation, the plaintiff has no copyright privilege that could
prevent the defendant from using and selling his product.

Patents on the other hand, are completely different. Thus:

You have patented your invention and you read in the newspaper one day that John Doe, who lives in
a city 2,000 miles from your town, has invented an identical or similar device, that he has licensed the
EZ company to manufacture it.....Neither Doe nor the EZ company...ever heard of your invention. All
believe Doe to be the inventor of a new and original device. They may all be guilty of infringing your
patent...the fact that their infringement was in ignorance of the true facts and unintentional will not
constitute a defense.95

Patent, then, has nothing to do with implicit theft. It confers an exclusive privilege on the first inventor, and if
anyone else should, quite independently, invent the same or similar machine or product, the latter would be
debarred by violence from using it in production.

We have seen in chapter 2 that the acid test by which we judge whether or not a certain practice or law is or
not consonant with the free market is this: Is the outlawed practice implicit or explicit theft? If it is, then the
free market would outlaw it; if not, then its outlawry is itself government interference in the free market. Let
us consider copyright. A man writes a book or composes music. When he publishes the book or the sheet of
music, he imprints on the first page the word "copyright." This indicates that any man who agrees to
purchase this product also agrees as part of the exchange not to recopy or reproduce this work for sale. In
other words, the author does not sell his property outright to the buyer; he sells it on condition that the buyer
not reproduce it for sale. Since the buyer does not buy the property outright, but only on this condition, any infringement of the contract by him or a subsequent buyer is implicit theft and would be treated accordingly on the free market. The copyright is therefore a logical device of property right on the free market.

Part of the patent protection now obtained by an inventor could be achieved on the free market by a type of
"copyright" protection. Thus, inventors must now mark their machines as being patented. The mark puts the
buyer on notice that the invention is patented and that they cannot sell that article. But the same could be
done to extend the copyright system, and without patent. In the purely free market, the inventor could mark
his machine copyright, and then anyone who buys the machine buys it on the condition that he will not
reproduce and sell such a machine for profit. Any violation of this contract would constitute implicit theft and
be prosecuted accordingly on the free market.

The patent is incompatible with the free market precisely to the extent that it goes beyond the copyright. The
man who has not bought a machine and who arrives at the same invention independently, will, on the free
market, be perfectly able to use and sell his invention. Patents prevents a man from using his invention even
though all the property is his and he has not stolen the invention, either explicitly or implicitly, from the first
inventor. Patents, therefore, are grants of exclusive monopoly privilege by the state and are invasive of
property rights on the market.

The crucial distinction between patents and copyrights, then, is not that one is mechanical and the other
literary. The fact that they have been applied that way is an historical accident and does not reveal the critical
difference between them.96 The critical difference is that copyright is a logical attribute of property right on
the free market, while patent is a monopoly invasion of that right.

The application of patents to mechanical inventions and copyrights to literary works is peculiarly inappropriate.
It would be more in keeping with the free market to be just the reverse. For literary creations are unique
products of the individual; it is almost impossible for them to be independently duplicated by someone else.
Therefore, a patent, instead of a copyright, for literary productions would make little difference in practice.
On the other hand, mechanical inventions are discoveries of natural law rather than individual creations, and
hence similar independent inventions occur all the time.97 The simultaneity of inventions is a familiar historical
fact. Hence, if it is desired to maintain a free market, it is particularly important to allow copyrights, but not
patents, for mechanical inventions.

The common law has often been a good guide to the law consonant with the free market. Hence, it is not
surprising that common-law copyright prevails for unpublished literary manuscripts, while there is no such
thing a common-law patent. At common law, the inventor also has the right to keep his invention
unpublicized and safe from theft, i.e., he has the equivalent of the copyright protection for unpublicized
inventions.

On the free market, there would therefore be no such thing as patents. There would, however, be copyright
for any inventor or creator who made use of it, and this copyright would be perpetual, not limited to a certain
number of years. Obviously, to be fully the property of an individual, a good has to be permanently and
perpetually the property of the man and his heirs and assigns. If the state decrees that a man's property
ceases at a certain date, this means that the State is the real owner and that it simply grants the man use of
the property for a certain period of time.98

Some defendants of patents assert that they are not monopoly privileges, but simply property rights in
inventions or even in "ideas." But, as we have seen, everyone's property right is defended in libertarian law
without a patent. If someone has an idea or plan and constructs an invention, and it is stolen from his house,
This can be seen in the field of designs, which can be either copyrighted or patented.

For a legal hint on the proper distinction between copyright and monopoly, see F E Skone James, "Copyright" in
Encyclopaedia Britannica (14th ed.; London, 1929), VI, 415-16. For the views of nineteenth century economists on
patents, see Fritz Machlup and Edith T Penrose, "The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century," Journal of
Economic History, May, 1950, pp. 1-29. Also see Fritz Machlup, An Economic Review of the Patent System
(Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1958).

Of course, there would be nothing to prevent the creator or his heirs from voluntarily abandoning this
property right and throwing it into the "public domain" if they so desire.

the stealing is an act of theft illegal under general law. On the other hand, patents actually invade the
property rights of those independent discoverers of an idea or invention who made the discovery after the
patentee. Patents, therefore, invade rather than defend property rights. The speciousness of this argument
that patents protect property rights in ideas is demonstrated by the fact that not all, but only certain types of
original ideas, certain types of original innovations, are considered patentable.

Another common argument for patents is that "society" is simply making a contract with the inventor to
purchase his secret, so that "society" will have use of it. In the first place, "society" could pay a straight
subsidy, or price, to the inventor; it would not have to prevent all later inventors from marketing their
inventions in this field. Secondly, there is nothing in the free economy to prevent any individual or group of
individuals from purchasing secret inventions from their creators. No monopolistic patent is necessary.

The most popular argument for patents among economists is the utilitarian one that a patent for a certain
number of years is necessary to encourage a sufficient amount of research expenditure for inventions and
innovations in processes and products.

This is a curious argument, because the question immediately arises: By what standard do you judge that
research expenditures are "two much," "too little" or just about enough? This is a problem faced by every
governmental intervention in the market's production. Resources--the better lands, laborers, capital goods,
time--in society are limited, and they may be used for countless alternative ends. By what standard does
someone assert that certain uses are "excessive," that certain uses are "insufficient," etc.? Someone observes
that there is little investment in Arizona, but a great deal in Pennsylvania; he indignantly asserts that Arizona
deserves more investment. But what standards can he use to make this claim? The market does have a
rational standard: the highest money incomes and highest profits, for these can be achieved only through
maximum service of consumer desires. This principle of maximum service to consumers and producers alike--
i.e., to everybody--governs the seemingly mysterious market allocation of resources: how much to devote to
one firm or to another, to one area or another, to present or future, to one good or another, to research as
compared with other forms of investment. But the observer who criticizes this allocation can have no rational
standards for decision; he has only his arbitrary whim. This is especially true of criticism of productionrelations.

Someone who chides consumers are buying too much cosmetics may have, rightly or wrongly,
some rational basis for his criticism. But someone who thinks that more or less of a certain resource should
be used in a certain manner or that business firms are "too large" or "too small" or that too much or too little
is spent on research or is invested in a new machine, can have no rational basis for his criticism. Businesses,
in short, are producing for a market, guided by the ultimate valuations of consumers on that market Outside
observers may criticize ultimate valuations of consumers if they choose--although if they interfere with
consumption based on these valuations they impose a loss of utility upon consumers--but they cannot
legitimately criticize the means: the production relations, the allocations of factors, etc. by which these ends
are served.

Capital funds are limited, they must be allocated to various uses, one of which is research expenditures. On
the market, rational decisions are made in setting research expenditures, in accordance with the best
entrepreneurial expectations of an uncertain future. Coercively to encourage research expenditures would
distort and hamper the satisfaction of consumers and producers on the market.

Many advocates of patents believe that the ordinary competitive conditions of the market do not sufficiently
encourage the adoption of new processes and that therefore innovations must be coercively promoted by the
government. But the market decides on the rate of introduction of new processes just as it decides on the
rate of industrialization of a new geographic area. In fact this argument for patents is very similar to the
infant-industry argument for tariffs--that market processes are not sufficient to permit the introduction of
worthwhile new processes. And the answer to both the arguments is the same: that people must balance the
superior productivity of the new processes against the cost of installing them, i.e., against the advantage
possessed by the old process in being already built and in existence. Coercively privileging innovation would
needlessly scrap valuable plants already in existence and impose an excessive burden upon consumers. For
consumers' desires would not be satisfied in the most economic manner.

It is by no means self-evident that patents encourage an increased absolute quantity of research
expenditures. But certainly patents distort the type of research expenditures being conducted. For while it is
true that the first discoverer benefits from the privilege, it is also true that his competitors are excluded from
production in the area of the patent for many years. And since one patent can build upon a related one in the
same field, competitors can often be indefinitely discouraged from further research expenditures in the
general area covered by the patent. Moreover, the patentee is himself discouraged from engaging in further
research in this field, for the privilege permits him to rest on his laurels for the entire period of the patent,
with the assurance that no competitor can trespass on his domain. The competitive spur for further research
is eliminated. Research expenditures are therefore overstimulated in the early stages before anyone has a
patent, and they are unduly restricted in the period after the patent is received. In addition, some inventions
are considered patentable, while others are not. The patent system then has the further effect of artificially
stimulating research expenditures in the patentable areas, while artificially restricting research in the
nonpatentable areas.

Manufacturers have by no means unanimously favored patents. R A Macfie, leader of England's flourishing
patent-abolition movement during the nineteenth century, was president of the Liverpool Chamber of
Commerce.99 Manufacturer I K Brunel, before a committee of the House of Lords, deplored the effect of
patents in stimulating wasteful expenditure of resources on searching for untried patentable inventions,
resources that could have been better used in production. And Austin Robinson has pointed out that many
industries get along without patents:

In practice the enforcement of patent monopolies is often so difficult....that competing manufacturers
have in some industries preferred to pool patents; and to look for sufficient reward for technical
invention in the....advantage of priority that earlier experimentation usually gives and in the
subsequent good-will that may arise from it.100

As Arnold Plant summed up the problem of competitive research expenditures and innovations:
Neither can it be assumed that inventors would cease to be employed it entrepreneurs lost the
monopoly over the use of their inventions. Businesses employ them today for the production of
nonpatentable inventions, and they do not do so merely for the profit which priority secures. In active
competition....no business can afford to lag behind its competitors. The reputation of a firm depends
upon its ability to keep ahead, to be first in the market with new improvements in its products and
new reductions in their prices.101

Finally, of course, the market itself provides an easy and effective course for those who feel that there are not
enough expenditures being made in certain directions. They can make these expenditures themselves. Those
who would like to see more inventions made and exploited, therefore, are at liberty to join together and
subsidize such effort in any way they think best. In that way, they would, as consumers, add resources to the
research and invention business. And they would not then be forcing other consumers to lose utility by
conferring monopoly grants and distorting market's allocations. Their voluntary expenditures would become
part of the market and express ultimate consumer valuations. Furthermore, later inventors would not be
restricted. The friends of invention could accomplish their aim without calling in the state and imposing losses
on a large number of people.

http://www.ccsindia.org/ccsindia/lacs/7patents_copyrights.pdf (http://www.ccsindia.org/ccsindia/lacs/7patents_copyrights.pdf)

[jbauer]

so wait did you just copy and paste someone else's idea?

[TheGrinch]

so wait did you just copy and paste someone else's idea?

Please see the Fair Use Doctrine, which allows for copying of copyrighted works for purposes such as education, mostly stemming on whether it is used for profit (or to great detriment of profit) or not.

Though yes, I suppose it would be polite and appropriate to add a link in.

Edit: also, I attributed it to Rothbard, and didn't claim or sell the work as if it's my own. Quite a big difference between that and saying "screw IP" because you feel you can claim rights for free over something someone else paid and worked to produce and sell.

Finally, this snippet was also put out in a public forum (internet) for public consumption with no copyright attached, BTW, so nice try...

[Acala]

If I buy a book, I didn't steal it. So then I am making and selling copies of an item I did NOT steal.

[TheGrinch]

If I buy a book, I didn't steal it. So then I am making and selling copies of an item I did NOT steal.

It is the work that is copyrighted, not the paper it's printed on, which can be infinite.

Hell, you can copy all the books you want for your own use, scan them into your copmuter to use with a reader, but once you sell that copyrighted work (or even give it away) as if it's your own, you are violating a contract agreement you made when you purchased it, the copyright.

If you don't want to listen to me, then listen to Rothbard. Copyrights are no different than contract enforcement and property rights.

Further, common decency should tell you that someone else's work is not yours to sell, even though the technology exists to make it easy to do so. Have some freaking morals, because I assume you wouldn't want the bread taken off your table because someone found an easy to give away your work for free.

[fisharmor]

any infringement of the contract by him or a subsequent buyer is implicit theft and would be treated accordingly on the free market.
The problem is, the market has already spoken on the matter, and quite loudly.
Gutenberg didn't create moveable type to protect intellectual property: he did it to reduce the cost of printed materials.
Guido d'Arezzo (http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker140.html) didn't try to write down musical notes to protect musicians: he did it to reduce the cost of music.
The internet didn't get created to protect authors. It got created to reduce the cost of information exchange.
Napster didn't get created to protect musicians. It got created to reduce the cost of music.
If the market had any interest in artificially rewarding artists, then it would do it.
Unfortunately for you Boldrin & Levine also address the topic of remuneration in their book: specifically the fact that in many cases the artists were better rewarded absent IP than with it.

[TheGrinch]

The problem is, the market has already spoken on the matter, and quite loudly.
Gutenberg didn't create moveable type to protect intellectual property: he did it to reduce the cost of printed materials.
Guido d'Arezzo (http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker140.html) didn't try to write down musical notes to protect musicians: he did it to reduce the cost of music.
The internet didn't get created to protect authors. It got created to reduce the cost of information exchange.
Napster didn't get created to protect musicians. It got created to reduce the cost of music.
If the market had any interest in artificially rewarding artists, then it would do it.
Unfortunately for you Boldrin & Levine also address the topic of remuneration in their book: specifically the fact that in many cases the artists were better rewarded absent IP than with it.

No those were'nt created for those reasons, copyrights were.

If you don't want to honor contracts, property rights or listen to the guy you all always cite, the good luck getting people on board with the idea that what I create is yours to profit from. It sickens me that you think my writings, videos, media are yours to profit from. They aren't unless I give you permission (much like you'd need permission to utilize my more tangible property) and there's a contract to ensure it.

[muzzled dogg]

Rothbard, like the founders, was wrong on this

[erowe1]

Did you notice this part?

Copyrights, in other words, have their basis in the
prosecution of implicit theft. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant stole the former's creation by
reproducing it and selling it himself in violation of his or someone else's contract with the original seller.

[TheGrinch]

Rothbard, like the founders, was wrong on this

No he wasn't, he wasn't a commie who felt that everyone is due to reap for free the benefits from (or not pay what is asked to reap) the fruits of one's labor.

Why would anyone create any media or independent works for peopel to jsut rip it off, sell it or give it away as if it's their own. That's anti-liberty, anti-economic, and frankly scummy to pirate works that people have invested their time and money in. It's theft.

[TheGrinch]

Did you notice this part?

Ummm okay, yes burden of proof is required. Welcome to America. That quote also says that copyright violation is implicit theft.

[erowe1]

Ummm okay, yes burden of proof is required. Welcome to America. That quote also says that copyright violation is implicit theft.

It also says it involves violation of a contract. Without such a contract, there's no implicit theft.

[Natural Citizen]

What concerns me most is that IP and patents are being used to systematically suppress innovation in the larger scope as opposed to promoting it. And not just that either. Consider the very speech that will as well fall into that category once the dummies let them in charge of rewriting those rules.

IP rights are beginning to stomp right over every area of scientific study. This is a problem that I don't think folks who defend certain aspects of it are open to considering.

Here's a good read from a ways back. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/26/science-shackles-intellectual-property

Maybe some will get it. I don't know. Probably not. One thing is for sure though. Doesn't matter how many times such outlying discussion has been had in recent past. This will absolutely become a very big discussion moving forward. So...get ready.

[TheGrinch]

What concerns me most is that IP and patents are being used to systematically suppress inovation in the larger scope as opposed to promoting it. And not just that either. Consider the very speech that will as well fall into that category once the dummies let them in charge of rewriting those rules.

As Rothbard says, it's a mistake to confuse/combine patents with copyrights. The former is anti-free-market, the other is essential to free market protection or else it will not work.

It's abundantly simple. You put a copyright stamp, and that's a contract the buyer is agreeing to, not to reproduce your original work (that again, is virtually impossible to be created by someone else independently).

[jbauer]

Please see the Fair Use Doctrine, which allows for copying of copyrighted works for purposes such as education, mostly stemming on whether it is used for profit (or to great detriment of profit) or not.

Though yes, I suppose it would be polite and appropriate to add a link in.

Edit: also, I attributed it to Rothbard, and didn't claim or sell the work as if it's my own. Quite a big difference between that and saying "screw IP" because you feel you can claim rights for free over something someone else paid and worked to produce and sell.

Finally, this snippet was also put out in a public forum (internet) for public consumption with no copyright attached, BTW, so nice try...

Dude, I was just screwing with you.

[Occam's Banana]

No he wasn't, he wasn't a commie who felt that everyone is due to reap for free the benefits from (or not pay what is asked to reap) the fruits of one's labor.

Why would anyone create any media or independent works for peopel to jsut rip it off, sell it or give it away as if it's their own. That's anti-liberty, anti-economic, and frankly scummy to pirate works that people have invested their time and money in. It's theft.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I have only one question. Given your abundantly obvious attitude on this issue (not to mention your gratuitously insulting rhetoric) did you have some purpose for starting this thread other than trolling?

[TheGrinch]

Dude, I was just screwing with you.

I should have suspected that, but still a good place to point out that there are plenty of uses that don't infringe on the producer. Selling (or foregoing the sale) of their work doesn't even fall under basic morality, let alone contract enforcement and basic free market protection (and yes, there does have to be some protection in a free market, or else it isn't free).

[erowe1]

Selling (or foregoing the sale) of their work doesn't even fall under basic morality

Why not?

[TheGrinch]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I have only one question. Given your abundantly obvious attitude on this issue (not to mention your gratuitously insulting rhetoric) did you have some purpose for starting this thread other than trolling?

That I'm tired of these threads continuing to pop up where people are making the case that I have no ownership over anything I wish to prodcue and sell, and it's jsut there for the taking.

I've insulted you? Good, because it insults me that you don't respect what I do for a living or contracts, and are actively undermining it by promoting theft and illegitimate profit.

Btw, the only way that should insult you is if youre reproducing and selling others works. Otherwise you should have no reason to bw insulted.

[awake]

He is arguing the validity of contracts. If willing song writer agrees to let a second person listen or copy his Mp3 and the second man agrees to not copy or reproduce, only he is bound to this contract. If the second man releases a million or a gazillion copies, it is him that is responsible under contract. Any one beyond that did not sign any contract. Policing this million or zillion would be an instant totalitarian state that it would be intolerable to everyone.

Written physical books are tangible matter. Digital data: mp3, Epub, file or movie in digital format changes the whole shooting match. The material becomes virtually free due to its infinite reproducibility. MP3 has been able to get a dollar or two per song, newly released books and movies are going to have to adopt the same model or get washed away.

When the price is at the market level even "Pirates" will simply pay it instead of finding annoying ways around the artificially high prices.

[Occam's Banana]

That I'm tired of these threads continuing to pop up where people are making the case that I have no ownership over anything I wish to prodcue and sell, and it's jsut there for the taking.

I've insulted you? Good, because it insults me that you don't respect what I do for a living or contracts, and are actively undermining it by promoting theft and illegitimate profit.

Btw, the only way that should insult you is if youre reproducing and selling others works. Otherwise you should have no reason to bw insulted.

Translation: I started this thread to call people names, to cast aspersions upon anyone who disagrees with me, and to masturbate my sense of self-righteous outrage.

Question answered. Thank you.

[Natural Citizen]

As Rothbard says, it's a mistake to confuse/combine patents with copyrights. The former is anti-free-market, the other is essential to free market protection or else it will not work.

It's abundantly simple. You put a copyright stamp, and that's a contract the buyer is agreeing to, not to reproduce your original work (that again, is virtually impossible to be created by someone else independently).

I really do understand your point. In fact, I defend it to the extent that you present it. I just don't think you (well, maybe not you, per se, but the demograph, I guess) get it in the larger field. IP was meant for small business. In fact, I don't think it was even relevant to the depth of issues we now have with it until Reagan opened up the floodgates for the marketing of youth which then grew like a virus to other areas of the market just because it could. The multi-national merge of corporation and state that we have now (which could be said to exist in the manner that it does as some result of Reagan's handy work) isn't exactly traditional free market and that is where the real damage is being drawn up. Not really with you, the small guy.

What do you produce anyway? If you don't mind me asking.

[TheGrinch]

Why not?

Please don't make me waste my time to explain why it's not moral to sell (or forego their profits by giving away) something that you've not only not gotten permission (but have agreed to an implicit contract not to) as if it's your own.

There are plenty of grey areas in morality. This isn't one of them, to take food off my table (and that's what you're doing to freelancers like me jsut trying to get by) so that you can profit or give away my work and costs put into it. I've had it happen to me before where my videos were ripped off on other sites under the guise of their own, and started branding my videos more because of it.

Just because these matters haven't been serious enough for me to copyright my works or get the law involved, does not mean that such a law (or really just a contract enforcement entity that most anarchists claim to support) shouldn't exist.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, Murrary is partly wrong on this one. 1) Calculus was discovered by 2 people simultaneously and independent of each other and the Chinese independently invented paper, movable type, and a bazillion other things before the Westerners did. (etc, etc) 2) He makes the same false assumption that most IP advocates do-that tacit contracts are legitimate (they aren't)

Interestingly, he gets it right here:
"It is by no means self-evident that patents encourage an increased absolute quantity of research expenditures. But certainly patents distort the type of research expenditures being conducted. For while it is true that the first discoverer benefits from the privilege, it is also true that his competitors are excluded from production in the area of the patent for many years. And since one patent can build upon a related one in the same field, competitors can often be indefinitely discouraged from further research expenditures in the general area covered by the patent. Moreover, the patentee is himself discouraged from engaging in further research in this field, for the privilege permits him to rest on his laurels for the entire period of the patent, with the assurance that no competitor can trespass on his domain. The competitive spur for further research is eliminated. Research expenditures are therefore overstimulated in the early stages before anyone has a patent, and they are unduly restricted in the period after the patent is received. In addition, some inventions are considered patentable, while others are not. The patent system then has the further effect of artificially stimulating research expenditures in the patentable areas, while artificially restricting research in the nonpatentable areas."

