View Poll Results: Please check ALL that you agree with:

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • No individual has moral right to use force on his neighbor to prevent use of ideas or information.

    54 78.26%
  • Since no one has moral right to use such force on his neighbor, he cannot delegate it to govment.

    52 75.36%
  • My use of the idea does not prevent your use of the idea, therefore ideas cannot be "stolen."

    55 79.71%
  • Owing an idea and knowing an idea are one and the same. My ownership of it does not destroy yours.

    43 62.32%
  • Government should use force to prevent people from using information or ideas.

    6 8.70%
  • Govment should not use force to prevent use of info since no one could deligate such athority to it

    48 69.57%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 361

Thread: Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents

  1. #1

    Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents

    Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents

    Since all legitimate authority of the government is derived by delegation from the governed;

    and since no one has moral right to force his neighbor not to use information or ideas,

    therefore he cannot delegate such authority to his government.

    Hence, all patent and copyright laws are hereby and henceforth abolished.



    Explanation:

    Patents and copyrights violate a fundamental principle of liberty which I call The Benson Principle (please see the link), which basically says that if you have no moral right to force your neighbor to do or not to do something, you cannot delegate such authority to your government to force him for you, because the only legitimate authority the government can have is what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have. Since patents and copyright laws violate this fundamental principle of liberty they are in fact immoral.

    Patents are not only immoral, but also impose huge costs on society as a whole, stifling progress of entire industries.

    Copyrights have been historically used, and actually were originated as tools of censorship. As such they are a serious danger to liberty.

    For more insights please see this:


    The question then can be asked, how is the inventor or artist to benefit by his work? The answer is they can benefit by a wise use of contractual agreements with manufacturers or performers who will enjoy the benefit of FIRST use of the invention or of the art work.

    To do anything else is to violate fundamental principles of liberty and thus to inevitably jeopardize the well being, and ultimately the survival of the entire society, and that is unacceptably too high price to pay for an immoral use of government force!



    Understanding IP:


    Thank you for your efforts to be honest, to do your duty to defend Liberty, and to be a person of integrity. This is why I consider it worth while to share with you my views on IP. I do it with respect for you and with great desire for well-being of our beloved country.

    The question of IP (intellectual property) is key in preserving liberty. The current prevailing understanding of it is wrong and fundamentally incompatible with true principles of Liberty. If this error is unchecked all free speech (especially on the internet) will eventually be destroyed; as a result, Liberty will be destroyed; and with it, consequently, the society itself will be destroyed. This prompts me to lay out for you the correct understanding of IP, which is in harmony with the eternal principles of Liberty. Here we go:

    The fundamental principle of Intellectual Property is this:

    To possess information IS to own it,
    because, by its very nature, every copy of information is a separate intellectual property, that is independently owned by each one who has it, nor less than he owns his mind, his body, or the medium upon which the information is recorded.

    This is the very nature of information that can be easily verified by simple observation.

    Therefore, the creator of information owns it, but so does anyone who possesses a copy of the same information.

    Thus, intellectual property cannot be stolen, unless it is erased from the memory of the owner. Therefore copying information, in principle, cannot be stealing. You still have your copy. What is “stolen” is the ability to corner the market via an immoral grant of government monopoly on the use of information. Now, here is a key, the government has no right to grant such monopoly, because the only legitimate authority it has was delegated to it by the individuals governed, and no individual has moral right to use force on his neighbor to prevent him from using information or ideas, therefore he cannot delegate it to his government to do it in his behalf, because no one can delegate an authority he himself does not have.

    You may ask then, how is the creator of information to profit by his labors? The answer is:

    a) to secure a contract of first use, (in case of a movie studio, for example, it can contract with a movie theater chain, to show the movie first),

    b) (in case of software) require a paid key to use,

    c) In case of performing artist, most successful ones actually make more money by live performances than by CD sales. People come to see them in concert even though they already own their CD’s.

    d) In case of inventors: 1) secure contract of first use, 2) be first to market, 3) keep the secret of know-how as longs as you can (which turns out to be much, much lesser impediment to general progress than the patent laws!)

    e) use it yourself,

    f) rely on donations of grateful users.

