Intellectual Property rights

[Travlyr]

LOL @ you guys still arguing about this. The vast majority of producers support IP; the vast majority of leeches don't. It is gonna be tough to get the 2 groups to see eye to eye.

Very good point. Those who produce are again demonized as evil.

[low preference guy]

LOL @ you guys still arguing about this. The vast majority of producers support IP; the vast majority of leeches don't. It is gonna be tough to get the 2 groups to see eye to eye.

Not sure about that. All my work is production of stuff that could be protected with IP but it still seems like an arbitrary interference of the government in the economy. There needs to be a poll.

Of course, the answer is going to change depending if you ask musicians, programmers, etc. So a poll for each group would be interesting.

[Travlyr]

Not sure about that. All my work is production of stuff that could be protected with IP but it still seems like an arbitrary interference of the government in the economy. There needs to be a poll.

Of course, the answer is going to change depending if you ask musicians, programmers, etc. So a poll for each group would be interesting.

Are your products original creations?

[SwooshOU]

As I think about this, I don't like the government being the ones responsible to "protect" Intellectual Propery. I think a free market solution to IP protection is possible depending on the medium. Of course, some content creators would opt out of IP protection altogether. What does a non-government, free market solution to protecting various media look like?

[ClayTrainor]

LOL @ you guys still arguing about this. The vast majority of producers support IP; the vast majority of leeches don't. It is gonna be tough to get the 2 groups to see eye to eye.

$#@!, I bet at least half of the producers who are "pro-ip" are also leechers, and at least half of the leeches who are anti-ip are also producers.

[CCTelander]

$#@!, I bet at least half of the producers who are "pro-ip" are also leechers, and at least half of the leeches who are anti-ip are also producers.

Probably best to simply ignore their constant ad hominem attacks. They just make them look bad anyway.

[Travlyr]

As I think about this, I don't like the government being the ones responsible to "protect" Intellectual Propery. I think a free market solution to IP protection is possible depending on the medium. Of course, some content creators would opt out of IP protection altogether. What does a non-government, free market solution to protecting various media look like?

Selling every product with a contract attached saying, "Do not copy my work or I'll sue you."

[Travlyr]

Selling every product with a contract attached saying, "Do not copy my work or I'll sue you."

Literally a signed contract with each purchase even for food.

[ClayTrainor]

As I think about this, I don't like the government being the ones responsible to "protect" Intellectual Propery. I think a free market solution to IP protection is possible depending on the medium. Of course, some content creators would opt out of IP protection altogether. What does a non-government, free market solution to protecting various media look like?

Good question! It would likely differ greatly from market to market, but for example...

The original xbox had a very big problem with people modding it and copying games for free. It was very easy to do, and there was nothing to disincentivize anybody from doing it, so it became very popular, which had a pretty negative effect on their sales figures for software.

When the xbox 360 came out, microsoft learned a bit of a lesson. They started integrating everything through their xbox live network, which is constantly being updated. You have to pay for a subscription to be able to play online, and as soon as they detect someone using a non-legit version of their game or a modded xbox, they ban their account from xbox-live and disable them from ever playing online with that account. The risk of losing your paid account is enough to curtail many people from modding their xboxs.

Hackers are always finding workarounds, but the fact is, if Microsoft finds a way to tell if you`re playing copied games or not they can simply prevent you from using their network to play them, which greatly devalues the games. It doesnt completely stop people from copying games, of course (there is no perfect solution), but it does further encourage people to buy the software.

Thats just one way though. Im sure theres many others that have and will arise in the market.

[CaptainAmerica]

I want to hear a person scream bloody murder again about court cases and broken contracts of agreement. "BLOODY MURDER" ,because its sooo "violent" as the anti-ip advocates have claimed.

[SwooshOU]

Literally a signed contract with each purchase even for food.

That's one way. Surely there are others. Maybe the content itself is created in a way to be protected via the media on which it is created. I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud here.

[Travlyr]

That's one way. Surely there are others. Maybe the content itself is created in a way to be protected via the media on which it is created. I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud here.

There may be other ways. My ears are open.

[SwooshOU]

There may be other ways. My ears are open.

Good question! It would likely differ greatly from market to market, but for example...

The original xbox had a very big problem with people modding it and copying games for free. It was very easy to do, and there was nothing to disincentivize anybody from doing it, so it became very popular, which had a pretty negative effect on their sales figures for software.