Interesting that the OP cut n paste is presented as a defense of IP. The substance of the piece is a denouncement of it. To that extent, I agree with Murray.

[dannno]

If you don't want to honor contracts, property rights or listen to the guy you all always cite, the good luck getting people on board with the idea that what I create is yours to profit from. It sickens me that you think my writings, videos, media are yours to profit from.

Let's say you write a book. Let's say you sell the book for $12. Let's say it costs $11 to produce the book, get it on the shelves in the stores and sell it. You make a nice profit of $1/book sold.

Scenario 1:

Let's say somebody else buys your book and sells it for $6. Let's say it costs them $5 to produce a copy of the book. Let's say they sell a whole bunch of copies of the book, crediting your name but without your authorization. Luckily, since there are newspapers and printed media, and fuck, not to mention the internet, you can communicate to the entire world whether certain copies of a book sold are yours or not.

*HOLD ON*

The free market says you should hire this person to produce copies of your book also or instead because they are producing it at around half the cost and the market prefers this version to the more expensive version authorized by you. YOU made a bad decision by producing an edition that costs too much when most people merely wanted the words printed in the book. If this were an art book, it could be the opposite. Maybe people don't care to see a cheap version, but want a good, clear, color version.

The point is, you can now AUTHORIZE this person to produce copies for you. They can produce the book for $5 a copy and now they can not only put your name as the author, but that the book is AUTHORIZED to be sold by you which will increase the value. Now they can sell it for $6.99 under an actual contract, not one that you seem to like to fabricate out of thin air, and you can get your profit, too. Using mass media you can communicate to the world that the person selling these editions are in fact authorized by you, the author, so the people buying the book know they are getting the real deal. I mean, imagine if a plagiarist changed an author's work and sold it? This probably has/would happen and people would be wary of buying from plagiarists because they can't be sure they are getting the correct content.


Scenario 2:

Somebody buys your book, makes a copy, and puts their name as the author.

Just like what happened to Milli Vanilli, you can communicate to the world that that is your original material which will severely degrade the reputation of the person who ripped off your work and will hurt their reputation for years to come.

You don't seem to understand that the free market has mechanisms to deal with all of these issues.

[McChronagle]

is this from man economy and state?

[TheGrinch]

Translation: I started this thread to call people names, to cast aspersions upon anyone who disagrees with me, and to masturbate my sense of self-righteous outrage.

Question answered. Thank you.

Unless you are a pirater, then I have called no one names, only them as thieves, because I (and Rothbard) feel it's theft and scummy. I am merely saying that it is a mistake for many of the anarchists here to lump in patents/copyrights/IP all in the same bundle as anti-free-marekt, when even Rothbard can see the very important distinction.

I am not going to continue on with you unless you have a legitimate point. This is not a flame thread. It's in response to a 5 page thread (and another previous thread) that I felt had a number of faulty assumptions, even contradictory if you subscribe to Rothbard.

[jbauer]

Danno what do you do for a job?

[TheGrinch]

is this from man economy and state?

Yes

[heavenlyboy34]

Please don't make me waste my time to explain why it's not moral to sell (or forego their profits by giving away) something that you've not only not gotten permission (but have agreed to an implicit contract not to) as if it's your own.
As has been explained to you several times, when one willfully surrenders ownership of something (like a book or piece of technology), he can no longer tell people what to do or not do with it. The tacit contract is illegitimate and irrational.


There are plenty of grey areas in morality. This isn't one of them, to take food off my table (and that's what you're doing to freelancers like me jsut trying to get by) so that you can profit or give away my work and costs put into it. I've had it happen to me before where my videos were ripped off on other sites under the guise of their own, and started branding my videos more because of it.
Nonsense. There is a very real difference between theft and copying. That's why the law, even as it exists, treats them differently.


Just because these matters haven't been serious enough for me to copyright my works or get the law involved, does not mean that such a law (or really just a contract enforcement entity that most anarchists claim to support) shouldn't exist.
You keep making this claim about "contract enforcement", yet you know that IP does not constitute a legitimate contract. Non sequitur.

[heavenlyboy34]

Unless you are a pirater, then I have called no one names, only them as thieves, because I (and Rothbard) feel it's theft and scummy. I am merely saying that it is a mistake for many of the anarchists here to lump in patents/copyrights/IP all in the same bundle as anti-free-marekt, when even Rothbard can see the very important distinction.

I am not going to continue on with you unless you have a legitimate point. This is not a flame thread. It's in response to a 5 page thread (and another previous thread) that I felt had a number of faulty assumptions, even contradictory if you subscribe to Rothbard. Not true. See my previous post.

[erowe1]

Please don't make me waste my time to explain why it's not moral to sell (or forego their profits by giving away) something that you've not only not gotten permission (but have agreed to an implicit contract not to) as if it's your own.

There are plenty of grey areas in morality. This isn't one of them, to take food off my table (and that's what you're doing to freelancers like me jsut trying to get by) so that you can profit or give away my work and costs put into it. I've had it happen to me before where my videos were ripped off on other sites under the guise of their own, and started branding my videos more because of it.

Just because these matters haven't been serious enough for me to copyright my works or get the law involved, does not mean that such a law (or really just a contract enforcement entity that most anarchists claim to support) shouldn't exist.

Every once in awhile you bring contracts into this. But then sometimes you say things as though ownership of intellectual property exists naturally, even without contracts. I can't tell what your position is.

If you're saying that, if I make a contract with you where I get to have access to your work in exchange for my promise that I won't make my own copy of it and sell it, then I am obligated to keep that promise, then I agree.

But if you're saying that you have a natural right to keep me from doing that even without such a contract, then I don't.

[TheGrinch]

Well, Murrary is partly wrong on this one. 1) Calculus was discovered by 2 people simultaneously and independent of each other and the Chinese independently invented paper, movable type, and a bazillion other things before the Westerners did. (etc, etc) 2) He makes the same false assumption that most IP advocates do-that tacit contracts are legitimate (they aren't)

Interestingly, he gets it right here:
"It is by no means self-evident that patents encourage an increased absolute quantity of research expenditures. But certainly patents distort the type of research expenditures being conducted. For while it is true that the first discoverer benefits from the privilege, it is also true that his competitors are excluded from production in the area of the patent for many years. And since one patent can build upon a related one in the same field, competitors can often be indefinitely discouraged from further research expenditures in the general area covered by the patent. Moreover, the patentee is himself discouraged from engaging in further research in this field, for the privilege permits him to rest on his laurels for the entire period of the patent, with the assurance that no competitor can trespass on his domain. The competitive spur for further research is eliminated. Research expenditures are therefore overstimulated in the early stages before anyone has a patent, and they are unduly restricted in the period after the patent is received. In addition, some inventions are considered patentable, while others are not. The patent system then has the further effect of artificially stimulating research expenditures in the patentable areas, while artificially restricting research in the nonpatentable areas."

Interesting that the OP cut n paste is presented as a defense of IP. The substance of the piece is a denouncement of it. To that extent, I agree with Murray.

Say what? He makes the very clear distinction that calculus falls under inventions that can perhaps easily be reproduced independently. They're laws of math for goodness sakes, of course someone else was bound to figure out a similar system. However, say that they had copyrighted this, then one could only share it with their permission, and others would have to discover it independtly if not. That's far different than a patent monopoly, as it allows it to be reproduced naturally, jsut not shared without their permission.

Of course math has always meant to be used towards the collective of society, so it's no surprise why this was allowed to be spread to allow for innovation. Otherwise they would have just kept it to themselves, or much like today, only sold the technology to those they wished, with a contract that they couldn't share it with anyone else.... Or do you think we should all just be allowed to have access to a company's private secrets if they happen to need to share them with another company? All that would do is force them to keep it secret, and impede innovation and production... Not to mention it spits in the face of contract enforcement.

So why are contracts about who can utilize my works any different than other company's contracts? The world needs binding agreements to be binding, or else you're looking at a type of anarchy that I don't think you'll like. The free market will always demand protection from theft (and yes, passing off someone else's work as your own to the detriment of their profit is theft. There's no other way around it).

Just like calculus, if you feel that you "could have" written the same book I did independently, then go nuts. There's no monopoly on creating a book, video, etc. But once you take my ideas and present and sell them as if they're your own, there is no other way to look at that as theft and contract breach.

[TheGrinch]

Let's say you write a book. Let's say you sell the book for $12. Let's say it costs $11 to produce the book, get it on the shelves in the stores and sell it. You make a nice profit of $1/book sold.

Scenario 1:

Let's say somebody else buys your book and sells it for $6. Let's say it costs them $5 to produce a copy of the book. Let's say they sell a whole bunch of copies of the book, crediting your name but without your authorization. Luckily, since there are newspapers and printed media, and fuck, not to mention the internet, you can communicate to the entire world whether certain copies of a book sold are yours or not.

*HOLD ON*

The free market says you should hire this person to produce copies of your book also or instead because they are producing it at around half the cost and the market prefers this version to the more expensive version authorized by you. YOU made a bad decision by producing an edition that costs too much when most people merely wanted the words printed in the book. If this were an art book, it could be the opposite. Maybe people don't care to see a cheap version, but want a good, clear, color version.

The point is, you can now AUTHORIZE this person to produce copies for you. They can produce the book for $5 a copy and now they can not only put your name as the author, but that the book is AUTHORIZED to be sold by you which will increase the value. Now they can sell it for $6.99 under an actual contract, not one that you seem to like to fabricate out of thin air, and you can get your profit, too. Using mass media you can communicate to the world that the person selling these editions are in fact authorized by you, the author, so the people buying the book know they are getting the real deal. I mean, imagine if a plagiarist changed an author's work and sold it? This probably has/would happen and people would be wary of buying from plagiarists because they can't be sure they are getting the correct content.


Scenario 2:

Somebody buys your book, makes a copy, and puts their name as the author.

Just like what happened to Milli Vanilli, you can communicate to the world that that is your original material which will severely degrade the reputation of the person who ripped off your work and will hurt their reputation for years to come.

You don't seem to understand that the free market has mechanisms to deal with all of these issues.

No, I understand completely. The free market will demand protection of copyright contracts.

And a primary reason that person can reproduce it cheaper is because they didn't have to put any of the work or cost into developing it. Anyone can do it cheaper if they don't have to actually produce anything but a copy of someone else's work.

[TheGrinch]

Every once in awhile you bring contracts into this. But then sometimes you say things as though ownership of intellectual property exists naturally, even without contracts. I can't tell what your position is.

If you're saying that, if I make a contract with you where I get to have access to your work in exchange for my promise that I won't make my own copy of it and sell it, then I am obligated to keep that promise, then I agree.

But if you're saying that you have a natural right to keep me from doing that even without such a contract, then I don't.

What? No, I'm making the distinction between copyrights and patents. That was just a personal example of how it doesn't just affect Hollywood.

I mean, yes I do believe that you have an inherent natural right to what you produce, but the copyright is there as contract protection once it leaves your hands.

[erowe1]

What? No, I'm making the distinction between copyrights and patents. That was just a personal example of how it doesn't just affect Hollywood.

I mean, yes I do believe that you have an inherent natural right to what you produce, but the copyright is there as contract protection once it leaves your hands.

That didn't really clarify it for me. In order for there to be contract protection, there has to be a contract.

I agree that you have an inherent natural right to what you produce. I just don't agree that you have an inherent natural right to all copies made of it.

[jmdrake]

+rep for actually nailing an argument down instead of pontificating. Using this example if person A who initially wrote the book / song / Mp3 contracted with person B to not sell, lend or give said book / song / Mp3 to person C without person C first signing a similar contract with person A then person A could either sue person B for not getting person C to sign said contract or he could sue person C for violating the contract. The problem is that....nobody generally does that. (Maybe with software. It's certainly possible with software to force someone to click something accepting a contract even if you've never met that person.) Of course, when it comes to any kind of public performance (music - movies - whatever) it's possible for person C to access content that person B had permission from person A to broadcast without getting involved in any such contract either.


He is arguing the validity of contracts. If willing song writer agrees to let a second person listen or copy his Mp3 and the second man agrees to not copy or reproduce, only he is bound to this contract. If the second man releases a million or a gazillion copies, it is him that is responsible under contract. Any one beyond that did not sign any contract. Policing this million or zillion would be an instant totalitarian state that it would be intolerable to everyone.

Written physical books are tangible matter. Digital data: mp3, Epub, file or movie in digital format changes the whole shooting match. The material becomes virtually free due to its infinite reproducibility. MP3 has been able to get a dollar or two per song, newly released books and movies are going to have to adopt the same model or get washed away.

When the price is at the market level even "Pirates" will simply pay it instead of finding annoying ways around the artificially high prices.

[TheGrinch]

As has been explained to you several times, when one willfully surrenders ownership of something (like a book or piece of technology), he can no longer tell people what to do or not do with it. The tacit contract is illegitimate and irrational.


Nonsense. There is a very real difference between theft and copying. That's why the law, even as it exists, treats them differently.


You keep making this claim about "contract enforcement", yet you know that IP does not constitute a legitimate contract. Non sequitur.

IP is not a contract. Copyright is a contract.

There would be no need to have contracts if it was no longer valid after it switched hands. By your logic, I shouldn't have to bring my rental car back, because ownership switched hands when they rneted it to me.

Much the same, if I sell you a copyrighted work, it has a contract attached you won't reproduce it. If it is a grey area over what that means, then well, you might have a weak case prosecuting it, but it's there for a reason nonetheless, to allow rights to the seller they wouldn't have otherwise. What's unjust about that?

[TheGrinch]

That didn't really clarify it for me. In order for there to be contract protection, there has to be a contract.

I agree that you have an inherent natural right to what you produce. I just don't agree that you have an inherent natural right to all copies made of it.

The copyright stamp is an implicit bound contract. If you take that away, then they'll merely replace it with sales with actual contracts. The free market will demand it.

[erowe1]

The copyright stamp is an implicit bound contract. If you take that away, then they'll merely replace it with sales with actual contracts. The free market will demand it.

It's an implicit bound contract between what parties?

[jmdrake]

What? No, I'm making the distinction between copyrights and patents. That was just a personal example of how it doesn't just affect Hollywood.

I mean, yes I do believe that you have an inherent natural right to what you produce, but the copyright is there as contract protection once it leaves your hands.

Except under current law the government "creates" a contract between people who have never agreed to contract. You don't even have to apply for a copyright to magically have one. And the line between copyright and patent becomes quite blurry when you consider that things that are "substantially similar" can violate copyright. There are all sorts of was people end up "contracted" to things they have never "contracted" to.

[jmdrake]

The copyright stamp is an implicit bound contract. If you take that away, then they'll merely replace it with sales with actual contracts. The free market will demand it.

Then why not let the free market actually demand it?

[TheGrinch]

He is arguing the validity of contracts. If willing song writer agrees to let a second person listen or copy his Mp3 and the second man agrees to not copy or reproduce, only he is bound to this contract. If the second man releases a million or a gazillion copies, it is him that is responsible under contract. Any one beyond that did not sign any contract. Policing this million or zillion would be an instant totalitarian state that it would be intolerable to everyone.

Written physical books are tangible matter. Digital data: mp3, Epub, file or movie in digital format changes the whole shooting match. The material becomes virtually free due to its infinite reproducibility. MP3 has been able to get a dollar or two per song, newly released books and movies are going to have to adopt the same model or get washed away.

When the price is at the market level even "Pirates" will simply pay it instead of finding annoying ways around the artificially high prices.

How do you release a zillion copies without reproducing it? That makes no sense.

If you're trying to say that it should only be the one who reproduces and/or sells that should be bound to the contract, then I agree. Those who utilize what they've bought or given are not the issue here.

And ignorance is no excuse for the law. If you're selling a copy of a copy of a copy, you need to check and see if you have permission or if it's copyrighted.

[Occam's Banana]

Unless you are a pirater, then I have called no one names, only them as thieves, because I (and Rothbard) feel it's theft and scummy. I am merely saying that it is a mistake for many of the anarchists here to lump in patents/copyrights/IP all in the same bundle as anti-free-marekt, when even Rothbard can see the very important distinction.

I am not going to continue on with you unless you have a legitimate point. This is not a flame thread. It's in response to a 5 page thread (and another previous thread) that I felt had a number of faulty assumptions, even contradictory if you subscribe to Rothbard.

I have a perfectly legitimate point. It is this: people who wish to engage in reasoned & rational discussion do not engage in innuendo to the effect that those who disagree with them are "commies" or "scummy" or "anti-libety" (or any other of the pejoratives you have suggested should apply to those of us who reject the notion that the immaterial is "property" subject to "ownership").


Why would anyone create any media or independent works for peopel to jsut rip it off, sell it or give it away as if it's their own. That's anti-liberty, anti-economic, and frankly scummy to pirate works that people have invested their time and money in. It's theft.

Yeah. Sure. OK. I guess all those people who produced works of literature, invention, art, science, etc. during the millenia prior to the existence of any intellectual "property" regime were just idiots & dupes who cared more about getting their works out to an audience rather than maximizing their incomes by demanding monopoly priveleges.

[TheGrinch]

Then why not let the free market actually demand it?

I agree. I'm jsut saying that you'd see nothing different than the current copyright system, and like Rothbard said, perhaps a replacement of them over patents to protect property rights without creating monopolies.

The point of the thread is to make the distinction between anti-liberty monopolies and pro-liberty patents. I'm not arguing in favor of the woes of our current system, only the concepts.

[TheGrinch]

I have a perfectly legitimate point. It is this: people who wish to engage in reasoned & rational discussion do not engage in innuendo to the effect that those who disagree with them are "commies" or "scummy" or "anti-libety" (or any other of the pejoratives you have suggested should apply to those of us who reject the notion that the immaterial is "property" subject to "ownership").



Yeah. Sure. OK. I guess all those people who produced works of literature, invention, art, science, etc. during the millenia prior to the existence of any intellectual "property" regime were just idiots & dupes who cared more about getting their works out to an audience rather than maximizing their incomes by demanding monopoly priveleges.

It was much more difficult to reproduce and profit from others works then, though it no doubt happened or copyrights wouldn't have come about some centuries ago.

[erowe1]

If you're selling a copy of a copy of a copy, you need to check and see if you have permission or if it's copyrighted.

If you didn't enter into any contract saying you wouldn't do that, then you don't need permission.

[erowe1]

I agree. I'm jsut saying that you'd see nothing different than the current copyright system

I think that what you'd see would end up being pretty different.

[TheGrinch]

Except under current law the government "creates" a contract between people who have never agreed to contract. You don't even have to apply for a copyright to magically have one. And the line between copyright and patent becomes quite blurry when you consider that things that are "substantially similar" can violate copyright. There are all sorts of was people end up "contracted" to things they have never "contracted" to.

By purchasing the product, you are agreeing to that contract. The only reason (in theory) the government sanctions a copyright over signing an actual contract is that it's far easier. Everyone who buys understands what that C stamp means.

[erowe1]

By purchasing the product, you are agreeing to that contract.

Right. But what about people who didn't purchase it? How does the contract come to include them?

[jmdrake]

I agree. I'm jsut saying that you'd see nothing different than the current copyright system, and like Rothbard said, perhaps a replacement of them over patents to protect property rights without creating monopolies.

The point of the thread is to make the distinction between anti-liberty monopolies and pro-liberty patents. I'm not arguing in favor of the woes of our current system, only the concepts.

Wait a minute. You think the current system has woes and yet you expect that a free market system would duplicate it? :confused: Anyhow, I don't thin it would. Under a true free market system (one without government intervention), most people would realize that somehow signing a contract every time you borrowed a CD from a friend makes no sense. And okay, you only want to go after those who turn around and "sell" the copies. But most people who make "illegal" copies give them away. Is the person who lets someone come over to his house and watch his videos whenever really that much different from the person who sets up his legal video collection on a "share" drive in his dormitory network?

[TheGrinch]

If you didn't enter into any contract saying you wouldn't do that, then you don't need permission.

Again, copyrights are just the medium to replace contracts, just as money will always exist in society it's pure form to replace the troubles of bartering.

Otherwise, everyone would jsut sign a do-not-share-contract. That's what a copyright is.

[The Free Hornet]

As Rothbard says, it's a mistake to confuse/combine patents with copyrights. The former is anti-free-market, the other is essential to free market protection or else it will not work.

It's abundantly simple. You put a copyright stamp, and that's a contract the buyer is agreeing to, not to reproduce your original work (that again, is virtually impossible to be created by someone else independently).

It is far from abundently simple. What if you are buying sheet music that is 80 years old from Country X? What if the seller removed the copyright notice? What if you gave it to me but I agreed to no contract, in fact, I had a notice posted on my house stating that any IP brought into my house must be licensed under CC terms under penalty of death? Yet you still brought it in???

I have had enough of your dystopian world of implied contracts that change every decade Micky Mouse needs more protection. What used to be civil matters with 14, 28 year lengths are now lifetime+++decades monstrosities with criminal penalties to any mundanes that step out of line. Fuck that. Do your rentseeking elsewhere.

[jmdrake]

Right. But what about people who didn't purchase it? How does the contract come to include them?

^This. In fact nobody has to purchase anything to be bound by a fake "copyright" contract. If I watch a trailer for a movie that hasn't come out yet, then turn around and say "Hey, I could do a better job of that" and produce my own version, I've technically violated copyright even though the only thing I've copied is the idea (which is where copyright becomes very similar to patent).

[TheGrinch]

Wait a minute. You think the current system has woes and yet you expect that a free market system would duplicate it? :confused: Anyhow, I don't thin it would. Under a true free market system (one without government intervention), most people would realize that somehow signing a contract every time you borrowed a CD from a friend makes no sense. And okay, you only want to go after those who turn around and "sell" the copies. But most people who make "illegal" copies give them away. Is the person who lets someone come over to his house and watch his videos whenever really that much different from the person who sets up his legal video collection on a "share" drive in his dormitory network?