    Copyrights and patents have their origins in usurpations of kings to impose censorship. The so called “defenders” of intellectual property, are in fact violators of intellectual property of everyone else, because again: to possess information is to own it, just as much as you own your mind, your VCR, your paper, your hard drive or your camera. Since you own all these you have the right to arrange them in any way you wish. To prevent a man from arranging his property in any way he pleases, as long as he is not violating the property of others, is to violate his property (intellectual and tangible). And you are not violating another’s intellectual property by copying it. To argue that by copying it you are preventing him from collecting income he might have had if he was granted monopoly on the use of it, is to argue that by making bread you deprive your neighbor’s bakery from making more money if he had a monopoly. Again, no one can grant such monopoly, because no one has such authority individually, and therefore cannot delegate it to the government to do it in his behalf, because no one can delegate an authority he does not have.

    These are fundamental principles of liberty, to violate which will lead to the destruction of Liberty, and if unchecked, to the destruction of the society itself.

    The fundamental principles of liberty cannot be made nor unmade by legislators any more than they can legislate away the laws of gravity or of electricity. These are eternal and natural principles, and they exist independent of our understanding of them. Our task, therefore, is to discover them and to live in harmony with them, which will result in maximum Liberty and Prosperity of the people. To ignore them is to gradually succumb to tyranny, and ultimately to destruction of the society itself.

    For more information please see The Fundamental Principles of Liberty (it spells out the three fundamental principles without which Liberty, cannot exist, and must unavoidably be destroyed).


    Thank you for all you do in the defense of Liberty!


    God bless you.


    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Here is another take:

    Quick Summary of Correct Principles of IP

    On intellectual property:

    This is a very important subject directly connected to the survival and prosperity of this nation, because it is directly connected to Liberty (without which any nation will inevitably self-destruct), which is directly connected to free speech, especially on the internet.

    Here are the main points:

    Intellectual property has a few major misconceptions in our society:

    1) “Information can be stolen even though the author still has his copy.”

    That is false because to steal something you must deprive the owner of the use of the thing. To violate a property you must either:

    a) alter it,

    b) remove it from the possession of the owner, or

    c) materially endanger a) or b)


    None of this takes place, when information is copied. What can be “stolen” is perhaps i) a secret, or ii) the ability to profit by having exclusive/controlled access to the information. Neither one of these, however, constitute a violation of the authors property if neither (a), (b), nor (c) occurred with regards to the author’s tangible and intellectual property. And since no violation of property occurred, (and no contract has been broken, because there was no contract that the copier explicitly agreed to with the author), no force is justified by the author against the copier, either directly or via a third party such as government.

    Here we will give the true definition of what Intellectual Property is:

    Intellectual Property is nothing more or less than a COPY of information in one's possession.

    Therefore, each copy of information constitutes a separate and independent intellectual property.
    This definition is based in the reality and truth of what information IS.

    The natural reality of any and all information is this:

    TO HAVE INFORMATION IS TO OWN IT, just as much as you own your mind, your papers or your computer, etc.

    The author owns it, but so does anyone who has a copy of the information. The author owns HIS copy, and the copier owns HIS copy. They are separate copies, and constitute TWO separate instances of intellectual property, even if it is the exact copy of the other. They are TWO properties, not one. This is the very nature of information, which can be ascertained by a simple and irrefutable observation: each copy of information exists INDEPENDENT of any other copy; even if you destroy one copy, the other copies do not cease to exist. Therefore, once they exist, they are independent. It is a fact. Each one who has a copy owns it just as much as he owns the medium on which it is recorded; he owns the information just as much as he owns his mind, his papers, his camera, or his computer. This is the very nature of information, to deny which is to deny reality of what information is, and to deny the truth easily established by irrefutable empirical evidence.

    TO HAVE INFORMATION IS TO OWN IT.