When the xbox 360 came out, microsoft learned a bit of a lesson. They started integrating everything through their xbox live network, which is constantly being updated. You have to pay for a subscription to be able to play online, and as soon as they detect someone using a non-legit version of their game or a modded xbox, they ban their account from xbox-live and disable them from ever playing online with that account. The risk of losing your paid account is enough to curtail many people from modding their xboxs.

Hackers are always finding workarounds, but the fact is, if Microsoft finds a way to tell if you`re playing copied games or not they can simply prevent you from using their network to play them, which greatly devalues the games. It doesnt completely stop people from copying games, of course (there is no perfect solution), but it does further encourage people to buy the software.

Thats just one way though. Im sure theres many others that have and will arise in the market.

This is one for video game protection.

I'm guessing there are as creative ways to protect other types of content.

[Conza88]

Dude, if you acquiesce that...it's all I was after - a legitimate acknowledgement that voluntary contractual agreements are a way for artists and other innovators to protect their specific work.

With another specific individual who signed the contract. Things called non-disclosure agreements etc exist now, and would in a free market...

SHOULD that person violate the agreement, by all means they are subject to punishment / consequences... however, if the content manages to get into the "public realm" - the individuals who have NOT SIGNED a contract to keep it quiet, are not liable at all. They haven't violate any agreement etc.

Torrents, p2p away we go!

That you somehow think every person who hasn't violated a contract should be subject to punishment is monstrous. You do not OWN the value of something... marxists contend that you do; hence the insane irony of the IPers calling others "marxists"... THEY'RE THE ONES SUPPORTING A VERSION OF THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE.

[heavenlyboy34]

With another specific individual who signed the contract. Things called non-disclosure agreements etc exist now, and would in a free market...

SHOULD that person violate the agreement, by all means they are subject to punishment / consequences... however, if the content manages to get into the "public realm" - the individuals who have NOT SIGNED a contract to keep it quiet, are not liable at all. They haven't violate any agreement etc.

Torrents, p2p away we go!

That you somehow think every person who hasn't violated a contract should be subject to punishment is monstrous. You do not OWN the value of something... marxists contend that you do; hence the insane irony of the IPers calling others "marxists"... THEY'RE THE ONES SUPPORTING A VERSION OF THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE.

Indeed! Another irony-Marxists traditionally believe that the Means Of production belong to the workers because the workers supply the labor, and thus the products of production belong to the workers, not to the capitalist who employs them. The pro-IP argument just is a nicer-sounding way of stating it. They believe that they should continue to "own" products they've already sold and noone else can "use" it without permission. "Workers of the world, unite!"

[KingRobbStark]

I want to hear a person scream bloody murder again about court cases and broken contracts of agreement. "BLOODY MURDER" ,because its sooo "violent" as the anti-ip advocates have claimed.

Claiming something is yours through a contract doesn't make it so. An idea is not limited to a single person, and by claiming you own that idea you are essentially claiming what they can and should think. This despotic approach to something as arbitrary as an idea should give everyone pause.

[silverhandorder]

Technology makes IP impossible to protect with force. Whether you agree with this or not this is the reality.

[CaptainAmerica]

Technology makes IP impossible to protect with force. Whether you agree with this or not this is the reality.

what a fallacy that is.

[DamianTV]

[fisharmor]

what a fallacy that is.

I skipped pages 10-25, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that this is still the the pro-IP argument in a nutshell.
I actually am very interested in finding out what part of silverhandorder's post you think is fallacious.
Is it a fallacy that force is needed to protect IP, or is it a fallacy that this is reality whether or not you agree with it?

[osan]

Technology makes IP impossible to protect with force. Whether you agree with this or not this is the reality.

Please explain.

[osan]

Is it a fallacy that force is needed to protect IP, or is it a fallacy that this is reality whether or not you agree with it?

Not sure of your point. Are you suggesting that the use of force to protect private property is not legitimate?

[heavenlyboy34]

AWESOME!! That^ is a must-watch!
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DamianTV again. IOU a +rep. This IOU is not redeemable in gold or anything else.

[rp4prez]

So I have an opportunity to meet U.S. Senator John Cornyn and U.S. Representative Lamar Smith for a "Patent Innovation Celebration" and I was wondering what you all think I should say about patent laws etc. Would love to hear what you all would say so I can go and let them hear what I have to say b/c I'm not a big fan of IP laws.