No, but it would make sense for someone selling to have someone sign a contract if no such copyright existed. The copyright exists for the exact reason that all of that "doesn't make sense". It's there so it's understood that this is yours to use, not to duplicate and sell. Pretty freaking simple concept you're all overcomplicating.

The part about the woes of our current system has to do with legislaters, not the concept at hand here. Will you guys stop playing gotcha on the defensive and even try to comprehend what I'm saying.

[jmdrake]

Again, copyrights are just the medium to replace contracts, just as money will always exist in society it's pure form to replace the troubles of bartering.

Otherwise, everyone would jsut sign a do-not-share-contract. That's what a copyright is.

No. Everyone would not sign a "do-not-share" contract. That's where your argument leaves reality and becomes fantasy. It would be unworkable to make everyone sign a "I will not write down the lyrics of this song and record it myself for profit" contract before every public performance, including radio, for example.

[erowe1]

Again, copyrights are just the medium to replace contracts, just as money will always exist in society it's pure form to replace the troubles of bartering.

Otherwise, everyone would jsut sign a do-not-share-contract. That's what a copyright is.

I don't disagree with any of that. But it seems to me that current copyright law obligates people to keep contracts they never entered.

[TheGrinch]

^This. In fact nobody has to purchase anything to be bound by a fake "copyright" contract. If I watch a trailer for a movie that hasn't come out yet, then turn around and say "Hey, I could do a better job of that" and produce my own version, I've technically violated copyright even though the only thing I've copied is the idea (which is where copyright becomes very similar to patent).

There is no copyright on making a movie. You're jsut being ridiculous now, not even using an example that isn't allowed under current copyright law. If you see James Bond and want to write a spy movie, write a spy movie. You just can't reshoot Bond using the exact same words and scenes. Plenty of people get around it through making it a bit different or even direct satire, which does fall under Fair Use. Straight reproduction and ripping off doesn't.

[jmdrake]

No, but it would make sense for someone selling to have someone sign a contract if no such copyright existed. The copyright exists for the exact reason that all of that "doesn't make sense". It's there so it's understood that this is yours to use, not to duplicate and sell. Pretty freaking simple concept you're all overcomplicating.

The part about the woes of our current system has to do with legislaters, not the concept at hand here. Will you guys stop playing gotcha on the defensive and even try to comprehend what I'm saying.

We comprehend fine. We also comprehend why it wouldn't work the way you're claiming it would. Answer this simple question. Person A sings the song he wrote at a public event in earshot of people who didn't pay to go to the event. Under your system they are covered under a copyright contract because....? Under the current system there is copyright protection because the government deems that anyone who makes an illicit copy of a copyrighted work is an infringer regardless of whether he has privity with the creator of the work.

[TheGrinch]

No. Everyone would not sign a "do-not-share" contract. That's where your argument leaves reality and becomes fantasy. It would be unworkable to make everyone sign a "I will not write down the lyrics of this song and record it myself for profit" contract before every public performance, including radio, for example.
Look on the back of your concert ticket. There are plenty of terms and conditions.

Thus, if you didn't have a copyright, yes you would make doing business more problematic, but most companies would demand these contracts over someone else profitting, that you can be sure of.

[jmdrake]

There is no copyright on making a movie. You're jsut being ridiculous now, not even using an example that isn't allowed under current copyright law.

:rolleyes:

Read and educate yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_%26_Marty_Krofft_Television_Productions_Inc._v ._McDonald%27s_Corp. McDonald's was successfully sued under current copyright law because they used characters similar to those in the HR PufNStuff TV show for a McDonald's TV commercial. Note these weren't even the same characters!



If you see James Bond and want to write a spy movie, write a spy movie. You just can't reshoot Bond using the exact same words and scenes. Plenty of people get around it through making it a bit different or even direct satire, which does fall under Fair Use. Straight reproduction and ripping off doesn't.

See above. Or go take a class on copyright.

[erowe1]

There is no copyright on making a movie.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl119.html

[TheGrinch]

Look, if you're going to copy someone's work, then have to get permission, or else expect that what you're reproducing may be copyrighted. That's a pretty freaking simple requirement to use work that's not your own to profit from, don't you think?

You guys are inventing problems that don't even happen in the current system, let alone a free market one.

[TheGrinch]

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl119.html

You're jsut playnig gotcha now, so I'm through with this. You're not even quoting my whole post.

Okay, so you found that movies can be copyrighted. It doesn't mean there's a monopoly on making independent movies. I made a video the other day. You can too. Just not James Bond.

[erowe1]

Look on the back of your concert ticket. There are plenty of terms and conditions.

But again, those terms and conditions can only serve as a contract to the people who enter that contract, not to others.

[The Free Hornet]

No. Everyone would not sign a "do-not-share" contract. That's where your argument leaves reality and becomes fantasy. It would be unworkable to make everyone sign a "I will not write down the lyrics of this song and record it myself for profit" contract before every public performance, including radio, for example.

Which is to say one would either agree or not agree to certain cartels. I may agree to terms offered by the Musicians Guild but decline the similar terms from the Inventors' Group. The result being I am able to buy MG's music and attend concerts. On the other hand, I cannot purchase an item from IG as I did not agree to their terms.

People certainly could negotiate these things piecemeal as you suggest, but it is not necessary.

A free market mechanism would help ensure that terms do not become too one sided (multi-million dollar fines) or onerous (criminal penalties).

Yes, not everyone would sign these contracts. That is the beauty of it. If you blasted their ear drums with your music in the mall/park/airwaves, it is YOU who is giving product away for free, not THEM who are taking it.

[erowe1]

You're jsut playnig gotcha now, so I'm through with this. You're not even quoting my whole post.

Wow, you found that movies can be copyrighted. It doesn't mean there's a monopoly on making movies. I made a video the other day. You can too. Just not James Bond.

What more do we need to do?

Whatever kind of work you want to be able to copyright, whether it's a movie, a song, an essay, a book, or anything else, there will be examples like the one he gave where people are being treated as though they entered a contract they never entered.

Again, if you're only talking about people being obligated to keep contracts that they themselves entered, then I'm with you.

[TheGrinch]

:rolleyes:

Read and educate yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_%26_Marty_Krofft_Television_Productions_Inc._v ._McDonald%27s_Corp. McDonald's was successfully sued under current copyright law because they used characters similar to those in the HR PufNStuff TV show for a McDonald's TV commercial. Note these weren't even the same characters!



See above. Or go take a class on copyright.

Must have had a good lawyer then, because I've seen way more tossed out for being an overreach of what copyrights should do.

[TheGrinch]

What more do we need to do?

Whatever kind of work you want to be able to copyright, whether it's a movie, a song, an essay, a book, or anything else, there will be examples like the one he gave where people are being treated as though they entered a contract they never entered.

Again, if you're only talking about people being obligated to keep contracts that they themselves entered, then I'm with you.

If you're selling or reproducing someone else's work, then checking on if it is allowed or not is a very simple step, when you're not doing any of the actual production. Pretty simple. You all act like this is so problematic, when it's really simple when you view it just like property. You didn't produce, you better see if you have permission or it's copyrighted, or suffer the consequences of a potential lawsuit.

[jmdrake]

Look on the back of your concert ticket. There are plenty of terms and conditions.

And when the concert is done in a park within earshot of people who didn't pay to go in? If you don't thing concerts can be heard outside the venue then you haven't been to many outdoor rock concerts. Plus sometimes performances are done where there aren't tickets sold. A gospel singer goes to a church and performs a song for free. That doesn't negate her copyright under current law.



Thus, if you didn't have a copyright, yes you would make doing business more problematic, but most companies would demand these contracts over someone else profitting, that you can be sure of.

And some companies would realize "This ain't working out to well for us" and just eat the losses but reap the benefits of the free publicity. Some folks will figure out that they can make money other ways than up front from the customer. (For example, many artists make money from people through ad revenue from their YouTube channels).

[TheGrinch]

And when the concert is done in a park within earshot of people who didn't pay to go in? If you don't thing concerts can be heard outside the venue then you haven't been to many outdoor rock concerts. Plus sometimes performances are done where there aren't tickets sold. A gospel singer goes to a church and performs a song for free. That doesn't negate her copyright under current law.



And some companies would realize "This ain't working out to well for us" and just eat the losses but reap the benefits of the free publicity. Some folks will figure out that they can make money other ways than up front from the customer. (For example, many artists make money from people through ad revenue from their YouTube channels).

Dude, you're over-complicating this. Seems like copyrights are around because people like you want to figure out loopholes if you don't have them.

Being in ear-shot of something doesn't give you a right to reproduce it for profit. Last tiem I'm gonna say this before I become a broken record, but if you're going to take someone else's profits and cost to produce something, you make sure have permission to, or else you reproduce something liek it (perhaps even it) independently.

Nothing problematic about it.

[Occam's Banana]

It was much more difficult to reproduce and profit from others works then, though it no doubt happened or copyrights wouldn't have come about some centuries ago.

The only reason copyright came about some centuries ago is because it wasn't until then that distributors could feasibly mass-duplicate content. Prior to this ability, there was no incentive for such duplicators to seek monopoly rents.

Copyrights and all the other accoutrements of intellectual "property" did not come into existence until the advent of mass duplication (such as made possible by printing press, for example). It did NOT come about because of any prior belief in the "property-ness" of works of art or science. That notion - that immaterial intellectual content is "property" that can be "owned" - is an entirely artificial concoction conjured up by the aforementioned rent-seekers. Creators & copiers of content which could only be reproduced with laborious & time-consuming effort (such as monks transcibing manuscipts) would have regarded the notion of IP as insanely counter-productive & extaordinarily foolish. And rightly so. IP would have throttled human enlightenment and advancement in its crib, had it actually been attempted & successfully enforced. For exactly the same reason, it today acts as an inhibitor - not a promoter - of further, continued advancement in both the arts and the sciences.

Do you really imagine that, say, Augustine did not want as many people as possible to freely copy, distribute & read his Confessions or The City of God ?

[jmdrake]

Which is to say one would either agree or not agree to certain cartels. I may agree to terms offered by the Musicians Guild but decline the similar terms from the Inventors' Group. The result being I am able to buy MG's music and attend concerts. On the other hand, I cannot purchase an item from IG as I did not agree to their terms.

People certainly could negotiate these things piecemeal as you suggest, but it is not necessary.

A free market mechanism would help ensure that terms do not become too one sided (multi-million dollar fines) or onerous (criminal penalties).

Yes, not everyone would sign these contracts. That is the beauty of it. If you blasted their ear drums with your music in the mall/park/airwaves, it is YOU who is giving product away for free, not THEM who are taking it.

Right. Now can you imagine any artist in 2012 making a living by having a contract that's so restrictive that nobody could play his/her music in the mall, park or airwaves? Lets just take the "airwaves" part. Can you make a decent living in the music business today without radio? Now maybe in the future if radio goes 100% digital and new music players themselves enforce copyright then that could happen (and yes we are headed there). But as long as someone still has an old fashioned analog music recording device, your copyright contract is only as good as your ability to force someone else who bought your music not to "blast" it.

[jmdrake]

Dude, you're over-complicating this. Seems like copyrights are around because people like you want to figure out loopholes if you don't have them.

Being in ear-shot of something doesn't give you a right to reproduce it for profit. Last tiem I'm gonna say this before I become a broken record, but if you're going to take someone else's profits and cost to produce something, you make sure have permission to, or else you reproduce something liek it (perhaps even it) independently.

Nothing problematic about it.

No. The problem is that you're attempting to oversimply it. If your going to say this is all based on "contract" then you have to take into account people who haven't signed on to any "contract". One of the basic aspects of contract law is that each party bound by the contract has to have agreed to be bound by it. If you just want go by the "Well good people just should do that" morality argument, then the contract itself becomes superfluous. If you're saying the law should punish those who copy and sell someone else's work regardless of whether they have any agreement not to do that....well that's the copyright law we have right now.

[TheGrinch]

Right. Now can you imagine any artist in 2012 making a living by having a contract that's so restrictive that nobody could play his/her music in the mall, park or airwaves? Lets just take the "airwaves" part. Can you make a decent living in the music business today without radio? Now maybe in the future if radio goes 100% digital and new music players themselves enforce copyright then that could happen (and yes we are headed there). But as long as someone still has an old fashioned analog music recording device, your copyright contract is only as good as your ability to force someone else who bought your music not to "blast" it.

First off, no one is forcing you to copyright and not share your music. Second off, yes if you put something on the radio, there's a good chance someone will rip it off, and no you cannot catch everyone, nor do I think it should be a police matter.

However, if it's found that you're reproducing and/or selling a copyrighted work, then the producers have recourse through this implicit contract that anyone whose hands it touches cannot reproduce it.

[TheGrinch]

The only reason copyright came about some centuries ago is because it wasn't until then that distributors could feasibly mass-duplicate content. Prior to this ability, there was no incentive for such duplicators to seek monopoly rents.

Copyrights and all the other accoutrements of intellectual "property" did not come into existence until the advent of mass duplication (such as made possible by printing press, for example). It did NOT come about because of any prior belief in the "property-ness" of works of art or science. That notion - that immaterial intellectual content is "property" that can be "owned" - is an entirely artificial concoction conjured up by the aforementioned rent-seekers. Creators & copiers of content which could only be reproduced with laborious & time-consuming effort (such as monks transcibing manuscipts) would have regarded the notion of IP as insanely counter-productive & extaordinarily foolish. And rightly so. IP would have throttled human enlightenment and advancement in its crib, had it actually been attempted & successfully enforced. For exactly the same reason, it today acts as an inhibitor - not a promoter - of further, continued advancement in both the arts and the sciences.

Do you really imagine that, say, Augustine did not want as many people as possible to freely copy, distribute & read his Confessions or The City of God ?

Again, having copyright laws does not restrict one from sharing their works. Some works are for the collective, and some are for the author to make a living. So yes, they came in response to the issue of plagiarism and reproduction, as it wasn't a big enough issue before that. So no, it wasn't because of ownership that this was created, it was created in response to new technology that threatened the producers right to distribute their own work themselves, and not have it ripped off by someone else, paying for production while someone else reaps the benefits. It's theft and unjust and the free market will always demand this protection over the fruits of their labor.

Nevertheless, of course a person has ownership over what they create. The copyright is merely a contract to maintain their rights so someone else does not profit from their hard work once they relinquish ownership of the physical product (different from the intellectual product. You can do whatever you want with the book, just not the person's work if copyrighted or contract-restricted).

[TheGrinch]

No. The problem is that you're attempting to oversimply it. If your going to say this is all based on "contract" then you have to take into account people who haven't signed on to any "contract". One of the basic aspects of contract law is that each party bound by the contract has to have agreed to be bound by it. If you just want go by the "Well good people just should do that" morality argument, then the contract itself becomes superfluous. If you're saying the law should punish those who copy and sell someone else's work regardless of whether they have any agreement not to do that....well that's the copyright law we have right now.

Again, pretty much precisely why the copyright was created. Since it would make things exceedingly difficult to sing a contract with any person who uses it (and in this case, if you did have a contract it would only make the original holder all that more liable for someone else's doings, and that is no more fair than the current system, in fact much less fair), so it's basically stated that ANYONE (within the jurisdiction) who attempts to reproduce this product is restricted by copyright from reproducing it.

Ignorance is no excuse for the law (or whatever system you advocate). Producers have to maintain this right, or you will see far less producers of "intellectual property" because I know I wouldn't be in this business under a system that offered my no ability to protect my business from those ready to leech off it and strip my off my hard work, costs and profits.

[erowe1]

Being in ear-shot of something doesn't give you a right to reproduce it for profit.

Why not? Does merely being in earshot of something bring you into a contract?

[erowe1]

If you're selling or reproducing someone else's work, then checking on if it is allowed or not is a very simple step, when you're not doing any of the actual production.

But if you're not contractually obligated to get permission, then no one has the authority to disallow it.

[TheGrinch]

Why not? Does merely being in earshot of something bring you into a contract?

No, the copyright contract that NO ONE can reproduce and sell your work without your permission does. Again, I assume this system is in place because otherwise people will use loopholes like this to try to get around what they know they're not supposed to do (i.e., rip off someone else's original work for profit)

However, you hear a good song and you and your buddies wanna play it, that's largely permitted, even under current copyright law. It's a big difference when you wanna sell the song you heard as your own.

[TheGrinch]

But if you're not contractually obligated to get permission, then no one has the authority to disallow it.

You continue to only make a case for copyrights over contracts, not the opposite.

[heavenlyboy34]

The only reason copyright came about some centuries ago is because it wasn't until then that distributors could feasibly mass-duplicate content. Prior to this ability, there was no incentive for such duplicators to seek monopoly rents.

Copyrights and all the other accoutrements of intellectual "property" did not come into existence until the advent of mass duplication (such as made possible by printing press, for example). It did NOT come about because of any prior belief in the "property-ness" of works of art or science. That notion - that immaterial intellectual content is "property" that can be "owned" - is an entirely artificial concoction conjured up by the aforementioned rent-seekers. Creators & copiers of content which could only be reproduced with laborious & time-consuming effort (such as monks transcibing manuscipts) would have regarded the notion of IP as insanely counter-productive & extaordinarily foolish. And rightly so. IP would have throttled human enlightenment and advancement in its crib, had it actually been attempted & successfully enforced. For exactly the same reason, it today acts as an inhibitor - not a promoter - of further, continued advancement in both the arts and the sciences.

Do you really imagine that, say, Augustine did not want as many people as possible to freely copy, distribute & read his Confessions or The City of God ?
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again. :(

[Occam's Banana]

Again, having copyright laws does not restrict one from sharing their works. Some works are for the collective, and some are for the author to make a living. So yes, they came in response to the issue of plagiarism and reproduction, as it wasn't a big enough issue before that. So no, it wasn't because of ownership that this was created, it was created in response to new technology that threatened the producers right to distribute their own work themselves, and not have it ripped off by someone else, to pay for productino while someone else reaps the benefits. It's theft and unjust and the free market will always demand this protection over the fruits of their labor.

You are begging the question. The matter hinges on whether there is (or can be) a "property" right in immaterial intellectual content in the first place. Your assertions incorporate the affirmative, which is the very thing at issue. For example:

"[I]t wasn't because of ownership that this was created, it was created in response to new technology that threatened the producers right to distribute their own work themselves, and not have it ripped off by someone else, to pay for productino while someone else reaps the benefits"

Setting aside the fact that you contradict yourself (if "it was created [to protect] the producers right to distribute their own work [...] and not have it ripped off [...]" then it very clearly WAS created "because of ownership"), you assume as true the very premise that is in dispute. You say that copyright is justified because it protects distributors from being "ripped off" - but whether they are being "ripped off" or not depends on whether intellectual content is "property" that can be "owned" - which is the very question at issue. You are arguing in circles here.

[heavenlyboy34]

First off, no one is forcing you to copyright and not share your music. Second off, yes if you put something on the radio, there's a good chance someone will rip it off, and no you cannot catch everyone, nor do I think it should be a police matter.

However, if it's found that you're reproducing and/or selling a copyrighted work, then the producers have recourse through this implicit contract that anyone whose hands it touches cannot reproduce it.
False. According to copyright law, any work that is "created" (captured in a tangible medium like a record or book) is automatically copyrighted. You are literally forced into the copyright regime by virtue of "creating" alone. This is why publishers consider people who put the (c) symbol on their work ignorant amateurs.

[erowe1]

You continue to only make a case for copyrights over contracts, not the opposite.

I'm still not getting what your position is.

Rothbard's position in the OP is to defend copyrights only inasmuch as they are contracts. He doesn't say anything that would expand their scope to people who don't enter any contracts.

You say you agree with him. But then it seems like you want to apply copyrights to people who don't enter any contract.

Do you think that, in order to be guilty of stealing somebody's copyrighted work, it must be the case that a person violates a contract they themselves entered?

If you do, then we agree. If you don't, then you should really just stop trying to bring contracts into your argument.

[erowe1]

No, the copyright contract that NO ONE can reproduce and sell your work without your permission does.

But such a contract can only be binding for the people who enter it.

[jmdrake]

First off, no one is forcing you to copyright and not share your music. Second off, yes if you put something on the radio, there's a good chance someone will rip it off, and no you cannot catch everyone, nor do I think it should be a police matter.

However, if it's found that you're reproducing and/or selling a copyrighted work, then the producers have recourse through this implicit contract that anyone whose hands it touches cannot reproduce it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

Implicit contract = current copyright law. So what exactly is "different" about this new free market alternative that you said would "emerge"? At the end of the day somebody has to enforce some fake (implicit) contract against some third party who never signed it or agreed to it in any shape form or fashion. Or people could just look for alternative ways to make money off of their creative works that don't involve copyright.

[awake]

Let's get down to the nuts and bolts of this: How many IP police officers will it take to stop all current copyright infringements? Its obviouse there simply not enough currently. Will we need personal monitors for every file we download with a record issued to the department of IP protection? How about prisons to hold the infringers...how many more would you need?


In the digital age it is absurd to make the IP case at all. Lower the damn prices and destroy the "pirates". Better yet, work with the distribution system...put ads at the beginning of all digital content and file share it. This isn't difficult, its simply the government privileged wanting to get more violent to protect their privileges.

[jmdrake]

Must have had a good lawyer then, because I've seen way more tossed out for being an overreach of what copyrights should do.

Of course they were good lawyers. That's why the case is reported in every U.S. copyright textbook ever sold. But now bad lawyers can simply cite the case as precedence. And yes, there are ways to distinguish cases from the PuffnStuff decision. One is to claim your work is a "parody" as 2 Live Crew successfully did when they were sued by the Roy Orbison estate for their rip off of "Pretty Woman". So back to your earlier example, the current understanding of "fair use" would allow you to parody James Bond without permission (Austin Powers for example), but you couldn't make your own James Bond film without the risk of a potentially successful lawsuit against you.

[jmdrake]

Lets get down to the nuts and bolts of this: How many IP police officers will it take to stop all current copyright infringements? Will we need personal monitors for every file we download with a record issued to the department of IP protection. How about prisons to hold the infringes...how many more would you need?


In the digital age it is absurd to make the IP case at all. Lower the damn prices and destroy the "pirates". Better yet, work with the distribution system...put ads at the beginning of all digital content and file share it. This isn't difficult, its simply the government privileged wanting to get more violent to protect their privileges.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to awake again.