    2) “The creator of information cannot profit by his work without government forced monopoly on the use of the information he created.”

    That is false, because there are multiple ways for the author to profit by his work without the immoral use of government force to impose a monopoly. They are (in part):

    a) Secure a contract of first use with a publisher, performer or manufacturer. Example: a movies studio may contract with a theater chain to show their movie first, etc.

    b) In case of an invention, keep the secret as long as you can and be first to market and thus gain economic advantage. (Generally it buys the inventor 6 month to 2 years of natural monopoly, before others can figure out how it was done and swing into production).

    c) In case of software, a paid key may be required to unlock the code.

    d) In case of a performer use your recordings as an advertisement for your live performances. Most famous artists make most of their money in live performances. People come to see them in concert even though they already own all of their CD’s. Also original paintings may cost millions, even though photographic copies of them are readily available for free. etc.

    e) Reap the benefits of using it yourself.

    f) Rely on donations of grateful users. For example, even if Stephanie Myers did not have a contract of first use with her publisher (which she does have), but even if she didn’t, most of her grateful fans would have gladly donated $1 each or more if she asked for it, which would probably amount to millions of dollars!


    The point here is that such a government monopoly is immoral, because no author has a moral right to use FORCE upon his neighbors to prevent them from using information in their possession, even if it is the exact copy of the information he created. And since he has no moral right to use such violence, he cannot delegate it to the government to do it in his behalf.

    3) “The author worked hard to create the information, he deserves remuneration if other people use it, and it will be immoral if they use it without compensating him, therefore force can be used to extract the payment.”

    First of all, the author can and should benefit by his work. The proper ways to do so without violating the rights and property of others are listed in section (2).

    Secondly, and this is key: Not everything that is immoral is right to forbid by government force, and not everything that is morally right is right to FORCE to perform. Giving money to the poor if you can is certainly morally right and good, but it is WRONG to take this money by force, for that would be theft and plunder. It maybe morally right and desirable to give flowers to one’s mother or wife on her birthday, but it is wrong to force such performance by violence. Also it may be morally bad to waste ones talents and to live below ones abilities, but it is WRONG to use violence against such a person, as long as he does not violate the property of others. What is the principle here? I call it The Benson Principle which is also equivalent to the Second Fundamental Principle of Liberty: If you INDIVIDUALLY have no moral right to use FORCE upon your neighbor or to violate his property, you cannot delegate such violence to any third party, including government. If you have no right to violate your neighbor’s property, you cannot rightly ask the government to do it for you either.

    4) “Implied contracts, i.e. contracts that do not require an explicit agreement, exist all over in the society; therefore copyrights are implied contracts, and thus can be enforced by government.”

    That is false, because by their nature, implied contracts, i.e. contracts that do not have an explicit agreement from all the parties involved, can only be properly imposed upon things that you own, and nothing else. This is because with regards to YOUR own property you do not need an agreement from anyone as to what to do with it. Thus if you own a parking lot you can post a sign “No parking after 10 pm” and you have a right to enforce it without the car owner’s explicit agreement, because you OWN the lot, and you can impose any rules you want UPON IT, and a car owner would be violating YOUR property if he did not use the property as you prescribed. However, if you posted a sign saying: “No parking after 10 pm, but if you do, it will signify that you agree that I own your house, and that you are my slave for 50 years,” and someone leaves his car on your lot after 10pm, can you take his house and make him a slave for 50 years? No! Why? Because you do not own either him nor his house, therefore for such a contract to be binding you have to have an EXPLICIT agreement from him before you can enforce it. Without an explicit agreement, the best you can do is to tow his car, and perhaps charge a fee for your trouble to offset/rectify the violation of your property, and nothing more. Implied contracts do not require explicit agreements precisely because they apply only to the things you own and nothing else.

