DOJ's illegal raid against copyright infringing website

[Matt Collins]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/ff-kim-dotcom/

[itshappening]

that man is a huge pirate and was blatantly making money by encouraging people to upload and distribute pirated content.

megaupload deserved to get shut down. (see US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8)

[Indy Vidual]

Decent article, I read it "off line."
They brought many weapons to his house that day.

[LibertyRevolution]

that man is a huge pirate and was blatantly making money by encouraging people to upload and distribute pirated content.

megaupload deserved to get shut down. (see US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8)

No, the man ran a file hosting website...
The criminals are the ones that were uploading files they don't own the rights to.

It be like shutting down fedex, then arresting its CEO, because some people use its service to move drugs...

[kcchiefs6465]

that man is a huge pirate and was blatantly making money by encouraging people to upload and distribute pirated content.

megaupload deserved to get shut down. (see US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8)
Not really. First, Megaupload was used for all types of videos, not just copyrighted materials. Many people lost valuable videos (home movies and the like) as a result. Second, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) only requires that you remove videos in a reasonable (i.e. timely) fashion when they are flagged as being used without permission. This was evidenced when Youtube beat their civil case. Megaupload did remove flagged videos. (Who's to say what is 'timely?' They had millions of videos) They also allowed the companies whose material was being used without permission to independently remove said video. No other company had done this before, or does this now. They picked two emails out of over 45,000 that lampooned the fact that they were 'pirates' and used them as evidence. They enlisted New Zealand's 'Government Communications Security Bureau' to spy on one of it's own citizens which is strictly forbidden. (Imagine that, a country that can't spy on it's own citizens) Hence, the apology from New Zealand's Prime Minister. Not to mention that the DOJ's warrant did not specifically outline the evidence of charges levied against him and was ruled invalid. So, after all is said and done, the DOJ has successfully wiped out thousands of private videos, not dented piracy one bit, and made themselves look utterly ridiculous with their militaristic raid on Dotcom's mansion. Bravo. (I usually expect nothing less of these overzealous dick heads yet even this one surprised me)

Oh, and I suppose I should add that Dotcom was in the process of offering a real solution to the piracy problem. Artists would have been able to agree to their songs being downloaded for free while receiving the revenue generated from advertisements. A real solution to a real problem. Too bad the DOJ likes headlines and seized assets so much or maybe this plan would have been implemented. Bravo, DOJ, bravo.

[itshappening]

The biggest problem with Kim is that he was paying people to upload the pirated content and giving them incentives to distribute the links. The pirated content sat on centralized servers and there were many reports he was not complying with DMCA quickly enough. Indeed if he did comply and remove them faster he would lose money, traffic and business under his scheme that incentives pirates.

Rights holders are protected under Article I section 8 and they should not be expected to work with a criminal like Kim to 'remove' or flag content, there are many rights holders like adult entertainment companies that dont have the budget or the time to do that so not just the big movie and music studios.

[itshappening]

No, the man ran a file hosting website...
The criminals are the ones that were uploading files they don't own the rights to.

It be like shutting down fedex, then arresting its CEO, because some people use its service to move drugs...

Rights holders are protected by the constitution, Article I section 8. If there's pirated content on a server in the U.S and willful violation of their rights which megaupload was then holders via DOJ have a right to shut them down.

Drugs through the mail is an act of congress and a criminal offense. Post operators are compelled to work with federal agencies to identify it so it's completely different. If there was a rogue courier that refused to co-operate and was willfully handling drug packages they too would be shut down. Not that I agree with the drug laws though.

[kcchiefs6465]

The biggest problem with Kim is that he was paying people to upload the pirated content and giving them incentives to distribute the links. The pirated content sat on centralized servers and there were many reports he was not complying with DMCA quickly enough. Indeed if he did comply and remove them faster he would lose money, traffic and business under his scheme that incentives pirates.
[snipped]
My understanding is that you would be paid off of views/downloads? Youtube still does this. (I believe, anyways) It doesn't/didn't have to be copyrighted material to make money. He incentivized everyone to upload videos. (Quite smart, imho) He can not be blamed that some people went the route of uploading pirated material to increase their page views/downloads. There were also a lot of people uploading honest videos that were making money. When you have millions upon millions of videos and clips uploaded under random and various names it becomes quite a task to weed out what is being used without permission and what is uploaded by the artist. Youtube argued this point and won. They only went after Dotcom for publicity and because he was an easy, open target. I don't agree with their tactics and the charges whatsoever. I actually applaud those who come from nothing, develop a successful business model, and make it big. I know you will argue that this was off of the backs of other artists. I don't believe that to be the case.

[itshappening]

My understanding is that you would be paid off of views/downloads? Youtube still does this. (I believe, anyways) It doesn't/didn't have to be copyrighted material to make money. He incentivized everyone to upload videos. (Quite smart, imho) He can not be blamed that some people went the route of uploading pirated material to increase their page views/downloads. There were also a lot of people uploading honest videos that were making money. When you have millions upon millions of videos and clips uploaded under random and various names it becomes quite a task to weed out what is being used without permission and what is uploaded by the artist. Youtube argued this point and won. They only went after Dotcom for publicity and because he was an easy, open target. I don't agree with their tactics and the charges whatsoever. I actually applaud those who come from nothing, develop a successful business model, and make it big. I know you will argue that this was off of the backs of other artists. I don't believe that to be the case.

Megaupload was a pirates haven. They shut it down because the movie, music, software, adult entertainment and other rights holders exercised their constitutionally protected rights. Kim is a criminal and a hacker who was making $100m/year through megaupload which was built on pirated content. His entire business model relied on paying people to upload the pirated content and then to distribute the links to forums. If he truly stopped it all or made an effort to eliminate the pirated content he wouldn't have made the money he was making or attracting the traffic to his website. case closed.

I don't know about the new zealand raid, it may have been overzealous but I think the Feds are after him because they're accusing him of other crimes like wire fraud and profiting from what was effectively a criminal enterprise.

YouTube is completely different (you can't use it to download software, porn or entire movies for one) and they're quite responsible when it comes to pirated content as far as I know and work with the rights holders.

[Confederate]

If there's pirated content on a server in the U.S and willful violation of their rights which megaupload was then holders via DOJ have a right to shut them down.

I think you need to read the 5th Amendment:


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

[itshappening]

Kim is responsible for what goes on his servers and in the U.S rights holders are protected by the full weight of the law so his providers in the U.S shut him down for that very reason and any country he setup in would do the same.

[kcchiefs6465]

Megaupload was a pirates haven. They shut it down because the movie, music, software, adult entertainment and other rights holders exercised their constitutionally protected rights. Kim is a criminal and a hacker who was making $100m/year through megaupload which was built on pirated content. His entire business model relied on paying people to upload the pirated content and then to distribute the links to forums. If he truly stopped it all or made an effort to eliminate the pirated content he wouldn't have made the money he was making or attracting the traffic to his website. case closed.
Hmm, the case is closed. (For now, at least) I don't believe your arguement won though. I am sure that if he did not respond to the cease and desists whatsoever he would have made more than the 100M a year.


I don't know about the new zealand raid, it may have been overzealous but I think the Feds are after him because they're accusing him of other crimes like wire fraud and profiting from what was effectively a criminal enterprise.
The feds are after him because he is a flamboyant millionaire that was an easy target. A suggestion to your sentence would be to add 'baselessly' between the 'they're' and the 'accusing. Wire fraud? I don't believe that was one of the charges he has been accused of. Money laundering and racketeering were the charges that were levied so they could go and get him. After reviewing the warrants New Zealand courts found evidence of those charges was not conclusive/not present. That would be the DOJ propaganda getting to you. Describing him as some sort of criminal mastermind akin to the mafia. That's hardly the case.


YouTube is completely different and they're quite responsible when it comes to pirated content as far as I know and work with the rights holders.
I can literally find any song off of any album on Youtube. I have programs used to save said songs/videos should I want. Yes, they respond to cease and desist orders, as did megaupload, the key here is what is the legal definition of timely? (Hint: the DMCA has no definition of timely)

[itshappening]

I think you need to read the 5th Amendment:

The DOJ went to court to seize his domain name and shut him down. They also issued indictments. He could have contested the actions but hasn't.

[itshappening]

Hmm, the case is closed. (For now, at least) I don't believe your arguement won though. I am sure that if he did not respond to the cease and desists whatsoever he would have made more than the 100M a year.


The feds are after him because he is a flamboyant millionaire that was an easy target. A suggestion to your sentence would be to add 'baselessly' between the 'they're' and the 'accusing. Wire fraud? I don't believe that was one of the charges he has been accused of. Money laundering and racketeering were the charges that were levied so they could go and get him. After reviewing the warrants New Zealand courts found evidence of those charges was not conclusive/not present. That would be the DOJ propaganda getting to you. Describing him as some sort of criminal mastermind akin to the mafia. That's hardly the case.


I can literally find any song off of any album on Youtube. I have programs used to save said songs/videos should I want. Yes, they respond to cease and desist orders, as did megaupload, the key here is what is the legal definition of timely? (Hint: the DMCA has no definition of timely)

It's not DOJ propaganda. It was a criminal enterprise. He was profiting from pirated content and it was blatent. The traffic and his entire success was built on it. DMCA does not trump the constitution and rights holders have every right to expect their rights to be protected by the Feds and the courts.

You maybe able to find any song on youtube and in most cases they're put there by the music industry themselves who have accounts and are now happy with how youtube operates. youtube is the wrong example to use because they're simply video streaming (fair use can apply in many cases) and they work with all the main rights holders all over the world. They don't let you upload gigabytes of software and porn and allow you to download and distribute them. Megaupload did and profited from it and that's why they were shut down and maybe that's why the Feds are going after his assets.

[kcchiefs6465]

The DOJ went to court to seize his domain name and shut him down. They also issued indictments. He could have contested the actions but hasn't.
That could be because the U.S. government arbitrarily seized his assets. When they take your money, you can't hire the lawyers to fight them taking your money. Happens everyday.

[heavenlyboy34]

that man is a huge pirate and was blatantly making money by encouraging people to upload and distribute pirated content.

megaupload deserved to get shut down. (see US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8)
I see no violation of that clause here. Prove your claim.

[heavenlyboy34]

It's not DOJ propaganda. It was a criminal enterprise. He was profiting from pirated content and it was blatent. The traffic and his entire success was built on it. DMCA does not trump the constitution and rights holders have every right to expect their rights to be protected by the Feds and the courts.

You maybe able to find any song on youtube and in most cases they're put there by the music industry themselves who have accounts and are now happy with how youtube operates. youtube is the wrong example to use because they're simply video streaming (fair use can apply in many cases) and they work with all the main rights holders all over the world. They don't let you upload gigabytes of software and porn and allow you to download and distribute them. Megaupload did and profited from it and that's why they were shut down and maybe that's why the Feds are going after his assets.
"Pirating" isn't a real crime. It's a made-up "crime" by-created by industry colluding with the regime. If people were serious about protecting their "property" from "piracy", they would do what smart engineers do-create a system that makes copying impossible like an enormously complicated key code system. (windows keycodes for installation are 20-30 characters, IIRC, which has shown to be a good system) I don't know how you take the corporate "arts" industry seriously in regards to this issue. They're clearly trying to infringe on property rights by preventing people from sharing their own property.

ETA: Obvious DOJ propaganda is obvious

[itshappening]

"Pirating" isn't a real crime. It's a made-up "crime" by-created by industry colluding with the regime. If people were serious about protecting their "property" from "piracy", they would do what smart engineers do-create a system that makes copying impossible like an enormously complicated key code system. (windows keycodes for installation are 20-30 characters, IIRC, which has shown to be a good system) I don't know how you take the corporate "arts" industry seriously in regards to this issue. They're clearly trying to infringe on property rights by preventing people from sharing their own property.

ETA: Obvious DOJ propaganda is obvious

I don't think they're trying to prevent people from sharing their own property because megaupload wasn't about that. It was about paying people to upload copyrighted and constitutionally protected content. Why pay someone to upload their own property? They paid them as an incentive to distribute the material and their links were all over warez forums. There was no attempt to seriously police it and they were willfully violating rights. The guy is a criminal and his business was based on distributing legally protected content that has no business being on centralized servers in the U.S or indeed elsewhere.

[itshappening]

I see no violation of that clause here. Prove your claim.

It's proven beyond reasonable doubt and through due process of law that megaupload was a haven for constitutionally protected works and encouraged the distribution of those works through referral schemes. That's why a judge seized his domain and why his hosting providers shut him down. He could have contested these charges and defended himself all the way to the highest court in the land but didn't.

[AGRP]

How is mega different than a used record store?

[itshappening]

That could be because the U.S. government arbitrarily seized his assets. When they take your money, you can't hire the lawyers to fight them taking your money. Happens everyday.

I dont think he's wanting for money.. have you seen his mansion in NZ? violating content rights pays well until you get busted

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't think they're trying to prevent people from sharing their own property because megaupload wasn't about that. It was about paying people to upload copyrighted and constitutionally protected content. Why pay someone to upload their own property? They paid them as an incentive to distribute the material and their links were all over warez forums. There was no attempt to seriously police it and they were willfully violating rights. The guy is a criminal and his business was based on distributing legally protected content that has no business being on centralized servers in the U.S or indeed elsewhere.
It was their property. No matter what ignorant legislators write on paper or on computers, they can't create property rights where there are none (like ideas) or crimes where there are no crimes. Did you know that courts have also ruled numerous times that there is no right to privacy? Therefore, I have the right to use a telescope to look into your windows and watch your wife and daughter dressing, masturbating, etc. See what I did there? ;)

[Tpoints]

How is mega different than a used record store?

there's a big difference between piracy and used authorized copies. One is protected by the first sale doctrine, the other is copyright infringement, illegal and authorized.

[noneedtoaggress]

I don't think they're trying to prevent people from sharing their own property because megaupload wasn't about that. It was about paying people to upload copyrighted and constitutionally protected content. Why pay someone to upload their own property? They paid them as an incentive to distribute the material and their links were all over warez forums. There was no attempt to seriously police it and they were willfully violating rights. The guy is a criminal and his business was based on distributing legally protected content that has no business being on centralized servers in the U.S or indeed elsewhere.

Ideas (information) are not property.

The purpose of property is to delineate use-rights of scarce physical material.

Patterns of information cannot be property, and to proclaim they are necessarily prioritizes them over actual, physical property rights. Patterns can be copied without loss to the original, unlike physical goods. Copying =/= theft.

A hard drive is an individual's (physical) property. A file residing on a hard drive is a pattern of information arranged on the hard drive (property). It's no different from my brain being my property and the images and sounds represented as patterns of information in my brain states.

Intellectual "Property" is a misnomer:

http://library.mises.org/books/Stephan%20Kinsella/Against%20Intellectual%20Property.pdf

It's also a dying institution, like so many others which can't hold up in an internet era.

[Tpoints]

Ideas (information) are not property.

The purpose of property is to delineate use-rights of scarce physical material.

Patterns of information cannot be property, and to proclaim they are necessarily prioritizes them over actual, physical property rights. Patterns can be copied without loss to the original, unlike physical goods.

A hard drive is an individual's property. A file residing on a hard drive is a pattern of information arranged on the hard drive (property). It's no different from my brain being my property and the images and sounds represented as patterns of information in my brain states.

Intellectual "Property" is a misnomer:

http://library.mises.org/books/Stephan%20Kinsella/Against%20Intellectual%20Property.pdf

Why is fraud or counterfeiting wrong if nobody owns certain words or symbols or nobody can be told how to use them?

[heavenlyboy34]

Ideas (information) are not property.

The purpose of property is to delineate use-rights of scarce physical material.