[TheGrinch]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

Implicit contract = current copyright law. So what exactly is "different" about this new free market alternative that you said would "emerge"? And the end of the day somebody has to enforce some fake (implicit) contract against some third party who never signed it or agreed to it in any shape form or fashion. Or people could just look for alternative ways to make money off of their creative works that don't involve copyright.

They will. They'll go into other fields where their works cannot be so easily ripped off, no one will write books or make movies or music or write articles unless they want to be starving artist. It will be grand!

Just because my works are more subject to theft does not mean I don't deserve protection from theft.

What you're proposing is that I jsut "deal with it" and accept that anyone who happens to come across my work (and note that we're not talking about technology that could be duplicated independently, we're talking about independent works that are impossible to reproduce independently) is free to reproduce and profit, without having taken part in any of the costs, time and creative work involved in making that work, people will simply not accept that, nor should they.

You're talking about handing over legitimate industries to the illegitmate leechers with absolutely no recourse. That's not a free market.

[TheGrinch]

Lets get down to the nuts and bolts of this: How many IP police officers will it take to stop all current copyright infringements? Will we need personal monitors for every file we download with a record issued to the department of IP protection. How about prisons to hold the infringes...how many more would you need?


In the digital age it is absurd to make the IP case at all. Lower the damn prices and destroy the "pirates". Better yet, work with the distribution system...put ads at the beginning of all digital content and file share it. This isn't difficult, its simply the government privileged wanting to get more violent to protect their privileges.
You didn't read my response to you. I don't advocate police state surveilance. I advocate recourse if it's found that you're profiting from my copyrighted work.

You all say to figure out a non-IP solution. That doesn't work for everyone. It's tough enough to start a business without having to allow others to profit from what you produce without doing any work or take on any cost besides some profitable means to copy it.

What if I can't lower prices? What if the pirates put me under anyway with my already razor-thin margins? I have to make a living just like you. I'm selling my works on tangible media. That's what I'm selling, and restricting. My works are still mine however. If you think you can do it, do it, but don't take what I created and make it yours to reproduce and sell.

[erowe1]

They will. They'll go into other fields where their works cannot be so easily ripped off, no one will write books or make movies or music or write articles unless they want to be starving artist. It will be grand!

Maybe it will be grand. Maybe other fields is where those people belong. Maybe we don't have enough people in other fields because IP laws have distorted the market so that too much labor and capital is being expended in pursuit of things that can be copyrighted. Maybe the music industry would be better if musicians depended more on their ability to perform live than on recordings. Maybe the kinds of innovations that would come about by copying and improving on things that already exist will be better than the kind that come about by chasing after these legalized monopolies. Maybe the unseen things that we are now deprived of would be better than the seen things that IP laws provide us.

[TheGrinch]

Of course they were good lawyers. That's why the case is reported in every U.S. copyright textbook ever sold. But now bad lawyers can simply cite the case as precedence. And yes, there are ways to distinguish cases from the PuffnStuff decision. One is to claim your work is a "parody" as 2 Live Crew successfully did when they were sued by the Roy Orbison estate for their rip off of "Pretty Woman". So back to your earlier example, the current understanding of "fair use" would allow you to parody James Bond without permission (Austin Powers for example), but you couldn't make your own James Bond film without the risk of a potentially successful lawsuit against you.

Glad we're in agreement then? :confused:

[TheGrinch]

That's it for me for Q & A tonight, but I think this ignored post sums up my POV best:


Say what? He makes the very clear distinction that calculus falls under inventions that can perhaps easily be reproduced independently. They're laws of math for goodness sakes, of course someone else was bound to figure out a similar system. However, say that they had copyrighted this, then one could only share it with their permission, and others would have to discover it independtly if not. That's far different than a patent monopoly, as it allows it to be reproduced naturally, jsut not shared without their permission.

Of course math has always meant to be used towards the collective of society, so it's no surprise why this was allowed to be spread to allow for innovation. Otherwise they would have just kept it to themselves, or much like today, only sold the technology to those they wished, with a contract that they couldn't share it with anyone else.... Or do you think we should all just be allowed to have access to a company's private secrets if they happen to need to share them with another company? All that would do is force them to keep it secret, and impede innovation and production... Not to mention it spits in the face of contract enforcement.

So why are contracts about who can utilize my works any different than other company's contracts? The world needs binding agreements to be binding, or else you're looking at a type of anarchy that I don't think you'll like. The free market will always demand protection from theft (and yes, passing off someone else's work as your own to the detriment of their profit is theft. There's no other way around it).

Just like calculus, if you feel that you "could have" written the same book I did independently, then go nuts. There's no monopoly on creating a book, video, etc. But once you take my ideas and present and sell them as if they're your own, there is no other way to look at that as theft and contract breach.

[awake]

You didn't read my response to you. I don't advocate police state surveilance. I advocate recourse if it's found that you're profiting from my copyrighted work.

You all say to figure out a non-IP solution. That doesn't work for everyone. It's tough enough to start a business without having to allow others to profit from what you produce without doing any work or take on any cost besides some profitable means to copy it.

What if I can't lower prices? What if the pirates put me under anyway with my already razor-thin margins? I have to make a living just like you. I'm selling my works on tangible media. That's what I'm selling, and restricting. My works are still mine however. If you think you can do it, do it, but don't take what I created and make it yours to reproduce and sell.


Then NDA your work and be specific in a contract if disclosure happens. The thing is, NDA's are broken all the time with little or no real recourse because it is simply impossible to try and keep a secret while telling many others. I have been under NDA and respected it, but it was a flimsy protection at best.

As for prices...If you can infinitely reproduce something with nearly no effort you will not ignore the laws of economics...What you want the price to be to meet you 'expectations' is irrelevant. The market will unemploy the protectionists and go to the free market as it is doing.

This is more a race...no one is guaranteed their position in who is first to get to market with an idea. To give a marathon runner 1st place because he was able to hold the lead for the first half of the race is simply infantile. And to hold his competitors in penalty for matching ,copying his methods and pace is equally infantile.

[jmdrake]

They will. They'll go into other fields where their works cannot be so easily ripped off, no one will write books or make movies or music or write articles unless they want to be starving artist. It will be grand!

Or some will figure out that they can make more money selling advertisements in their creative works. That's already happening. Some will take solace in the fact that some folks simply hate e-books and will want their own hardcopy. And under the current system, most people who create don't make that much per sale off of places like iTunes and Amazon.com.



Just because my works are more subject to theft does not mean I don't deserve protection from theft.


I didn't say you didn't. I'm saying that there's really no difference between "implicit contract" as you are describing it and current copyright law. If you're happy with the current system, just say so. But there's no reason to pretend that it would appear in a free market.



What you're proposing is that I jsut "deal with it" and accept that anyone who happens to come across my work (and note that we're not talking about technology that could be duplicated independently, we're talking about independent works that are impossible to reproduce independently) is free to reproduce and profit, without having taken part in any of the costs, time and creative work involved in making that work, people will simply not accept that, nor should they.


What I'm saying is that what you were "proposing", that a free market would create a copyright system through "implicit contract", is fantasy. You can't bind someone via contract to something they didn't agree to. You can only do that through statist legislation. And that brings us to the real problem. This is a situation where a state is actually required to accomplish what you want to accomplish the way you'd like it accomplished. Mind you there are non statist ways to make sure artists get paid for their works. (Ad revenue, patronage, endorsements, selling concert tickets etc). The Grateful Dead survived for years as a "performance band" that encouraged their fans to freely distribute their work. As the old saying goes "If your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail."



You're talking about handing over legitimate industries to the illegitmate leechers with absolutely no recourse. That's not a free market.

I'm not saying any such thing. I'm saying that the recourse you want is the statist copyright system that you already have. If you're fine with that, cool.

[jmdrake]

Glad we're in agreement then? :confused:

Let's see: You said

If you see James Bond and want to write a spy movie, write a spy movie. You just can't reshoot Bond using the exact same words and scenes. Plenty of people get around it through making it a bit different or even direct satire, which does fall under Fair Use. Straight reproduction and ripping off doesn't.

I said:

. So back to your earlier example, the current understanding of "fair use" would allow you to parody James Bond without permission (Austin Powers for example), but you couldn't make your own James Bond film without the risk of a potentially successful lawsuit against you.

We're in agreement on the satire bit. But I'm saying that if you wrote your own James Bond film, with a character named "James Bond" and the basic plot line that one would expect in a "James Bond" film, you'd be facing a lawsuit if it wasn't a parody even if you changed all of the words and the scenes. So...I'm not sure how we are in agreement. :confused:

[TheGrinch]

Maybe it will be grand. Maybe other fields is where those people belong. Maybe we don't have enough people in other fields because IP laws have distorted the market so that too much labor and capital is being expended in pursuit of things that can be copyrighted. Maybe the music industry would be better if musicians depended more on their ability to perform live than on recordings. Maybe the kinds of innovations that would come about by copying and improving on things that already exist will be better than the kind that come about by chasing after these legalized monopolies. Maybe the unseen things that we are now deprived of would be better than the seen things that IP laws provide us.

So then you do advocate force for the colective then?

Most of the bands I listen to make the bulk of their money from live performances, and many allow bootlegs to be shared. Copyrights aren't impeding their ability to do so.

However, I don't care how you think the world should be, I've always been a creative person who was bound to be in a creative industry, and I've had plenty of works that educate, entertain, inform, etc, so I don't give a damn what you think I should be doing. That's more insulting than you thinking I don't deserve protection so I can make a living in the face of technology allowing it to be ripped off by any old scumbag.

Sorry, but I'm really done after that one. That makes it personal when you want to act like you know what's best for me. It's anti-liberty to assume that I should be doing other things because it's become easier to be defrauded, and even easier under your system.

[jbauer]

He is arguing the validity of contracts. If willing song writer agrees to let a second person listen or copy his Mp3 and the second man agrees to not copy or reproduce, only he is bound to this contract. If the second man releases a million or a gazillion copies, it is him that is responsible under contract. Any one beyond that did not sign any contract. Policing this million or zillion would be an instant totalitarian state that it would be intolerable to everyone.

Written physical books are tangible matter. Digital data: mp3, Epub, file or movie in digital format changes the whole shooting match. The material becomes virtually free due to its infinite reproducibility. MP3 has been able to get a dollar or two per song, newly released books and movies are going to have to adopt the same model or get washed away.

When the price is at the market level even "Pirates" will simply pay it instead of finding annoying ways around the artificially high prices.

What the hell does the ease at which something is copied have to do with anything?

Also the Federal Reserve can easily create dollars, does that make it right?

[TheGrinch]

Let's see: You said

If you see James Bond and want to write a spy movie, write a spy movie. You just can't reshoot Bond using the exact same words and scenes. Plenty of people get around it through making it a bit different or even direct satire, which does fall under Fair Use. Straight reproduction and ripping off doesn't.

I said:

. So back to your earlier example, the current understanding of "fair use" would allow you to parody James Bond without permission (Austin Powers for example), but you couldn't make your own James Bond film without the risk of a potentially successful lawsuit against you.

We're in agreement on the satire bit. But I'm saying that if you wrote your own James Bond film, with a character named "James Bond" and the basic plot line that one would expect in a "James Bond" film, you'd be facing a lawsuit if it wasn't a parody even if you changed all of the words and the scenes. So...I'm not sure how we are in agreement. :confused:

If you can make the reasonable claim that you'd never hear of the James Bond films, then you'd probably have a strong case. Many movies can have the same character names, but expect the other lawyer to make a very strong case against that, especially if you use it in association with 007.

[erowe1]

So then you do advocate force for the colective then?

Most of the bands I listen to make the bulk of their money from live performances, and many allow bootlegs to be shared. Copyrights aren't impeding their ability to do so.

However, I don't care how you think the world should be, I've always been a creative person who was bound to be in a creative industry, and I've had plenty of works that educate, entertain, inform, etc, so I don't give a damn what you think I should be doing. That's more insulting than you thinking I don't deserve protection so I can make a living in the face of technology allowing it to be ripped off by any old scumbag.

Sorry, but I'm really done after that one. That makes it personal when you want to act like you know what's best for me. It's anti-liberty to assume that I should be doing other things because it's become easier to be defrauded, and even easier under your system.

I don't know what "force for the collective" means.

Your whole post just presupposes the rightness of your position. You still haven't demonstrated that people who copy other people for profit are "ripping off" and "defrauding" them, absent any contractual obligation not to do that. You just keep repeating those things, and more and more it's looking like your reason for saying them is rooted in your own selfish desire to have a government-enforced monopoly rather than anything objective.

Nothing in what I said made any claims about how the world should be (you did see the word "maybe" right?). Maybe you're doing exactly what you would be doing if the government stopped distorting the market. But how do you know that we're all better off with those market distortions than we would be without them? I just tend to assume the invisible hand would do a better job than the federal government at deciding how many people are in what fields.

[awake]

What the hell does the ease at which something is copied have to do with anything?

Also the Federal Reserve can easily create dollars, does that make it right?

Thanks for helping me make my point: creating money out of thin air relates very well.

Ever heard the statement 'that a dollar isn't worth the paper its printed on'? The more you can produce of something the lower is its value. If I could snap my fingers and produce a billion Ferraris what would that do to the market price of Ferraris? A blade of grass is worth nothing for there are innumerably more. The Mona Lisa is worth a large fortune for there is only one. Basic economics.

The US dollar falls in value thanks to its ease in reproduction - a keystroke.

Marginal Utility (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFMQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Fdocument%2F1033%2FVal ue-Cost-and-Marginal-Utility&ei=8hq0UPmNIYm1igLBwgE&usg=AFQjCNGy-lrzMlC9W0rS6GUC-bflgCrhJA&cad=rja)

[jmdrake]

What the hell does the ease at which something is copied have to do with anything?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ELFl2_1q7DI/TObn1HnV2fI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/5JkvAtpbv7k/s1600/Not_sure_if_serious.jpg



Also the Federal Reserve can easily create dollars, does that make it right?

It's the government aspect plus the fraud aspect of the federal reserve system that makes it wrong. If some private entity was making and distributing another paper currency with full disclosure that they are only worth something as long as someone says they are worth something, technically there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. In fact that's how bitcoins work. They're really just....bits. Why should a bitcoin be worth anything? Sure they're hard to "mine" and all, but at the end of the day they're only worth something because people are willing to trade them...and I'm 100% fine with it.

[CaptUSA]

Every now and then we get an IP thread... They're so entertaining.

[erowe1]

The Mona Lisa is worth a large fortune for there is only one. Basic economics.


And if somebody produced an equally great painting today, others ought to be allowed to copy it, and if they can do it just as well or even better, to profit off it. The ones who profit the most will be the ones who do it the best.

[TheGrinch]

Thanks for making my point:

Ever heard the statement 'that a dollar isn't worth the paper its printed on'? The more you can produce of something the lower is its value. If I could snap my fingers and produce a billion Ferraris what would that do to the market price of Ferraris? A blade of grass is worth nothing for there are innumerably more. The Mona Lisa is worth a large fortune for there is only one. Basic economics.

Money falls in value thanks to its ease in reproduction - a keystroke.
Mona lisa is easy to evaluate the original,. Free market solutions do not negate free market protection absent that. In many cases of plagiarism, it is much more difficult to determine atuhenticity, if they even care when theyre getting it at a big discount because its plaigarized.

[fisharmor]

I've insulted you? Good
Yes, we're all familiar with the fact that you consider your insults to be equal in argumentative effect to our reasoning.

, because it insults me that you don't respect what I do for a living or contracts, and are actively undermining it by promoting theft and illegitimate profit.

When I have purchased books, sheet music, recordings of music, books on tape, and software, at no point during the purchase transaction was I made aware that part of the sale of contract involved my not reproducing my purchase.
How can I be held in contempt of a contract I didn't agree to?

[TheGrinch]

Really? I have to explain why advanced forms of plaigarism are fraud?
I don't know what "force for the collective" means.

Your whole post just presupposes the rightness of your position. You still haven't demonstrated that people who copy other people for profit are "ripping off" and "defrauding" them, absent any contractual obligation not to do that. You just keep repeating those things, and more and more it's looking like your reason for saying them is rooted in your own selfish desire to have a government-enforced monopoly rather than anything objective.

Nothing in what I said made any claims about how the world should be (you did see the word "maybe" right?). Maybe you're doing exactly what you would be doing if the government stopped distorting the market. But how do you know that we're all better off with those market distortions than we would be without them? I just tend to assume the invisible hand would do a better job than the federal government at deciding how many people are in what fields.

[jmdrake]

If you can make the reasonable claim that you'd never hear of the James Bond films, then you'd probably have a strong case. Many movies can have the same character names, but expect the other lawyer to make a very strong case against that, especially if you use it in association with 007.

Oh let's make this easy. I give an interview and say "I was 100% inspired by James Bond to make my own version of a James Bond film and while I came up with this specific plot myself, I tried to stay as close to the original look and feel of Ian Fleming's master spy." The question isn't whether if I'll lose (I know under current law I will). The question is, under your contract theory, should I lose? In other words, should the "implicit contract" that I never signed prevent me from copying the idea of your work? Because that's where the lines between copyright and patent blur. I could change the name from "James Bond" to "John Bane". Now what? Under current copyright law I still have a problem, especially if I admit somewhere that I got the idea from the original James Bond. And yes, courts do try to draw a "bright line" between copying content and copying "ideas", but that's gotten extremely difficult in the modern days of "sampling and remixing". It wouldn't be difficult, for instance, to create a computer program that could "re-write" a Hollywood script to the point where it was totally different from the original but kept the same "look and feel". Hmmmmm......that actually sounds like a profitable idea. I should patent it. ;)

[Natural Citizen]

Every now and then we get an IP thread... They're so entertaining.

Not entirely funny though. Some of the short-sightedness of some who cannot look beyond romper room stuff is what is going to have the whole darn web censored.

[awake]

Gravity has consequences: its a law.

Marginal Utility (http://mises.org/daily/2610), also has consequences, because its a law we keep trying to ignore.

[TheGrinch]

Yes, we're all familiar with the fact that you consider your insults to be equal in argumentative effect to our reasoning.


When I have purchased books, sheet music, recordings of music, books on tape, and software, at no point during the purchase transaction was I made aware that part of the sale of contract involved my not reproducing my purchase.
How can I be held in contempt of a contract I didn't agree to?
I have to assume youve not read the teams of service or fine print on any of those. Thse loopholes are exactly why these things are spelled out. Otherwise reproduce as you wish, because noy even the current system is restricting you then.

[erowe1]

Really? I have to explain why advanced forms of plaigarism are fraud?

You have to explain why profiting by copying someone else is fraud, and perhaps explaining why the label "advanced forms of plagiarism" is applicable should be part of that explanation. But you don't seem able to.

At points it seemed like it was all about contract enforcement. But then when that argument broke down it became clear that you were just using it for the lack of anything better.

If there's some other explanation for why profiting by copying someone is always wrong, regardless of there being any contracts, then make that case without getting diverted to contract talk or pretending that your position is the same as Rothbard's.

[erowe1]

I have to assume youve not read the teams of service or fine print on any of those. Thse loopholes are exactly why these things are spelled out. Otherwise reproduce as you wish, because noy even the current system is restricting you then.

I agree with you about those terms of service that you agree to when you buy something. It's the expansion of that contract to people who don't enter into it in any way at all that I can't understand. Again, if you think profiting by copying someone is always wrong, regardless of any contracts, then you really should stop falling back on your contract argument and give whatever that explanation is for why it's wrong even without there being a violation of any contract.

[awake]

Plagiarism self polices itself...You can destroy the reputation of a man in just one instance. Another person simply has to point it out.

[TheGrinch]

Plagiarism self polices itself...You can destroy the reputation of a man in just one instance. Another person simply has to point it out.
Really, you think if I damage the reputation of the guys selling my works on the black market, they'll be so embarassed they stop? You can't be that naive. Also, that forces me to have to take action rather than having recourse, jsut to lay claim to what I produce. It's lunacy.

You do realize that many people only care about getting it cheaper, and it's the producer who suffers. Not everyone is selling mona lisas where authenticity matters to the buyer and can be determined. Your argument is a strawman and extremely short-sighted.

[awake]

Hell, the whole of human existence can be summed up in the copy and paste function. We copy and reproduce and refine and enhance and we copy and reproduce and refine and enhance...

[erowe1]

Really, you think if I damage the reputation of the guys selling my works on the black market, they'll be so embarassed they stop?

Are they claiming that they produced it themselves? That's what plagiarism is.

If they are, then yes, they won't be able to keep convincing people that they have the skills necessary to produce whatever it is they're copying once it is revealed that they're plagiarists.

On the other hand, if their profits don't depend on their ability to convince people they themselves have those skills, then what they're doing is probably not plagiarism, or at least it would still be profitable if it weren't.

[TheGrinch]

You have to explain why profiting by copying someone else is fraud, and perhaps explaining why the label "advanced forms of plagiarism" is applicable should be part of that explanation. But you don't seem able to.

At points it seemed like it was all about contract enforcement. But then when that argument broke down it became clear that you were just using it for the lack of anything better.

If there's some other explanation for why profiting by copying someone is always wrong, regardless of there being any contracts, then make that case without getting diverted to contract talk or pretending that your position is the same as Rothbard's.

Not all copying is fraud. Copying copyrighted works without permission is plagiarism, theft, and exploting the works (costs,profits) of others. Find me fraud definition that doesn't cover misrepresentation, misappropriation or contract breach (and it is a contract, because it's easier than the alternative that would restrict information/production flow by having to have everyone involved have to sign one).

Any of you ever heard of a non-discolsure agreement. It's the exact same. If you let someone borrow company secrets and they release them, then someone is liable. The difference here is it's actually the person exploiting the work who's liable (perhaps both depending on the situation). Thus, copyright is actually better than contract which may not penalize the exploiting party, but rather the accomplice.

[dannno]

No, I understand completely. The free market will demand protection of copyright contracts.

Or the market will move in a more innovative direction. I've actually said I'm ok if somebody goes to a music store, buys a CD and has to sign a contract stating what they will do with the goods they purchased. I'm just against contracts contained inherently within the item for sale. No, you need a contract and a signature for a contract to be valid.

I guarantee that if we took the free market route and each started a similarly talented band in a different city and you took the route of forcing everybody who buys your cd to sign a contract, and I gave away my music for free, I would get more fans and make much more money by charging people to come to my shows. Then if somebody "sneaks in" to the show without paying they are actually stealing from me..not to mention they are trespassing on private property.