    Copyrights cannot be enforced as an implied contract because you do not own the people who copy your work. You do not own their minds, you do not own their copy machines, you do not own their papers or their computers. Therefore, you cannot impose an implied contract upon these things because you have exactly zero authority/ownership over them. You can only impose an implied contract upon your copy of the information and limit or condition access to IT, because you own THAT COPY; but you have no right or say over the copies owned by others. This is the nature of information. To deny this is to deny reality and to violate both intellectual and tangible property of others, because they own that information no less than you, the author, do, and no less than they own their minds, their papers or their computers. That’s what information is: TO HAVE IT IS TO OWN IT.


    This is a brief summary of correct principles of IP, violation of which will lead to the destruction of free speech (especially on the internet), and consequently destruction of Liberty, and consequently the destruction of the society itself.


    =====================================
    This amendment is a part of 7 amendments that were designed to bring the Constitution into harmony with the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, without which Liberty cannot exist:
    1. Justice Constitutional Amendment (JCA)
    2. The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment
    3. Honest Money Constitutional Amendment
    4. Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation
    5. No Judicial Monopoly Constitutional Amendment (NJM)
    6. Nullification - Constitutional Amendment
    7. Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 05-10-2014 at 12:25 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    That's one thing about the Constitution I could support. Really though, mass civil disobedience to the IP goons is more peaceful and more likely to work (as it hits the goons in the wallet).
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  4. #3
    Patent protection encourages innovation. Why invest in developing new ideas when you can steal somebody else's ideas? Why invest in new ideas if somebody is just going to steal them from you? The founders felt it was important enough to be included in the original document. Article One Section 8:
    “Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

  5. #4
    PeacePlan
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Patent protection encourages innovation. Why invest in developing new ideas when you can steal somebody else's ideas? Why invest in new ideas if somebody is just going to steal them from you? The founders felt it was important enough to be included in the original document. Article One Section 8:
    You notice it does say for limited times..............

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Patent protection encourages innovation. Why invest in developing new ideas when you can steal somebody else's ideas? Why invest in new ideas if somebody is just going to steal them from you? The founders felt it was important enough to be included in the original document. Article One Section 8:
    Yeah, I agree. I think they need to change the limit though. There's no reason one group or person should have a monopoly on how something is made or used for 25 years. That is way too long. Five years should be sufficient. That would let someone have the product and be able to profit from it without competition for a short time period. After that the inventor must develop something better or just as good as his competitors.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by bwlibertyman View Post
    Yeah, I agree. I think they need to change the limit though. There's no reason one group or person should have a monopoly on how something is made or used for 25 years. That is way too long. Five years should be sufficient. That would let someone have the product and be able to profit from it without competition for a short time period. After that the inventor must develop something better or just as good as his competitors.
    I agree completely... the length needs to be shortened a lot.

    Another thing that needs to be changed is that if something is patented, and the patent owner isn't using the patent, then it should be open for everybody to use. Give them maybe 2 years of full protection to bring their invention to market, and then it's fair game to everybody.

    For example, say somebody invents and patents something that improves gas mileage by 25%, then an oil company buys the patent and sits on it for 25 years. How does that help anything? The current patent system helps innovation and investment in new ideas, but it can stifle progress.
    "No matter how noble you try to make it, your good intentions will not compensate for the mistakes that people make; that want to run
    our lives and run the economy, and reject the principles of private property and making up our own decisions for ourselves." -Ron Paul

  8. #7

    hmmm

    So the idea is that I could write a book and some company could buy a copy from me, copy it verbatim, publish it, sell a million copies, and not give me a penny?

    Or I could write a song, perform it, record the performance on video, and some company could buy a copy of the video from me, copy it, publish the video, sell a million copies, and not pay me a penny?

    Or I could borrow money, hire actors, set designers, etc, and film a movie at a cost of several million dollars, only to have a big company copy it and sell millions of copies and not give me a penny?

    I'm having a hard time understanding how this would not crash the arts. Perhaps someone can explain how the author can have a return on his investment. And if he can't, how can he make a living at his art? And if he can't why would he try?