Patterns of information cannot be property, and to proclaim they are necessarily prioritizes them over actual, physical property rights. Patterns can be copied without loss to the original, unlike physical goods.

A hard drive is an individual's property. A file residing on a hard drive is a pattern of information arranged on the hard drive (property). It's no different from my brain being my property and the images and sounds represented as patterns of information in my brain states.

Intellectual "Property" is a misnomer:

http://library.mises.org/books/Stephan Kinsella/Against Intellectual Property.pdf
+rep See also SEK3-
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/konkin1.1.1.html)Copywrongs (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/konkin1.1.1.html)
















Having done every step (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/konkin1.1.1.html#) of production in the publishing industry, both for myself and others, I have one irrefutable empirical conclusion about the economic effect of copyrights on prices and wages: nada. Zero. Nihil. So negligible you'd need a Geiger counter to measure it.
Before I move on to exactly what copyrights do have an impact on, one may be interested as to why the praxeological negligibility of this tariff. The answer is found in the peculiar nature of publishing. There are big publishers and small publishers and very, very few in between. For the Big Boys, royalties are a fraction of one percent of multi-million press runs. They lose more money from bureaucratic interstices and round-off error. The small publishers are largely counter-economic and usually survive on donated material or break-in writing; let the new writers worry about copyrighting and reselling.
Furthermore, there are a very few cases of legal action in the magazine world because of this disparity. The little 'zines have no hope beating a rip-off and shrug it off after a perfunctory threat; the Biggies rattle their corporate-lawyer sabres and nearly anyone above ground quietly bows.
Book publishing (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/konkin1.1.1.html#) is a small part of total publishing and there are some middle-range publishers who do worry about the total cost picture in marginal publishing cases. But now there are two kinds of writers: Big Names and everyone else. Everyone else is seldom reprinted; copyrights have nothing to do with first printings (economically). Big Names rake it in – but they also make a lot from ever-higher bids for their next contract. And the lowered risk of not selling out a reprint of a Big Name who has already sold out a print run more than compensates paying the writer the extra fee.
So Big Name writers would lose something substantial if the copyright privilege ceased enforcement. But Big Name writers are an even smaller percentage of writers than Big Name Actors are of actors. If they all vanished tomorrow, no one would notice (except their friends, one hopes). Still, one may reasonably wonder if the star system's incentive can be done away without the whole pyramid collapsing. If any economic argument remains for copyrights, it's incentive.








Crap. As Don Marquis put in the words of Archy the Cockroach, "Creative expression is the need of my soul." And Archy banged his head on typewriter key after typewriter key all night long to turn out his columns – which Marquis cashed in. Writing as a medium of expression will continue (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/konkin1.1.1.html#) as long as someone has a burning need to express. And if all they have to express is a need for second payments and associated residuals, we're all better off for not reading it.
But, alas, the instant elimination of copyrights would have negligible effect on the star system. While it would cut into the lifelong gravy train of stellar scribes, it would have no effect on their biggest source of income (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/konkin1.1.1.html#): the contract for their next book (or script, play or even magazine article or short story). That is where the money is.
"You're only as good as your last (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/konkin1.1.1.html#) piece" – but you collect for that on your next sale. Market decisions are made on anticipated sales. Sounds like straight von Mises, right? (Another great writer who profited little from copyrighting – but others are currently raking it in from Ludwig's privileged corpse – er, corpus.)
The point of all this vulgar praxeology is not just to clear the way for the moral question. The market (praise be) is telling us something. After all, both market human action and morality arise from the same Natural Law.
In fact, let us clear out some more deadwood and red herrings before we face the Great Moral Issue. First, if you abolish copyrights, would great authors starve? Nope. In fact, the market might open a trifle for new blood. Would writers write if they did not get paid? Who says they wouldn't? There is no link between payment for writing and copyrights. Royalties roll in (or, much more often, trickle in) long after the next work is sold and the one after is in progress.
Is not a producer entitled to the fruit of his labor? Sure, that's why writers are paid. But if I make a copy of a shoe or a table or a fireplace log (with my little copied axe) does the cobbler or wood worker or woodchopper collect a royalty?
A. J. Galambos, bless his anarchoheart, attempted to take copyrights and patents to their logical conclusion. Every time we break a stick, Ug The First should collect a royalty. Ideas are property, he says; madness and chaos result.
Property is a concept extracted from nature by conceptual man to designate the distribution of scarce goods – the entire material world – among avaricious, competing egos. If I have an idea, you may have the same idea and it takes nothing from me. Use yours as you will and I do the same.
Ideas, to use the 'au courant' language of computer programmers, are the programs; property is the data. Or, to use another current cliché, ideas are the maps and cartography, and property is the territory. The difference compares well to the differences between sex and talking about sex.








Would not ideas be repressed without the incentive (provided by copyrights)? 'Au contraire' the biggest problem with ideas is the delivery system. How do we get them to those marketeers who can distribute them? (Ed. note: most readers probably know the answer to this in 1996, this was written in 1986)
My ideas are pieces of what passes for my soul (or, if you prefer, ego). Therefore, every time someone adopts one of them, a little piece of me has infected them. And for this I get paid, too! On top of all that, I should be paid and paid and paid as they get staler and staler?

If copyrights are such a drag, why and how did they evolve? Not by the market process. Like all privileges (emphasis added), they were grants of the king. The idea did not – could not – arise until Gutenberg's printing press and it coincided with the rise of royal divinity, and soon after, the onslaught of mercantilism.
So who benefits from this privilege? There is an economic impact I failed to mention earlier. It is, in Bastiat's phrasing, the unseen. Copyright is a Big publisher's method, under cover of protecting artists, of restraint of trade. Yes, we're talking monopoly.

For when the Corporation tosses its bone to the struggling writer, and an occasional steak to the pampered tenth of a percent, it receives an enforceable legal monopoly on the editing, typesetting, printing, packaging, marketing (including advertising) and sometimes even local distribution of that book or magazine. (In magazines, it also has an exclusivity in layout vs other articles and illustrations and published advertisements.) How's that for vertical integration and restraint of trade?

And so the system perpetuates, give or take a few counter-economic outlaws and some enterprising Taiwanese with good smuggling connections.
Because copyrights permeate all mass media, Copyright is the Rip-off That Dare Not Mention Its Name. The rot corrupting our entire communications market is so entrenched it will survive nothing short of abolition of the State and its enforcement of Copyright. Because the losers, small-name writers and all readers, lose so little each, we are content – it seems – to be nickel-and-dime plundered. Why worry about mosquito bites when we have the vampire gouges of income taxes and automobile tariffs?

Now for the central moral question: what first woke me up to the problem that was the innocent viewer scenario. Consider the following careful contractual construction.








Author Big and Publisher Bigger have contracts not to reveal a word of what's in some publication. Everyone on the staff, every person in the step of production is contracted not to reveal a word. All the distributors are covered and the advertising quotes only a minimal amount of words. Every reader is like Death Records in Phantom of the Paradise, under contract, too; that is every reader who purchases the book or 'zine and thus interacts with someone who is under contract – interacts in a voluntary trade and voluntary agreement.

No, I am not worried about the simultaneous creator; although an obvious victim, he or she is rare, given sufficient complexity in the work under questions. (However, some recent copyright decisions and the fact that the Dolly Parton case even got as far as a serious trial – means the corruption is spreading.)
One day you and I walk into a room – invited but without even mention of a contract – and the publication lies open on a table. Photons leap from the pages to our eyes and our hapless brain processes the information. Utterly innocent, having committed no volitional act, we are copyright violators. We have unintentionally embarked on a life of piracy.

And God or the Market help us if we now try to act on the ideas now in our mind or to reveal this unintended guilty secret in any way. The State shall strike us – save only if Author Big and Publisher Bigger decide in their tyrannous mercy that we are too small and not worth the trouble.
For if we use the ideas or repeat or reprint them, even as part of our own larger creation – bang! There goes the monopoly. And so each and every innocent viewer must be suppressed. By the Market? Hardly. The entire contractual agreement falls like a house of cards when the innocent gets his or her forbidden view. No, copyright has nothing to do with creativity, incentive, just desserts, fruits of labor or any other element of the moral, free market.

It is a creature of the State, the Vampire's little bat. And, as far as I'm concerned, the word should be copywrong.
This originally appeared in The Voluntaryist, July 1986

[Tpoints]

Patterns can be copied without loss to the original, unlike physical goods.

Yep, that's why printing money or plating tungsten with gold doesn't make the actual gold or money lose value, and therefore we can and should allow it to be done.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yep, that's why printing money or plating tungsten with gold doesn't make the actual gold or money lose value, and therefore we can and should allow it to be done.
Are you serious? You're comparing real property to ideas? Please tell me you're joking. All those millions of copies of "The Last Supper" sure have made the original less priceless, haven't they? :rolleyes: And all those copies of Beethoven's 5th symphony in the bookstores-they've totally destroyed the value of the original manuscript! :rolleyes:

[Tpoints]

Are you serious? You're comparing real property to ideas? Please tell me you're joking. All those millions of copies of "The Last Supper" sure have made the original less priceless, haven't they? :rolleyes: And all those copies of Beethoven's 5th symphony in the bookstores-they've totally destroyed the value of the original manuscript! :rolleyes:

Yes, they have, at least for the purpose of those who do not want the original and only needed the original for the same purpose that the copies can serve.

How is money "real property" or how is gold "real property"? How is plated tungsten not "real property" or how are they "ideas"?

Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are worthless as cotton pickers or security guards, because there's millions who can replace them for it. But they are worth billions because they have uses which other people value them at. Bill Gates' face is useless for somebody who just wants to see what he looks like, that which a photo can suffice, but his face is worth $5000 an hour for somebody who wishes to slap it physically.

[Matt Collins]

How is mega different than a used record store?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, they have, at least for the purpose of those who do not want the original and only needed the original for the same purpose that the copies can serve.
WTF is this? This is a tangle of disjointed logic. Why do you believe owners of copies are entitled to value? The precise reason copies are MADE is that they are cheaper than originals and more people can enjoy a similar aesthetic to the original without actually owning it.


How is money "real property" or how is gold "real property"? How is plated tungsten not "real property" or how are they "ideas"?
Why bring up gold, tungsten, and money? It's quite annoying when you try to distract from the subject at hand like this. In short, real property=something that can be physically possessed and exists in the physical realm. Ideas don't qualify.



Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are worthless as cotton pickers or security guards, because there's millions who can replace them for it. But they are worth billions because they have uses which other people value them at. Bill Gates' face is useless for somebody who just wants to see what he looks like, that which a photo can suffice, but his face is worth $5000 an hour for somebody who wishes to slap it physically.
Bill Gates' face is worthless. It's his skills that make him valuable/marketable. (same with Zuckerberg) There are people out there who do very convincing Bill Gates impressions. Does that make them Bill Gates?

[itshappening]

Are you serious? You're comparing real property to ideas? Please tell me you're joking. All those millions of copies of "The Last Supper" sure have made the original less priceless, haven't they? :rolleyes: And all those copies of Beethoven's 5th symphony in the bookstores-they've totally destroyed the value of the original manuscript! :rolleyes:

Article I section 8 protects works for a limited time.

We can have an intellectual debate about IP/copyright but unless you can win the argument and get the constitution amended then it's a moot point especially in this case, the law was followed and rights holders are entitled to the protections afforded to them in the constitution and by the founders and that means a criminal like Kim Dotcom can't distribute their material and host it on U.S servers. Case closed.

[Tpoints]

Bill Gates' face is worthless. It's his skills that make him valuable/marketable. (same with Zuckerberg) There are people out there who do very convincing Bill Gates impressions. Does that make them Bill Gates?

for the purposes of facial impressions, yes.

[Tpoints]

Why bring up gold, tungsten, and money? It's quite annoying when you try to distract from the subject at hand like this. In short, real property=something that can be physically possessed and exists in the physical realm. Ideas don't qualify.


because you don't own the word gold, so you can't tell me how I use the word gold. the word gold is not physical. why bring it up? Because I can, and it kills your bullshit excuses.

[noneedtoaggress]

Article I section 8 protects works for a limited time.

We can have an intellectual debate about IP/copyright but unless you can win the argument and get the constitution amended then it's a moot point especially in this case, the law was followed and rights holders are entitled to the protections afforded to them in the constitution and by the founders and that means a criminal like Kim Dotcom can't distribute their material and host it on U.S servers. Case closed.

I'd argue that it's the constitution that is "moot" when it can't do what it was purportedly designed to, which is limit the government.

Not to mention the constitution is hardly the pinnacle of liberty or justice.

You're basically making the case that "It's on the books that drugs are illegal, so we can talk about this "drug dealer's" arrest, but it's a moot point to talk about drugs beyond the scope of their illegality".

It really doesn't matter, the Drug War is as dead as IP is. They're dying institutions surviving on their past momentum.

[noneedtoaggress]

because you don't own the word gold, so you can't tell me how I use the word gold. the word gold is not physical. why bring it up? Because I can, and it kills your bullshit excuses.

So who did you license that word from and how much are you paying them in royalties?

You're not a pirate out to stealing someone's "gold" are ye?

[heavenlyboy34]

Article I section 8 protects works for a limited time.

We can have an intellectual debate about IP/copyright but unless you can win the argument and get the constitution amended then it's a moot point especially in this case, the law was followed and rights holders are entitled to the protections afforded to them in the constitution and by the founders and that means a criminal like Kim Dotcom can't distribute their material and host it on U.S servers. Case closed.
Yes, but the Copyright Act defines "limited time" as MORE THAN THE LIFETIME of the creator. (it's up to 20 years now, I believe) You're right that winning a debate is meaningless unless it prompts human action. But that's why we have debate. It is my hope that education efforts by myself and others will persuade a critical mass of people to abandon IP altogether. (You can already act in markets without using IP if you want, as Linnux and numerous inventors and artists like myself do)

[Tpoints]

(You can already act in markets without using IP if you want, as Linnux and numerous inventors and artists like myself do)

How many of these are financially successful (try giving me an example of non-established artists).

[Tpoints]

So who did you license that word from and how much are you paying them in royalties?

You're not a pirate out to stealing someone's "gold" are ye?

I'm definitely not out to steal anybody's gold, I just plate my tungsten and sell them as I wish, nobody has the right to tell me what I can call my tungsten bars.

[itshappening]

I'd argue that it's the constitution that is "moot" when it can't do what it was purportedly designed to, which is limit the government.

Not to mention the constitution is hardly the pinnacle of liberty or justice.

You're basically making the case that "It's on the books that drugs are illegal, so we can talk about this "drug dealer's" arrest, but it's a moot point to talk about drugs beyond the scope of their illegality".

It really doesn't matter, the Drug War is as dead as IP is. They're dying institutions surviving on their past momentum.

There's nothing about drugs or substances IN the constitution, so there's a difference. The founders clearly protected works of arts for a 'limited time'.

[heavenlyboy34]

How many of these are financially successful (try giving me an example of non-established artists). Karen McQuinlan http://blog.taleist.com/2011/06/07/self-publishing-success-story-karen-mcquestion/ and the creator of Linnux, Linus Trovalds.

[heavenlyboy34]

There's nothing about drugs or substances IN the constitution, so there's a difference. The founders clearly protected works of arts for a 'limited time'. Actually, the founders used the words "useful arts". We don't know what that means, so the monied interests successfully lobbied congress to get ridiculous IP legislation created and are screwing the rest of us over to this day (40+ years). (just another way constitutionalism is hopelessly corrupt)

[itshappening]

Yes, but the Copyright Act defines "limited time" as MORE THAN THE LIFETIME of the creator. (it's up to 20 years now, I believe) You're right that winning a debate is meaningless unless it prompts human action. But that's why we have debate. It is my hope that education efforts by myself and others will persuade a critical mass of people to abandon IP altogether. (You can already act in markets without using IP if you want, as Linnux and numerous inventors and artists like myself do)

I agree the extentions are getting silly ('Mickey Mouse protection Act') and stretch the "limited time" notion beyond crebility but the courts have ruled that the current law is fine so that's that. Maybe the judges have been bought off by the entertainment industry? I dont know but that's the way it is, unless you can amend the constitution that protects all these artists or organize a movement to overthrow the courts or get congress to change the copyright laws there's nothing much one can do is there?

In the meantime, they're entitled to the protections afforded to them in the constitution and under the laws that the judges have interpreted on numerous occasions throughout history and to therefore shut down criminals and infringers like Kim Dotcom .

[noneedtoaggress]

I'm definitely not out to steal anybody's gold, I just plate my tungsten and sell them as I wish, nobody has the right to tell me what I can call my tungsten bars.

It's funny that you didn't respond to the more pertinent question, considering you're essentially claiming that someone has to "own" the word gold for it to be used objectively. So who owns it? Did they allow you to do so or are you "pirating" it?

And yeah, of course if people use different definitions for things disputes will arise and have to be hashed out. If you're attempting to fraudulently sell an item as something it's not, it's fraud. You can define "gold" however you want as long as it's clear to each party what's being transacted, if you and another party decide to define tungsten bars as "gold bars" for the purpose of transaction you're free to do so. Attempting to confuse the person you're transacting with in order to convince them they are purchasing something they are not is fraudulent.

[Tpoints]

Karen McQuinlan http://blog.taleist.com/2011/06/07/self-publishing-success-story-karen-mcquestion/ and the creator of Linnux, Linus Trovalds.

Karen McQuinlan sold her book copyright free? The book was optioned for a film, so it's not that she didn't take credit or compensation for it at all. Nor does it sound like she'd be OK with somebody claiming credit for her work. I know you are going to tell me that credit and profits are two different things, but why should anybody risk either? Or better yet, why should credit be given?

Also, there's a difference between open source and copyright free, or public domain, or IP-free. But I don't expect you to know the difference.

[Tpoints]

It's funny that you didn't respond to the more pertinent question, considering you're essentially claiming that someone has to "own" the word gold for it to be used objectively. So who owns it? Did they allow you to do so or are you "pirating" it?

Nope, never said anybody has to own the word gold for it to be used objectively. Never said it can be used objectively.

[Tpoints]

I agree the extentions are getting silly ('Mickey Mouse protection Act') and stretch the "limited time" notion beyond crebility but the courts have ruled that the current law is fine so that's that. Maybe the judges have been bought off by the entertainment industry? I dont know but that's the way it is, unless you can amend the constitution that protects all these artists or organize a movement to overthrow the courts or get congress to change the copyright laws there's nothing much one can do is there?

In the meantime, they're entitled to the protections afforded to them in the constitution and under the laws that the judges have interpreted on numerous occasions throughout history and to therefore shut down criminals and infringers like Kim Dotcom .

that's the point, he doesn't want to protect artists. Anti-IPers are anti-IP the same reason pro-IPers are pro-IP, anti-IPers HATE profits and pro-IPers HATE theft (or infringement). It's that simple, no matter how they try to twist it and push it through the loopholes.

[noneedtoaggress]

There's nothing about drugs or substances IN the constitution, so there's a difference. The founders clearly protected works of arts for a 'limited time'.

The "difference" that the founders created laws that "protected works of art" rather than "protected neighborhoods from drugs" is arbitrary in the context of what I wrote.

Also, while you called this conversation pointless because "the constitution says this", my point was that the constitution is as irrelevant to the ultimate dissolution of IP as it is to the Drug War and ultimately as it is to it's purpose: limiting government.

[dillo]

The biggest problem with Kim is that he was paying people to upload the pirated content and giving them incentives to distribute the links. The pirated content sat on centralized servers and there were many reports he was not complying with DMCA quickly enough. Indeed if he did comply and remove them faster he would lose money, traffic and business under his scheme that incentives pirates.

Rights holders are protected under Article I section 8 and they should not be expected to work with a criminal like Kim to 'remove' or flag content, there are many rights holders like adult entertainment companies that dont have the budget or the time to do that so not just the big movie and music studios.

you might have an argument if megaupload was an american site, or if KimDotCom was American. The site wasn't, he isn't and you dont have a point.

[Tpoints]

you might have an argument if megaupload was an american site, or if KimDotCom was American. The site wasn't, he isn't and you dont have a point.

He had servers in the US. the domain is .com, therefore subject to jurisdiction. You are correct that he is not a US resident or citizen, but it didn't matter, the places where he lived were happy to cooperate with US authorities.

[noneedtoaggress]

anti-IPers HATE profits and pro-IPers HATE theft.

Lol, is this a joke?

[Tpoints]

Lol, is this a joke?

No.

[dillo]

He had servers in the US. the domain is .com, therefore subject to jurisdiction. You are correct that he is not a US resident or citizen, but it didn't matter, the places where he lived were happy to cooperate with US authorities.

The servers were hosted in America? For real?

[Tpoints]

The servers were hosted in America? For real?

some were, yes.

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/legal-and-management/megaupload-s-pirated-content-hosted-on-u-1005937752.story

[dillo]

some were, yes.

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/legal-and-management/megaupload-s-pirated-content-hosted-on-u-1005937752.story

So why doesnt he just make it megaupload.se or something

[QuickZ06]

I want real artist's back in the mainstream, so guess what I am in favor of?

[Tpoints]

So why doesnt he just make it megaupload.se or something

short answer : too late.

Also, domain and servers are 2 things. He had SOME servers in US, that was enough to get the US government involved. Domains are just part of the story, even having a .se or non-US tld, if you have servers in the US, it's useless. So ultimately, he'd have to have both a non-US TLD, and fully non-US servers to be free from US jurisdiction, and even then he'd have to hope that whereever he and his servers are located, they do no cooperate with US authorities. Good luck with that.

[noneedtoaggress]

No.

If that's the case then your beliefs are based on caricatures you've created. I love profits. I hate people claiming the right to control property (read:scarce physical material) that they don't own (theft).

[dillo]

short answer : too late.

Also, domain and servers are 2 things. He had SOME servers in US, that was enough to get the US government involved. Domains are just part of the story, even having a .se or non-US tld, if you have servers in the US, it's useless. So ultimately, he'd have to have both a non-US TLD, and fully non-US servers to be free from US jurisdiction, and even then he'd have to hope that whereever he and his servers are located, they do no cooperate with US authorities. Good luck with that.

thepiratebay seems to be alright

[Tpoints]

If that's the case then your beliefs are based on caricatures you've created. I love profits. I hate people claiming the right to control property (read:scarce physical material) that they don't own (theft).

You hate profits when it's not yours. So you deny somebody's ownership.

[Tpoints]

thepiratebay seems to be alright

Yes, they seem to be working fine as of now. Though they were prosecuted a few years ago, not sure how that works.

[noneedtoaggress]

You hate profits when it's not yours. So you deny somebody's ownership.

Uh, no I don't. lol.

Why would I?

You're denying people ownership over their property (read: the right to control [including to arrange in patterns] scarce physical material), because you want monopoly on ideas. The entire concept is broken.

This is what I'm talking about, you're just making some caricatures up. I fully support artists getting as much as they possibly can from their skills. I'm in the creative industry myself.

[QuickZ06]

You hate profits when it's not yours. So you deny somebody's ownership.

Profits of what? Selling auto-tuned garbage or some other fancy voice correcting software, or just trying to fill the heads of mindless sheep with other nonsense. The music industry SUCKS! in a lot of "mainstream" areas these days and has, new music is just not what it used to be and it does not matter what "kind" it is either. These mainstream artists need to go back to earning it the real way i.e enjoying and performing LIVE and making profits on the road and what another has already stated, get a cut of the money generated from advertisements on-line.

[itshappening]

thepiratebay seems to be alright

thepiratebay hosts torrent files, it's a little different to Kim Dotcom knowingly hosting gigabytes of warez, porn and movies on centrally located servers and also paying people to upload them and spread it around the internet. The guy deserves everything he gets. A despicable character and a felon too hiding behind his freedom "crusade" which is a front for his pirate based business.

[itshappening]

And Kim isn't going away either, he's got me.ga and plans to try and encrypt every file uploaded and rename them randomly in a further effort to get round the copyright laws and the U.S constitution. The DoJ is waging a war on him because he's persistent and willful in his abuse of rights holders.

[Tpoints]

Profits of what? Selling auto-tuned garbage or some other fancy voice correcting software, or just trying to fill the heads of mindless sheep with other nonsense. The music industry SUCKS!

People obviously want their garbage or they wouldn't pirate it. I love when people make it sound like the music industry preys or entraps people to listen or buy their crap, they don't.

[Tpoints]

And Kim isn't going away either, he's got me.ga and plans to try and encrypt every file uploaded and rename them randomly in a further effort to get round the copyright laws and the U.S constitution. The DoJ is waging a war on him because he's persistent and willful in his abuse of rights holders.

Didn't he get a lot less cocky when he was caught, and tried to say he was not only non-willful, but had a whole team dedicated to DMCA compliance?

[Tpoints]

I fully support artists getting as much as they possibly can from their skills. I'm in the creative industry myself.

Do you believe they have a right to protect their creative work from unauthorized copying and distribution, or not?

[AGRP]

Mozart's family must be pissed people are profiting from his work.

[Tpoints]

Mozart's family must be pissed people are profiting from his work.

they might be, laws don't work for everybody.

[heavenlyboy34]

You hate profits when it's not yours. So you deny somebody's ownership. LOL!!! Did you read this before you posted it? Is it a joke? The anti-IP position is the only laissez-faire one, the only one that truly encourages innovation and profit for creators. IP allows "creators" to use the force of the State to engage in rent-seeking behavior (distinct from enforcement of property rights): a fascist approach to "business" if there ever was one.

[heavenlyboy34]

Do you believe they have a right to protect their creative work from unauthorized copying and distribution, or not? They already have the power to do that. They just choose to use State force instead.

[Tpoints]

LOL!!! Did you read this before you typed it? Is it a joke? The anti-IP position is the only laissez-faire one, the only one that truly encourages innovation and profit for creators. IP allows "creators" to use the force of the State to engage in rent-seeking behavior (distinct from enforcement of property rights): a fascist approach to "business" if there ever was one.

Everybody is laissez faire if you gave them what they want. "the only one that truly encourages innovation and profit for creators" really? Got ANY evidence to back it up? Why are creative, innovative, inventive people overwhelmingly pro-IP if anti-IP is better for them?

You care correct, IP allows rights holders to enforce their rights, the same way any property owner enforces it, through the state.

[Tpoints]

They already have the power to do that. They just choose to use State force instead.

Just like you already have the power to protect your property therefore you should never use the state?

[heavenlyboy34]

they might be, laws don't work for everybody. They worked for Wolfgang and his father. He made plenty of money the legitimate way-constantly writing and performing. Then there's the 19th/early 20th century traveling virtuosi, like Paganini and Liszt. They never collected royalties or got a government check, but became wealthy and famous by touring and writing constantly.

[noneedtoaggress]

Do you believe they have a right to protect their creative work from unauthorized copying and distribution, or not?

I believe all individuals have the right to protect their legitimately acquired property. If you're trying to claim that I don't "fully support" artists getting as much as they can because I don't believe that they should have a monopoly on their ideas, you may as well be making the case that I don't "fully support" support companies making profits because I don't believe they should have a monopoly on the physical goods they produce.

[AGRP]

The creator of the url owns every link.

[Tpoints]

I believe all individuals have the right to protect their legitimately acquired property.

So do I. I bet we disagree on what's LAP.

[AGRP]

The creator of the internet owns the internet. Pay zerox a portion of your internet bill or you dont get access.

[Matt Collins]

copyrighted matieral is not property (unless you are referring to the physical medium) it is a privilege via government fiat

[heavenlyboy34]

Everybody is laissez faire if you gave them what they want. "the only one that truly encourages innovation and profit for creators" really? Got ANY evidence to back it up? Why are creative, innovative, inventive people overwhelmingly pro-IP if anti-IP is better for them?
I've got more than 2000 years of western art, literature, music and culture to back me up. Open a history book sometime. You won't find any major artists pre-20th century who availed themselves of IP laws. I took loads of history classes when I majored in art and music. The reason most "creators" are pro-IP is because they're ignorant. Same reason most people favor numerous silly things like the military-industrial complex. Rational, but misguided self-interest-and in some cases outright greed and corporate fascism.


You care correct, IP allows rights holders to enforce their rights, the same way any property owner enforces it, through the state.
Actually, it's not like property-it's what economists call "rent-seeking behavior". That is, demanding continual payment for a good they've already sold. (imagine if your baker told you what you can/can't do with your food. Absurd, yes? No moreso than the behavior of IP supporters)

[heavenlyboy34]

copyrighted matieral is not property (unless you are referring to the physical medium) it is a privilege via government fiat
Teh Collinz is right! :eek: :D

[heavenlyboy34]

So do I. I bet we disagree on what's LAP.
Tell me, how much do you pay the maker of your stove when you use it to make something? If not at all, why are you depriving the maker of their royalties? Don't you want to encourage innovation?

[Tpoints]

I've got more than 2000 years of western art, literature, music and culture to back me up.

Uhhh, no you don't. You have 2000 years of time when copying technology was not available or affordable to the masses, therefore unauthorized copying was not an issue until those tools were accessible.

Contrary to your childish delusion, copyright wasn't created by some mind control freaks one day who said "Hey, let's control what people can think, see, and keep, even if they don't enjoy it, even if this doesn't benefit the creators". Instead, copyright laws were created to protect creators from abuse, and keep their profits in a reasonable timeframe in response to technology making the abuse possible.

[Tpoints]

Tell me, how much do you pay the maker of your stove when you use it to make something? If not at all, why are you depriving the maker of their royalties? Don't you want to encourage innovation?

Just because I don't know how much of the cost of my stove was paid as royalties or licensing to an IP owner, doesn't mean it can't be the case. My guess is patents and certain inventions on it have expired and become public domain, or licensed. I don't want to encourage innovation, I do want to prevent exploitation from people who have no rightful access to certain information. I don't want to compensate gold owners, but I prefer to prevent letting counterfeit bars (gold plated tungsten) mess up the market.

[noneedtoaggress]

So do I. I bet we disagree on what's LAP.

Clearly. You seem to believe that patterns of information should be monopolized and that this monopoly has priority over property rights in rightfully obtained scarce physical material.

[Tpoints]

Actually, it's not like property-it's what economists call "rent-seeking behavior". That is, demanding continual payment for a good they've already sold. (imagine if your baker told you what you can/can't do with your food. Absurd, yes? No moreso than the behavior of IP supporters)

No, it's not. It was never sold in the way you thought. It was rented or licensed, or lent with conditions. If a baker or law told me what I can or can't do with his food, I can choose to never buy it (if you don't like the restrictions on a book or phonocord, don't buy it). You can't rent or lend something unless somebody owns it in the first place.

[noneedtoaggress]

copyrighted matieral is not property (unless you are referring to the physical medium) it is a privilege via government fiat

ding ding ding we have a winner.

[Tpoints]

Clearly. You seem to believe that patterns of information should be monopolized and that this monopoly has priority over property rights in rightfully obtained scarce physical material.

Close enough :) What I believe is, whatever can be done to benefit a person financially, should be done. I don't believe it "take priority over property rights" I believe it IS property rights, clearly we disagree on what's property rights too.

[heavenlyboy34]

Uhhh, no you don't. You have 2000 years of time when copying technology was not available or affordable to the masses, therefore unauthorized copying was not an issue until those tools were accessible.
Incorrect. Copying has been going on for thousands of years. Again, open a history book. You'll find artists copied each other all the time. i.e. Rachmaninoff's variations on a theme by Paganini.


Contrary to your childish delusion, copyright wasn't created by some mind control freaks one day who said "Hey, let's control what people can think, see, and keep, even if they don't enjoy it, even if this doesn't benefit the creators". Instead, copyright laws were created to protect creators from abuse, and keep their profits in a reasonable timeframe in response to technology making the abuse possible.
I'm not the delusional one here. IP comes to us from royal privilege to creators to buy their loyalty. You are clearly woefully ignorant of this topic. Start with the entry below, then read "Against Intellectual Monopoly". It goes into the history of the practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law
The history of patents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent) and patent laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) is generally considered to have started in Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy) with a Venetian Statute of 1474 which was issued by the Republic of Venice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law#cite_note-1) They issued a decree by which new and inventive devices, once they had been put into practice, had to be communicated to the Republic in order to obtain legal protection against potential infringers. The period of protection was 10 years.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law#cite_note-2)
Patents, however, existed before the Statute of 1474. In England grants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law#) in the form of “letters patent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent)” were issued by the sovereign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign) to inventors who petitioned and were approved: a grant of 1331 to John Kempe and his Company is the earliest authenticated instance of a royal grant made with the avowed purpose of instructing the English in a new industry.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law#cite_note-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law#cite_note-hulme1896-4) The first Italian patent was actually awarded by the Republic of Florence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence) in 1421,[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law#cite_note-5) and there is evidence suggesting that something like patents was used among some ancient Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece) cities.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law#cite_note-6) In 500 BC, in the Greek city of Sybaris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybaris) (located in what is now southern Italy), "encouragement was held out to all who should discover any new refinement in luxury, the profits arising from which were secured to the inventor by patent for the space of a year."

[Tpoints]

copyrighted matieral is not property (unless you are referring to the physical medium) it is a privilege via government fiat

No more than your property is property. Your property is a privilege via government too. Oh wait, you're going to tell me that you can defend your property without government, yeah, you can, but everybody prefers having a bully do it for them if they can.

[Tpoints]

Incorrect. Copying has been going on for thousands of years. Again, open a history book. You'll find artists copied each other all the time. i.e. Rachmaninoff's variations on a theme by Paganini.

I never said copying was impossible, I said it was difficult.

Yeah, which history book told you that a 2000 year old book was made into 2000 copies in 2 days? Didn't think so.

You are purposely missing the point that copying technology has made copying much faster, and the internet has made delivery faster as well. Both of these facts change how copyright laws are applicable (and why they were not pre mass production technology)

[heavenlyboy34]

Close enough :) What I believe is, whatever can be done to benefit a person financially, should be done. I don't believe it "take priority over property rights" I believe it IS property rights, clearly we disagree on what's property rights too.
Yet your opinion isn't even in line with current law. The copyright and patent laws use the word "infringement" not "theft". This should tell you that IP is NOT property, as it does not qualify, even to its creators, as real property that can be "stolen".

[Tpoints]

Yet your opinion isn't even in line with current law. The copyright and patent laws use the word "infringement" not "theft". This should tell you that IP is NOT property, as it does not qualify, even to its creators, as real property that can be "stolen".

When did I use the word theft?

You cite the laws' language as if you agree, changing words don't change what the acts are. Calling something property doesn't make it so, nor does calling something "not infringing" make it perfectly OK. We can play words all day. Which definition of property did you use that says "it has to be able to be stolen"?

[heavenlyboy34]

I never said copying was impossible, I said it was difficult.

Yeah, which history book told you that a 2000 year old book was made into 2000 copies in 2 days? Didn't think so.

You are purposely missing the point that copying technology has made copying much faster, and the internet has made delivery faster as well. Both of these facts change how copyright laws are applicable (and why they were not pre mass production technology)
I didn't miss that point. It's simply irrelevant. Mass reproduction technology has been around since ancient China(they invented moveable type). Since when did the speed of reproduction have anything to do with this subject? It doesn't. The principle of IP is the same on any scale.

[Tpoints]

I didn't miss that point. It's simply irrelevant. Mass reproduction technology has been around since ancient China(they invented moveable type). Since when did the speed of reproduction have anything to do with this subject? It doesn't. The principle of IP is the same on any scale.

No, it's ENTIRELY relevant.

How many people had movable type? How many people can quickly assemble one, and how many can just pick up a ream of paper for $5 at their local Staples?

Movable type was invented in the 11th century. That's right, it's not been around for thousands of years.

Prior to movable type, fixed presses were available, but not cheap, and lots of hard work, this NOTHING compared to putting a 10 cent coin into a machine and getting a copy in 20 seconds. Speed of reproduction and delivery has EVERYTHING to do with it, now I know why you are anti-IP, you are either too ignorant or purposely ignoring the relevance and context of technology.

IP is not the same at any scale, this is why even advocates of IP are demanding SHORTER expiration timeframes. The same is probably true with copyright protection.

[heavenlyboy34]

When did I use the word theft?

You cite the laws' language as if you agree, changing words don't change what the acts are. Calling something property doesn't make it so, nor does calling something "not infringing" make it perfectly OK. We can play words all day. Which definition of property did you use that says "it has to be able to be stolen"?

You said, for example,


that's the point, he doesn't want to protect artists. Anti-IPers are anti-IP the same reason pro-IPers are pro-IP, anti-IPers HATE profits and pro-IPers HATE theft. It's that simple, no matter how they try to twist it and push it through the loopholes.

You hate profits when it's not yours. So you deny somebody's ownership.

The definition of property I use can be found in any dictionary you care to open. For example,
theft
noun 1.the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft?s=t#).

2.an instance of this.

Then you can open any legal dictionary you care to. (I don't have one handy)

ETA: I don't use the words "as if I agree with them" as you claim. I use them because it's critical to the argument which you are trying (unsuccessfully) to make.

[heavenlyboy34]

No, it's ENTIRELY relevant.

How many people had movable type? How many people can quickly assemble one, and how many can just pick up a ream of paper for $5 at their local Staples?

Movable type was invented in the 11th century. That's right, it's not been around for thousands of years.

Prior to movable type, fixed presses were available, but not cheap, and lots of hard work, this NOTHING compared to putting a 10 cent coin into a machine and getting a copy in 20 seconds.
Irrelevant to the principle. Copying is copying. That's the spirit of the law, and always has been. You could just as easily dictate a text to a crowd of scribes and wind up with thousands of copies quickly.

[noneedtoaggress]

Close enough :) What I believe is, whatever can be done to benefit a person financially, should be done. I don't believe it "take priority over property rights" I believe it IS property rights, clearly we disagree on what's property rights too.

The purpose of property is to delineate use rights in order to prevent conflict over scarce goods. Your definition of property creates conflict between those who want to monopolize the patterns (nonscarce goods) they've created with their own justly owned scarce physical goods and those who have justly acquired scarce physical goods and arranged them in similar patterns. You're prioritizing the nonscarce goods over the scarce goods, it makes no sense.

[Tpoints]

You said, for example,

Ok. I did use the word theft, I didn't need to. I can go back and change it, perhaps to "pro-IPers hate loss or profits".

[Tpoints]

The purpose of property is to delineate use rights in order to prevent conflict over scarce goods.

Says you?

[heavenlyboy34]

LIAR. the word theft was not used.
I quoted you directly, and the word was used. (quoting is lying to you? You're very confused!) Read it again for comprehension.

[Tpoints]

Irrelevant to the principle. Copying is copying. That's the spirit of the law, and always has been. You could just as easily dictate a text to a crowd of scribes and wind up with thousands of copies quickly.

No, copying in 2 seconds vs 2 years makes the world's difference. Try calling an ambulance or arrive at an ER one day and see how you like hearing "attention is attention, who cares when we give it".

"You could just as easily dictate a text to a crowd of scribes and wind up with thousands of copies quickly." No, I can't. Show me how you can. I can buy a $200 copy machine and work lots of magic with it, I challenge you to show me how quick, how quality you can do the same with 1800 technology, or "movable type" made in 1000.

[Tpoints]

I don't use the words "as if I agree with them" as you claim. I use them because it's critical to the argument which you are trying (unsuccessfully) to make.

Here's my turn to say "I'll ignore what you said, because it's irrelevant because I said so", I win!

[heavenlyboy34]

Says you?
him and every other competent non-communist economist. (even krugman)

[Tpoints]

The definition of property I use can be found in any dictionary you care to open.

Yeah? Copy me ONE definition of property that says "it must be able to be stolen, subject to theft".

(If you were to find one, then land and houses are not property, and can't be violated, infringed, or otherwise deprived)

[heavenlyboy34]

Here's my turn to say "I'll ignore what you said, because it's irrelevant because I said so", I win!
WTF? Why do you want to pretend the irrelevant information you present is relevant? If you don't actually want to debate this subject, why are you engaging me?

[heavenlyboy34]

No, copying in 2 seconds vs 2 years makes the world's difference. Try calling an ambulance or arrive at an ER one day and see how you like hearing "attention is attention, who cares when we give it".

Incorrect, according to IP law. And, you're seriously comparing a service to a piece of IP? Seriously? :eek: :rolleyes: Sir, even a child can tell the difference between a service and a piece of "IP".


"You could just as easily dictate a text to a crowd of scribes and wind up with thousands of copies quickly." No, I can't. Show me how you can. I can buy a $200 copy machine and work lots of magic with it, I challenge you to show me how quick, how quality you can do the same with 1800 technology, or "movable type" made in 1000. Why is that relevant? The law has nothing to do with scale at all. Have you even read it? I have a copy in my music business textbook and have read it.

I tell you, I haven't seen this many red herrings in many moons.

[Tpoints]

WTF? Why do you want to pretend the irrelevant information you present is relevant? If you don't actually want to debate this subject, why are you engaging me?

I can ask you the same question. For somebody who can tell me that copying technology and the ability for the mass population to reproduce creative works is irrelevant to the validity of copyright laws or IP protection, is either dishonest or insanity.

What you're basically saying is that because there was no law against an action 2000 years ago, there never can be, no matter what happens and what's made easier. There was no law against hacking, cyberbullying, defamation, rape at one time, THEREFORE IT NEVER SHOULD BE, because no matter how common, easier, or possible it is compared to the past, it doesn't change the "crime". There was no law against putting date rape drugs in a woman's drink 200 years ago, so it must be unjustified today.

[Tpoints]

Incorrect, according to IP law.

Why is that relevant? The law has nothing to do with scale at all. Have you even read it? I have a copy in my music business textbook and have read it.

Wrong, law has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH SCALE. Your ignorance doesn't change it.

Actually I have, which is why I know there's such thing as STATUTORY VS ACTUAL damages.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

"Incorrect, according to IP law. " - wrong. IP law specifically targets fast pace copying, and is virtually hands off on "memorizing", reciting to yourself, hand writing word by word....etc.

If IP law is irrelevant to the availability, accessibility of copying technology, why did it suddenly pop up one day?

[heavenlyboy34]

Wrong, law has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH SCALE. Your ignorance doesn't change it.

Actually I have, which is why I know there's such thing as STATUTORY VS ACTUAL damages.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

Come now, you know that's not what I meant. Did you know that your link also says nothing about theft? It's about "infringement". Again, you refute your own claims about "theft".


"Incorrect, according to IP law. " - wrong. IP law specifically targets fast pace copying, and is virtually hands off on "memorizing", reciting to yourself, hand writing word by word....etc.

If IP law is irrelevant to the availability, accessibility of copying technology, why did it suddenly pop up one day?
I should have been clearer. The spirit of IP is irrelevant to technology. It "popped up" because lobbyists and cronies wanted in on the action. Back when cassette tapes were invented for example, the music industry got pissed (they could see that people were enjoying music recording "for free") and saw an opportunity to make money. Nowadays when you buy blank media like tapes, a portion of the cost is paid to the regime to pay off the entertainment industry. (Just about everything regarding IP in the 20th century has been to benefit the entertainment industry at the expense of regular people) Traditionally it's been the big names like ASCAP that got the loot, but it's been expanded quite a lot since then and I haven't kept up with it.

[Matt Collins]

No more than your property is property. Your property is a privilege via government too. Oh wait, you're going to tell me that you can defend your property without government, yeah, you can, but everybody prefers having a bully do it for them if they can.For someone who is such a noob around here you certainly seem to have quite the attitude.

Anyway, to the point, the idea of copyright has only existed for a couple of hundred years. The idea of property has existed for thousands of years. You can posses property. The idea of intellectual intangible privileges such as copyright is a new concept, and only exists because government created it. It's not a right, it doesn't exist in nature, it isn't a natural right.

Research this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Ann

[Tpoints]

Come now, you know that's not what I meant. Did you know that your link also says nothing about theft? It's about "infringement". Again, you refute your own claims about "theft".


Did you know that I didn't need theft to make my argument? Did you notice I am not using that word any more while you keep bringing it up as if I do? No, I didn't know what you meant, since you're so obsessed with telling me that scale is irrelevant, it's not.



I should have been clearer. The spirit of IP is irrelevant to technology. It "popped up" because lobbyists and cronies wanted in on the action. Back when cassette tapes were invented for example, the music industry got pissed (they could see that people were enjoying music recording "for free") and saw an opportunity to make money. Nowadays when you buy blank media like tapes, a portion of the cost is paid to the regime to pay off the entertainment industry. Traditionally it's been the big names like ASCAP that got the loot, but it's been expanded quite a lot since then and I haven't kept up with it.

They suddenly decided one day "hey, let's do this" without ANY affect from the technology? Or did you just admit it's in response to technology making copying easier?

[acptulsa]

The idea of intellectual intangible privileges such as copyright is a new concept, and only exists because government created it. It's not a right, it doesn't exist in nature, it isn't a natural right.

So, no inn, restaurant or bakery ever had a secret family recipe until some government came up with the idea? And that never happened until two hundred years ago?


For someone who is such a noob around here you certainly seem to have quite the attitude.

I don't remember it taking you long to develop yours.

[Tpoints]

For someone who is such a noob around here you certainly seem to have quite the attitude.

Anyway, to the point, the idea of copyright has only existed for a couple of hundred years.


I bet it had a little bit to do with
1) availability of education and medium
2) availability of copying technology



The idea of property has existed for thousands of years. You can posses property.


Yeah, but not a million years, or however humans have existed. Is the length of existence your determination of whether a law is just or valid? Women's rights and black suffrage didn't become law until the past century either.



The idea of intellectual intangible privileges such as copyright is a new concept, and only exists because government created it. It's not a right, it doesn't exist in nature, it isn't a natural right.

Research this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Ann

What exists in nature as a natural right that isn't a government creation?

[heavenlyboy34]

I can ask you the same question. For somebody who can tell me that copying technology and the ability for the mass population to reproduce creative works is irrelevant to the validity of copyright laws or IP protection, is either dishonest or insanity.

What you're basically saying is that because there was no law against an action 2000 years ago, there never can be, no matter what happens and what's made easier. There was no law against hacking, cyberbullying, defamation, rape at one time, THEREFORE IT NEVER SHOULD BE, because no matter how common, easier, or possible it is compared to the past, it doesn't change the "crime". There was no law against putting date rape drugs in a woman's drink 200 years ago, so it must be unjustified today.
Actually, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that because something never has been wrong it can't be made wrong by fiat. There weren't date rape drugs back then, but people used other ways to get into women's pants-like getting them sloshed. Rape in any form has always been wrong. There is a demonstrable victim. There is no victim in copying. That's why the Grateful Dead, Allman Bros, etc allowed people to record their concerts. It was free publicity for them and ultimately made them more money and fame.

[Tpoints]

Actually, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that because something never has been wrong it can't be made wrong by fiat. There weren't date rape drugs back then, but people used other ways to get into women's pants-like getting them sloshed. Rape in any form has always been wrong. There is a demonstrable victim. There is no victim in copying. That's why the Grateful Dead, Allman Bros, etc allowed people to record their concerts. It was free publicity for them and ultimately made them more money and fame.

Perhaps it was wrong, just not made law until it was. Or perhaps it was wrong, and would be illegal, but only was when it was common enough to be addressed by law.

No need to give me the established artists argument. Nor do you need to give me the "sold nothing" artist argument, one kind of artist doesn't lose enough, and the other needs to give some to promote themselves, those are the 2 extremes which are essentially "exceptions" but even then, those are VOLUNTARILY on the right holder's part. If Grateful Dead or the struggling artists DIDN'T want the "free publicity" for themselves, they have the right to prevent it too.

Is there demonstrable victim if I called my plated tungsten gold?

[heavenlyboy34]

Did you know that I didn't need theft to make my argument? Did you notice I am not using that word any more while you keep bringing it up as if I do? No, I didn't know what you meant, since you're so obsessed with telling me that scale is irrelevant, it's not. You actually do need to prove theft to make your argument. If there's no theft, there's no victim and there's no crime. The whole point of IP is to redefine ideas as "property".


They suddenly decided one day "hey, let's do this" without ANY affect from the technology? Or did you just admit it's in response to technology making copying easier?
They adapted the principle to the technology, yes. But the principle existed long before, as I pointed out earlier.

[Tpoints]

You actually do need to prove theft to make your argument. If there's no theft, there's no victim and there's no crime. The whole point of IP is to redefine ideas as "property".


Of course, so according to you. My land is not property because it can't be stolen. Or trespassing is not a crime or violation because I can't prove "actual" or "monetary" loss. I am not a victim if somebody chooses to come on my land without my permission, so they are not criminals. In fact, I can't even claim I am a victim if they burned my tree and replaced it before I can report it.



They adapted the principle to the technology, yes. But the principle existed long before, as I pointed out earlier.

What principle? The principle of mind control and forcing people to pay what they won't normally?

[TheGrinch]

copyrighted matieral is not property (unless you are referring to the physical medium) it is a privilege via government fiat

It is only because of that copyrighted work that the raw material has any value whatsoever. I have a whole stack of burnable CDs that are effectively worthless without anything on them, so to reduce it's value down to just the medium is absurd. The media becomes tangible when it becomes a complete work and is put on a tangible medium, thus no longer just ideas. At that point, you have unique creations inspired by ideas, ideas that you could also have to make your own creations. You just can't pass of my creation as your creation or forego my ability to sell it legitimately.

There is no monopoly in copyrights (or at least the way copyright laws should be). I'm not going to get back into this again, but my writing a book or producing a film in no way infringes your ability to do so.

Also, a copyright is pretty much the same thing as a contract that prohibits unauthorized use upon ownership. Media producers will not simply accept that people think they can profit from their work as they take on all the costs. It's just absurd to suggest that in a free market, that sellers will just allow all their rights over their work to be exploited by others once it leaves their hands. A free market will demand contracts to ensure it doesn't, and that's essentially what copyrights are.

Finally, don't tell me that the contract only applies to the person I make the contract with. Ironically, without copyrights, you will just have more people breaching contracts instead, and it will be perhaps the innocent original purchaser who will be liable (similar to breaking a non-disclosure agreement), rather than the actual infringer like it should be.

I have no idea why some of you are so gung-ho over protecting those who defraud, exploit, plagiarize, whichever terms you prefer, over those trying to make a legitimate buck by creating media works that just happen to be more easily reproducible and thus susceptible to fraud. That doesn't make them any less legitimate however, and the insinuation is insulting to those in creative fields.

[Tpoints]

There is no monopoly in copyrights (or at least the way copyright laws should be). I'm not going to get back into this again, but my writing a book or producing a film in no way infringes your ability to do so.

You are infringing on my right to write the same story, aren't you?

[heavenlyboy34]

No need to give me the established artists argument. Nor do you need to give me the "sold nothing" artist argument, one kind of artist doesn't lose enough, and the other needs to give some to promote themselves, those are the 2 extremes which are essentially "exceptions" but even then, those are VOLUNTARILY on the right holder's part. If Grateful Dead or the struggling artists DIDN'T want the "free publicity" for themselves, they have the right to prevent it too.
It wasn't an established artists argument. Those bands allowed bootlegging before they were established, and numerous other jam bands since then have allowed recording. IOW, the argument could be applied to any band. It's true that these artists could prevent recording if they really wanted to. That's the only legitimate way to control ideas.


Is there demonstrable victim if I called my plated tungsten gold?
A victim of fraud, not theft or infringement, yes.

[acptulsa]

You are infringing on my right to write the same story, aren't you?

I'm doubting your ability to do so.

[Tpoints]

I'm doubting your ability to do so.

yeah, but nobody has ever proven that it can't be done!

[Tpoints]

It wasn't an established artists argument. Those bands allowed bootlegging before they were established, and numerous other jam bands since then have allowed recording. IOW, the argument could be applied to any band. It's true that these artists could prevent recording if they really wanted to. That's the only legitimate way to control ideas.


A victim of fraud, not theft or infringement, yes.

what is fraud and why is it wrong? why is calling my plated tungsten gold "fraud"? Who is the victim?

Since you conceded it's on the artist's right to control it, you've made my point.

[heavenlyboy34]

Of course, so according to you. My land is not property because it can't be stolen. Or trespassing is not a crime or violation because I can't prove "actual" or "monetary" loss. I am not a victim if somebody chooses to come on my land without my permission, so they are not criminals. In fact, I can't even claim I am a victim if they burned my tree and replaced it before I can report it.
Land is fixed property. A different set of laws apply to it. That's an entirely different discussion.


What principle? The principle of mind control and forcing people to pay what they won't normally?
The principle of justifying irrational rent-seeking behavior under the guise of "intellectual property".

[acptulsa]

what is fraud and why is it wrong? why is calling my plated tungsten gold "fraud"? Who is the victim?

Since you conceded it's on the artist's right to control it, you've made my point.

Are you selling it as a work of art, or as gold?

Are you actually trying to make a point, or are you just naysaying whatever HB says at this point? Is this a debate, or have you degenerated into performance art? Because if you claim to be making a cogent argument, I'm going to accuse you of fraud. But if this is performance art, well, far be it from me to piss on your artistic license.

[Tpoints]

Land is fixed property. A different set of laws apply to it. That's an entirely different discussion.

The principle of justifying irrational rent-seeking behavior under the guise of "intellectual property".

No, it's not an entirely different discussion. Land is property, I might as well say "property is property" like you do.

[Tpoints]

Are you selling it as a work of art, or as gold?

Are you actually trying to make a point, or are you just naysaying whatever HB says at this point? Is this a debate, or have you degenerated into performance art? Because if you claim to be making a cogent argument, I'm going to accuse you of fraud. But if this is performance art, well, far be it from me to piss on your artistic license.

I am naysaying whatever he (or anybody) is wrong about. I'm not sure why art or gold matters, can it be both?

[heavenlyboy34]

what is fraud and why is it wrong? why is calling my plated tungsten gold "fraud"? Who is the victim?
fraud  
noun 1.deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/breach) of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

2.a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.

3.any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.

4.a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.




Fraud is wrong because there is a victim who suffers a real loss because fraud was committed.


Since you conceded it's on the artist's right to control it, you've made my point.
I said it's the artist's to control as long as it's in his possession. Once he publishes or performs it, he relinquishes ownership.

[acptulsa]

I am naysaying whatever he (or anybody) is wrong about. I'm not sure why art or gold matters, can it be both?

Intellectual property is not the same as physical property. If it were, this argument could not possibly be sustained over thirteen internet pages.

If you buy a whole bar of pure gold, melt it down, and use it to plate several bars of tungsten, you have something in common with someone who bootlegs a CD and sells the copies. You're an asshole.

Other than that, the parallel doesn't work for me.

[Tpoints]

Intellectual property is not the same as physical property. If it were, this argument could not possibly be sustained over thirteen internet pages.

If you buy a whole bar of pure gold, melt it down, and use it to plate several bars of tungsten, you have something in common with someone who bootlegs a CD and sells the copies. You're an asshole.

Other than that, the parallel doesn't work for me.

That's good enough.

[Tpoints]

I said it's the artist's to control as long as it's in his possession. Once he publishes or performs it, he relinquishes ownership.

back up a little. can they (morally, legitimaltely, legally) prevent people from recording at their live performances?

[TheGrinch]

fraud  
noun 1.deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/breach) of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

2.a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.

3.any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.

4.a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.




Fraud is wrong because there is a victim who suffers a real loss because fraud was committed.


I said it's the artist's to control as long as it's in his possession. Once he publishes or performs it, he relinquishes ownership.

It would be remarkably easy to make the case that pirating falls under fraud. And really, you can't see a "victim who suffers a real loss" in these cases? That's exactly the issue with pirating. Assuming that no one takes a loss and thus isn't defrauded just doesn't hold up.

And for what feels like the thousandth time, it's not the "ideas" you're retaining rights over, it's that media that holds your work, that much like a nondisclosure agreement, you're basically saying you can own this if you agree not to reproduce or let others reproduce and profit from it. All removing copyrights would do is necessitate more contracts, and hold the potentially innocent purchasers more liable than the infringers.

Transfer of ownership should not mean that the author can just be exploited for trying to sell it legitimately, or yes, it's anti-economic, because people would go into fields less susceptible for fraud if you strip fraud protections. A free market also means freedom from exploitation, plagiarism, etc., that infringes your ability to make an honest living from something that's in demand.

[heavenlyboy34]

No, it's not an entirely different discussion. Land is property, I might as well say "property is property" like you do.
Property is property and ideas are not property, yes. Land is a different discussion because land is fixed in place. (I dare you to pick up a parcel of land and take it somewhere else) It can only be "stolen" in the sense of forcing the owner off the property. IOW, "stealing" is a misnomer WRT land. steal [steel] Show IPA verb, stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun.

verb (used with object) 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force): A pickpocket stole his watch.

As you can see, theft is transitive in nature. An object is stolen from A by B and taken to another location. WRT land, "disappropriation" is the proper term.

[TheGrinch]

Oh, semantics, yeah I think I'm gonna stay out of this one from here. Have fun justifying exploitation of legitimate work.

[Tpoints]

IOW, "stealing" is a misnomer WRT land.WRT land, "disappropriation" is the proper term.

Aha! So we just established that property does not need to be STOLEN TO THEIVED TO BE VIOLATED??

[Tpoints]

Oh, semantics, yeah I think I'm gonna stay out of this one from here. Have fun justifying exploitation of legitimate work.

it's all they got, isn't it? smh

[heavenlyboy34]

It would be remarkably easy to make the case that pirating falls under fraud.
Yes, but you'd be playing socratic/semantic games-which you accused me of doing.

And really, you can't see a "victim who suffers a real loss" in these cases? That's exactly the issue with pirating. Assuming that no one takes a loss and thus isn't defrauded just doesn't hold up.
It holds up perfectly. IP is non-rivalrous. My owning a copy of song x doesn't preclude you from owning the original. If anything, the owner of the original gains when it's copied because the original becomes more and more scarce. (law of supply and demand in action)


And for what feels like the thousandth time, it's not the "ideas" you're retaining rights over, it's that media that holds your work, that much like a nondisclosure agreement, you're basically saying you can own this if you agree not to reproduce or let others reproduce and profit from it. All removing copyrights would do is necessitate more contracts, and hold the potentially innocent purchasers more liable than the infringers.
And for what seems like the thousandth time, you're describing a tacit contract which holds no water (unless you can find a judge ignorant and corrupt enough to agree with you).



Transfer of ownership should not mean that the author can just be exploited for trying to sell it legitimately, or yes, it's anti-economic, because people would go into fields less susceptible for fraud if you strip fraud protections. A free market also means freedom from exploitation, plagiarism, etc., that infringes your ability to make an honest living from something that's in demand.
How can a creator be "exploited" when he disseminates his creations in exchange for compensation? It is the creator doing the exploiting if he tries to control what people do with property they've acquired. Fraud is entirely different than copying, and I agree is a crime. Plagiarism is not nice and unethical (especially in academia and research), but it's not really a crime. It's against the rules of certain institutions (like universities) and can be forbidden in some contracts (for example when commissioning an opera), but that is not a criminal act (except the aforementioned breach of contract instances).

[heavenlyboy34]

Aha! So we just established that property does not need to be STOLEN TO THEIVED TO BE VIOLATED??
Yup. But we've also established that IP is not property.

[heavenlyboy34]

Aha! So we just established that property does not need to be STOLEN TO THEIVED TO BE VIOLATED??<br>Yup.&nbsp; But we've also established that IP is not property. (as the Collins correctly pointed out)

[Tpoints]

Yup. But we've also established that IP is not property.

No, actually we did not.

[heavenlyboy34]

For anyone interested, here is a reader of literature about IP: h/t Mr Kinsella
Property/Rights-based Arguments


Against Intellectual Property (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf), Spring 2001, Vol. 15, no. 2 Journal of Libertarian Studies, Stephan Kinsella
In Defense of Napster and Against the Second Homesteading Rule (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/kinsella2.html), September 4, 2000, LewRockwell.com, Stephan Kinsella (summary version of some of the arguments presented in "Against Intellectual Property")
The Morality of Acquiring and Enforcing Patents (http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/001788.html), Stephan Kinsella
Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State and Power and Market (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp), Scholars Edition, liv, 745-54, 1133-38, 1181-86
Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, pp. 123–24
Contra Copyright (http://www.mmsweb.com/eykiw/pf/contra.txt), Wendy McElroy, The Voluntaryist, June 1985
The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights (http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html), Roderick T. Long, Formulations 3, no. 1 (Autumn 1995)
Intellectual Property: Copyright and Patent in Liberty (http://www.zetetics.com/mac/libdebates/ch6intpr.html) (from The Debates of Liberty, Wendy McElroy

Utilitarian Considerations


Patents and Copyrights: Do the Benefits Exceed the Costs? (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_4/15_4_3.pdf), Fall 2001, Vol. 15 Num. 4 Journal of Libertarian Studies, Julio H. Cole
On the Abuse of Patents as Economic Indicators (http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae1_4_3.pdf), Winter 1998, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Pierre Desrochers
Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap23sec6.asp) 3rd rev. ed. Chicago: Henry Regnery (1966), chap. 23, section 6, pp. 661–62; see also pp. 128 (http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap7sec2.asp), 364 (http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap16sec6.asp)
The Case Against the Patent System (http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000902-3.htm), Pierre Desrochers, Le Québécois Libre, Sept. 2, 2000
George Reisman, Capitalism (http://www.mises.org/books/capitalism.pdf), pp. 388-89 & 417-20; also 40, 96, 187, 216, 233

Mises Daily


Rethinking Patent Law (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=468&FS=Rethinking+Patent+Law), July 18, 2000, Mises.org, Gene Callahan,
Patent Wrongs (http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=641&id=66), March 29, 2001, Mises.org, Ilana Mercer
Cipro Shortage: An Invented Scarcity (http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=812&id=66), October 25, 2001, Mises.org, Ilana Mercer

LewRockwell.com


Letter to an Anonymous Patent Attorney (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/kinsella7.html), Stephan Kinsella
Patently Absurd (http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy17.html), Wendy McElroy
Of Patents and Pooper-Scoopers (http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster61.html), Karen De Coster
My Un-PC Views on ‘Intellectual Property’ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/sapienza/sapienza37.html), Jeremy Sapienza
The Fraud of ‘Intellectual Property’ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/sapienza/sapienza36.html)
The Government Copyright System Is Dying (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north224.html), Gary North

Further reading


Links to other IP articles, pro and con, can be found at www.StephanKinsella.com/ip (http://www.StephanKinsella.com/ip)

[heavenlyboy34]

No, actually we did not.
Perhaps in your humble opinion, but in fact we did.

[Tpoints]

Perhaps in your humble opinion, but in fact we did.

you're the one who changed your words from "You need it to be stealable or it's not property!!!" to "Ok, fine, you don't"

I never changed my phrasing in terms of whether IP is property.

[noneedtoaggress]

Says you?

That's correct, I did say that.

I suppose this is when you grace us with the Tpointian theory of property?

[heavenlyboy34]

you're the one who changed your words from "You need it to be stealable or it's not property!!!" to "Ok, fine, you don't"

I never changed my phrasing in terms of whether IP is property.
No, I clarified and expounded upon my words because I hadn't taken land into account (and I appreciate that it was brought up). If you go back and read what actually happened, you'll see that. My assertions about "intellectual property" still have not been disproven and the positive claims of the pro-IP side remain questionable at best.

[Tpoints]

No, I clarified and expounded upon my words because I hadn't taken land into account (and I appreciate that it was brought up). If you go back and read what actually happened, you'll see that. My assertions about "intellectual property" still have not been disproven and the positive claims of the pro-IP side remain questionable at best.

they haven't been accepted, so they don't need to be disproven. The fact you didn't take into account land as property goes to show how little you know about property, and how ridiculous your arguments are.

[heavenlyboy34]

they haven't been accepted, so they don't need to be disproven. The fact you didn't take into account land as property goes to show how little you know about property, and how ridiculous your arguments are. LOL!!! No, I didn't take into account land because it's never come up before in an IP discussion. Nice trolling, though. I would say the fact that you think ideas are property shows how little you know about property and how ridiculous your arguments are.

edit:I can't find my previous post on this now (ghost in the machine? :eek: ) from when you brought up land, so I'll post again for the record.

Land is cannot stolen because of its fixity. It can be, however, disappropriated. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Disappropriate

[Confederate]

back up a little. can they (morally, legitimaltely, legally) prevent people from recording at their live performances?

Yes. When you buy a ticket you agree to the conditions, it's called a contract. You agree not to record/film the performance without permission.

[Tpoints]

Yes. When you buy a ticket you agree to the conditions, it's called a contract. You agree not to record/film the performance without permission.

Do I need to explicitly agree and sign? Or do they just need to warn me of the consequences? If the latter, how is it different than copyright notices/warnings on every book and CD cover?

[Tpoints]

Land is cannot stolen because of its fixity. It can be, however, disappropriated. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Disappropriate

So can information and ideas.

[kcchiefs6465]

He had servers in the US. the domain is .com, therefore subject to jurisdiction. You are correct that he is not a US resident or citizen, but it didn't matter, the places where he lived were happy to cooperate with US authorities.
First, I highly doubt New Zealand was 'happy,' or anything above dismal for that matter, in cooperating with the DOJ. They did so out of political pressuring. (This is evidenced in the fact that the GCSB (Government Communication Security Bureau) spied on a New Zealand citizen. This is also evidenced in that the Prime Minister of New Zealand apologized for the uncommon, unauthorized, mainly evidenceless raid. I believe the NZ courts ruled this way anyways.)

The US uses force on many-a-countries to make points known. (As evidenced above.) So there are monies being laundered that are besides 'our interests?' Let's stop that. (I.E. Operation Nifty Package) So there are drugs being marketed aside from our own? Let's stop that. (I.E. Plan Colombia) This case, (Operation Takedown), is just as flagrant, with some very specific political overtones.

[Confederate]

First, I highly doubt New Zealand was 'happy,' or anything above dismal for that matter, in cooperating with the DOJ. They did so out of political pressuring. (This is evidenced in the fact that the GCSB (Government Communication Security Bureau) spied on a New Zealand citizen. This is also evidenced in that the Prime Minister of New Zealand apologized for the uncommon, unauthorized, mainly evidenceless raid. I believe the NZ courts ruled this way anyways.)


Just nitpicking, but he's not a citizen of New Zealand. He's a permanent resident, which gives him all the same protections under their law, including the anti-spying protections afforded to their citizens. Dotcom has dual Finnish-German citizenship.

[itshappening]

Just nitpicking, but he's not a citizen of New Zealand. He's a permanent resident, which gives him all the same protections under their law, including the anti-spying protections afforded to their citizens. Dotcom has dual Finnish-German citizenship.

And he paid a $1m bond to get that residency in NZ and lives in the biggest mansion in the country. He made a fortune off Megaupload and pirated content for years... the DOJ (and I suspect the entertainment industry) want him in a Supermax prison.

[Matt Collins]

So, no inn, restaurant or bakery ever had a secret family recipe until some government came up with the idea? And that never happened until two hundred years ago?They had to keep it a secret because the government offered no protection if it got out in the open. Today it'd be called a "trade secret" meaning that it was incumbent upon the holders of the information to keep it a secret.

Granted any work of art is actually offered copyrighted protection in the US the instant it is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. But the idea that the Founders had about these types of protection was that they wanted to spur innovation by offering a profit incentive so that more works of art and inventions would be created. It worked fairly well but now the system is abused and honestly hasn't kept up with technology.

[Confederate]

And he paid a $1m bond to get that residency in NZ and lives in the biggest mansion in the country. He made a fortune off Megaupload and pirated content for years... the DOJ (and I suspect the entertainment industry) want him in a Supermax prison.

Oh no! He got residency because he invested in the country, what an evil, evil man. How dare he live in a mansion!

[Confederate]

And he paid a $1m bond to get that residency in NZ and lives in the biggest mansion in the country. He made a fortune off Megaupload and pirated content for years... the DOJ (and I suspect the entertainment industry) want him in a Supermax prison.

I think it's pretty interesting for you to be demonizing someone for making money "violating" intellectual "property" (even though he never uploaded a single copyrighted video himself) yet in your signature you have a link to MoxNews which posts copyrighted content to YouTube and has had it's account suspended various times for copyright "infringement."

[acptulsa]

They had to keep it a secret because the government offered no protection if it got out in the open. Today it'd be called a "trade secret" meaning that it was incumbent upon the holders of the information to keep it a secret.

Just because you wait a couple of days and several pages before you come along and pretend that you think I'm too dumb to know what a trade secret is doesn't mean I can't put your crap in context, right here on this page, right now.

I was responding to this:


Anyway, to the point, the idea of copyright has only existed for a couple of hundred years. The idea of property has existed for thousands of years. You can posses property. The idea of intellectual intangible privileges such as copyright is a new concept, and only exists because government created it. It's not a right, it doesn't exist in nature, it isn't a natural right.

"...a new concept...doesn't exist in nature...' Hogwash. A patent or copyright is simply an attempt to extend the benefits of maintaining a trade secret to areas where the beauty of the invention or creation is too obvious to conceal. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore, 'the idea of intellectual intangible privileges' is not some new concept that the primitive unwashed idiots like Aristotle and Pythagoras could not possibly grasp. And that's that.

[Matt Collins]

I bet it had a little bit to do with
1) availability of education and medium
2) availability of copying technologyVery true, the printing press changed all of this.



Yeah, but not a million years, or however humans have existed. Is the length of existence your determination of whether a law is just or valid? Women's rights and black suffrage didn't become law until the past century either. It's hard for us to imagine it now but slavery was a universally valid and accepted institution until a couple of hundred years ago, not even the Bible questioned it. Your point being?

If you have ever studied law you'll know that precedent weighs in heavily and tends to be most significant the factor in deciding law in modern US. Now obviously that methodology has flaws, major flaws, but it is the system that is used.

Furthermore, black and female suffrage are not privileges granted to people by the government, they are rights that exist and have always existed, but have simply been denied by the government until modern history. It was only recently that our government acknowledged these rights existed at all. Now however the government has decided to bestow the privilege of being able to retain some control over one's ideas, or at least the expression thereof. The government doesn't have to extend this privilege, the Constitution doesn't require Congress do that. These privileges can arbitrarily be taken away whenever Congress deems it.

That's the difference between a right and a privilege.

[itshappening]

I think it's pretty interesting for you to be demonizing someone for making money "violating" intellectual "property" (even though he never uploaded a single copyrighted video himself) yet in your signature you have a link to MoxNews which posts copyrighted content to YouTube and has had it's account suspended various times for copyright "infringement."

MoxNews is covered under Fair use in the Copyright Act, so you're wrong and youtube are wrong to remove them.

As for Kim, he was infringing on people's constitutional rights and profiting from it. That's why I demonize him. It doesn't matter that he didn't personally upload the files, he provided the servers - in the U.S - and paid people to upload stuff so he might as well have done it himself.

[Confederate]

MoxNews is covered under Fair use in the Copyright Act, so you're wrong and youtube are wrong to remove them.

As for Kim, he was infringing on people's constitutional rights and profiting from it. That's why I demonize him.

YouTube only removes videos when a copyright notice is given to them by the copyright "owner."

[itshappening]

YouTube only removes videos when a copyright notice is given to them by the copyright "owner."

Yes and local news stations are falsely claiming copyright to their recordings when it is Fair use under the copyright act. Youtube are just being cautious. The only way to stop them is to sue them yourself like Alex Jones has done in the past and to re-affirm Fair use rights but I suspect MoxNews don't have the funds to do that

[tangent4ronpaul]

YouTube only removes videos when a copyright notice is given to them by the copyright "owner."

Not exactly...

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/latest-content-id-tool-for-youtube.html

-t

[Matt Collins]

It is only because of that copyrighted work that the raw material has any value whatsoever. I have a whole stack of burnable CDs that are effectively worthless without anything on them, so to reduce it's value down to just the medium is absurd. You need to learn this concept - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value




There is no monopoly in copyrights (or at least the way copyright laws should be). I'm not going to get back into this again, but my writing a book or producing a film in no way infringes your ability to do so. That depends. Ideas are not copyrightable, but the expression of those ideas are copyrightable.

If the work is similar enough to yours, I could be successfully sued for copyright infringement under current law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity




Also, a copyright is pretty much the same thing as a contract that prohibits unauthorized use upon ownership. No, not at all. A copyright is a governmental decree that only the copyright holder has certain privileges (copying, distribution, recording, display, performance, transmission, etc).

You don't have to register a copyright for it to be in effect, the government grants protection as soon as it's fixed in a tangible medium of expression. However you are afforded certain benefits if you register your work with the government.

[Matt Collins]

MoxNews is covered under Fair use in the Copyright Act, so you're wrong and youtube are wrong to remove them.Uh no. First off Fair Use is a defense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use



As for Kim, he was infringing on people's constitutional rights and profiting from it.Uhh, there are sooooo many things wrong with this statement. Copyright is actually a logical fallacy, it should be "copyprivilege" as there are no actual rights involved. Secondly the Constitution doesn't grant any rights whatsoever, government can't grant rights.

Please watch Badnarik's Constitution Class video to understand the difference between rights and privileges.

[heavenlyboy34]

YouTube only removes videos when a copyright notice is given to them by the copyright "owner."
This^^ According to "fair use doctrine (http://www.expertlaw.com/library/intellectual_property/fair_use.html)", what MoxNews does is "illegal". They post clips far longer than any legal limit I've seen (it's changed several times, and typically isn't more than a few minutes, which is why people like Limbaugh only play a minute or two of any recorded audio clip). Matter of fact, their channel has been suspended (http://www.youtube.com/user/wwwMOXNEWScom). ("About UNFAIR & BIASEDToday youtube suspended my MOX News accounts with over 10,000 videos on it! Hopefully it will return in the near future I will post here for the time being as I also received multiple copyright violations on my other yt page TODAY! Thank You ALL ")

Moxy wrote earlier this year (http://moxnews.com/):
Another MOX News youtube page was taken down last night 5,000 videos deleted. I made a video and have been attempting to upload it but I cannot get an upload started on the MOX News pages are still in place on youtube This is one of the pages that is still LIVE http://www.youtube.com/user/MOXNEWSd0tC0M (http://www.youtube.com/user/MOXNEWSd0tC0M?feature=mhee)

That is a clickable link PLEASE make sure You are subscribed so that if I am ever allowed to upload again, You will be the first to know where I am at & HERE is a second back up page

http://www.youtube.com/user/wwwMOXNEWScom

Thank You ALL for your continued support :)~MOXy

[tangent4ronpaul]

This might be part of another problem YouTube is having. Seems they have a system where anyone can step up and claim copywrite ownership and it will automatically be assigned to them. Then the person claiming ownership will be given 2 options: 1) take it down or 2) leave it up and get ad revenues from any clicks from ads placed by "their" content.

Apparently, it's fairly common for people that are not the copywrite holders to claim ownership and get paid or it's an easy way to take down contant you don't like.


YouTube’s Content-ID Piracy Filter Wreaks Havoc
http://torrentfreak.com/youtubes-content-id-piracy-filter-wreaks-havoc-110908/


-t

[Tpoints]

Very true, the printing press changed all of this.

It's hard for us to imagine it now but slavery was a universally valid and accepted institution until a couple of hundred years ago, not even the Bible questioned it. Your point being?


My point being :
1) it's not hard for me to imagine
2) how do you know they were wrong then and we are right now? Can't you use the same argument "Hey, it's a new concept, we had thousands of years without these stupid laws"



If you have ever studied law you'll know that precedent weighs in heavily and tends to be most significant the factor in deciding law in modern US. Now obviously that methodology has flaws, major flaws, but it is the system that is used.

Furthermore, black and female suffrage are not privileges granted to people by the government, they are rights that exist and have always existed, but have simply been denied by the government until modern history.


How do we know that? Why can't I say that copyright/copyprivilege/intellectual property/patents are naturally existing, inevitable, unalienable rights which are simply denied in primitive societies and recognized by modern governments?



It was only recently that our government acknowledged these rights existed at all. Now however the government has decided to bestow the privilege of being able to retain some control over one's ideas, or at least the expression thereof. The government doesn't have to extend this privilege, the Constitution doesn't require Congress do that. These privileges can arbitrarily be taken away whenever Congress deems it.

That's the difference between a right and a privilege.

Uhh, not so fast. I understand you're trying to tell me one is a right and the other is a privilege, but what you haven't told me is how you know which is which (seems like you could've easily decided in advance which is what you want, and argue backwards).

[itshappening]

If Mox sued YouTube they would back off but obviously he can't afford that so just has to play cat and mouse with them.

[Matt Collins]

Uhh, not so fast. I understand you're trying to tell me one is a right and the other is a privilege, but what you haven't told me is how you know which is which (seems like you could've easily decided in advance which is what you want, and argue backwards).Look up the definition of rights and then privileges in Black's Law Dictionary and it'll be self evident.


Here is a good place to start - http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/sites/default/files/files-misc/chapter_two.pdf

[Tpoints]

If Mox sued YouTube they would back off but obviously he can't afford that so just has to play cat and mouse with them.

He has done it before with FoxNews claims (I think that's what he said in his latest videos), so he can probably do it again. It's not a full on "sue" it's probably just a counter DMCA notice or some sort of legal notice which states his rights...etc.

[Tpoints]

Look up the definition of rights and then privileges in Black's Law Dictionary and it'll be self evident.


Here is a good place to start - http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/sites/default/files/files-misc/chapter_two.pdf

A right is defi ned by Black’s Law Dictionary as “a power,
privilege, (sic) faculty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon
another … the powers of free action.”2 Please note that rights are “inherent”
in a person. This means that it is physically impossible for rights to be
extracted from a person by any means.

I will say there is no such thing as a right which can't be extracted from a person. This is wishful thinking, the fact rights have been ignored and denied in the past is all the evidence I need to say that they were "separable, non-intrinsic, non-inherent". So keep trying.

[Matt Collins]

A right is defi ned by Black’s Law Dictionary as “a power,
privilege, (sic) faculty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon
another … the powers of free action.”2 Please note that rights are “inherent”
in a person. This means that it is physically impossible for rights to be
extracted from a person by any means.

I will say there is no such thing as a right which can't be extracted from a person. This is wishful thinking, the fact rights have been ignored and denied in the past is all the evidence I need to say that they were "separable, non-intrinsic, non-inherent". So keep trying.Rights exist whether governments acknowledge them or not.

[heavenlyboy34]

Rights exist whether governments acknowledge them or not.
truth.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." -Declaration Of Independence

[Tpoints]

Rights exist whether governments acknowledge them or not.

that still doesn't tell me how I know women's equality is a right and copyright is not. Both of them were denied by government until recently. Why is one right and the other wrong?

[Tpoints]

truth.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." -Declaration Of Independence

hardly reflected in law at the time. This is evidenced by no less than existence of slavery and women being unable to vote. Wishful thinking is easy. Even if I granted you TJ's words as reflected in reality at the time, it's still fairly recent, as in, 240 years ago. So, should we say that just as copyright didn't become recognized until late 1700s, nor should this?

[Matt Collins]

that still doesn't tell me how I know women's equality is a right and copyright is not. Both of them were denied by government until recently. Why is one right and the other wrong?Because you cannot hold onto an idea once it's released. You can't posses it, you can't own it. You can however own and posses your body, your land, your property.

[LibertyRevolution]

I don't agree with the idea of being able to license anything, music, movies, or software, etc.
If I buy a physical disk from you, I own that disk and everything that is on it, and if I want to make 100 copies, that is my prerogative.
You can take your EULA and use it as TP, I don't agree with your terms, and your forcing me to sign a contract after the Point Of Sale, so GL with that.

I feel the same about TV. Once something is played on TV, that is its first sale far as I see it, and it should be fair game to record and play it after that.

MOXNEWS is a great resource to everyone, I have even sent him some money when he asked last time.
I know what its like to cap and edit tv, I have 695GB in my Recorded TV folder right now...
I couldn't imagine doing as many channels as him, all day long, that takes a special type of person.

[Tpoints]

Because you cannot hold onto an idea once it's released. You can't posses it, you can't own it. You can however own and posses your body, your land, your property.

No you can't. You might be in an advantaged position to do so, but you can no more physically protect your body and land than your ideas.

[Tpoints]

I don't agree with the idea of being able to license anything, music, movies, or software, etc.
If I buy a physical disk from you, I own that disk and everything that is on it, and if I want to make 100 copies, that is my prerogative.

You don't like the idea, then don't use those software and don't deal with people who make them. You didn't "buy" the disk, you paid for a license, if you don't like it, don't pay for it. You agreed with the contract when you clicked you agree. You surrendered whatever imaginary "rights" or "prerogative" you had. Nobody would sell you a disk for $20 or $100 if they were releasing their control to it, the fact you don't know your rights is not their fault. This is no different than renting a house, paying $1000 for rent doesn't mean you own the house, you don't get to say "I own it now and forever" just because you got keys to it.

[itshappening]

I don't agree with the idea of being able to license anything, music, movies, or software, etc.
If I buy a physical disk from you, I own that disk and everything that is on it, and if I want to make 100 copies, that is my prerogative.
You can take your EULA and use it as TP, I don't agree with your terms, and your forcing me to sign a contract after the Point Of Sale, so GL with that.

I feel the same about TV. Once something is played on TV, that is its first sale far as I see it, and it should be fair game to record and play it after that.

MOXNEWS is a great resource to everyone, I have even sent him some money when he asked last time.
I know what its like to cap and edit tv, I have 695GB in my Recorded TV folder right now...
I couldn't imagine doing as many channels as him, all day long, that takes a special type of person.

The problem is you cannot distribute someone's content and breach their constitutionally protected rights.

That's why Megaupload and Youtube are different. Megaupload was knowingly a haven for warez, software, porn, movies, music and tv episodes. Stuff that costs money to produce and are Arts protected under the constitution.

Just because you buy a DVD it doesn't mean the studio consents to you ripping it and uploading it to Megaupload in 50 split files then posting them all over the internet for perhaps tens of thousands of people to download. That makes a mockery of the entire business of the studio/producer and their constitutional rights to have their art protected. The studio is within their rights to seek that such a service is shut down especially when they have servers in the U.S and the U.S gov't license Network Solutions to administer the .com top level domain, meaning they can seek to have that domain seized as a willful infringer subject to due process of law.

Youtube only deals with videos and you can't upload porn so the adult producers don't have anything to fear there and neither do software or games producers. In addition, Youtube works with literally every studio and music label on the planet to distribute authorized content and take down unauthorized content though because of the potential for massive lawsuits Youtube are understandably cautious.

I support Moxnews 100% and believe since he's uploading and distributing 'News' then this is protected under 'Fair Use' within copyright law and his first ammendment rights under the constitition. The sad fact is that because of youtube being overzealous in order to defend those rights you have to get their attention and make them back off by either filling or lawsuit or contacting them in some way and having them review your account but generally YouTube works well and all the rights holders are on board with it.

They do not accept the likes of megaupload though because it is ran by a criminal who seeks to distribute and profit from other people's protected Art.

[itshappening]

And for those who don't believe in copyright as I've said on this thread before it is up to you to get the constitution ammended to strip out Article I section 8, which isn't going to happen. That clause has been re-affirmed by literally hundreds of court rulings throughout the last 240 years and there is a wide body of law on the subject.

In the 80's the courts affirmed that you could tape stuff off of TV and ruled against the studios who were seeking to stop VCR so personal copies are permissable but that isnt the same as what megaupload was doing, not by a long shot.

If you took your duel VCR and made 100 copies then went down to a local market and sold them, then that would not be permissible and that's exactly what megaupload 'digitized'.

They paid people to copy content and spread it!

Legally, like with the 'real world' example of someone selling hundreds of copies of DVDs at the local market that sort of behavior can attract criminal charges and land you in jail and that's why I think the DOJ are pursuing Kim Dotcom.

[Tpoints]

And for those who don't believe in copyright as I've said on this thread before it is up to you to get the constitution ammended to strip out Article I section 8, which isn't going to happen. That clause has been re-affirmed by literally hundreds of court rulings throughout the last 240 years and there is a wide body of law on the subject.

In the 80's the courts affirmed that you could tape stuff off of TV and ruled against the studios who were seeking to stop VCR so personal copies are permissable but that isnt the same as what megaupload was doing, not by a long shot.

People who say "copying is copying" might as well say "using a gun is using a gun" as if defense and offense are equally justifiable.

[itshappening]

The thing is Kim underestimes the power of the U.S Federal government.

Obviously, I do not support the power they have accrued or the abuse of that power but they have influence far and wide and if the entertainment industry is pushing the DOJ to go after Kim then he better be ready for the battle.

He should really find something else to do and use his smarts in another direction rather than continuing his criminal career but he has already said he plans to introduce a new service that will encrypt and randomize every uploaded file to make it near on impossible to identify what's going on and what's being distributed (unless you have the secret pass) the flaws are obvious because peado's will be the first to use it to distribute child pornography and that is going to further enrage the DOJ. They will go after every host, every domain and try and extradite him to his new residence which won't be a mansion in New Zealand, it will be a Federal prison.

[Matt Collins]

You might be in an advantaged position to do so, but you can no more physically protect your body and land than your ideas.You fail logic.

[Tpoints]

You fail logic.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

[noneedtoaggress]

Do I need to explicitly agree and sign? Or do they just need to warn me of the consequences? If the latter, how is it different than copyright notices/warnings on every book and CD cover?


The Limits of Contract
The law, then, should protect individual rights to one’s body, and
to legitimately acquired scarce resources (property). There is not a
natural right to ideal objects—to one’s intellectual innovations or
creations—but only to scarce resources. Many opponents of IP rights
typically support only contractual arrangements to protect ideas and
innovations—private contracts between property owners.80

Suppose, for example, that A writes a book and sells physical copies of it to
numerous purchasers B1, B2 . . . BN, with a contractual condition that
each buyer B is obligated not to make or sell a copy of the text.
Under all theories of contract, any of the buyers B becomes liable
to A, at least for damages, if he violates these provisions.81

But the advocates of the contractual approach to IP are mistaken
if they believe that private contract can be used to recreate the same
type of protection afforded by modern IP rights. Patent and copy*
right are good against all third parties, regardless of their consent
to a contract. They are real rights that bind everyone, in the same
way that my title to a parcel of land binds everyone to respect my
property—even if they do not have a contract with me. A contract,
by contrast, binds only parties to the contract. It is like private law
between the parties.82

It does not bind third parties, i.e., those not
in “privity” with the original parties.83

Thus, if the book purchaser B relates to third parties T the plot
of the purchased novel, these third parties T are not bound, in gen*
eral, by the original contractual obligation between A and B. If I
learn how to adjust my car’s carburetor to double its efficiency, or
if I learn of a poem or movie plot someone else has written, why
should I have to pretend that I am ignorant of these things, and re*
frain from acting on this knowledge? I have not obligated myself
by contract to the creator. I do not deny that contractual obligations
can be implicit or tacit, but there is not even an implicit contract in
such situations.

Nor can it be said as a general matter that I have stolen or fraud*
ulently acquired the information, as there are many legitimate ways
for individuals to acquire information. Artistic works, by their very
nature, typically are made public. Scientific discoveries and innova*
tions likewise can become known beyond the parties to confidenti*
ality agreements. And it certainly cannot be said that my use of my
carburetor, or writing a novel using the same plot, physically inter*
feres with the creator’s use of his own tangible property. It does not
even prevent the creator from using his own carburetor idea to im*
prove his own car or others’, or from using that plot.

So, my adjusting my carburetor is not a breach of contract; it is
not theft; and it is not physical trespass on the inventor’s tangible
property. Twiddling my carburetor does not violate the inventor’s
rights. At most, my use of this idea will diminish its value to the in*
ventor by hampering his ability to monopolistically exploit it. As we
have seen, however, one cannot have a right to the value of one’s
property, but only in its physical integrity.84

Thus, the use of contract only gets us so far. A book publisher
may be able to contractually obligate his purchasers to not copy his
book, but he cannot prevent third parties from publishing and sell*
ing it, unless some contract prohibits this action.

Don't know how many times this has been posted in this thread but here it is again:
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

[noneedtoaggress]

For anyone interested, here is a reader of literature about IP: h/t Mr Kinsella
Property/Rights-based Arguments


Against Intellectual Property (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf), Spring 2001, Vol. 15, no. 2 Journal of Libertarian Studies, Stephan Kinsella
In Defense of Napster and Against the Second Homesteading Rule (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/kinsella2.html), September 4, 2000, LewRockwell.com, Stephan Kinsella (summary version of some of the arguments presented in "Against Intellectual Property")
The Morality of Acquiring and Enforcing Patents (http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/001788.html), Stephan Kinsella
Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State and Power and Market (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp), Scholars Edition, liv, 745-54, 1133-38, 1181-86
Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, pp. 123–24
Contra Copyright (http://www.mmsweb.com/eykiw/pf/contra.txt), Wendy McElroy, The Voluntaryist, June 1985
The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights (http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html), Roderick T. Long, Formulations 3, no. 1 (Autumn 1995)
Intellectual Property: Copyright and Patent in Liberty (http://www.zetetics.com/mac/libdebates/ch6intpr.html) (from The Debates of Liberty, Wendy McElroy

Utilitarian Considerations


Patents and Copyrights: Do the Benefits Exceed the Costs? (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_4/15_4_3.pdf), Fall 2001, Vol. 15 Num. 4 Journal of Libertarian Studies, Julio H. Cole
On the Abuse of Patents as Economic Indicators (http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae1_4_3.pdf), Winter 1998, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Pierre Desrochers
Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap23sec6.asp) 3rd rev. ed. Chicago: Henry Regnery (1966), chap. 23, section 6, pp. 661–62; see also pp. 128 (http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap7sec2.asp), 364 (http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap16sec6.asp)
The Case Against the Patent System (http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000902-3.htm), Pierre Desrochers, Le Québécois Libre, Sept. 2, 2000
George Reisman, Capitalism (http://www.mises.org/books/capitalism.pdf), pp. 388-89 & 417-20; also 40, 96, 187, 216, 233

Mises Daily


Rethinking Patent Law (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=468&FS=Rethinking+Patent+Law), July 18, 2000, Mises.org, Gene Callahan,
Patent Wrongs (http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=641&id=66), March 29, 2001, Mises.org, Ilana Mercer
Cipro Shortage: An Invented Scarcity (http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=812&id=66), October 25, 2001, Mises.org, Ilana Mercer

LewRockwell.com


Letter to an Anonymous Patent Attorney (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/kinsella7.html), Stephan Kinsella
Patently Absurd (http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy17.html), Wendy McElroy
Of Patents and Pooper-Scoopers (http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster61.html), Karen De Coster
My Un-PC Views on ‘Intellectual Property’ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/sapienza/sapienza37.html), Jeremy Sapienza
The Fraud of ‘Intellectual Property’ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/sapienza/sapienza36.html)
The Government Copyright System Is Dying (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north224.html), Gary North

Further reading


Links to other IP articles, pro and con, can be found at www.StephanKinsella.com/ip (http://www.StephanKinsella.com/ip)


Reposting.

[Tpoints]

Don't know how many times this has been posted in this thread but here it is again:
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf



Thus, the use of contract only gets us so far. A book publisher
may be able to contractually obligate his purchasers to not copy his
book, but he cannot prevent third parties from publishing and sell*
ing it, unless some contract prohibits this action.



I've heard this one before "I never agreed to it, so it doesn't apply to me". Ok, fine, so I never agreed with laws against murder, so therefore they don't apply to me.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Were Megaupload's servers located in a US Territory or State? Is Kim Dotcom a US Citizen?

The obvious question would then, therefore, be obvious.

[Tpoints]

Were Megaupload's servers located in a US Territory or State? Is Kim Dotcom a US Citizen?

The obvious question would then, therefore, be obvious.

Some were
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/legal-and-management/megaupload-s-pirated-content-hosted-on-u-1005937752.story

And you don't need to be a US citizen to be subject to laws and jurisdiction, just like you don't need to be to enjoy certain protections of rights.

[noneedtoaggress]

I've heard this one before "I never agreed to it, so it doesn't apply to me". Ok, fine, so I never agreed with laws against murder, so therefore they don't apply to me.

Uh, what? You realize that you were discussing contracts (specifically you were discussing contracts between buyers and sellers), and that contracts, by definition are a voluntarily entered agreements, right? (Apart from the "Social Contract", of course, which like IP is a misnomer, and is involuntary and not a real contract.)

You're making the argument that 2 parties contracting with each other can involuntarily bind third parties to the terms of the contract.

[Tpoints]

Uh, what? You realize that you were discussing contracts (specifically you were discussing contracts between buyers and sellers), and that contracts, by definition are a voluntarily entered agreements, right? (Apart from the "Social Contract", of course, which like IP is a misnomer, and is involuntary and not a real contract.)

are only voluntary agreements enforceable? Or is it sometimes justifiable to use force for laws even if some people don't agree to it?

[misean]

This is one of the better threads I've seen in a while. I don't know where I stand. I kind of think Kinsella is wrong. I think you need you need copyrights and IP to protect and encourage the creative work of others. I know Ayn Rand was certainly very much in favor of copyright laws.

[Tpoints]

This is one of the better threads I've seen in a while. I don't know where I stand. I kind of think Kinsella is wrong. I think you need you need copyrights and IP to protect and encourage the creative work of others. I know Ayn Rand was certainly very much in favor of copyright laws.

I don't think you need it, but it sure helps a lot.

[Confederate]

He has done it before with FoxNews claims (I think that's what he said in his latest videos), so he can probably do it again. It's not a full on "sue" it's probably just a counter DMCA notice or some sort of legal notice which states his rights...etc.

On YouTube you can disput a copyright claim, I've had it happen to me quite a few times. Fox News 99% of the time don't care and release their claim on the video. The ones that actually go after you and have the video deleted and a copyright strike placed against your account are NBC, Viacom, Reuters, and CNN. Those are the ones I've had problems with.

[Confederate]

And for those who don't believe in copyright as I've said on this thread before it is up to you to get the constitution ammended to strip out Article I section 8, which isn't going to happen. That clause has been re-affirmed by literally hundreds of court rulings throughout the last 240 years and there is a wide body of law on the subject.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to create copyright laws and a framework to enforce them, it does not grant anyone any rights (rights cannot come from government). If Congress wanted they could pass a law saying that once you publish something you release all claims to it and that would be 100% constitutional.

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS.

[mport1]

that man is a huge pirate and was blatantly making money by encouraging people to upload and distribute pirated content.

megaupload deserved to get shut down. (see US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8)

"Intellectual property" is a farce. Kim is a hero, and he should not face government aggression for his actions.

[heavenlyboy34]

"Intellectual property" is a farce. Kim is a hero, and he should not face government aggression for his actions. +rep

[itshappening]

Kim isn't a hero he's a criminal.


The Constitution grants Congress the power to create copyright laws and a framework to enforce them, it does not grant anyone any rights (rights cannot come from government). If Congress wanted they could pass a law saying that once you publish something you release all claims to it and that would be 100% constitutional.

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS.

If congress did that it would be struck down as unconstitutional just like the "right" to bear arms is enshrined as is protection for artists of their works.

[noneedtoaggress]

are only voluntary agreements enforceable? Or is it sometimes justifiable to use force for laws even if some people don't agree to it?

^This

doesn't support this:


You're making the argument that 2 parties contracting with each other can involuntarily bind third parties to the terms of the contract.

You left the scope of contractual agreements (which is what you were discussing, and what my response was in regards to) when you started talking about involuntary relationships.

So you leapt from discussing contractual arrangements to fallaciously implying that my response had something to do with inferring that enforcing contractual arrangements was the only justifiable use of force. Having fun with these games you're playing? Perhaps you'd like to tell me more about how much I "hate profits" because I'm against the monopolization of non-scarce patterns of information and prioritizing that over the use-rights of scarce physical material. lol.

[noneedtoaggress]

This is one of the better threads I've seen in a while. I don't know where I stand. I kind of think Kinsella is wrong. I think you need you need copyrights and IP to protect and encourage the creative work of others. I know Ayn Rand was certainly very much in favor of copyright laws.

What do you disagree with?

As far as "needing copyrights to protect and encourage creative work", not only is it unnecessary but it tends to be detrimental.

I'd recommend this for more:
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521127262/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356401632&sr=8-1&keywords=against+intellectual+monopoly

[Tpoints]

You're making the argument that 2 parties contracting with each other can involuntarily bind third parties to the terms of the contract.



Correct, just like a group of people making laws can involuntarily force people who were not in the lawmaking room to abide by the laws they never agreed to. Either that is justifiable or it is not. If it's justifiable, we don't need contracts. If it's not, then you must admit murderers who don't agree with laws against murder shouldn't be subject to them.

[Tpoints]

As far as "needing copyrights to protect and encourage creative work", not only is it unnecessary but it tends to be detrimental.


I am not convinced in unnecessary, but detrimental? To who? Certainly not the creators, or else they'd voluntarily release their work, surrender their privilege to enforce. But even if it is, if you acknowledge that they have a right to make such a choice, and/or that they own the creation/IP, it wouldn't matter if their choices are detrimental to them.

[Tpoints]

inferring that enforcing contractual arrangements was the only justifiable use of force.

It's not? What else is then? Tell me!

[cindy25]

what about the files owned by innocent customers? imagine if a bank was stolen, including all contents of safety deposit boxes, because some customers stored drugs or weapons in their boxes.

[cindy25]

I am not convinced in unnecessary, but detrimental? To who? Certainly not the creators, or else they'd voluntarily release their work, surrender their privilege to enforce. But even if it is, if you acknowledge that they have a right to make such a choice, and/or that they own the creation/IP, it wouldn't matter if their choices are detrimental to them.

it can be detrimental to the creator. a British tv series posted on line becomes popular, and this has lead to that series to be requested by cable subscribers in other countries.

or an audio book is posted on line, the downloader talks about that book, and others then buy either the audio or print edition.

or someone watches the first episode of a TV series, and decides to add that cable channel.

Hollywood the VCR with as much determination as they fight pirate bay today. and it was the VCR and later the DVD player that saved Hollywood.

I don't understand why they don't see downloading as a positive, cheap way of distribution, and place their own torrents with ads in them

[Tpoints]

it can be detrimental to the creator. a British tv series posted on line becomes popular, and this has lead to that series to be requested by cable subscribers in other countries.


If it were guaranteed, that'd be different.



or an audio book is posted on line, the downloader talks about that book, and others then buy either the audio or print edition.


Or is it more likely the people who heard about it also downloaded it?



or someone watches the first episode of a TV series, and decides to add that cable channel.


Again, how often is that? Why should anybody take that risk? It's easy for you to say when it's not you who owns the content, you sure know more about making a show popular and profitable (NOT!)



Hollywood the VCR with as much determination as they fight pirate bay today. and it was the VCR and later the DVD player that saved Hollywood.


Players, not copiers



I don't understand why they don't see downloading as a positive, cheap way of distribution, and place their own torrents with ads in them

No, everybody knows downloading is the cheapest way to distribute, some have already placed streams online with ads in them, thus making it even faster than torrents, they do so because they choose to and believe it's beneficial, if they don't, they shouldn't have it done without their consent. Just because something can benefit you doesn't mean it can be done to you without your permission, the whole concept of property rests on a person's choice to do things which even hurts himself.

I think you know the difference between authorized and unauthorized copy, even the user knows this.

[kcchiefs6465]

it can be detrimental to the creator. a British tv series posted on line becomes popular, and this has lead to that series to be requested by cable subscribers in other countries.

or an audio book is posted on line, the downloader talks about that book, and others then buy either the audio or print edition.

or someone watches the first episode of a TV series, and decides to add that cable channel.

Hollywood the VCR with as much determination as they fight pirate bay today. and it was the VCR and later the DVD player that saved Hollywood.

I don't understand why they don't see downloading as a positive, cheap way of distribution, and place their own torrents with ads in them
I believe a certain entrepreneur tried just that. The DOJ does not act out of a right/wrong philosophy. Mainly everything they enlist upon is politically motivated. Instead of producing actual solutions (as free markets would have) they use their usual tactics of force to make other sovereign nations join in their (political, ridiculous, show-of-force) endeavors. (For the record I am on the side of people being able to profit off of ideas that came to at a cost to produce- i.e. movies, music, etc. There are solutions to this problem, though. (one being free transfer paid for through advertisements) It is clear the levy has broken. They (respective copyright holders) must flow with the punches or lose any sense of loyalty when they target the people who actually support them but just can't/don't buy the 'art' they produce. The data is out there. It's time for them to a make a buck where they're able or STFU. One way or another, the data will always be there.

[Tpoints]

It's time for them to a make a buck where they're able or STFU. One way or another, the data will always be there.

Let's put aside your views on property. Are you essentially saying "if you can't protect, secure, and exploit your property without government force, too bad, it's not yours"?

[itshappening]

it can be detrimental to the creator. a British tv series posted on line becomes popular, and this has lead to that series to be requested by cable subscribers in other countries.

or an audio book is posted on line, the downloader talks about that book, and others then buy either the audio or print edition.

or someone watches the first episode of a TV series, and decides to add that cable channel.

Hollywood the VCR with as much determination as they fight pirate bay today. and it was the VCR and later the DVD player that saved Hollywood.

I don't understand why they don't see downloading as a positive, cheap way of distribution, and place their own torrents with ads in them

And in the case of VCR, the courts ruled that personal copying is permissible. They do not rule that storing and distributing the content on centralized servers in America is permissable. That's the difference. Just like copying a video 100 times and selling them at a market is not allowed even though the act of copying is permitted along with the technology.

So therefore, in the case of VCR the law worked and the courts struck a sensible balance. There's nothing sensible about rampant and blatant theft of the kind that megaupload was engaging in.

[noneedtoaggress]

Correct, just like a group of people making laws can involuntarily force people who were not in the lawmaking room to abide by the laws they never agreed to. Either that is justifiable or it is not. If it's justifiable, we don't need contracts. If it's not, then you must admit murderers who don't agree with laws against murder shouldn't be subject to them.

So in other words, you’ve suddenly decided to equate involuntary “social contracts” with voluntary private contracts.

You asked about private contracts. I responded with an excerpt about the limits of private contracts. You didn’t like that this answer didn’t allow private contracts to fully support a system of IP, so you shifted to an authoritarian principle in order to support yourself.

If your involuntary social contract answer was applied to the situation you originally asked about then you’d effectively be making the case that HB and I can contract with each other and involuntarily bind you into paying our internet bills.

But that’s clearly not what you were going for. You simply wanted to support your position regardless of the context of the discussion, so you went from making an argument from contractual arrangements to an appeal to authoritarianism.


I am not convinced in unnecessary, but detrimental? To who? Certainly not the creators, or else they'd voluntarily release their work, surrender their privilege to enforce.

Now you’re making the argument that monopolies in non-scarce goods are not detrimental because someone may benefit from holding one. Under the assumption that this “someone” who “creates” a pattern out of their justly acquired material property has the right to control all other instances of the pattern in other people’s justly acquired material property, and that it would be desirable for them to benefit from the coercive monopolization of expressions of these non-scarce patterns at the expense of the property rights of everyone else.

Obviously you’re not convinced about either or you wouldn’t be arguing with me about this. I already posted a book with more information on that topic in the post you responded to. That’s just one resource. HB posted more links with more information, and there's plenty more you can find if you look. You aren’t convinced because you don’t care to be. I can’t help you with that. If you really want to understand this perspective it’s going to be yourself, not I, who will convince you. So go read a book. Maybe start with the one I posted in the post you’re responding to. It was posted for a reason.


But even if it is, if you acknowledge that they have a right to make such a choice, and/or that they own the creation/IP, it wouldn't matter if their choices are detrimental to them.

There is no right to make such a choice, because it presupposes the “right” to control others’ physical property for discovering a pattern of information. There is no such “right”, and any attempts to enforce this "right", by definition, creates more conflict rather than reduces conflict.

Intellectual “property” is a misnomer, and has nothing to do with reducing conflict by determining use-rights in scarce goods. It’s about creating an artificial monopoly and has the opposite effect. It creates conflict between those who want to hold a monopoly in non-scarce ideas, and those who hold ownership rights over scarce physical material.

You apparently disagree with this interpretation of property but never told us why you believe that to be the case or gave any alternatives.

[Tpoints]

So in other words, you’ve suddenly decided to equate involuntary “social contracts” with voluntary private contracts.


I don't need to equate them, if they are both enforceable, that's all I need them to have in common.



If your involuntary social contract answer was applied to the situation you originally asked about then you’d effectively be making the case that HB and I can contract with each other and involuntarily bind you into paying our internet bills.


Yes, I am.



But that’s clearly not what you were going for.


Wow, how did you know?



You simply wanted to support your position regardless of the context of the discussion, so you went from making an argument from contractual arrangements to an appeal to authoritarianism.


And what's my position?



Now you’re making the argument that monopolies are not detrimental because someone may benefit.


I brought it up when it was time, I didn't just think it up for no reason.



Obviously you’re not convinced about either or you wouldn’t be arguing with me about this. I already posted a book with more information. That’s just one resource. HB posted more links with more information. You aren’t convinced because you don’t care to be. I can’t help you with that. If you really want to understand this perspective it’s going to be yourself, not I, who will convince you.


At least you admit you can't convince me.




There is no right to make such a choice, because it presupposes the “right” to control others’ physical property for discovering a pattern of information. There is no such “right”, and any attempts to enforce this "right", by definition, creates more conflict rather than reduces conflict.


Is it not a right because it increases conflict? Or does it increase conflict because it's not a right? This is a serious question. I want to know why you do not recognize such a right when I can bring up just as good arguments for owning land, or "you can't tell me what to do" applied to physical property.



You apparently disagree with this interpretation of property but never told us why you believe that to be the case or gave any alternatives.

I didn't? Ok, I'll give you one here : property is, whatever I can own and control. Here's another one : whatever people recognize you own. Here's another one : whatever I can get away with claiming is mine. There, that's 3.

[noneedtoaggress]

At least you admit you can't convince me.

Lol, say it with pride. I’m beginning to see why you’re so adamant about controlling other people’s property over the patterns you discover.

I love how you used the word “admit”. Ever heard that old saying about leading a horse to water? I never claimed I could convince you. In fact, I’m more interested in introducing ideas to people who aren’t entrenched in defending the opposing position, and if I can use you as a soundboard for that, that’s great. If I was seriously attempting to convince Tpoints in particular I wouldn’t have gone into an adversarial debate with you on a public forum. I’d expect you to be pretty defensive, which you’ve beautifully displayed here.

Why would I worry about trying to convince someone who describes their perception of me by telling me that I “hate profits” and imply that I'm alright with thievery?

And as I stated earlier, IP is a dying legacy institution. It doesn’t take much to recognize that IP is in crisis and that it’s only going to get worse in the future. 3d Printing is showing the possibility of being the next big disruptive technology. If you're "unconvinced", then that's your prerogative.


Is it not a right because it increases conflict? Or does it increase conflict because it's not a right? This is a serious question. I want to know why you do not recognize such a right when I can bring up just as good arguments for owning land, or "you can't tell me what to do" applied to physical property.

It increases conflict because you’re assigning ownership rights to something that’s not property, it’s a pattern arranged by property. These “rights” privileges over the expression of patterns conflicts with the rights of property owners so you have to assign these pseudo-property-right government privileges above property rights in scarce material. This defeats the purpose of property (to reduce conflict over scarce goods by determining use-rights) in order to create artificial monopoly in non-scarce goods.


I didn't? Ok, I'll give you one here : property is, whatever I can own and control. Here's another one : whatever people recognize you own. Here's another one : whatever I can get away with claiming is mine. There, that's 3.

So in other words, if people recognize your claim to own a family of black slaves that's what you would consider “legitimate” property.

[Tpoints]

It increases conflict because you’re assigning ownership rights to something that’s not property


So, circularly: It creates conflict because you're making property out of what's not property. So if it was property there would be less conflict, and if there were no conflict it would be property? Sounds like you're saying if I don't stop you from owning black slaves, you must justly own them.



This defeats the purpose of property: to reduce conflict over scarce goods by determining use-rights.


Sorry, I didn't know property had a purpose. So if elimination of property was the best way to avoid conflict, you would place reducing conflict above property rights for purely pragmatic reasons? That's right. I am asking you, if the only way to serve your alleged "purpose of property" is to eliminate property, would you be for it?



So in other words, if people recognize your claim to own a family of black slaves that's what you would consider “legitimate” property.

I don't see a better definition, it worked for centuries until egalitarians and communists destroyed it. But I guess that's fine with you, because if a property is a "dying legacy" then it'll just go. I can ask you the same question, if NOBODY recognized your right (because you probably know, capitalism and property in general is a 'dying legacy'), would you still have property? You have two options : either the recognition by people, power, market matter, or they do not. (both have extremes which I bet you will not accept)

Go ahead, give me a better one. And tell me why it's better.