And a primary reason that person can reproduce it cheaper is because they didn't have to put any of the work or cost into developing it. Anyone can do it cheaper if they don't have to actually produce anything but a copy of someone else's work.

No, I was talking about the cost of producing the book.. not whatever cost I wanted to assign to writing the book. The $1 profit I make goes towards my writing, aka "development" costs.

The primary reason they produced it cheaper in my example was because they made an inferior copy which the market was willing to accept at a significantly lower price.

A forger must spend time and effort going out to find material that is in demand, they must spend time forging the material and put effort into marketing and selling the material. This is also "development", though the market will not value it as much and would be willing to spend a little bit more to get an authentic version authorized by the author in most cases.

[awake]

Really, you think if I damage the reputation of the guys selling my works on the black market, they'll be so embarassed they stop? You can't be that naive. Also, that forces me to have to take action rather than having recourse, jsut to lay claim to what I produce. It's lunacy.

You do realize that many people only care about getting it cheaper, and it's the producer who suffers. Not everyone is selling mona lisas where authenticity matters to the buyer and can be determined. Your argument is a strawman and extremely short-sighted.

Sorry to pop your bubble, but you just used a bunch of words invented by other humans who thought long and hard how to create them. You mistakenly try to make ideas and thoughts as physical objects, then you apply a physical concept - theft - to this false creation. Don't do that. Creators need to adopt models that don't involve violence.

IP enforced in its totality, is logically speaking, the end to the internet. Enforced partially or a little bit is harmful too.

[TheGrinch]

Hell, the whole of human existence can be summed up in the copy and paste function. We copy and reproduce and refine and enhance and we copy and reproduce and refine and enhance...

Not everything is copyrightable. Music styles, genres, etc. aren't. However, independent works (which are virtually impossible to reproduce independently, even though they are allowed to be produced naturally) are.

[TheGrinch]

Sorry to pop your bubble, but you just used a bunch of words invented by other humans who though long and hard how to create them. You mistakenly try to make ideas and thoughts as physical objects then apply theft to this false creation. Don't do that. Creators need to adopt models that don't involve violence.

I'm not talknig general ideas. I agree with you there. See my above post. This has to do with works that are virtually impossible to be reproduced independently (though they can be. They jsut can't be straight copies).

[TheGrinch]

Or the market will move in a more innovative direction. I've actually said I'm ok if somebody goes to a music store, buys a CD and has to sign a contract stating what they will do with the goods they purchased. I'm just against contracts contained inherently within the item for sale. No, you need a contract and a signature for a contract to be valid.

I guarantee that if we took the free market route and each started a similarly talented band in a different city and you took the route of forcing everybody who buys your cd to sign a contract, and I gave away my music for free, I would get more fans and make much more money by charging people to come to my shows. Then if somebody "sneaks in" to the show without paying they are actually stealing from me..not to mention they are trespassing on private property.




No, I was talking about the cost of producing the book.. not whatever cost I wanted to assign to writing the book. The $1 profit I make goes towards my writing, aka "development" costs.

The primary reason they produced it cheaper in my example was because they made an inferior copy which the market was willing to accept at a significantly lower price.

A forger must spend time and effort going out to find material that is in demand, they must spend time forging the material and put effort into marketing and selling the material. This is also "development", though the market will not value it as much and would be willing to spend a little bit more to get an authentic version authorized by the author in most cases.

What? No, the market will not go in a more innovative direction. It will combat those exploiting their works as if they're their own, or they'll get out of the business. Not everyone can afford to jsut be mroe "innovative" in the face of someone siphoning their profits jsut because it's easier to do than other tangible products.

And no, the forger is not taking on the brunt of the R&D costs, nor is it their work to sell. There are tons of instances where it's virtulally free compared to the cost of producing. What's so difficult to understand about this? I shouldn't have to bend over backwards so you can exploit my works.

In short, it's the piraters who need to learn to be more innovative, not me.

[TheGrinch]

Sorry to pop your bubble, but you just used a bunch of words invented by other humans who though long and hard how to create them. You mistakenly try to make ideas and thoughts as physical objects, then you apply a physical concept - theft - to this false creation. Don't do that. Creators need to adopt models that don't involve violence.

IP enforced in its totality, is logically speaking, the end to the internet. Enforced partially or a little bit is harmful too.

Another way to answer this question is that when I make videos, I scripted them, I went on scene to film them, I edited them. Most importantly I created that file. What I want to do with that file is my choice. The "IP" matters as it relates to me holding on to what I created, but what's in question is what rights I hold to be able to sell my media without it simply being taken and reproduced for someone else's profit (or forgoing of mine).

[awake]

Not everything is copyrightable. Music styles, genres, etc. aren't. However, independent works (which are virtually impossible to reproduce independently, even though they are allowed to be produced naturally) are.

I have seen Michael Jackson impersonators as good as the man himself. I have seen cover bands do it better, and I have seen painters as good as any historical figures. They all studied and copied the original and modified their "infringments".

[TheGrinch]

I have seen Michael Jackson impersonators as good as the man himself. I have seen cover bands do it better, and I have seen painters as good as any historical figures. They all studied and copied the original and modified their "infringments".

OK, aren't you glad that copyright law still allows for fair use that doesn't directly infringe on the producer. I know I am.

Doesn't change the producers rights and prerogatives they lay out for use.

[awake]

OK, aren't you glad that copyright law still allows for fair use that doesn't directly infringe on the producer. I know I am.

Doesn't change the producers rights and prerogatives they lay out for use.

Copyright allows for fair use so that their whole house of cards doesn't fall to the ground for what it is: An arbitrary privilege issued to a group by the state to enslave all others. Imagine that fair use didn't exist? Any attempt to copy would be a violation of the law? What tyranny would this be...It would be obvious. And like many people who hide behind the state they dare not look too much like dick-tators lest they be toppled outright.

[TheGrinch]

Copyright allows for fair use so that their whole house of cards doesn't fall to the ground for what it is: An arbitrary privilege issued to a group by the state to enslave all others. Imagine that fair use didn't exist? Any attempt to copy would be a violation of the law? What tyranny would this be...I would be obvious. And like many people who hide behind the state they dare not look too much like dick-tators lest they be toppled outright.
Any copy WITHOUT PERMISSION. It is not tyranny for producers to protect their works from plaigarism so they can make an HONEST living (unlike the piraters)

Fair use exists because not everything infringes the producer. Copyrights are there to give recourse to what clearly does.

If it would exist in a free market (and does in contract form) it is not tyranny.

Also, this is a matter of civil law not criminal law (or at least it should be). It is an agreemnt that you make to utilize the producers product. Anyone else in possession makes that same agreement, or absent copyright law, they would simply hold the buyer liable by contract. Copyrights exist to determine true liability.

[awake]

Any copy WITHOUT PERMISSION. It is not tyranny for producers to protect their works from plaigarism so they can make a living.

Fair use exists because not everything infringes the producer. Copyrights are there to give recourse to what clearly does.

If it would exist in a free market, it is not tyranny.


You did not read what I said. If fair use did not exist, even whistling a song would be an offense. With that being the pinnacle of absurd, the people would simply revolt and possibly overturn the whole IP apple cart. That would leave the currently privileged out on their arses. This is exactly why they tip toe around the ATCA and obfuscate internet legislation.

At any rate, a surveillance state is required to enforce IP in the digital realm. The current laws are literally useless.

[stuntman stoll]

There has never been a completely original idea. Everything new is built upon existing ideas. So either everything new is infringing on previous copyright/patents or the system is invariably based on an arbitrary set of rules that is ripe for rent seeking, dissuading innovation, frivolous and expensive legal battles, etc.

Why not just let people be free?

[TheGrinch]

There has never been a completely original idea. Everything new is built upon existing ideas. So either everything new is infringing on previous copyright/patents or the system is invariably based on an arbitrary set of rules that is ripe for rent seeking, dissuading innovation, frivolous and expensive legal battles, etc.

Why not just let people be free?
Freedom involves not exploitnig and trampling on hte freedom of others. As Rothbard explains, independent works such as literary works are virtually impossible to reproduce independently, evne though they mgiht draw from similar ideas and be very similar.

Yes, ideas by their nature will be reproduced and built on. The Simpsons is kind of ripped off from the Honeymooners, Family Guy from the Simpsons, but they're still independent works that would never be naturally duplicated identically in content by someone else's brain.

[TheGrinch]

You did not read what I said. If fair use did not exist, even whistling a song would be an offense. With that being the pinnacle of absurd, the people would simply revolt and possibly overturn the whole IP apple cart. That would leave the currently privileged out on their arses. This is exactly why they tip toe around the ATCA and obfuscate internet legislation.

At any rate, a surveillance state is required to enforce IP in the digital realm. The current laws are literally useless.

Whistling a song would absolutely not be an offense, because no one would possibly sue you over that. However, you produce and sell an album, Awake sings and whistles the greatest Beetle hits and you might be pushing it far more, and if you're straight up selling copies of their songs, well, I think we can see where the disticntion can be drawn between an author protecting his work from exploting, defrauding, misrepresentation, theft, whatever you want to call it, and simple use not for profit. Why would anyone bother with fair-users? The law is barely relevant other than a safeguard. You would'nt see teachers getting raided for putting together a video for their students, or cover tribute bands getting shut down.

It's odd that you advocate for anarchy, yet seem to expect bigger anarchy by allowing something the free market would clearly demand without the fair-use law attached.

[awake]

IP dissuades innovation and development by hindering and often paralyzing the refinement of good ideas by the next available visionary. Ideas are foundations that can be built upon.

Case in point: Youtube should be airing current on air TV shows and latest movie releases. Why are they not? IP. You lost 5+ years of a cool way to watch the latest shows and theater in the comfort of your own home. Youtube was an innovation that was handicapped by IP..Still is.

[erowe1]

Not all copying is fraud. Copying copyrighted works without permission is plagiarism, theft, and exploting the works (costs,profits) of others. Find me fraud definition that doesn't cover misrepresentation, misappropriation or contract breach (and it is a contract, because it's easier than the alternative that would restrict information/production flow by having to have everyone involved have to sign one).


Why is it only fraud if its a copyrighted work? If contracts are not necessary to make it fraud, then copyrights shouldn't be either. If there's some natural basis for calling it fraudulent to copy someone else's work without their permission and profit from it, that doesn't rely on the existence of a contract, then what is that?

If you are back to the contract argument, then, again, that can only apply to people who enter the contract. You can't charge people with breaking a contract they never entered. If people who copy other people without their permission and profit off of it without breaking any contract are doing something wrong, then what is it?

Yes, I've heard of non-disclosure agreements. If you weren't aware of that, that's what another poster meant by the acronym NDA earlier in this thread. That's a contract that only applies to the parties who agree to it. It doesn't expand its scope to include people who never entered the contract. This is the kind of thing Rothbard defends in the OP. Are you now saying that you agree, and that copying and profiting from someone else's work without their permission is only wrong when you are breaking a contract that you entered, and that it's not wrong when you're not doing that?

[TheGrinch]

IP dissuades innovation and development by hindering and often paralyzing the refinement of good ideas by the next available visionary. Ideas are foundations that can be built upon.

Case in point: Youtube should be airing current on air TV shows and latest movie releases. Why are they not? IP. You lost 5+ years of a cool way to watch the latest shows and theater in the comfort of your own home. Youtube was an innovation that was handicapped by IP..Still is.

And if companies can't afford to produce shows and forego the entire producer/network/provider/advertiser relationship that makes their livelihood, you just expect them to keep producing content so you can watch it for free as they forego even breaking even, let alone maknig a profit?

Again, you're confusing patents with copyrights, as Rothbard highlighted. Restricting ideas through monopoly is the issue. Protecting someone's personal work from infringement does not inhibit innovation. Look at how many works have inspired other works. That doesn't mean you don't have to pay to be inspired. Nothing is free in this world, and if you try to make it free, or take someone else's profits, it will cease to exist when it's not worth it to make.

[erowe1]

What? No, the market will not go in a more innovative direction. It will combat those exploiting their works as if they're their own, or they'll get out of the business. Not everyone can afford to jsut be mroe "innovative" in the face of someone siphoning their profits jsut because it's easier to do than other tangible products.

And no, the forger is not taking on the brunt of the R&D costs, nor is it their work to sell. There are tons of instances where it's virtulally free compared to the cost of producing. What's so difficult to understand about this? I shouldn't have to bend over backwards so you can exploit my works.

In short, it's the piraters who need to learn to be more innovative, not me.

"Siphoning profits," "forgers," "piraters." You just throw these loaded terms around as though it's just taken for granted that what they do is something they don't have a right to do.

[awake]

Whistling a song would absolutely not be an offense, because no one would possibly sue you over that. However, you produce and sell an album, Awake sings and whistles the greatest Beetle hits and you might be pushing it far more, and if you're straight up selling copies of their songs, well, I think we can see where the disticntion can be drawn between an author protecting his work from exploting, defrauding, misrepresentation, theft, whatever you want to call it, and simple use not for profit. Why would anyone bother with fair-users? The law is barely relevant other than a safeguard. You would'nt see teachers getting raided for putting together a video for their students, or cover tribute bands getting shut down.

It's odd that you advocate for anarchy, yet seem to expect bigger anarchy by allowing something the free market would clearly demand without the fair-use law attached.


"You would'nt see teachers getting raided for putting together a video for their students, or cover tribute bands getting shut down."

Thats the essence of IP.

As for a entirely free market system, Insurance Defense/Protection Agencies customers would not want to pay sky high premiums trying to look into everyone's computer for IP infringements. Those who wanted protected IP services could pay for it with higher premiums for contracts involving NDA NCA's and what not signed by every customer of their ideas and music. Otherwise artists would earn what they could play live and book authors what they could sell for a few dollars a download - directly profiting.

[mczerone]

Look, if you're going to copy someone's work, then have to get permission, or else expect that what you're reproducing may be copyrighted. That's a pretty freaking simple requirement to use work that's not your own to profit from, don't you think?

You guys are inventing problems that don't even happen in the current system, let alone a free market one.

Did you know that Paul McCartney was sued for using a three measure chorus that was similar to another three measure chorus written independently of his?

You are really out of your depth here. If you volunteer to pay shipping, I can send you one of my old IP Law textbooks. Maybe if you understood that the current system is arbitrary, over-reaching, and tyrannical, maybe you'd understand where the IP-free-marketeers were coming from.

[Occam's Banana]

You did not read what I said. If fair use did not exist, even whistling a song would be an offense. With that being the pinnacle of absurd, the people would simply revolt and possibly overturn the whole IP apple cart. That would leave the currently privileged out on their arses. This is exactly why they tip toe around the ATCA and obfuscate internet legislation.

At any rate, a surveillance state is required to enforce IP in the digital realm. The current laws are literally useless.

Things like "fair use" and the entirely abitrary nature of copyright duration are perfect illustrations of the utterly ad hoc nature of intellectual "property" (so called).

The whole thing is a Rube Goldberg contraption - the inevitable result of trying to pretend that the immaterial can be treated like loaves of bread or plots of land.

It's a bunch of risible nonsense.

[erowe1]

Freedom involves not exploitnig and trampling on hte freedom of others. As Rothbard explains, independent works such as literary works are virtually impossible to reproduce independently, evne though they mgiht draw from similar ideas and be very similar.

But as Rothbard also explains. Copying those works is only theft when one entered a contract agreeing not to copy them.

[TheGrinch]

Why is it only fraud if its a copyrighted work? If contracts are not necessary to make it fraud, then copyrights shouldn't be either. If there's some natural basis for calling it fraudulent to copy someone else's work without their permission and profit from it, that doesn't rely on the existence of a contract, then what is that?

If you are back to the contract argument, then, again, that can only apply to people who enter the contract. You can't charge people with breaking a contract they never entered. If people who copy other people without their permission and profit off of it without breaking any contract are doing something wrong, then what is it?

Yes, I've heard of non-disclosure agreements. If you weren't aware of that, that's what another poster meant by the acronym NDA earlier in this thread. That's a contract that only applies to the parties who agree to it. It doesn't expand its scope to include people who never entered the contract. This is the kind of thing Rothbard defends in the OP. Are you now saying that you agree, and that copying and profiting from someone else's work without their permission is only wrong when you are breaking a contract that you entered, and that it's not wrong when you're not doing that?

Exactly, in an NDA, it's the person who allows the informatino to be released whose liable. The difference is that copyright actually focuses in on the person who should be liable (the exploiter), and not necessarily the sharer who could be innocent in the matter. Other than that, the contract is no different, just who will be held liable for breaking the agreement.

As for "not entering into the contract", it is something you need to make sure of before you go copying someone else's work. I can think of far more pressing business questions than knowing to check if what I'm copying is permitted. If you're going to use someone's work, make sure you don't need permission. Isn't that world's simpler and fairer than restricting business and placing burden on the producer to do the contracts and be in charge of restricing access themselves. Copyright allows that function without inhibiting other basic arbitrary business functions, such as allowing limited ownership to others without giving up rights to your own work.

To your question "Why is it only fraud if it's a copyrighted work?", is liek asking why's something a crime if no one presses charges.

Plagiarizing, exploiting, misrepresenting, reproducing are all forms of fraud, but it ceases to be fraud when the person gives permission (or in this case has not restricted permission through cvopyright), then no it's not fraud because they're allowing it to be shared, defrauding their own profit if you will. That's their choice. Not yours to make.

[awake]

And if companies can't afford to produce shows and forego the entire producer/network/provider/advertiser relationship that makes their livelihood, you just expect them to keep producing content so you can watch it for free as they forego even breaking even, let alone maknig a profit?

Again, you're confusing patents with copyrights, as Rothbard highlighted. Restricting ideas through monopoly is the issue. Protecting someone's personal work from infringement does not inhibit innovation. Look at how many works have inspired other works. That doesn't mean you don't have to pay to be inspired. Nothing is free in this world, and if you try to make it free, or take someone else's profits, it will cease to exist when it's not worth it to make.


What if the current media delivery structure is bloated, wasteful and using the government to constantly bail its antiquated business model out? Why do I care if they are breaking even?

Copyright and Patent involve the power of prevention to copy - invention or written word / arrangement. They are brilliant separations of the simple act.

[TheGrinch]

Did you know that Paul McCartney was sued for using a three measure chorus that was similar to another three measure chorus written independently of his?

You are really out of your depth here. If you volunteer to pay shipping, I can send you one of my old IP Law textbooks. Maybe if you understood that the current system is arbitrary, over-reaching, and tyrannical, maybe you'd understand where the IP-free-marketeers were coming from.

Cool, I'm not advocating for the current system. I'm advocating for a very simple broad definition of what a copyright is.

[TheGrinch]

What if the current media delivery structure is bloated, wasteful and using the government to constantly bail its antiquated business model out? Why do I care if they are breaking even?

And if it wasn't, and it was just honest creative people like me whose works you're claiming rights to, what then? I'm speaking conceptually as you all complain about what you don't liek about the current system. I do not wish to be confused with advocating what this mess has become.

[erowe1]

Exactly, in an NDA, it's the person who allows the informatino to be released whose liable. The difference is that copyright actually focuses in on the person who should be liable (the exploiter), and not necessarily the sharer who could be innocent in the matter. Other than that, the contract is no different, just who will be held liable for breaking the agreement.

So copyrights focus on people who never violated any contract. That's a problem. And that's a big difference between your position and Rothbard's.


As for "not entering into the contract", it is something you need to make sure of before you go copying someone else's work.
But if you haven't entered any contract obligating you to do that, then where does that obligation come from?

If there's some basis for it that is independent of contracts, then you should stop bringing contracts into your argument. That's just a distraction from whatever your real reasoning is. And whatever that is, you're not telling us.



Plagiarizing, exploiting, misrepresenting, reproducing are all forms of fraud
I can see why plagiarizing and misrepresenting are fraud. But I don't see why exploiting and reproducing are fraud. You're conflating all these things that aren't the same.

If somebody reproduces and exploits something without any plagiarism or misrepresentation, how is that fraud?

[TheGrinch]

"Siphoning profits," "forgers," "piraters." You just throw these loaded terms around as though it's just taken for granted that what they do is something they don't have a right to do.

Okay, what terms would you prefer I use for people who take someone's independent work, reproduce and sell at as if it's their own without putting any of the work, cost into it.

[TheGrinch]

If somebody reproduces and exploits something without any plagiarism or misrepresentation, how is that fraud?

If someone takes someone else's work, reproduces and exploits it, that is either misrepresentation, plagiarism or pirating (because no one who's buying gives a fuck that it's misrepresented). What other optins are there, aside from producing original ones (that can of course be influenced by that work) that are allowed under copyrights.

As for the rest of it, you're only advocating copyrights, since you can't possibly have any user they mgiht pass it on to sign a contract. Hence copyright works. You haven't explained why the alternative is bette,r or why it is more fair to allow for exploitation, theft or whatever the hell you wanna call it.

[awake]

And if it wasn't, and it was just honest creative people like me whose works you're claiming rights to, what then? I'm speaking conceptually as you all complain about what you don't liek about the current system. I do not wish to be confused with advocating what this mess has become.

Well to even see what a free market market for creators would look like the current government privilege model needs to be abolished and contracts need to become the primary market driver. Can't see the results if its illegal to try. The creators will have to have all buyers agree to contract restrictions and be able to afford the money to have them enforced. A free market justice system would be much cheaper as well accessible...

[Occam's Banana]

Whistling a song would absolutely not be an offense, because no one would possibly sue you over that.

Why not? If a song is "property," singing it without permission from the "owner" is "theft."

Saying "singing songs without permission from the song's 'owner' is OK because it isn't practical to enforce property rights in songs by going after singers-without-permission" is tantamount to saying "theft is OK as long as you can get away with it."

[TheGrinch]

Well to even see what a freemarket market for creators would look like the current government privilege model needs to be abolished and contracts need to become the primary market driver. Can't see the results if its illegal to try.

Hence why this thread was meant to be a conceptualization, highlighting the inherent differences between copyrights and patents, one being anti-free market and the other one pro-property-rights.

[erowe1]

If someone takes someone else's work, reproduces and exploits it, that is either misrepresentation, plagiarism or pirating (because no one who's buying gives a fuck that it's misrepresented).

Now you're adding in the word "pirating."

Let's stick with plagiarism and misrepresentation, which were words you used before. It's certainly possible to reproduce and exploit something without committing any plagiarism or misrepresentation. How is that fraud? Doesn't some kind of misrepresentation have to be there in order for it to be fraud?

[TheGrinch]

Why not? If a song is "property," singing it without permission from the "owner" is "theft."

Saying "singing songs without permission from the song's 'owner' is OK because it isn't practical to enforce property rights in songs by going after singers-without-permission" is tantamount to saying "theft is OK as long as you can get away with it."

Or how about "don't get your panties in a wad, because no one cares about personal non-profit use". It's completely neglecting the point of this thread, which is to give producers recourse from unauthorized exploitation of their works.

[TheGrinch]

Now you're adding in the word "pirating."

Let's stick with plagiarism and misrepresentation, which were words you used before. It's certainly possible to reproduce and exploit something without committing any plagiarism or misrepresentation. How is that fraud? Doesn't some kind of misrepresentation have to be there in order for it to be fraud?

Don't follow. Give an example, and I'll tell you what it falls under. There are situations where I stand, but don't pee, but yet I stand when I pee, so I must not pee by your logic (or something liek that. my head hurts now)

[awake]

Artists and creators are much like the state intellectuals: they are given comfortable birth with the state through IP laws, for pumping gas by day and playing music, painting and acting by night might be a hard reality in the real world. The IP protections are the great gift from the state for allegiance; that your creations will always be slanted toward their good graces and favor if anyone dare recommend the end of the privileges.

[erowe1]

As for the rest of it, you're only advocating copyrights, since you can't possibly have any user they mgiht pass it on to sign a contract. Hence copyright works.

I'm not advocating that. It might work for the people it works for. But that doesn't make it right. My argument for only enforcing contracts on the people who enter those contracts is based on the simple ethical principle that a person can't be obligated to keep a promise they never made. And if your position relies on doing something unethical, then why does it really matter if it works?

[erowe1]

Don't follow. Give an example, and I'll tell you what it falls under. There are situations where I stand, but don't pee, but yet I stand when I pee, so I must not pee by your logic (or something liek that. my head hurts now)

You write a song and enter a contract with a singer, where he gives you money and you give him permission to sing your song for a profit.

I hear him sing the song in a restaurant. I memorize it. I perform it somewhere else for a profit.

I have not misrepresented or plagiarized anything. Nor have I violated any contract that I have entered. The singer you made the contract with didn't violate it either. Ergo, there is no fraud.

[heavenlyboy34]

Or how about "don't get your panties in a wad, because no one cares about personal non-profit use". It's completely neglecting the point of this thread, which is to give producers recourse from unauthorized exploitation of their works.
Producers don't have a natural right to ideas. Only the medium which the ideas are contained in. Selling these items relinquishes the creator of the property. This so-called "ownership" of ideas is in reality a special privilege granted by the regime to buy the loyalty of "creators". (we have primarily British Mercantilists to thank for this lunacy) It has been this way ever since the beginning of IP. It's a way for creators to stifle competition and innovation. This was explained in detail in the last IP thread.

[heavenlyboy34]

Artists and creators are much like the state intellectuals: they are given comfortable birth with the state through IP laws, for pumping gas by day and playing music, painting and acting by night might be a hard reality in the real world. The IP protections are the great gift from the state for allegiance; that your creations will always be slanted toward their good graces and favor if anyone dare recommend the end of the privileges.
This too^^

[TheGrinch]

Producers don't have a natural right to ideas. Only the medium which the ideas are contained in. Selling these items relinquishes the creator of the property. This so-called "ownership" of ideas is in reality a special privilege granted by the regime to buy the loyalty of "creators". (we have primarily British Mercantilists to thank for this lunacy) It has been this way ever since the beginning of IP. It's a way for creators to stifle competition and innovation. This was explained in detail in the last IP thread.
False. Patents restrict competition and inmovation.

For example, copyrights have allowed the simpsons to make way for family guy, etc. Both innovation and competition. It does not stifle you for me to have rights over my original woek. That doesnt preclude you from being influenced by or competing with MY media.

[awake]

Thiss too^^

I am a creator too... I reject IP and I work a day job and create by night. I see the complete lure of IP. It is security at other peoples expense and loss of their security, which endangers my own.

[TheGrinch]

Artists and creators are much like the state intellectuals: they are given comfortable birth with the state through IP laws, for pumping gas by day and playing music, painting and acting by night might be a hard reality in the real world. The IP protections are the great gift from the state for allegiance; that your creations will always be slanted toward their good graces and favor if anyone dare recommend the end of the privileges.
Nice, now youve kicked up the insults a notch.

Yes, lets leave them to die in ditches since their work is unimportant in my eyes and easily reproducible (well, until there arent any more good ones once theres no way to make a living). Just so those brave hard working men who copied their work can make a profit off them.

Think about whos the enemy here, because that is so insulting it shouldnt have even been worth the sarcastic reply.

[TheGrinch]

I am a creator too... I reject IP and I work a day job and create by night. I see the complete lure of IP. It is security at other peoples expense and loss of their security, which endangers my own.

For some of us, this isnt just a night job. Its what we know how to do best, so drop the "my work is more important elitism. I have the right to profit for myself and be protected from having it ripped off.

[awake]

Nice, now youve kicked up the insults a notch.

Yes, lets leave them to die in ditches since their work is unimportant in my eyes and easily reproducible (well, until there arent any more good ones once theres no way to make a living). Just so those brave hard working men who copied their work can make a profit off them.

Think about whos the enemy here, because that is so insulting it shouldnt have even been worth the sarcastic reply.

Umm... why are you insulted? This is a general statement that describes what IP is and does for the state and artist relationship. You were never mentioned in it.

[erowe1]

Nice, now youve kicked up the insults a notch.

Yes, lets leave them to die in ditches since their work is unimportant in my eyes and easily reproducible (well, until there arent any more good ones once theres no way to make a living). Just so those brave hard working men who copied their work can make a profit off them.

Think about whos the enemy here, because that is so insulting it shouldnt have even been worth the sarcastic reply.

Why do you have to keep taking everything personally?

You should be able to discuss the issue dispassionately and argue for your position reasonably, instead of just assuming that it has to be true and that everyone who disagrees about it has something against you personally.

[awake]

For some of us, this isnt just a night job. Its what we know how to do best, so drop the "my work is more important elitism. I have the right to profit for myself and be protected from having it ripped off.

Giver...just don't expect the IP police to enforce your dictates on what I can do with my body; the sounds and words that enter and exit it.

[Feeding the Abscess]

For some of us, this isnt just a night job. Its what we know how to do best, so drop the "my work is more important elitism. I have the right to profit for myself and be protected from having it ripped off.

Just wanted to point that out.

[TheGrinch]

Just wanted to point that out.
Actually saying that my work is no less important than those whose isnt so easily reproducible to exploit, is the exact opposite of elitism. Only ones im being elitist towards are those who rip off others works and treat them as their own.

[erowe1]

For some of us, this isnt just a night job. Its what we know how to do best, so drop the "my work is more important elitism. I have the right to profit for myself and be protected from having it ripped off.

But what you want is more than just being protected from having your work ripped off.

You also want to be able to collect damages from people who do nothing wrong, who take nothing from you, and who violate no obligation they have toward you, but who merely copy your work without your permission and profit from it.

[heavenlyboy34]

But what you want is more than just being protected from having your work ripped off.

You also want to be able to collect damages from people who do nothing wrong, who take nothing from you, and who violate no obligation they have toward you, but who merely copy your work without your permission and profit from it.
qft. :cool:

[TheGrinch]

But what you want is more than just being protected from having your work ripped off.

You also want to be able to collect damages from people who do nothing wrong, who take nothing from you, and who violate no obligation they have toward you, but who merely copy your work without your permission and profit from it.
The latter is taking something from me. I didnt agree to that.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The latter is taking something from me. I didnt agree to that.

Do you have the right to make money off of your product?

[awake]

Actually saying that my work is no less important than those whose isnt so easily reproducible to exploit, is the exact opposite of elitism. Only ones im being elitist towards are those who rip off others works and treat them as their own.

Have you heard of Al gore?... Hell this is what politicians do: they take credit for everyone elses work. My point: IP laws are political creations by people you should not want anything from.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Alright, OP - Napster existed, and its existence begat iTunes, Netflix, et al.

Piracy, and P2P sharing, is good. Mind...blown...

[TheGrinch]

Why do you have to keep taking everything personally?

You should be able to discuss the issue dispassionately and argue for your position reasonably, instead of just assuming that it has to be true and that everyone who disagrees about it has something against you personally.
It wasnt personally insulting, its collectively insulting to media creaters the low esteem some hold for our hard honest work.

[erowe1]

The latter is taking something from me. I didnt agree to that.

You keep repeating that. But you never demonstrate it. And then you seem to get offended when people don't agree.

[erowe1]

It wasnt personally insulting, its collectively insulting to media creaters the low esteem some hold for our hard honest work.

You don't have to see it that way.

The market that exists now is what it is, government and all. And we all have to fit ourselves into it. It's a given that we'd be doing that in different ways if it weren't for government distortions of the market. Just making the general remark that the labor pool of our population would be put to better use if it were responding to profit incentives that would exist without IP laws than it is when responding to profit incentives that exist with IP laws, is not an insult to anyone.

[TheGrinch]

Alright, OP - Napster existed, and its existence begat iTunes, Netflix, et al.

Piracy, and P2P sharing, is good. Mind...blown...

Actually a great example. Since Napster, now when I purchase an iTune, I don't even own the damn thing, I just get like 5 copies, and if I try to access it from another computer, I have to enter a password.

Wow, what a great contribution from the piraters that because they assumed possession of copyrighted works, now I don't even get to enjoy norma ownership for my own use. All hail the innovation that's allowed for Apple to hold my music safe for me now since they can't trust anyone to actually physically own it. Expect more of that if you just want to leave it all to the free market. It will protect itself, usually far more unfairly and inconveniently if it greatly threatens their interests.

[awake]

For a law to be, it must be universal and applicable to all. Either IP exists in its totality, to everyone equally, which means no humming a protected tune while your personal monitor is surveying you, ready to whisk you away to a labor camp. Or there is no such thing as IP to everyone equally. Anything in between is arbitrary and unjust.

[Occam's Banana]

Or how about "don't get your panties in a wad, because no one cares about personal non-profit use". It's completely neglecting the point of this thread, which is to give producers recourse from unauthorized exploitation of their works.

And once again, you dance around the very issue at the heart of the problem. You are doing nothing but deploying question-begging assertions in the place of premises - and substituting restatements of your preferred outcomes in the place of arguments.

Either singing in the shower without permission is theft or it is not. If it is not, then your entire "argument" (if I can be permitted to call it that) is bogus.

OTOH, if it is, then your "don't get you panties in a wad" approach indicates that you don't take the basis of your own "argument" very seriously. So why should anyone else?

It is meaningless to speak of "recourse" against "exploitation" ("unauthorized" or otherwise) because (with respect to so-called intellectual "property") there is no such thing. The immaterial cannot be "owned" - and hence cannot be "stolen" (or "exploited without authorization" - or whatever other pejorative euphemism you care to employ).

(You also seem to be strangely naive about what "no one cares about" and what "no one would possibly sue you over" ...)

[TheGrinch]

You keep repeating that. But you never demonstrate it. And then you seem to get offended when people don't agree.

I've demonstrated it plenty. If you rip off (I'll use that word, since it is the one that encompasses the fact that you didn't do any of the work to produce it, and are exploiting someone else's hard work; work in this sense meaning independent creative works that cannot possibly be duplicated independently, even though they can be influenced by one another), then that is taking something from someone else.

You know what you did and didn't create when it comes to creative works, so to just assume, well, so and so didn't tell ME I couldn't rip off his work for profit, then it should be okay.... The copyright system is in place to ensure that if someone is going to use someone else's work for profit, they have to ask for permission or check if it's copyrighted. If it's copyrighted, it means the owner has put out on public record that no one is to reproduce it. It's the simplest solution for ensuring that a binding contract is binding to all subsequent parties involved if they wish to use or maintain ownership of it.

Thus, if you don't check the public records to see if you're using a copyrighted work, then it's no different than pleading ignorance for coming onto my land and using it, assuming it's jsut public land. Things are designated private and public for a reason.

[TheGrinch]

For a law to be, it must be universal and applicable to all. Either IP exists in its totality, to everyone equally, which means no humming a protected tune while your personal monitor is surveying you, ready to whisk you away to a labor camp. Or there is no such thing as IP to everyone equally. Anything in between is arbitrary and unjust.

Civil law means you have to give someone a reason to raise a multi-thousand dollar lawsuit.

I have no idea why you're mubling about copyright-humming-monitors that don't even exist in hte current system. We;re talking civil law, so yes, in answer to Ocham's Banana, it becomes theft when it has enough effect on them to take the time and expense suing you over it (not saying that's necessarily the wya it should be, but it's the best you've got when it coems to recourse of someone utilizing your work without permission)

[awake]

Actually a great example. Since Napster, now when I purchase an iTune, I don't even own the damn thing, I just get like 5 copies, and if I try to access it from another computer, I have to enter a password.

Wow, what a great contribution from the piraters that because they assumed possession of copyrighted works, now I don't even get to enjoy norma ownership for my own use. All hail the innovation that's allowed for Apple to hold my music safe for me now since they can't trust anyone to actually physically own it. Expect more of that if you just want to leave it all to the free market. It will protect itself, usually far more unfairly and inconveniently if it greatly threatens their interests.

"Expect more of that if you just want to leave it all to the free market". In other words, 'the free market is all well and good when its controlled to my favor'.

Look, I get it, you attribute all your creative profit to the current State structure, but if you're not for the free market then that leaves the state and a continuous escalation in IP enforcement. Its a simple choice as the current structure is not working. Free market or successively draconian IP laws? Its a contradiction to want to keep in place state privilege and want at the same time a completely free market.

Have you personally sued anyone under the current IP structure? If not the Laws are doing nothing for you any way. The idea that some how IP laws are scaring people strait is funny.

[Occam's Banana]

I've demonstrated it plenty. If you rip off (I'll use that word, since it is the one that encompasses the fact that you didn't do any of the work to produce it, and are exploiting someone else's hard work; work in this sense meaning independent creative works that cannot possibly be duplicated independently, even though they can be influenced by one another), then that is taking something from someone else.

You have demonstated nothing. Rather - as the above quote illustrates - you have jumped from the springboard of question begging and dived head first into tautology ...

[TheGrinch]

"Expect more of that if you just want to leave it all to the free market". In other words, 'the free market is all well and good when its controlled to my favor'.

Look, I get it, you attribute all your creative profit to the current State structure, but if you're not for the free market then that leaves the state and a continuous escalation in IP enforcement.
What no. What i meant is that the more you try to push no ip, the more the market will push back to protect itself, to the detriment of the comsumer relationsip usually. Has nothing to do with me anymore, lets stay on topic. I dont attribute anything to the state, only the same rights as you or your employer does with how your products are allowed to be used.

[TheGrinch]

You have demonstated nothing. Rather - as the above quote illustrates - you have jumped from the springboard of question begging and dived head first into tautology ...
Thank you for continuing to contribute nothing to the thread.

[heavenlyboy34]

I've demonstrated it plenty. If you rip off (I'll use that word, since it is the one that encompasses the fact that you didn't do any of the work to produce it, and are exploiting someone else's hard work; work in this sense meaning independent creative works that cannot possibly be duplicated independently, even though they can be influenced by one another), then that is taking something from someone else.

You know what you did and didn't create when it comes to creative works, so to just assume, well, so and so didn't tell ME I couldn't rip off his work for profit, then it should be okay.... The copyright system is in place to ensure that if someone is going to use someone else's work for profit, they have to ask for permission or check if it's copyrighted. If it's copyrighted, it means the owner has put out on public record that no one is to reproduce it. It's the simplest solution for ensuring that a binding contract is binding to all subsequent parties involved if they wish to use or maintain ownership of it.

Thus, if you don't check the public records to see if you're using a copyrighted work, then it's no different than pleading ignorance for coming onto my land and using it, assuming it's jsut public land. Things are designated private and public for a reason.
And the people who built and maintain your home didn't pay royalties to the manufacturers of their tools for the "priviledge" of using the tools in an unauthorized way to earn money without sending some to the tools' producers. Therefore, the tool manufacturers were robbed. Oh the humanity! :rolleyes:

[Occam's Banana]

Thank you for continuing to contribute nothing to the thread.

Translation: <insert fingers in ears> "Neener, neener, neener! I can't hear you!"

By all means, continue with your "it's theft because it's stealing (or 'ripping off' or 'unauthorized exploitation' or whatever) and it's stealing because it's theft" merry-go-round.

[TheGrinch]

And the people who built and maintain your home didn't pay royalties to the manufacturers of their tools for the "priviledge" of using the tools in an unauthorized way to earn money without sending some to the tools' producers. Therefore, the tool manufacturers were robbed. Oh the humanity! :rolleyes:

Tools do not have copyrights because no one is going to plagiarize (we'll go with that word then) or copy them. You can obviously reproduce them because there is no exclusive copyright, and even a copyright allows for you to produce the same object naturally. Conceievably the only way (as far as I can see) with inventions is if it could be proven that you used information you were not privy to and couldn't have come up with on your own (a tough burden of proof if it were copyright rather than patent).

However with literary works, movies, documentaries, etc.,etc., it is virtually impossible for 2 to produce the exact same independently. Alike, sure, influenced by one another, sure, but not the same. That is one's independent work, and if they want to put on public record that it is not be reproduced under someone else's name or profit, then who are you to say that they forfeit all rights when they transfer ownership. Contracts are there to ensure that no one gets hosed and can have a binding agreement that's suitable for all parties involved (or will be involved). So are copyrights.

[TheGrinch]

Translation: <insert fingers in ears> "Neener, neener, neener! I can't hear you!"

By all means, continue with your "it's theft because it's stealing (or 'ripping off' or 'unauthorized exploitation' or whatever) and it's stealing because it's theft" merry-go-round.

Thanks. You continue on with this whole, your movie is my movie because I bought a copy, so now I'm gonna go sell it like I made it, cuz it's so easy with my computer. It makes you sound very smart and moral.

[QuickZ06]

Think, fashion.

[heavenlyboy34]

Tools do not have copyrights because no one is going to plagiarize (we'll go with that word then) or copy them. You can obviously reproduce them because there is no exclusive copyright, and even a copyright allows for you to produce the same object naturally. Conceievably the only way (as far as I can see) with inventions is if it could be proven that you used information you were not privy to and couldn't have come up with on your own (a tough burden of proof if it were copyright rather than patent).

However with literary works, movies, documentaries, etc.,etc., it is virtually impossible for 2 to produce the exact same independently. Alike, sure, influenced by one another, sure, but not the same. That is one's independent work, and if they want to put on public record that it is not be reproduced under someone else's name or profit, then who are you to say that they forfeit all rights when they transfer ownership. Contracts are there to ensure that no one gets hosed and can have a binding agreement that's suitable for all parties involved (or will be involved). So are copyrights.
Actually, tool manufacturers routinely register their tools with the government. Check out the packaging next time you buy a tool. It's true that it's rare that artists rarely create identical works independently. But so what? Is Donatello's "David" less valuable because Michelangelo scultped the same figure in a strikingly similar fasion? Nope. As I've pointed out before, art doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists in the context of culture. The difference between true art in any medium and a bunch of stuff thrown together in a mush is that artistic skill is a craft that is honed by practice and observing other works. Mozart learned polyphonic technique by copying by hand JS Bach manuscripts. Paganini got the idea for 24 Caprices by copying Locatelli. If any artist had to create some craft entirely out of nothing, he would never have enough time in his life to develop the craft to a significant degree. Schoenberg invented serialism independently, but abandoned it almost immediately because he didn't have the time or interest to develop it. It was his students who took the idea and honed it. Schonberg still gets credit in the history books for inventing serialism, but it wasn't him that really fleshed it into something complex and useful.

P.S. Leibnitz and Newton "discovered" calculus at roughly the same time independently of each other.
PPS When Brahms copied Paganini's theme from Caprice 24 for his Variations on a theme by Paganini, nobody considered it "theft" and to this day anyone who proposed that would be considered daft by every critic and historian.

[Occam's Banana]

By all means, continue with your "it's theft because it's stealing (or 'ripping off' or 'unauthorized exploitation' or whatever) and it's stealing because it's theft" merry-go-round.


You continue on with this whole, your movie is my movie because I bought a copy, so now I'm gonna go sell it like I made it, cuz it's so easy with my computer. It makes you sound very smart and moral.

Oh, dear. You really don't even seem to realize that you're being your own "argument's" worst enemy - inane caricature as the wit's end of tautology. SMH.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Actually, [Inserted a comma there for ya] a great example. Since Napster, now when I purchase an iTune, [Shit, you bought the whole damn site? Solve your problem yourself, then] I don't even own the damn thing, I just get like 5 copies, and if I try to access it from another computer, I have to enter a password. [Google may well be an NSA front, but it's still helpful. Google "itunes DRM removal," or click here. (http://www.google.com/search?q=itunes+drm+removal&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS499US499&aq=f&oq=itunes+drm+removal&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)]

Wow, what a great contribution from the piraters ["Pirates" will do fine, matey - thank you] that because they assumed possession of copyrighted works, now I don't even get to enjoy normal [fixed your spelling error] ownership for my own use. All hail the innovation that's allowed for Apple to hold my music safe for me now, [fixed your punctuation error] since they can't trust anyone to actually physically own it. [Says who? Participate in their failed business model, and it's you, that's who] Expect more of that if you just want to leave it all to the free market. It will protect itself, usually far more unfairly and inconveniently if it greatly threatens their interests. [Yack, yack, yack...if it weren't for Pirates, there wouldn't even be an America. Check your history - remember the Privateers? What do you think they were called before they were called "Privateers?" More to the point, how do you think the British Navy viewed them? We didn't even have a freakin' Navy. Marinate on that for a moment...the Founders hired PIRATES, lol]

Each of the images below are clickity-click enabled. Have at 'em. Merry Christmas, Mr. Grinch, and Happy New Year! Now, you don't even need iTunes! Well, if you can figure it out. You're a smart dude, though, so I'm sure you'll handle it no problemo.

(I'd write you a tl;dr tutorial and all, but you're busy reading this thread right now...so PM me if you require assistance.)

Piracy can be a dirty business, sure, but there are ways to mitigate that (http://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-providers-really-take-anonymity-seriously-111007/). When TPTB are fighting dirty, fight back through nonviolent digital action. (SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, this news search regarding proposed internet fuckery at the UN (http://www.google.com/search?q=google+news+un+internet&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS499US499&oq=google+news+un+internet&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=united+nations+internet&hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS499US499&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=VlO0UK3LB5OE9gTC5IC4Cg&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=3d1f729c89a26b45&bpcl=38897761&biw=1148&bih=605)...) Invite the system to kiss your ass. That's an option in your worldview, right? I mean...you're here, ain't cha? :)


http://png-1.findicons.com/files/icons/2457/app_icons/128/utorrent.png (http://www.utorrent.com/) +http://www.userlogos.org/files/logos/acidjade/the_pirate_bay_logo.png (http://thepiratebay.se/)= http://www.eustaceisd.net/khan/Current_Package/Khan Academy/code/khanacademy-stable/images/face-smiley.gif


(https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Epic_win)

[awake]

I take your song and play it for others and they want it too. They go looking for it and some find it for sale and buy it, others get it free. They then spread it the same. Each person , free or paid is doing you a service by promoting your music and exposing it to other potential sales and advertisement. File sharing is like radio wave sharing: promotion. Advertisements in songs and movies would be alternative models for the free music lovers released by the creators themselves. Ad free versions for people who pay...etc.

File sharing isn't going away. A creator has two real choices: adopting the market model and work with it, or get run over. Some creators, however, want a third option in the State: paying goons to attack their own promoters.

People "steal" and share Facebook , Twitter etc everyday for free. The creators simply use ads in their creation to earn thier due. youtube content creators do this as well..

You make it sound as if before IP law there was an epidemic of people ripping everyone else off and that the implementation of these laws put an end to the madness. On the contrary, the whole idea of "ripping off" comes from IP law - it rips off the individual in the use of his own body and property as he sees fit. I can not copy because another individual has the ability to steal from me and jail me if I do.

[Natural Citizen]

I don't know how many artists there are around here versus scientists but know there are a host of both persuasions but it's important to understand, I mean really understand, the intersection of art and science and the artificially applied roadblock to progress in the truest sense of the word that has been put right in the middle of that intersection. The artist needs the scientist equally as the scientist needs the artist to point the way. And that's the bigger idea that many who are hung up on the redundant aspects of IP are very blind toward. Very blind. Almost selfish and impeding progress. The U.S. is a developing country just as there are others. Many won't buy that but we are.

Anyhow. Here's Silva at the The 2011 Singularity Summit in San Fran last year. This is meant for educators, artists and thinkers. Doers for the most part as we'll see over the next decade or so. So...I hope some choose to spend 30 minutes to have a listen. Because even if folks do not they'll hear similar speak in the long run anyhow. Bet.

The question and answer segment if folks notice are more from the perspective of where we or they as educators want to go with the notion. Questions from teachers are clearly asked in a manner pointing toward restructuring grade school and high school students' way of thinking.

Obviously there may be a demograph who are more prone to spinning the subject into some false left/right paradigm that ultimately only serves to bury the larger idea but I don't think will be effective versus the next generation of critical thinkers who will absolutely produce change. That's a given. But it's a necessary evil too so...perhaps welcomed for as long as they remain relevant in such a discussion and during transition of the generation. I think it's humorous when the term anarchy is applied to the subject. Certainly is not anarchist in any manner at all. Likely the other way around as far as innovation in the truest sense of the term is relevant.To put into place corporate controlled infrastructure to police ideas or the science thereof...speech itself...on the basis of some guy's dumb video and his piece of paper is dangerous to progress from the point of humanity itself. Almost a problem reaction solution scenario designed to put up the roadblock. As such, we know who speaks for that scenario. The more important question is who speaks for the youth? Them? Are they going to have that natural right? Not the way some would have it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzOxui9uw0o&amp;feature=watch-vrec

[dannno]

In short, it's the piraters who need to learn to be more innovative, not me.

The "piraters" literally have servers on drone airplanes flying all over the world. They are obviously much more innovative than you.

There are plenty of innovative bands who encourage giving away their music for free or encourage their fans to make bootlegs. They still make a lot of money as independent artists, and would do much better relative to other groups in a free market where the government doesn't control the airwaves.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

OP, as a longtime poster here at RPFs, I have nothing but respect for you, and for your opinions. It is the vigorous debate and discussion often found here that I, as well as many others - we're all here in this thread - enjoy so much. It's a crucible for intellectual growth.

That said, I would ask you to have a look at this...from everyone's favorite news aggregator, Matt Drudge:

10-Year-Old girl's laptop confiscated after copyright offense

(http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/10-year-old-girls-laptop-confiscated-after-copyright-offense-1C7227561)Police in Helsinki seized the laptop of a young girl during a search of her family's home last week, according to her father. The alleged offense? Using the popular BitTorrent website The Pirate Bay to download a single album...This spring, a letter arrived from the TTVK alleging that the Nylund's account had been linked to a copyright infringement. The letter gave the option to pay a settlement of €600 and sign a non-disclosure agreement — a common tactic used by copyright holders that removes the need for formal charges...Niko Nordström, CEO of Warner Music Finland, acknowledged the limits of IP-based enforcement, but said "this procedure is currently the only way to tackle illegal downloading" (translation by Google).

This doesn't appear to fit with your noble position regarding Intellectual Property, and its relationship with Property Rights. This sounds more like a SHAKEDOWN. This smacks of gangster-ism, of NWO bully-ism. Praise fuck, this article describes events transpiring in Finland - a nation under the auspices of the EU. Just imagine the terror this little girl will foster in her heart towards government as she grows into adulthood...I put this question to you:

Would you support an enforcement action such as this within the jurisdiction of the US? Would you agree with it, and if so, how? Finally, under what presiding legal authority - The PATRIOT Act?

[BSWPaulsen]

A copyright that represents a tacit contractual agreement between consumer and producer doesn't seem all that problematic, regardless of what the work in question is. Contracts can be whatever two parties agree to, so long as it is voluntary. I don't see why the producer cannot develop a contract that disallows the spread of the agreed-to work to other individuals, or containing caveats against individuals holding the work without having their own personal contract.

Failure to uphold that contract should bring punishment to the person that broke it, and individuals that received the work in illegitimate ways should be viewed as having stolen (illegitimately obtained) property. They can be presented with the choice of forfeiting their illegitimately obtained work, or entering into the contract.

In short, I see no reason why a legalistic contract that reduces "ownership" of works to little more than borrowing is impossible. Voluntary contracts rule the day, and as those contracts are subject to the whims of the individuals in question, the rest of the perceived problems represent little more than white noise due to the inherent flexibility of contracts. The market can handle the rest.

Arguments in favor of piracy fall short both morally and legally, so long as contracts are viewed as having prime importance.

[erowe1]

A copyright that represents a tacit contractual agreement between consumer and producer doesn't seem all that problematic, regardless of what the work in question is. Contracts can be whatever two parties agree to, so long as it is voluntary. I don't see why the producer cannot develop a contract that disallows the spread of the agreed-to work to other individuals, or containing caveats against individuals holding the work without having their own personal contract.

Failure to uphold that contract should bring punishment to the person that broke it, and individuals that received the work in illegitimate ways should be viewed as having stolen (illegitimately obtained) property. They can be presented with the choice of forfeiting their illegitimately obtained work, or entering into the contract.

In short, I see no reason why a legalistic contract that reduces "ownership" of works to little more than borrowing is impossible. Voluntary contracts rule the day, and as those contracts are subject to the whims of the individuals in question, the rest of the perceived problems represent little more than white noise due to the inherent flexibility of contracts. The market can handle the rest.

Arguments in favor of piracy fall short both morally and legally, so long as contracts are viewed as having prime importance.

I think this is essentially what Rothbard was saying in the OP.

But a contract is only binding to the people who enter it. The question isn't just whether or not people are obligated to keep their contractual obligations. It's whether or not copying and profiting from someone else's work without their permission is still theft even when no contract of any kind has been broken.

[jmdrake]

Actually a great example. Since Napster, now when I purchase an iTune, I don't even own the damn thing, I just get like 5 copies, and if I try to access it from another computer, I have to enter a password.

Wow, what a great contribution from the piraters that because they assumed possession of copyrighted works, now I don't even get to enjoy norma ownership for my own use. All hail the innovation that's allowed for Apple to hold my music safe for me now since they can't trust anyone to actually physically own it. Expect more of that if you just want to leave it all to the free market. It will protect itself, usually far more unfairly and inconveniently if it greatly threatens their interests.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. Napster helped spawn iTunes and iTunes doesn't allow you to have true ownership of the music you buy and therefore you are unable to buy CDs like the rest of us? Why is that? :confused:

Clearly CDs still exist. (You can still buy some records on vinyl). And long before Napster or even the Internet, people found a way to listen to music for free. It's called radio. In my life I've rarely bought music. Most of the time I've listened to the radio. The songs that I want to hear eventually comes on. When I have bought music, I've played it to death to the point where I didn't want to hear it again, even on the radio. Maybe I'm an aberration. But I bet lots of people today use totally legal sites like YouTube or Pandora to listen to the music they want to hear without paying for it. Sure, artists can get stuff yanked from YouTube, and I suppose they can go after the people who put it up, but they have no real case against those who simply watch what's on a legal video sharing site. That said, savvy artists have figured out that the best way to deal with places like YouTube is to deal with them and get their own revenue streams from people watching their stuff and listening to their music for free. It's called "advertising". Do you realize that IP owners initially freaked out about radio the same way some people today freak out about content sharing over the Internet? What saved music radio, and inadvertently created the modern music business, is that people figured a different model to do business other than threatening either radio owners or radio listeners. Advertisement revenue sharing was good for both the station owners and the content creators. The same thing can happen in IP if people start looking at the problem from the standpoint of "How can I make sure I'm making money" as opposed to "How can I stop people from getting my stuff for free."

[TheGrinch]

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. Napster helped spawn iTunes and iTunes doesn't allow you to have true ownership of the music you buy and therefore you are unable to buy CDs like the rest of us? Why is that? :confused:

Clearly CDs still exist. (You can still buy some records on vinyl). And long before Napster or even the Internet, people found a way to listen to music for free. It's called radio. In my life I've rarely bought music. Most of the time I've listened to the radio. The songs that I want to hear eventually comes on. When I have bought music, I've played it to death to the point where I didn't want to hear it again, even on the radio. Maybe I'm an aberration. But I bet lots of people today use totally legal sites like YouTube or Pandora to listen to the music they want to hear without paying for it. Sure, artists can get stuff yanked from YouTube, and I suppose they can go after the people who put it up, but they have no real case against those who simply watch what's on a legal video sharing site. That said, savvy artists have figured out that the best way to deal with places like YouTube is to deal with them and get their own revenue streams from people watching their stuff and listening to their music for free. It's called "advertising". Do you realize that IP owners initially freaked out about radio the same way some people today freak out about content sharing over the Internet? What saved music radio, and inadvertently created the modern music business, is that people figured a different model to do business other than threatening either radio owners or radio listeners. Advertisement revenue sharing was good for both the station owners and the content creators. The same thing can happen in IP if people start looking at the problem from the standpoint of "How can I make sure I'm making money" as opposed to "How can I stop people from getting my stuff for free."

Point being, the more you push the media providers and ignore copyrights, the more they'll push back. Yes, there are still alternatives, but you might see much more limited ownership in the future, if they feel you cannot be trusted to take actual ownership of the product.

[BSWPaulsen]

I think this is essentially what Rothbard was saying in the OP.

But a contract is only binding to the people who enter it. The question isn't just whether or not people are obligated to keep their contractual obligations. It's whether or not copying and profiting from someone else's work without their permission is still theft even when no contract of any kind has been broken.

If the work is obtained without contractual agreement, then it is reasonably assumed to have been illegitimately obtained no different than any other stolen personal property. Legitimately obtained works originally created by someone else's labor always require a contract in order to possess legally, and a producer that doesn't create an advantageous contract in the pursuit of maximal renumeration is a fool. The consumer can always reject such terms, but as he wouldn't obtain the work, this whole topic is rendered moot.

The purchaser of stolen goods is not committing theft, the theft had already occurred. In such circumstances the work should be returned to its rightful owner, and the purchaser of the goods should be renumerated for the costs spent on the work; of course, the first and third parties could always work out their own agreement. Any profits obtained by the second party as a result of violation of the contract should be forfeit to the first party, assuming that was built into the contract. If theft occurred without the contract, then the grievances should be addressed in accordance with what courts deem to be just in line with laws concerning theft and the circumstances.

If a contract outlines copying/selling the work as theft, then it is theft as per the contract. If no contract exists, then theft still occurred, albeit of a different and more rudimentary nature.

[TheGrinch]

I think this is essentially what Rothbard was saying in the OP.

But a contract is only binding to the people who enter it. The question isn't just whether or not people are obligated to keep their contractual obligations. It's whether or not copying and profiting from someone else's work without their permission is still theft even when no contract of any kind has been broken.

Hence why you have copyrights on public record so that it' understood to anyone that takes ownership of that product what terms and conditions are attached, since there's no way to police it otherwise, and it would be too problematic for them to even do business if they had zero control once it leaves the hands of the person they have a contract with... Why do you want that kind of loophole anyway? To protect those who leech off of other people's work?

Again, if you took away copyrights and enforced contracts instead, you would only be making the potentially innocent purchaser liable for misuse, whereas copyrights ensure that whoever breaches that copyright is responsible. Why is it a bad thing to have public records so that you can deal with whoever's actually liable, rather than necessarily the person you sold it to?

Without copyrights, they'll either hold the purchaser liable by contract, or they'll make it to where no one besides the original holder can access/reproduce, or they'll go into another field, because they're simply not going to release all rights and control over their work just because copies of the work left hteir hands (as they have to to be able to conduct business). Copyrights solve these issues without any of the mess. If it's on public record that you need permission, you need permission to reproduce. Abundantly simple.

[Tpoints]

Actually a great example. Since Napster, now when I purchase an iTune, I don't even own the damn thing, I just get like 5 copies, and if I try to access it from another computer, I have to enter a password.


That's why there's DRM free music, such as emusic.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/155512/online_music_drm.html I'm sure the selection is much more limited though.

[Tpoints]

Do you realize that IP owners initially freaked out about radio the same way some people today freak out about content sharing over the Internet?

Yes, we do. Everybody does, everybody knows nobody likes competition except the consumer.

[Tpoints]

It is the work that is copyrighted, not the paper it's printed on, which can be infinite.

Hell, you can copy all the books you want for your own use, scan them into your copmuter to use with a reader, but once you sell that copyrighted work (or even give it away) as if it's your own, you are violating a contract agreement you made when you purchased it, the copyright.


Leave out common decency, as copyright opposers will never recognize that.

But I would say, specifically , copyright laws are enacted to prevent the loophole argument of "I didn't agree to no contract!". Laws are exactly that, to prevent people from saying they were ignorant of the law or arbitrarily decide they don't want to follow. Copyright opponents ALWAYS conveniently ignore that copyright works are ONLY released and sold BECAUSE they are offered some sort of protection, even knowing it's not airtight, that at least SOME remedy is available.

Saying "You sold it to me, yay I win" is akin to saying "You were sleeping, I never agreed not to rob you when you were sleeping". People sleep at night comfortably BECAUSE they believe there are laws that protect them, had there not been, you'd expect more people to keep their guards up and yes, then you can say "Hey, you fell asleep, your own damn fault".

[Tpoints]

I think this is essentially what Rothbard was saying in the OP.

But a contract is only binding to the people who enter it. The question isn't just whether or not people are obligated to keep their contractual obligations. It's whether or not copying and profiting from someone else's work without their permission is still theft even when no contract of any kind has been broken.

and that's why we made laws. So they would be binding to people even without explicit agreement.

Why don't we leave everything to voluntary agreement? Because there are certain things that are better enforced, more efficiently managed if laws set the default, and leave the details for contracts.

[Tpoints]

Copyrights solve these issues without any of the mess. If it's on public record that you need permission, you need permission to reproduce. Abundantly simple.

Unless you're an anarchist who thinks you can pick and choose which laws to obey and spit on any rule you disagree with.

[TheGrinch]

If the work is obtained without contractual agreement, then it is reasonably assumed to have been illegitimately obtained no different than any other stolen personal property. Legitimately obtained works originally created by someone else's labor always require a contract in order to possess legally, and a producer that doesn't create an advantageous contract in the pursuit of maximal renumeration is a fool. The consumer can always reject such terms, but as he wouldn't obtain the work, this whole topic is rendered moot.

The purchaser of stolen goods is not committing theft, the theft had already occurred. In such circumstances the work should be returned to its rightful owner, and the purchaser of the goods should be renumerated for the costs spent on the work; of course, the first and third parties could always work out their own agreement. Any profits obtained by the second party as a result of violation of the contract should be forfeit to the first party, assuming that was built into the contract. If theft occurred without the contract, then the grievances should be addressed in accordance with what courts deem to be just in line with laws concerning theft and the circumstances.

If a contract outlines copying/selling the work as theft, then it is theft as per the contract. If no contract exists, then theft still occurred, albeit of a different and more rudimentary nature.

Alternatively, let's say the third party legitimately purchased the work from the person who who purchased it in the ifrst place.

Without copyrights, the person who purchased it in the first place would be required to sign a contract (or agree to terms) akin to a non-disclosure agreement that they would be held responsible if ANYONE obtained and/or reproduced the work (or some language along those lines).

Someone will always be liable for misuse that violates the seller's terms. Sellers will demand that in contract form if there are no copyrights. The difference is copyrights allow recourse against the person who is actually liable.

[Tpoints]

Alternatively, let's say the third party legitimately purchased the work from the person who who purchased it in the ifrst place.

Without copyrights, the person who purchased it in the first place would be required to sign a contract (or agree to terms) akin to a non-disclosure agreement that they would be held responsible if ANYONE obtained and/or reproduced the work (or some language along those lines).

Someone will always be liable for misuse that violates the seller's terms. Seller's will demand that in contract form if there are no copyrights. The difference is copyrights allow recourse against the person who is actually liable.

To sell something presumes there is legitimate ownership. So the argument falls apart for somebody who says "I bought it" and then denies it was legitimately owned by the seller to begin with. You are correct, the example you gave shows how inefficient it would be for the originator, and how sweet it is for the consumer, so laws were made to favor the consumer a little less, and the authors a little more.

[erowe1]

If the work is obtained without contractual agreement, then it is reasonably assumed to have been illegitimately obtained no different than any other stolen personal property.
How do you figure?
Absent any contract, there's nothing to say that someone's acquisition of it was unreasonable.


Legitimately obtained works originally created by someone else's labor always require a contract in order to possess legally,
But the only people who can be bound by those contracts are the people who enter them. You can't hold obligate other people to abide by contracts they never entered.



The purchaser of stolen goods is not committing theft, the theft had already occurred. In such circumstances the work should be returned to its rightful owner,
But in the case of making copies of someone's work and profiting off of it without their permission, there is nothing to return to anybody. The alleged victim of the alleged theft still owns everything they owned before it happened.



If a contract outlines copying/selling the work as theft, then it is theft as per the contract. If no contract exists, then theft still occurred, albeit of a different and more rudimentary nature.
That last part seems pretty key to this conversation. If there is some more rudimentary kind of theft going on here that does not depend on the existence of any contracts, then that's what you should argue for. Leave the contract talk out of it, that's just a distraction.

[erowe1]

and that's why we made laws. So they would be binding to people even without explicit agreement.

Why don't we leave everything to voluntary agreement? Because there are certain things that are better enforced, more efficiently managed if laws set the default, and leave the details for contracts.

Is that all there is to making laws? A bunch of people decide what they want the world to be like and impose it on others, and whoever wins just gets their way?

Or is there some basic set of moral principles by which laws can be measured and deemed right or wrong? If there is, then what is the basic moral principle behind saying that copying someone and profiting off of it without their permission is theft?

[Tpoints]

How do you figure?
Absent any contract, there's nothing to say that someone's acquisition of it was unreasonable.


But the only people who can be bound by those contracts are the people who enter them. You can't hold obligate other people to abide by contracts they never entered.


But in the case of making copies of someone's work and profiting off of it without their permission, there is nothing to return to anybody. The alleged victim of the alleged theft still owns everything they owned before it happened.


That last part seems pretty key to this conversation. If there is some more rudimentary kind of theft going on here that does not depend on the existence of any contracts, then that's what you should argue for. Leave the contract talk out of it, that's just a distraction.

So if I never agreed not to rob you, or I never agreed to recognise your property, your property is free for me to take?

"The alleged victim of the alleged theft still owns everything they owned before it happened." No, they do not. They don't own control over it, nor the value of it, the same way they did. By your logic, inflation (or counterfeit) isn't theft, because you still own every dollar you have in your pocket before and after the additional dollars were printed.

[erowe1]

Hence why you have copyrights on public record so that it' understood to anyone that takes ownership of that product what terms and conditions are attached, since there's no way to police it otherwise, and it would be too problematic for them to even do business if they had zero control once it leaves the hands of the person they have a contract with... Why do you want that kind of loophole anyway? To protect those who leech off of other people's work?
But like you said, those terms and conditions apply to whomever takes ownership of that product. If I hear a song somewhere and memorize it and then perform it for a profit, I haven't done anything to accept those terms and conditions.


Again, if you took away copyrights and enforced contracts instead, you would only be making the potentially innocent purchaser liable for misuse, whereas copyrights ensure that whoever breaches that copyright is responsible.
No they don't. You can't breach a contract you never entered.

[Tpoints]

Is that all there is to making laws? A bunch of people decide what they want the world to be like and impose it on others, and whoever wins just gets their way?

Or is there some basic set of moral principles by which laws can be measured and deemed right or wrong? If there is, then what is the basic moral principle behind saying that copying someone and profiting off of it without their permission is theft?

Yes. Because you can't please everybody, you please the people who stand up and speak up first. What better justification can you give me? I can guarantee for every reason you give I'll find an asshole who will say "but that's not fair to me" and I know for a fact you won't care what he thinks, you'll dismiss his opinions as wrong, psychopathic, insane or whatever you use to demonize somebody who doesn't agree with your rules.

Or is there some basic set of moral principles by which laws can be measured and deemed right or wrong? If there is, then what is the basic moral principle behind saying that copying someone and profiting off of it without their permission is theft?

Thanks for asking : Because you wouldn't want the same done to you. However, this is tricky, because not everybody is capable of producing valuable works. So asking this is like asking "How would you like it if somebody stole your gold" to somebody who knows he'll never have gold to steal.

[Tpoints]

But like you said, those terms and conditions apply to whomever takes ownership of that product. If I hear a song somewhere and memorize it and then perform it for a profit, I haven't done anything to accept those terms and conditions.


No they don't. You can't breach a contract you never entered.

Can you violate a law you never wanted to obey? Can you justly be punished by a legal system you never subjected yourself to?

[erowe1]

So if I never agreed not to rob you, or I never agreed to recognise your property, your property is free for me to take?
No. That's theft, which is always wrong. Copying someone and profiting from it without their permission is not theft. Or, if it is, it's up to you all to explain why.


"The alleged victim of the alleged theft still owns everything they owned before it happened." No, they do not. They don't own control over it, nor the value of it, the same way they did.
Yes they do. They still own and control every single thing they owned and controlled before anyone else copied them for a profit.

If they wrote a song, then they still completely own and control that song as it exists in their own minds. They have not lost any bit of that thing which is theirs. They don't, and never have or could, own a copy of that song in other peoples' minds.

[erowe1]

Can you violate a law you never wanted to obey? Can you justly be punished by a legal system you never subjected yourself to?

Yes. There exists an absolute universal moral law that is not subject to anyone's opinion.

Does this law prohibit copying someone for a profit without their permission? If so, just explain how without bringing up contracts.

[Tpoints]

No. That's theft, which is always wrong. Copying someone and profiting from it without their permission is not theft. Or, if it is, it's up to you all to explain why.


Yes they do. They still own and control every single thing they owned and controlled before anyone else copied them for a profit.

If they wrote a song, then they still completely own and control that song as it exists in their own minds. They have not lost any bit of that thing which is theirs. They don't, and never have or could, own a copy of that song in other peoples' minds.

So explain this to me : is inflation or counterfeiting wrong? You own everything you had, every bit of it before and after, right? What do you call that? If not theft.

[Tpoints]

Yes. There exists an absolute universal moral law that is not subject to anyone's opinion.

Does this law prohibit copying someone for a profit without their permission? If so, just explain how without bringing up contracts.

I don't accept that, but maybe you can explain to me what's this AUML that you speak of.

[erowe1]

Yes. Because you can't please everybody, you please the people who stand up and speak up first. What better justification can you give me? I can guarantee for every reason you give I'll find an asshole who will say "but that's not fair to me" and I know for a fact you won't care what he thinks, you'll dismiss his opinions as wrong, psychopathic, insane or whatever you use to demonize somebody who doesn't agree with your rules.

Or is there some basic set of moral principles by which laws can be measured and deemed right or wrong? If there is, then what is the basic moral principle behind saying that copying someone and profiting off of it without their permission is theft?

Thanks for asking : Because you wouldn't want the same done to you. However, this is tricky, because not everybody is capable of producing valuable works. So asking this is like asking "How would you like it if somebody stole your gold" to somebody who knows he'll never have gold to steal.

If all you're claiming is that we live in a world where people with guns enforce IP laws, and you're merely stating that as a fact, then I don't think anybody is disagreeing with you.

That's not the same thing as putting forth an argument for the rightness of those laws.

[Tpoints]

If all you're claiming is that we live in a world where people with guns enforce IP laws, and you're merely stating that as a fact, then I don't think anybody is disagreeing with you.

That's not the same thing as putting forth an argument for the rightness of those laws.

Ok, fair enough. Let's say I don't care much for what is "rightness".

[erowe1]

I don't accept that, but maybe you can explain to me what's this AUML that you speak of.

Sure. You do accept it. You may not admit that you do, but you do. It's written on your heart. And, try though you might, you know that theft and murder along with many other things are not merely unpopular, or impractical, but are objectively wrong. You betray your knowledge of the existence of this law every time you blame someone for something, or forgive someone for something, or apologize for something, or give an excuse that you think mitigates something you did.

The most important source we have for God's law is the Bible (which, as far as I can tell, says nothing about IP). But even without the Bible, I don't think we're left with no recourse. For the most part, these things are naturally apparent to us.

[BSWPaulsen]

How do you figure?
Absent any contract, there's nothing to say that someone's acquisition of it was unreasonable.

If you twist things hard enough we can get any immoral behavior passed off as reasonable absent a contract. It isn't a tenable defense for individuals interested in a civil society, which is what I assume you are interested in.

In a vacuum any action could be viewed as reasonable without a contract, but such a proposition would be meaningless - you would merely be left with actions that have no meaning, and this discussion would have no purpose.



But the only people who can be bound by those contracts are the people who enter them. You can't hold obligate other people to abide by contracts they never entered.

You can when they hold property that was originally illegitimately obtained, even if the means they acquired it by would have been otherwise legitimate. Thankfully, humans are capable of following a simple logical chain:

#1) The producer of a work owns his work as a result of owning himself and his actions.
#2) The producer sold his work, under a contract prohibiting further reproduction/sale, to Consumer #1.
#3) The consumer violates the contract, reproduces the work, and gives it away/sells it.
#4) Consumer #2 obtains it under the existent contractual understanding between Consumer #1 and himself.

Understanding that step #3 breaks a legitimate transference of the existent understanding of ownership, the next logical step is to clearly revert to the terms of the contract between Producer and Consumer #1, while notifying Consumer #2 that what he holds was not Consumer #1s to sell, making it now his legal responsibility.



But in the case of making copies of someone's work and profiting off of it without their permission, there is nothing to return to anybody. The alleged victim of the alleged theft still owns everything they owned before it happened.

The person(s) owning an illegitimately obtained work would be presented with the option of deletion, or legitimately obtaining it.

Copying doesn't negate contracts. Copyrighting, for example, makes it easier to notify Consumer #2 that Consumer #1 probably didn't have the right to sell it in the first place, and is therefore used as a means of making the whole legal issue easier to navigate while providing protection to the Producer.



That last part seems pretty key to this conversation. If there is some more rudimentary kind of theft going on here that does not depend on the existence of any contracts, then that's what you should argue for. Leave the contract talk out of it, that's just a distraction.

A contract between two individuals can identify key terms as having independent meaning from more typical understanding of terms. To this end, as I am using it, theft would still apply in contracts disallowing copying/selling.

Taking something without a contract is basic theft, per the dictionary meaning.

Neither are a distraction; rather, it is important you come to understand the difference between the two. The arguments that stem from each point are, in fact, mutually exclusive. Despite their mutual exclusivity, it covers all bases concerning any understanding of theft. You are left with only one possible defense, namely that of the foolish producer - the creation of contracts that do not create a specialized definition of the understanding of theft. Given such a defense has no rational integrity pertaining to reality, I don't expect you to pursue it, despite it being the only circumstance where legitimately acquired works can be copied/sold without legal recourse for the Producer.

[Tpoints]

Sure. You do accept it. You may not admit that you do, but you do. It's written on your heart. And, try though you might, you know that theft and murder along with many other things are not merely unpopular, or impractical, but are objectively wrong.


No, actually I don't. I believe they are only wrong according to people more powerful than me and are supported by more people than not.

[Tpoints]

If you twist things hard enough we can get any immoral behavior passed off as reasonable absent a contract. It isn't a tenable defense for individuals interested in a civil society, which is what I assume you are interested in.

Haha, yeah.

[erowe1]

If you twist things hard enough we can get any immoral behavior passed off as reasonable absent a contract.
No you can't.

But the problem here is that the people on your side have repeatedly appealed to contracts as the basis for IP laws. If that is your basis, then you can only apply those contracts to the people who enter them. If you have some other basis, then you have no reason to make any mention of contracts.



You can when they hold property that was originally illegitimately obtained
But what if they own property that was never illegitimately obtained?



#1) The producer of a work owns his work as a result of owning himself and his actions.
#2) The producer sold his work, under a contract prohibiting further reproduction/sale, to Consumer #1.
#3) The consumer violates the contract, reproduces the work, and gives it away/sells it.
#4) Consumer #2 obtains it under the existent contractual understanding between Consumer #1 and himself.

Fine. But don't pretend that exhausts the possibilities. It could happen this way:
1) Producer of a work owns it.
2) Producer shares it with consumer #1 with a contract stipulating under what conditions they can reproduce it.
3) Consumer #1 never does anything in violation of that contract.
4) Consumer #2 acquires knowledge of the product that involves no breach of contract on their part nor on the part of consumer #1.
5) Consumer #2 produces a copy of the product on the basis of that legitimately acquired knowledge and profits from that.

[erowe1]

No, actually I don't. I believe they are only wrong according to people more powerful than me and are supported by more people than not.

I get that you have to insist that in order to keep your system together. But in your heart, you know there's right and wrong.

[BSWPaulsen]

No you can't.

Philosophically, a Utilitaran/Pragmatist/Moral Relativist/Moral Nihilist would argue otherwise. As a practical matter - drone strikes. Immoral actions can be perceived as reasonable if there is some greater gain supposedly in mind. History is rife with examples.

This speaks to the basic morality and civility of individuals more than anything else.



But the problem here is that the people on your side have repeatedly appealed to contracts as the basis for IP laws. If that is your basis, then you can only apply those contracts to the people who enter them. If you have some other basis, then you have no reason to make any mention of contracts.

I am content to leave it to the people that enter contracts, and to refer to a legitimate chain of the transference of ownership.



But what if they own property that was never illegitimately obtained?

If the break in the chain is identified, then it must be properly addressed. I have already mentioned this - deletion, or to obtain it via contract with the Producer.



Fine. But don't pretend that exhausts the possibilities. It could happen this way:
1) Producer of a work owns it.
2) Producer shares it with consumer #1 with a contract stipulating under what conditions they can reproduce it.
3) Consumer #1 never does anything in violation of that contract.
4) Consumer #2 acquires knowledge of the product that involves no breach of contract on their part nor on the part of consumer #1.
5) Consumer #2 produces a copy the product and profits from that.

You rely on the Foolish Producer, as I stated earlier. It isn't a winning argument with anyone.

I can give you a great example: I am currently writing "Play 1.Nf3!" and "Chess Developments: The Semi-Slav with 5.Bg5", a pair of chess books. If I share any of the analysis with someone, then I shouldn't be surprised when it is copied (with annotations). A Smart Producer isn't going to do that, unless there is a contractual understanding.

[Tpoints]

I get that you have to insist that in order to keep your system together. But in your heart, you know there's right and wrong.

I am honest enough to not claim to read your mind, but I can say I know more heart more than you do. I don't care about "keeping my system together", probably a lot less than you do.

[awake]

The whole confusion in this thread is the mixing up physical matter with non physical things. Thoughts and ideas are not physical. Songs and word arrangements are not physical until they are printed on a physical item. Theft is only an applicable term in the physical world to scarce physical matter. The concept of theft in the non physical realm disappears and instead becomes echo, emulate, follow, follow suit, follow the example of, imitate, mimic, mirror, parrot, repeat, simulate.

[TheGrinch]

No you can't.

But the problem here is that the people on your side have repeatedly appealed to contracts as the basis for IP laws. If that is your basis, then you can only apply those contracts to the people who enter them. If you have some other basis, then you have no reason to make any mention of contracts.


But what if they own property that was never illegitimately obtained?



Fine. But don't pretend that exhausts the possibilities. It could happen this way:
1) Producer of a work owns it.
2) Producer shares it with consumer #1 with a contract stipulating under what conditions they can reproduce it.
3) Consumer #1 never does anything in violation of that contract.
4) Consumer #2 acquires knowledge of the product that involves no breach of contract on their part nor on the part of consumer #1.
5) Consumer #2 produces a copy of the product on the basis of that legitimately acquired knowledge and profits from that.

See they'd cover themselves much better if they had to use contracts, and in your situation the contract or terms would likely make consumer #1 liable for what happens with that product. So as I mentioned earlier, you're only penalizing the person who signed the contract, not who's doing the infringing. Copyrights solve this through public record that NO ONE is permitted to use without permission.

Thus, it is a preferable situation over treating Conusmer #1 like he's breaking a non-disclsoure agreemnent if he decides to sell it or give it away. This way he can sell or give away without liabiltity, but with the original producer maintaining their rights. Otherwise if I were a businessman, I would have in a contract that it can never leave your hands or you're liable if it gets reproduced.

Is that really what you want over them being able to hold the liable person liable? You're only making this more unnecessarily problematic and unfair, because you can be sure businesses are not jsut going to let reproduction fly without trying to protect themselves.

[Tpoints]

The whole confusion is this thread is mixing up physical matter with non physical things. Thoughts and ideas are not physical. Songs and word arrangements are not physical until they are printed on a physical item. Theft is only an applicable term in the physical world to scarce physical matter. The concept of theft in the non physical realm disappears and instead becomes echo, emulate, follow, follow suit, follow the example of, imitate, mimic, mirror, parrot, repeat, simulate.

you don't need to mix them, you can own and control both. Nobody claims ideas are physical.

So tell me, what do you call it when the Federal Reserve prints more money, or when counterfeiters print money on their own? Is that theft? Is money a "scarce physical item"?

[TheGrinch]

The whole confusion is this thread is mixing up physical matter with non physical things. Thoughts and ideas are not physical. Songs and word arrangements are not physical until they are printed on a physical item. Theft is only an applicable term in the physical world to scarce physical matter. The concept of theft in the non physical realm disappears and instead becomes echo, emulate, follow, follow suit, follow the example of, imitate, mimic, mirror, parrot, repeat, simulate.

Okay then, if that's how you view it, then limit the discussion of the physical medium you're selling and that you have terms and conditions to be used. You're confusing ideas with works. Of course things can be influenced by one another, but once my work goes on whatever medium it goes on, that's my work, not yours. I don't care if I made a contract with you or not if you come upon my work. If I say it only gets used my way, then it does.

If you take away copyright, you'll just have more burdensome contracts. The free market will always demand protection for that media they created (again, not ideas, tangible media impossible to reproduce independently, though there is no monopoly saying something similar cannot be produced independtly).

I fell like you guys aren't even trying to listen and are stuck on "ideas are free man". Yeah, well my work isn't. It can't be.

[awake]

you don't need to mix them, you can own and control both. Nobody claims ideas are physical.

So tell me, what do you call it when the Federal Reserve prints more money, or when counterfeiters print money on their own? Is that theft? Is money a "scarce physical item"?

Theft can not apply to non physical things.

Counterfeiting is transferring physical property/goods without contractual consent of the owner. Taxation is the same.

[Tpoints]

If you take away copyright, you'll just have more burdensome contracts.

which is probably what most copyright opponents want. It's like telling a person who doesn't respect property "if there wasn't property protection laws you'd have people carrying guns more often and not trust each other" and they reply "Yeah, but that's not my problem".

[Tpoints]

Counterfeiting is transferring physical property/goods without contractual consent of the owner. Taxation is the same.

Counterfeiting is transferring physical property without consent?

How so? How is me printing money in my factory transfering any physical property from anybody but myself? Who did I need to get consent from? Every person who has money?

[awake]

Counterfeiting is transferring physical property without consent?

How so? How is me printing money in my factory transfering any physical property from anybody but myself? Who did I need to get consent from? Every person who has money?

Are you kidding me? Taxation is transfering physical property to the state as is counterfeiting. Both are theft in the physical sense.

[Tpoints]

Are you kidding me? Taxation is transfering physical property to the state as is counterfeiting. Both are theft in the physical sense.

Taxation is taking money. I didn't say it wasn't.

What part of counterfeiting makes it transfer of physical ANYTHING? Please explain. Perhaps we use this term differently.

I specifically gave you the example of either myself (a private person) or the government (or Fed) printing money with the explicit purpose of creating more of it, knowing it will decrease the value of existing paper dollars. What part of any of this is "transfer physical property without consent"?

If you don't know, just say it.

[Occam's Banana]

The whole confusion in this thread is the mixing up physical matter with non physical things. Thoughts and ideas are not physical. Songs and word arrangements are not physical until they are printed on a physical item. Theft is only an applicable term in the physical world to scarce physical matter. The concept of theft in the non physical realm disappears and instead becomes echo, emulate, follow, follow suit, follow the example of, imitate, mimic, mirror, parrot, repeat, simulate.
Exactly. The only quibble I have with this is that the concept of "theft" (or "property" or "ownership" or etc.) in the immaterial is wholly invalid, period. It doesn't become or translate into something else, nor does it have any non-material analogs of any kind.

It is simply invalid - it's like trying to ascribe colors or shapes to songs or stories or whatever.

[Tpoints]

Exactly. The only quibble I have with this is that the concept of "theft" (or "property" or "ownership" or etc.) in the immaterial is wholly invalid, period. It doesn't become or translate into something else, nor does it have any non-material analogs of any kind.

It is simply invalid - it's like trying to ascribe colors or shapes to songs or stories or whatever.

Don't call it theft. Tell me what you call it.

What do you call counterfeiting or printing money?

[TheGrinch]

Exactly. The only quibble I have with this is that the concept of "theft" (or "property" or "ownership" or etc.) in the immaterial is wholly invalid, period. It doesn't become or translate into something else, nor does it have any non-material analogs of any kind.

It is simply invalid - it's like trying to ascribe colors or shapes to songs or stories or whatever.

How is a book, movie, song less tangible than a color or shape? That makes no sense at all.

If you wnat to look at this as jsut whta's tangible, well once those ideas create something that can become tangible, then those ideas become part of that tangible product that the producer retains the rights over

Can those same ideas influence or pop up somewhere else? Sure, but independent works are independent works. If you want to write a story like mine, then write it. But you can't take my story and use it like it's yours if I've restricted permission.

This idea that tangible media isn't tangible and is jsut paper or a file is jsut silly. It's the ideas (and tangible work) that make that media something mroe tangible and valauble than just raw paper or film or a file.

If it takes work and costs to create something tangible beyond jsut the raw product, how is that not tangible?

[awake]

Taxation is taking money. I didn't say it wasn't.

What part of counterfeiting makes it transfer of physical ANYTHING? Please explain. Perhaps we use this term differently.

I specifically gave you the example of either myself (a private person) or the government (or Fed) printing money with the explicit purpose of creating more of it, knowing it will decrease the value of existing paper dollars. What part of any of this is "transfer physical property without consent"?

If you don't know, just say it.


No! Taxation is stealing physical goods, what you call money (paper or digital dollars) are simply receipts to goods - gold at one time. A store printing up more receipts than goods it has is theft and fraud.

The artists and creators make the mistake of placing their creations in infinitely reproducible formats (1's and 0's) and then claim to tell me I can not use my infinitely reproducing replicator (computer) as I have the right to do. IP is a security blanket to the media industry that they refuse to part with as they think they will die without it. Copyright was a political issue of privilege from Kings to their loyal favorites ; creating property out of what was once not, and can never be. Historically speaking, IP is a fairly recent mistake.

"But, when you look at the history of it, the origins of copyright lie in censorship, literal censorship. Basically, they were afraid of the "menace of printing," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Early_privileges_and_mono polies) because now the church and the government couldn't control so easily the distribution of what thoughts were, officially, to be promulgated to people. So the roots of copyright are in censorship, literally." - S. Kinsella

As we speak the UN is pushing an world government internet bill. It is the next PIPA, SOPA, what ever... They are trying to enshrine an IP-ocracy. The reason and rational is "internet crime" which is to say copyright violations.

[awake]

"It’s interesting that many defenders of IP—such as patent lawyers and even some libertarians—get indignant if you call patents or copyright a monopoly. “It’s not a monopoly; it’s a property right,” they say. “If it’s a monopoly then your use of your car is a monopoly.” But patents are State grants of monopoly privilege. One of the first patent statutes was England’s Statute of Monopolies of 1624, a good example of truth in labeling.

Granting patents was a way for the State to raise money without having to impose a tax. Dispensing them also helped secure the loyalty of favorites. The patentee in return received protection from competition. This was great for the State and the patentee but not for competition or the consumer.

In today’s system we’ve democratized and institutionalized intellectual property. Now anyone can apply. You don’t have to go to the king or be his buddy. You can just go to the patent office. But the same thing happens. Some companies apply for patents just to keep the wolves at bay. After all, if you don’t have patents someone might sue you or reinvent and patent the same ideas you are using. If you have a patent arsenal, others are afraid to sue you. So companies spend millions of dollars to obtain patents for defensive purposes."- Kinsella

This makes all the sense in the debate. If one asks what are the roots of IP you see the illegitimacy of it outright.

[Tpoints]

A store printing up more receipts than goods it has is theft and fraud.

What? You're not allowed to use your printing press as you please?

[awake]

"In the case of copyright the result has been actual censorship, as recent examples will show. According to Engadget (http://tinyurl.com/48dhv5e), Russian authorities, with Microsoft’s approval, used IP law as a “pretext for seizing computers and other materials from political opponents of the government and news organizations.” In another case (http://tinyurl.com/4qyfof7) Susan Boyle, the English singer from Britain’s Got Talent, was prevented from singing a Lou Reed song on America’s Got Talent because of copyright. Then there was the case in which a 1922 German silent film, Nosferatu, was deemed a derivative work of Bram Stoker’s Dracula and ordered destroyed.
One of the most outrageous cases (http://tinyurl.com/4nxbwtp) concerns the novel Sixty Years Later, Coming Through the Rye, Frederik Colting’s sequel to J. D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye. Salinger got the courts to ban publication of the book on copyright grounds. “I am pretty blown away by the judge’s decision,” Colting said. “Call me an ignorant Swede, but the last thing I thought possible in the U.S. was that you banned books.”
These examples will be dismissed as abuses of an otherwise good law, but it’s the law itself that is the abuse." -Kinsella

The defenders will simply pass all this off so that the privilege stays in place. Who gives a rats behind for the path of destruction unleashed by IP. Isn't the artist and creator more important than real property rights?

[awake]

What? You're not allowed to use your printing press as you please?

Are thoughts or a song as physical as say a Corvette? Can you drive a thought or a song to the store?

[Tpoints]

Are thoughts or a song as physical as say a Corvette? Can you drive a thought or a song to the store?

No, a song isn't a physical as a car. I can't ride in one to a store. Now, answer my question : am I or am I not allowed to use my printing press as a please?

What physical property does a person who prints more receipts than he has actual goods/transactions for "taking" or who is he wronging?