    I do agree that the length of copyright protection is ridiculous.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  9. #8
    Count me out. I'd actively work against such a stupid amendment.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Patent protection encourages innovation. Why invest in developing new ideas when you can steal somebody else's ideas?
    First of all, Patents do NOT encourage innovation, but actually slow down the progress of a society.
    Secondly, you cannot "steal" an idea. You can falsely claim that you got the idea first, but once known, you cannot exclusively own it, because to know an idea and to own it, are one and the same.

    Stephan Kinsella: Rethinking IP Completely

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Why invest in new ideas if somebody is just going to steal them from you?
    You invest in an idea because it makes your life better. Not because you want to prevent others from progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The founders felt it was important enough to be included in the original document. Article One Section 8:
    The Founders were wrong about it, just like they were wrong about slavery.

    Most importantly, Patents and copyrights violate the fundamental law of liberty, I call it the Benson Principle, without which liberty cannot exist: (http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewt...p?f=19&t=12347)
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 02-16-2011 at 05:34 PM.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by bwlibertyman View Post
    Yeah, I agree. I think they need to change the limit though. There's no reason one group or person should have a monopoly on how something is made or used for 25 years. That is way too long. Five years should be sufficient. That would let someone have the product and be able to profit from it without competition for a short time period. After that the inventor must develop something better or just as good as his competitors.
    Yes the inventor can benefit from his invention exclusively, but that exclusivity should not be any longer than what it takes his competitor to copy it. Innovation will still happen, and in fact blossom, because patents are an enormous drain on and an impediment to the progress of an economy; and what is more important, patents and copyrights CANNOT be enforced without violating, natural, unalienable rights of an individual, which are the very foundation of liberty itself. Therefore, patents, are not only economically damaging to a society, they are in fact, IMMORAL.
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 11-07-2010 at 03:17 PM.

  13. #11
    1. I believe it should be made to where you can choose to buy a patent, but for different periods of time. [1-5, 10, 15, etc]
    2. There should be restrictions depending on what type of product. [Music: 5 year patent maximum / Video: 10 max / etc]
    Not in favor of abolishing it.
    Am in favor of changing it.
    For all sheeple:
    Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.
    -Pericles
    Quote Originally Posted by libertarian4321 View Post
    If the religious didn't have other religions to hate, what would they do with their time?

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    So the idea is that I could write a book and some company could buy a copy from me, copy it verbatim, publish it, sell a million copies, and not give me a penny?

    Or I could write a song, perform it, record the performance on video, and some company could buy a copy of the video from me, copy it, publish the video, sell a million copies, and not pay me a penny?

    Or I could borrow money, hire actors, set designers, etc, and film a movie at a cost of several million dollars, only to have a big company copy it and sell millions of copies and not give me a penny?

    I'm having a hard time understanding how this would not crash the arts. Perhaps someone can explain how the author can have a return on his investment. And if he can't, how can he make a living at his art? And if he can't why would he try?

    I do agree that the length of copyright protection is ridiculous.
    How did arts blossom before the copyrights?

    There are multiple ways for the artist to profit:

    If you wrote a song, you can have a contractual agreement with a performer, who gets to perform your work first. And you get a percent of the performers revenue in a concert, for instance.

    If you made a movie, you can have a contractual agreement with movie theaters to have a cut of their revenue. Why would the movie theater do that? Because they need new movies to stay in business.

    etc.

    Of course, the artist's revenues may not be as obscene as now is in some cases, but still a LOT of money can be made via contracts of first use.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Madly_Sane View Post
    1. I believe it should be made to where you can choose to buy a patent, but for different periods of time. [1-5, 10, 15, etc]
    2. There should be restrictions depending on what type of product. [Music: 5 year patent maximum / Video: 10 max / etc]
    Not in favor of abolishing it.
    Am in favor of changing it.
    You cannot enforce a patent without violating natural, unalienable rights of individual. Therefore patents are immoral.

    You can still profit from your inventions enormously if you use contractual agreements with manufacturers properly. Manufacturer gets the benefit of the first use of your invention, for as long as he can keep the secret.

    On the other hand, patents were used to deny progress to entire spheres of human endeavor for decades!

    Again, even if you say the patent is granted for a year or two, you still cannot enforce a patent, even for a minute without violating natural unalienable rights of individuals. In other words, enforcing a patent even for a minute is immoral, and is destructive of the principles of liberty itself!

  16. #14
    I added a sentence at the beginning of the amendment. Please see at the top of the thread.

    Thank you.

  17. #15
    This will NEVER happen.

    Too many people are making money from Copyrights and Patents.
    ----

    Ron Paul Forum's Mission Statement:

    Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

  18. #16
    Suppose an inventor designed a complex hard drive that holds three times the amount of space. However, he makes sure the blueprint is a well-kept secret within his company. Other companies try to reverse engineer it but it takes many years (let us say about 10 or 20 years) to do so.

    On the other hand, if the hard drive was patented and thus requiring public disclosure, then the company can enjoy the benefits of being a monopoly while the blueprint becomes public. What slows down progress now?

    This is, of course, if the terms of the patents are about 5 years or less... (I really prefer 1 year or less, really)



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Only people who believe down is up and up is down will say that giving a monopoly increases innovation. It does the exact opposite -- not to mention, that first-to market is all the incentive you ever need. Beyond that no one has a right to profit.

    *Plus you cannot steal an idea. It's literally impossible.
    School of Salamanca - School of Austrian Economics - Liberty, Private Property, Free-Markets, Voluntaryist, Agorist. le monde va de lui męme

    "No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans [sic]."

    What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.

    www.mises.org
    www.antiwar.com
    An Arrow Against all Tyrants - Richard Overton vis. 1646 (Required reading!)

  21. #18
    Count me in. It took me a long time to change my views on IP, but I know agree with it being abolished from the law. There no reason for the government to be involved in it (other than enforcing private contracts).

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Major_C_Natural View Post
    Suppose an inventor designed a complex hard drive that holds three times the amount of space. However, he makes sure the blueprint is a well-kept secret within his company. Other companies try to reverse engineer it but it takes many years (let us say about 10 or 20 years) to do so.
    Good, then he will have his profits. But I don't think it will take this long for the rest to figure it out!

    Quote Originally Posted by Major_C_Natural View Post
    On the other hand, if the hard drive was patented and thus requiring public disclosure, then the company can enjoy the benefits of being a monopoly while the blueprint becomes public. What slows down progress now?
    The patent slows down the progress, because it creates a government enforced monopoly via the patent law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Major_C_Natural View Post
    This is, of course, if the terms of the patents are about 5 years or less... (I really prefer 1 year or less, really)
    A year or less is what it would actually take for the competitors to catch up anyway without any patents. So you will get what you want without any government force! And that with the added benefit of preserving liberty and encouraging the progress of the industry as a whole!
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 11-07-2010 at 04:46 PM.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Austrian Econ Disciple View Post
    Only people who believe down is up and up is down will say that giving a monopoly increases innovation. It does the exact opposite -- not to mention, that first-to market is all the incentive you ever need. Beyond that no one has a right to profit.

    *Plus you cannot steal an idea. It's literally impossible.
    Amen! Well said! Thank you!

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by TheState View Post
    Count me in. It took me a long time to change my views on IP, but I know agree with it being abolished from the law. There no reason for the government to be involved in it (other than enforcing private contracts).
    Well said! And good point! Thank you!

  25. #22
    What a load of socialist, freeloading crap. Your ideas would simply be an extension of the well fare state. It promotes the "don't work ... just steal" mentality. If you do not like the fact that people can profit from their own ideas then you are a collectivist pure and simple. Those that wish to succeed financially must be willing to put forth the effort to come up with new and profitable ideas. They must be willing to put in the time, trial and error and investment necessary to return a profit. This does not happen overnight but may take many years. To take the ideas and inventions of those that are willing to put in the effort to make them a reality is thievery plain and simple.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Foundation_Of_Liberty View Post
    First of all, Ptents do NOT encourage innovation, but actually slow down the progress of a society.
    Secondly, you cannot "steal" an idea. You can falsely claim that you got the idea first, but you cannot OWN an idea. Ideas a free.

    You invest in an idea because it makes your life better. Not because you want to prevent others from progress.
    Oh really? The Marxists thought much like that too and we all know how that turned out. He thought everyone would keep on producing, even though they were not allowed to keep the fruits of their labors. They didn't.

    "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx

    The Founders were wrong about it, just like they were wrong about slavery.
    I can see that our government indoctrination centers (schools) have been succeeding in their effort.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Foundation_Of_Liberty View Post
    First of all, Patents do NOT encourage innovation, but actually slow down the progress of a society.
    Make a better Patent. Technology is improving all the time.
    ----

    Ron Paul Forum's Mission Statement:

    Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by virgil47 View Post
    What a load of socialist, freeloading crap.
    First of all socialism is to use government force where it has no right of being. My proposal is to remove improper government force, which is the OPPOSITE of socialism. You propose to use government force where no one has a right to use it, so you are the socialist here!

    Quote Originally Posted by virgil47 View Post
    Your ideas would simply be an extension of the well fare state. It promotes the "don't work ... just steal" mentality.
    It is physically impossible to steal an idea. If something is stolen, then the other guy does not have it anymore. Not so with ideas. If someone copied your idea you still have it! So it cannot be stolen (unless they erased your memory).

    To steal an idea you have to exclusively own it, and no one, rightly, can exclusively own an idea, after it is known!

    Quote Originally Posted by virgil47 View Post
    If you do not like the fact that people can profit from their own ideas then you are a collectivist pure and simple.
    I do like the fact that people profit from their ideas. I am only against them using the force of government to prevent other people to do the same. Again, it is collectivism to use the force of government where it has no right of being. I propose to abolish this improper government force. You are the proponent of improper government force, so you are the collectivist here, not me.

    Quote Originally Posted by virgil47 View Post
    Those that wish to succeed financially must be willing to put forth the effort to come up with new and profitable ideas. They must be willing to put in the time, trial and error and investment necessary to return a profit. This does not happen overnight but may take many years. To take the ideas and inventions of those that are willing to put in the effort to make them a reality is thievery plain and simple.
    You cannot "steal" an idea, because it does not belong to you exclusively once it is known. You have a right to keep it secret if you can, but you cannot properly prevent others from using ideas once they are known, unless they covenanted with you that they would not use it without your permission. Hence the value of contractual arrangements by which an inventor can secure profit to himself from the manufacturer who becomes the FIRST user of the idea.
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 02-16-2011 at 05:46 PM.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Oh really? The Marxists thought much like that too and we all know how that turned out.
    Marxists proposed using government FORCE to redistribute (steal) wealth. I propose to ABOLISH improper government force. How does that make me a Marxist? My proposition is the OPPOSITE of Marx!

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    He thought everyone would keep on producing, even though they were not allowed to keep the fruits of their labors.
    You can keep the fruits of your labor, but you cannot keep ideas once they are known.

    Innovation will still happen without government force! Even more of it! The inventor will have the benefit of the FIRST use of his idea. And that's the only way how he should profit; NOT by using government FORCE to prevent others from using an idea! Ideas do NOT belong to you exclusively, at least no longer than you can keep them a secret! The only way you can prevent others from using an idea is if they covenanted with you that they won't. Short of that covenant, you have no claim, and have no right to use FORCE to stop others from using an idea that they know about.
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 11-07-2010 at 11:28 PM.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by FrankRep View Post
    Make a better Patent. Technology is improving all the time.
    Patents i.e. the use of government force to prevent the use of an idea, are immoral, unless there was an explicit covenant between inventor and the user of the idea, in which the user agreed to pay for the idea. Short of that explicit covenant, inventor has no claim.

    Such covenants are a proper way for the inventor to secure profit from his ideas, in exchange for the FIRST use of his invention.
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 11-07-2010 at 11:35 PM.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Foundation_Of_Liberty View Post
    First of all socialism is to use government force where it has no right of being. My proposal is to remove improper government force, which is the OPPOSITE of socialism. You propose to use government force where no one has a right to use it, so you are the socialist here!


    It is physically impossible to steal an idea. To steal an idea you have to exclusively own it, and no one, rightly, can exclusively own an idea!


    I do like the fact that people profit from their ideas. I am only against them using the force of government to prevent other people to do the same. Again, it is collectivism to use the force of government where it has no right of being. I propose to abolish this improper government force. You are the proponent of improper government force, so you are the collectivist here, not me.

    You cannot "steal" an idea, because it does not belong to you exclusively once it is known. You have a right to keep it secret if you can, but you cannot properly prevent others from using ideas once they are known, unless they covenanted with you that they would not use it without your permission. Hence the value of contractual arrangements by which an inventor can secure profit to himself from the manufacturer who becomes the FIRST user of the idea.
    An original thought or idea is no different than a physical piece of property. It is known as an intangible. Just because you cannot touch or taste something does not mean it does not exist. Saying that an idea or invention can be the property of the person that came up with it for only as long as it takes others to find out about it is like saying if you own a piece of land that it can only be exclusively your own until others discover it. Ideas (inventions) have been historically considered real property since the founding of our country. I believe this was done so people would spend the time to innovate and invent. In a marxist society the government owns everything including the thoughts an individual has. These thoughts and inventions are then redistributed for the good of the collective. Because of this process the old Soviet Union encouraged workers to simply do as little as was required to get payed. Innovation required extra effort and the investment of time and sweat. The citizens were not willing to put forth any extra effort as they knew there would be no or minimal reward. What you and others here advocate is a Utopian form of society. A pure Utopian society is a pure communist society and hopefully humanity will not ever be ready to strive for mediocrity.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Foundation_Of_Liberty View Post
    Patents i.e. the use of government force to prevent the use of an idea, are immoral ...
    According to whose Standards are Patents considered Immoral?
    On whose authority?
    Last edited by FrankRep; 11-08-2010 at 10:12 AM.
    ----

    Ron Paul Forum's Mission Statement:

    Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Foundation_Of_Liberty View Post
    You cannot enforce a patent without violating natural, unalienable rights of individual. Therefore patents are immoral.

    You can still profit from your inventions enormously if you use contractual agreements with manufacturers properly. Manufacturer gets the benefit of the first use of your invention, for as long as he can keep the secret.

    On the other hand, patents were used to deny progress to entire spheres of human endeavor for decades!

    Again, even if you say the patent is granted for a year or two, you still cannot enforce a patent, even for a minute without violating natural unalienable rights of individuals. In other words, enforcing a patent even for a minute is immoral, and is destructive of the principles of liberty itself!
    Immoral to who? If someone creates an object or idea, then he/she should have the ability to restrict others from use without permission. Example: You create a way to make your farm more profitable than other farms, you don't want the other farms to become as profitable or as competitive using your idea. Since the other farmers cannot use your idea, they will try to come up with other methods/ideas to become as/more profitable as your farm. Therefore, patents encourage growth.
    Patents aren't immoral to anyone's rights; you have to view the idea as a physical object, you don't want someone stealing it, you want them to ask permission to use it. Without patents, someone could just take your idea without permission which could make you royally pissed. Someone might just get pissed enough to where they'll do some damage to someone or someone's property.
    For all sheeple:
    Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.
    -Pericles
    Quote Originally Posted by libertarian4321 View Post
    If the religious didn't have other religions to hate, what would they do with their time?

Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Constitutional Amendment
    By beaven in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-03-2012, 02:16 PM
  2. Democrats Push for Constitutional Amendment to Roll Back First Amendment
    By John F Kennedy III in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-20-2012, 03:46 PM
  3. Constitutional amendment
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-07-2010, 06:11 AM
  4. Copyrights and patents
    By malavel in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10-12-2007, 04:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •