The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: Zhwazi on December 02, 2006, 04:22:09 AM

Title: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Zhwazi on December 02, 2006, 04:22:09 AM
Had a debate with a friend on this. I think IP is illegit, he think's it's legit. Opinions?
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Taors on December 02, 2006, 04:22:42 AM
I was that friend.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Wayne on December 02, 2006, 06:30:21 AM
Illegit.

I'm convinced you can't own an idea or a pattern or a thought... at least not once it leaves your head. Trying to treat an idea or pattern as if it were real property, inevitably requires encroachment on other property rights--which should be quite a red flag that something is wrong with the concept.

I'd love to see a single, viable definition of "property" that successfully allows for both real property and IP.

-Wayne
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: BenTucker on December 02, 2006, 06:48:27 AM
Illegit.

I'm convinced you can't own an idea or a pattern or a thought... at least not once it leaves your head. Trying to treat an idea or pattern as if it were real property, inevitably requires encroachment on other property rights--which should be quite a red flag that something is wrong with the concept.

I'd love to see a single, viable definition of "property" that successfully allows for both real property and IP.

-Wayne


yes, this is Stephan Kinsella argument...that law-based property (privilege) always ends up violating labor-based property.

Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 07:16:57 AM
I finally came to decision about this when I realized that obviously my thoughts and memories belong to me.  I can share them with whomever I please unless I have entered into a voluntary contract that states otherwise.  If you don't want something to get out.  Don't teach it to them or expose them to it without a non-disclosure agreement.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: BenTucker on December 02, 2006, 08:10:35 AM
in some ways IP laws are like zoning - a blanket attempt to mitigate negative externalities inorder to protect land values (economic rent).

the economic rent collect by IP law can only come at the expense of the labor (right of self-ownership) of those you exclude...now what makes it a little different than land is that is the IP necessary for life?

we do need language to survive and that is part of the social commons...
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: freedom geek on December 02, 2006, 08:16:16 AM
I believe it is legit to a extent
Trademark law is illegit
patent and copyright law should only apply for a limited time for when the person holding the patent/copyright has something to loose from what is being created
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 08:21:22 AM
I have no idea what you're trying to say.

What obviously makes IP different from land is IP is labor based.  I don't know that I'd call it property.

Your mom's part of the social commons.  (apology in parentheses deleted....  that shit is funny)
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Brent on December 02, 2006, 08:38:01 AM
I own myself.  My memories, knowledge and abilities are a part of me.  Some of those memories are songs.  Some of that knowledge and ability is how to play those songs.  Therefore you cannot tell me when or for what reasons I may play those songs with out restricting my use of my most precious possession, myself.  I may use parts of myself for profit if I so choose without anyone's permission.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Taors on December 02, 2006, 08:40:37 AM
Keti's argument is that Intellectual Property is not objective therefore it can't be property.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 08:41:48 AM
patent and copyright law should only apply for a limited time for when the person holding the patent/copyright has something to loose from what is being created

why?  what's the magic number of days when a person's unalienable right to patent/copyright expires?
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: freedom geek on December 02, 2006, 08:43:32 AM
patent and copyright law should only apply for a limited time for when the person holding the patent/copyright has something to loose from what is being created

why?  what's the magic number of days when a person's unalienable right to patent/copyright expires?
It would depend on the type of idea and you wouldn't loose them all at once, they would be gradully steped down.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Taors on December 02, 2006, 08:44:17 AM
patent and copyright law should only apply for a limited time for when the person holding the patent/copyright has something to loose from what is being created

why?  what's the magic number of days when a person's unalienable right to patent/copyright expires?

Technically, when you die, your IP dies with you.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 08:50:29 AM
Keti's argument is that Intellectual Property is not objective therefore it can't be property.

A) You mean.... or rather... does he mean this kind of objective?

of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.


Well that all depends on whether thoughts and ideas are biological things.  Even if they are not biological in any sense we are aware of and can measure than they could be real tangible and quite natural things that we can't measure and can't begin to comprehend.

Why are you telling us what HIS argument is?
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 08:54:43 AM
It would depend on the type of idea and you wouldn't loose them all at once, they would be gradully steped down.

Why?  More specifically, what justification do you have to use guns to enforce these ideas?  Real concrete principles is what I'm looking for.  Something to make me think I'm fighting for freedom when I pull the trigger.
.
Technically, when you die, your IP dies with you.

Why?  If it's property like your favorite frisbee than can't it be inherited?  Why not?  Also, same question as above.

Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: freedom geek on December 02, 2006, 09:03:44 AM
The idea of no IP is nice but it suffers from the same flaws as socialism. If their  is no incentive to create thought based works, thought based works will stagnate. That being said currant IP laws are just as bad. Copyright should be opt in. If the owner of a copyright/patent cannot be found then you should be free to use it. Non-profit uses of patents should be free...
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Taors on December 02, 2006, 09:06:11 AM
Keti's argument is that Intellectual Property is not objective therefore it can't be property.

A) You mean.... or rather... does he mean this kind of objective?

of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.


Well that all depends on whether thoughts and ideas are biological things.  Even if they are not biological in any sense we are aware of and can measure than they could be real tangible and quite natural things that we can't measure and can't begin to comprehend.

Why are you telling us what HIS argument is?

I'm telling you his argument because I wanted to see you refute it.

Quote
Why?  More specifically, what justification do you have to use guns to enforce these ideas?  Real concrete principles is what I'm looking for.  Something to make me think I'm fighting for freedom when I pull the trigger.

Which idea? Aren't you for IP rights? Please state your stance on the issue.

Quote
Why?  If it's property like your favorite frisbee than can't it be inherited?  Why not?  Also, same question as above.

I guess it could live on with a company, assuming that the company never goes out of business. If the company did go out of business does that mean that the IP is up for grabs now?

Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 09:14:42 AM
The idea of no IP is nice but it suffers from the same flaws as socialism. If their  is no incentive to create thought based works, thought based works will stagnate. That being said currant IP laws are just as bad. Copyright should be opt in. If the owner of a copyright/patent cannot be found then you should be free to use it. Non-profit uses of patents should be free...

No, the idea of IP suffers from the same flaws as socialism.....  Write it 100 times "I will not use force to achieve social or political goals".  Just cuz you think it'll make the world a better place isn't good enough.  I think the world would be better if pickles were free and availabe on every corner.

No one invented or wrote or sang anything before intellectual property laws?  That's not true so neither is your second sentence.

Your third sentence is the way it is now pretty much and also the way a world w/o copyright laws would be.  I have some friends that wrote the John Hughes foundation and asked for permission for their drama troupe to perform The Breakfast Club.  No response after one year so they did.... In a HS library.... It rocked.  Then I got drunk with Bender.  And I think I might have hit on his girlfriend.

Non-profits uses should be free?  That's just fucking retarded.  It's either property or it's not.  I think people should have absolute ownership of frisbees........ unless little retarded kids want to play with them... retarded kids are cute.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 09:21:46 AM
Which idea? Aren't you for IP rights? Please state your stance on the issue.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=10158.msg159282#msg159282

oh.....you must have misunderstood.  I own my thoughts and memories.  So if you read me a poem that you wrote and don't make me promise not to tell anyone.  Than I can tell my friend this poem that I remembered.  The poem is now in my memory.  My memories are mine.  Any other way and you get some REALLY crazy shit like on the NFL broadcasts.  No descriptions, accounts etc etc. w/o permission from the NFL.  You can actually be sued for talking about the game over by the watercooler.  Not likely to happen.  But that's the law.

Quote
Why?  If it's property like your favorite frisbee than can't it be inherited?  Why not?  Also, same question as above.

Quote
  I guess it could live on with a company, assuming that the company never goes out of business. If the company did go out of business does that mean that the IP is up for grabs now? 

If it were actually property..  It would have to be that way.  Wouldn't have to be a company though.  I can leave my frisbee to my boy so if IP is really P than I can leave that to my boy also.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: freedom geek on December 02, 2006, 09:26:00 AM
The idea of no IP is nice but it suffers from the same flaws as socialism. If their  is no incentive to create thought based works, thought based works will stagnate. That being said currant IP laws are just as bad. Copyright should be opt in. If the owner of a copyright/patent cannot be found then you should be free to use it. Non-profit uses of patents should be free...

No, the idea of IP suffers from the same flaws as socialism.....  Write it 100 times "I will not use force to achieve social or political goals".  Just cuz you think it'll make the world a better place isn't good enough.  I think the world would be better if pickles were free and availabe on every corner.

No one invented or wrote or sang anything before intellectual property laws?  That's not true so neither is your second sentence.

Your third sentence is the way it is now pretty much and also the way a world w/o copyright laws would be.  I have some friends that wrote the John Hughes foundation and asked for permission for their drama troupe to perform The Breakfast Club.  No response after one year so they did.... In a HS library.... It rocked.  Then I got drunk with Bender.  And I think I might have hit on his girlfriend.

Non-profits uses should be free?  That's just fucking retarded.  It's either property or it's not.  I think people should have absolute ownership of frisbees........ unless little retarded kids want to play with them... retarded kids are cute.

You need a level of force to prevent theft. Of course they would have to prove it caused them to loose money since you don't take a copy away from them when you download off bittorrent. Back then before copyright laws producing a copy of something was hard. For instance having a copy of a book made would be a privage as it required writing it, now it takes a click. Non profits get the exeption as they do not cause you in most cases to loose money. The song or whatever itself is not your property, your right to make money off it is.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: BenTucker on December 02, 2006, 09:27:03 AM
The idea of no IP is nice but it suffers from the same flaws as socialism. If their  is no incentive to create thought based works, thought based works will stagnate.

how does that view square with the open software movement?
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: freedom geek on December 02, 2006, 09:33:19 AM
The idea of no IP is nice but it suffers from the same flaws as socialism. If their  is no incentive to create thought based works, thought based works will stagnate.

how does that view square with the open software movement?
The open source software movement is great. The problem with socialism is only good people produce and lazy people don't do anything. Same with IP laws. The open source movement is a concentration of the good people
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Taors on December 02, 2006, 09:44:48 AM
Which idea? Aren't you for IP rights? Please state your stance on the issue.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=10158.msg159282#msg159282

oh.....you must have misunderstood.  I own my thoughts and memories.  So if you read me a poem that you wrote and don't make me promise not to tell anyone.  Than I can tell my friend this poem that I remembered.  The poem is now in my memory.  My memories are mine.  Any other way and you get some REALLY crazy shit like on the NFL broadcasts.  No descriptions, accounts etc etc. w/o permission from the NFL.  You can actually be sued for talking about the game over by the watercooler.  Not likely to happen.  But that's the law.

It's still my Intellectual Property. I came up with the poem first, and have the rightful claim to it.

Quote
If it were actually property...It would have to be that way.  Wouldn't have to be a company though. I can leave my frisbee to my boy so if IP is really P than I can leave that to my boy also.

Yeah, I guess you could. Until he dies, gives it to his kid, or sells it, it would remain his.

Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: BenTucker on December 02, 2006, 09:45:28 AM
The idea of no IP is nice but it suffers from the same flaws as socialism. If their  is no incentive to create thought based works, thought based works will stagnate.

how does that view square with the open software movement?
The open source software movement is great. The problem with socialism is only good people produce and lazy people don't do anything. Same with IP laws. The open source movement is a concentration of the good people

it directly refutes your statement about stagnation...
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: BenTucker on December 02, 2006, 09:46:51 AM
Quote
I came up with the poem first, and have the rightful claim to it.

the letters and words used to communicate it are part of the social commons.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Taors on December 02, 2006, 09:48:50 AM
Quote
I came up with the poem first, and have the rightful claim to it.

the letters and words used to communicate it are part of the social commons.

So?
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Taors on December 02, 2006, 09:55:19 AM
It's still my Intellectual Property. I came up with the poem first, and have the rightful claim to it.

Can you prove it?

Can you prove it to the extent that a jury would nominate in favour of you getting reparations?

If the latter is true, then fine. Otherwise it's a subjective imperative and your claim has little basis. Anyone can make a claim, that doesn't justify it being your property. 

Once I came up with it and wrote it down then I'd make sure that everyone knows that I came up with it first (through media). At the point that I turned the idea into property through the medium of paper then it's my property and no one should be allowed to rightfully take it away from me.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Taors on December 02, 2006, 10:00:56 AM
It's still my Intellectual Property. I came up with the poem first, and have the rightful claim to it.

Can you prove it?

Can you prove it to the extent that a jury would nominate in favour of you getting reparations?

If the latter is true, then fine. Otherwise it's a subjective imperative and your claim has little basis. Anyone can make a claim, that doesn't justify it being your property. 

Once I came up with it and wrote it down then I'd make sure that everyone knows that I came up with it first (through media). At the point that I turned the idea into property through the medium of paper then it's my property and no one should be allowed to rightfully take it away from me.

Dating the work might be a good idea too.

As a side note, if copyrighting were a private system I'd have no issue with it.

That's the point of media recognition. And I agree with your second statement.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: freedom geek on December 02, 2006, 10:01:57 AM
The idea of no IP is nice but it suffers from the same flaws as socialism. If their  is no incentive to create thought based works, thought based works will stagnate.

how does that view square with the open software movement?
The open source software movement is great. The problem with socialism is only good people produce and lazy people don't do anything. Same with IP laws. The open source movement is a concentration of the good people

it directly refutes your statement about stagnation...
No many of the innovations the open source software movement needs comes from copyright and patents. And since their will always be a open source type movement you will always be able to get uncopyrighted and unpatented media.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: BenTucker on December 02, 2006, 10:04:36 AM
Quote
I came up with the poem first, and have the rightful claim to it.

the letters and words used to communicate it are part of the social commons.

So?

what gives you the right to exclude others from using those letters and words in exactly the same way?

the only way you can is by violating the labor-based property rights of those you exclude...
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Wayne on December 02, 2006, 10:08:52 AM
Dang it... I guess I'll go to bed after a few more posts (*sigh*)

It's legitimate if a jury of your peers is convinced that you did indeed suffer loss in the 'theft' of your ideas. At no point should government enter into the process, the individual who losses the lawsuit pays for the court time.

Surely you're not saying that majority opinion determines whether or not it's OK to treat ideas like real property?

I mean, that same jury could convict me of "corrupting minors" because I cussed in public. That doesn't mean they have a right to force me to spend time in a cage or to cough up some cash.

-Wayne
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 10:08:58 AM

It's still my Intellectual Property. I came up with the poem first, and have the rightful claim to it. 
 

I'm willing to concede you own the poem that's in your head if you'll concede I own the identical poem that's in mine.  If you didn't want to share you shouldn't have given it to me.  They're my memories.  You don't own the contents of my brain. 

Then there's the part about so what if you thought of it first.  Bob thought of it second and entirely independent of you.  Do you own Bob's ability to think?  If he thinks the same thing you do can you rightfully prevent him from sharing his thoughts?

Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Wayne on December 02, 2006, 10:12:51 AM
The idea of no IP is nice but it suffers from the same flaws as socialism. If their  is no incentive to create thought based works, thought based works will stagnate.

That's not true. Many of the greatest works (such as, if I recall correctly, Shakespeare) were created before the concept of IP came along.

And even though there's economic incentive now for creative types to grab the gun of government after writing their new novels or filming their new blockbusters, that does not prove--or even give evidence--that all of that would disappear in the absense of a belief in IP.

-Wayne
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 10:13:53 AM

what gives you the right to exclude others from using those letters and words in exactly the same way?

the only way you can is by violating the labor-based property rights of those you exclude...

ohh..  That's what you meant before.  I'll buy that. 
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Taors on December 02, 2006, 10:14:40 AM

It's still my Intellectual Property. I came up with the poem first, and have the rightful claim to it. 
 

I'm willing to concede you own the poem that's in your head if you'll concede I own the identical poem that's in mine.  If you didn't want to share you shouldn't have given it to me.  They're my memories.  You don't own the contents of my brain. 

Then there's the part about so what if you thought of it first.  Bob thought of it second and entirely independent of you.  Do you own Bob's ability to think?  If he thinks the same thing you do can you rightfully prevent him from sharing his thoughts?



IP has to take some kind of form, as through a medium (paper, film, a canvas, etc.). Whoever comes up with it first and puts it through a medium and then sells it has the rights to it.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: freedom geek on December 02, 2006, 10:15:22 AM
The idea of no IP is nice but it suffers from the same flaws as socialism. If their  is no incentive to create thought based works, thought based works will stagnate.

That's not true. Many of the greatest works (such as, if I recall correctly, Shakespeare) were created before the concept of IP came along.

And even though there's economic incentive now for creative types to grab the gun of government after writing their new novels or filming their new blockbusters, that does not prove--or even give evidence--that all of that would disappear in the absense of a belief in IP.

-Wayne

Thats because it was hard to copy things back then. A copy of his play couldn't be put on bit torrent.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: AlexLibman on December 02, 2006, 10:18:09 AM
[RANT]
[/RANT]
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 10:23:55 AM
You need a level of force to prevent theft. Of course they would have to prove it caused them to loose money since you don't take a copy away from them when you download off bittorrent. Back then before copyright laws producing a copy of something was hard. For instance having a copy of a book made would be a privage as it required writing it, now it takes a click. Non profits get the exeption as they do not cause you in most cases to loose money. The song or whatever itself is not your property, your right to make money off it is.

You haven't yet convinced me it's property...  A little early to assume we agree it's theft.  Don't confuse "lose" money with "not make" money.  Lack of gain is not loss.  Whenever people start talking like it is you can be sure they are on the wrong track or just as often, getting paid to say the things they are saying.

What does it matter how much effort it takes.  If it's wrong when it's easy than it's wrong when it's hard.  That's a null argument.

Non profits.... dude, it's property or it's not.  Motives don't matter.

Why is the right to make money off it property?  Is that one of the "unalienable rights" in the DOI?  Liberty no doubt includes the right to make music but not the right to have other people pay you for it.  I need something worth killing for here.  If you're not ready to pull the trigger.  Don't ask the government to get involved.  They are always ready.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Wayne on December 02, 2006, 10:25:10 AM
The idea of no IP is nice but it suffers from the same flaws as socialism. If their  is no incentive to create thought based works, thought based works will stagnate.

That's not true. Many of the greatest works (such as, if I recall correctly, Shakespeare) were created before the concept of IP came along.

And even though there's economic incentive now for creative types to grab the gun of government after writing their new novels or filming their new blockbusters, that does not prove--or even give evidence--that all of that would disappear in the absense of a belief in IP.

-Wayne

Thats because it was hard to copy things back then. A copy of his play couldn't be put on bit torrent.

What does that matter? Either ideas or property or they aren't... regardless of the current level of technology.

Let me ask this, it might help things a bit... what definition are you using for "property"? It doesn't have to be a textbook definition, you can define it however you want. I just want to know what you're calling property so I can proceed (after I get some sleep at least...)

I'll toss this out as my current working definition of property:

A material item, good or substance that one rightfully owns by virtue of initial possession, acquisition after abandonment, or transfer of ownership.

-Wayne
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 10:29:44 AM
[But if the question is whether the economy would be better off without IP laws, an argument can be made both ways. 

With me that is NEVER the argument when the same argument involves government.  It's not about would the world be better off but rather: "is it a defense of unalienable rights"?  If it's not than it's gotta go.  The question is"  Is there an unalienable right to ownership of intellectual property?
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: freedom geek on December 02, 2006, 10:31:40 AM
You need a level of force to prevent theft. Of course they would have to prove it caused them to loose money since you don't take a copy away from them when you download off bittorrent. Back then before copyright laws producing a copy of something was hard. For instance having a copy of a book made would be a privage as it required writing it, now it takes a click. Non profits get the exeption as they do not cause you in most cases to loose money. The song or whatever itself is not your property, your right to make money off it is.

You haven't yet convinced me it's property...  A little early to assume we agree it's theft.  Don't confuse "lose" money with "not make" money.  Lack of gain is not loss.  Whenever people start talking like it is you can be sure they are on the wrong track or just as often, getting paid to say the things they are saying.

What does it matter how much effort it takes.  If it's wrong when it's easy than it's wrong when it's hard.  That's a null argument.

Non profits.... dude, it's property or it's not.  Motives don't matter.

Why is the right to make money off it property?  Is that one of the "unalienable rights" in the DOI?  Liberty no doubt includes the right to make music but not the right to have other people pay you for it.  I need something worth killing for here.  If you're not ready to pull the trigger.  Don't ask the government to get involved.  They are always ready.

Thats what I meant by saying they would have to prove loss. Non profits do not cause loss therefore they would be exempt.


Property: rights to control a portion of land, object or idea.

Off to bed now.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Wayne on December 02, 2006, 10:41:50 AM
[RANT]
      IP protects profitability of the soft-power weapons of this sophisticated Empire - it's cultural exports.  Even if we wanted to, we could not get rid of IP laws without getting rid of the Empire first.  But if the question is whether the economy would be better off without IP laws, an argument can be made both ways.  The argument you might not have heard before has to do with imagining what funding of creative works would be like if there was no intellectual property protection.  Instead of George Lucas making a cut from theater tickets, DVD sales, pay-per-view, etc, his fans would need to get together and form a fund to encourage him to make his Star Wars movies...  Does that make sense to anyone?  I thought not...
[/RANT]

It makes sense to me.

George Lucas makes a movie. He spends $X doing so. The value of X is irrelevent, since he had complete control over it's value.

He's done with the movie, lays back, and rakes in the profits from DVD sales. And profits indefinitely from doing so. Think about that. It doesn't matter how big X was that he spent to make on it. He and his descendents could potentially profit FOREVER from that one creative act, depending on the grace of the state. And if fans are downloading the movie, there's not even any relevent cost-per-unit to speak of. It's all gravy.

What real, tangible material good works in that way? None. There is no other way possible to do work once, and get paid forever, except for the state to dictate that it must be so done. That alone tells me that IP isn't real property, and that treating it like real property is trouble.

What real property can be sold once and--in the absense of any contractual agreement with anyone--can then grant you, quite literally, partial control over the notepads, printing presses, computers, and even bodies of everyone else in the nation?

I'm not against IP because Hollywood makes an obscene amount of money (although they do) or because I want to rip off Tom Clancy's work (I don't). I'm against it because it doesn't make sense to treat it like real property--because it's not.

-Wayne
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 10:42:14 AM
IP has to take some kind of form, as through a medium (paper, film, a canvas, etc.). Whoever comes up with it first and puts it through a medium and then sells it has the rights to it.

why?  Why does the guy who puts it on a medium have no right to it where the one who puts it on a medium and then sells it does?  If selling creates ownership than how is it his to sell before the sale?  And how does the act of selling preclude ownership by one who intends to sell it, or give it away, or keep it to himself until he thinks the time is right, or burn it in a fit of rage, or put a purple dress on and dance around it on a full moon?

Does the person have to do all three things to have the rights to it?  come up with it first...put it on a medium...sell it

Or can he come up with it third and put it on a medium and sell it.

Or can he come up with it first, obtain the medium on which someone else put it and sell that?

What if he doesn't come up with it at all.  Someone else does and communicates it to the person who then puts it on a medium and sells it. 

Is verbal communication a medium?   Is the recipients brain a medium?  Is the brain of the person who came up with it a medium and the verbal communication a transfer of title?

Be specific man!!!!!

We know you like the idea of copyright.  Moral justification for using the governments guns.  That's the way it should be only works for King W.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Wayne on December 02, 2006, 10:51:40 AM
No, but Intellectual property is a process based entirely on peoples claims, how would you proposed we ascertained whose claims are indeed truthful, accurate or relevant?

I'm also not proposing criminal proceedings, it would be a jury involved in a lawsuit, no jail time and if you win the case, then your opponent pays. Simple.

If you have a better idea put words to it.

Personally, I don't think it's real property. I don't think anyone should be trying to treat it as such. People shoud be free to copy intangibles (ideas, patterns, etc.) all they want.

If someone wants to make everyone buying his DVD sign a non-copy no-redistribution contract first, fine. (And IMHO since you don't sign it, tossing a "you can't copy this" note in the case doesn't cut it.) But once the cat is out of the bag, you can only procescute the guy who did the first copy (assuming you can identify and find him)--but not anyone else in possession of a copy, because they didn't sign your contract.

Granted... I doubt such a state of affairs will ever come to pass anytime soon. But I'm convinced that that's the logical, ideal, and morally correct stance to take.

Alright, I'm outta here.

-Wayne
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Lloyd on December 02, 2006, 10:53:39 AM
I think that people who argue that IP is not property are likely to be theives.  Probably spoiled young punks  who have spent their lives turning their computers on and getting all kinds of free stuff because the creators of the stuff we're kind enough to put it there.
As an anarchist I dissagree with the enforcement of patents and copyrights by government, but, in the case of one of my creations being stolen, if a lawsuit didn't work for me, I would probably take care of the perpetrator myself.
Your belief that you have a right to my creation will be trumped by my bullet.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 11:12:13 AM
I think that people who argue that IP is not property are likely to be theives.  Probably spoiled young punks  who have spent their lives turning their computers on and getting all kinds of free stuff because the creators of the stuff we're kind enough to put it there.
As an anarchist I dissagree with the enforcement of patents and copyrights by government, but, in the case of one of my creations being stolen, if a lawsuit didn't work for me, I would probably take care of the perpetrator myself.
Your belief that you have a right to my creation will be trumped by my bullet.


I go to great lengths to not initiate force on people even when the government would lock me up for doing so.  I even refuse to take lucrative government contracts because it's stolen money.  That was a particularly tough decision to make.  One of the contractors I work for was totally flabbergasted and disappointed too.  He has to go with the more expensive guy for his NG Armory stuff.  Luckily he's understanding enough to still use me for residential work and regularly tries to talk me into doing work for a few federal government employees he gets a lot of work from.  Turning an attic into a wrestling room for a customs agents kids and all the stuff that one sees in the process turns the stomache.  The wife used that vidalia dressing though...  I like that stuff.  I don't take those jobs either anymore.  I think my conviction to NAP is far greater than the average libertarian.  Maybe to the point of irrational.  But if it is crazy at least I err on the side of NAP.  I might be a young punk but I am very much not spoiled.

But you feel so strongly about it.  Please tell me.  What makes ownership of ideas an "unalienable right"?

Something other than... "it's mine" We've heard that one.  I'll concede it's yours but posit that it might also be someone elses.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: BenTucker on December 02, 2006, 12:01:09 PM
I think that people who argue that IP is not property are likely to be theives.  Probably spoiled young punks  who have spent their lives turning their computers on and getting all kinds of free stuff because the creators of the stuff we're kind enough to put it there.
As an anarchist I dissagree with the enforcement of patents and copyrights by government, but, in the case of one of my creations being stolen, if a lawsuit didn't work for me, I would probably take care of the perpetrator myself.
Your belief that you have a right to my creation will be trumped by my bullet.


here is a famous libertarian lawyer "theif"...

 http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications.php (http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications.php)
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Taors on December 02, 2006, 02:11:59 PM
No, but Intellectual property is a process based entirely on peoples claims, how would you proposed we ascertained whose claims are indeed truthful, accurate or relevant?

I'm also not proposing criminal proceedings, it would be a jury involved in a lawsuit, no jail time and if you win the case, then your opponent pays. Simple.

If you have a better idea put words to it.

Personally, I don't think it's real property. I don't think anyone should be trying to treat it as such. People shoud be free to copy intangibles (ideas, patterns, etc.) all they want.

If someone wants to make everyone buying his DVD sign a non-copy no-redistribution contract first, fine. (And IMHO since you don't sign it, tossing a "you can't copy this" note in the case doesn't cut it.) But once the cat is out of the bag, you can only procescute the guy who did the first copy (assuming you can identify and find him)--but not anyone else in possession of a copy, because they didn't sign your contract.

Granted... I doubt such a state of affairs will ever come to pass anytime soon. But I'm convinced that that's the logical, ideal, and morally correct stance to take.

Alright, I'm outta here.

-Wayne


Honestly there is always one major issue missed out of intellectual property discussions: Market Demand. If there truely is enough demand for intellectual property 'rights' the market will produce safeguards for ideas.

Under no circumstances should IP be protected by law.

Exactly. That's what I believe anyway. And I think people WILL demand it.

And Roy, I wouldn't have government guns coming after you, I'm an Anarcho-capitalist. It would be mercenaries.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 02:17:06 PM
Well just say it like it is then.  It's not about rights or moral justification.  It's because that's the way you want it and you think you have the guns to make it so.  Takes all the debate right out of it. 

And it's Royce
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Taors on December 02, 2006, 02:20:24 PM
Well just say it like it is then.  It's not about rights or moral justification.  It's because that's the way you want it and you think you have the guns to make it so.  Takes all the debate right out of it. 

I already told you why it exists. It's a valuable idea that has scarcity (people want it) that I put through a medium. It's mine.

Actually I would take you to court first. Then a second court if they couldn't come to any conclusions or whatever. And then a third. And maybe a fourth.

And if you still didn't comply I'd have to come after you. Sorry. It's just business.

Royce. Right.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: cerpntaxt on December 02, 2006, 02:27:46 PM
legitimate to the extent that others respect it... I think that IP cannot be compared to tangible property
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 02:42:07 PM
I already told you why it exists. It's a valuable idea that has scarcity (people want it) that I put through a medium. It's mine.


Scarcity?  Like no one else has it even if they think of it independently because you use your guns to prevent them from sharing their own thoughts with others?  Just because people want something doesn't make it scarce. 

Put it through a medium?  Again.  define medium.  Why is a record on paper "through a medium" but a record in organic tissue NOT?  (sidenote:  When people communicate THROUGH mediums it is the psychic kind...ironic considering the context...when waves travel through a medium it is the physical kind... When people put things ON a medium or attach it to one it is the physical kind...paper...magnetic tape..etc.)

And why does attaching the physical representation of an idea to a medium of any kind bestow ownership of that idea.  If it was unowned before being put on a medium.  Exactly why does the fact that it's recorded in a different format "other than in the tissue of the human brain" bestow ownership?

You really think you should be ready to defend this idea with force when you can't communicate it with words whether on or through a medium?  If you'll grant one small request.  If you choose to communicate your rationale I think it would just rock if you could do it THROUGH a medium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_%28spirituality%29)....  I would never forget.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 02:45:23 PM
Where do guns come into in the free market? That's where my solution in impacted.

If the market IS free than the guns come in to defend life and liberty.  If the guns come in and no one can give a good reason why their life or liberty is being threatened than the market is not free.  Hence the importance of someone identifying quite specifically how their life or liberty is being taken from them before they make with the force.

Quote from: Cyro at the bottom of p2
As a side note, if copyrighting were a private system I'd have no issue with it.

Through voluntary contracts such as non-disclosure agreements.  A persons right of contract is unlimited.  I'm for it!
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 03:20:48 PM
That was basically the scenario I was engaging in. The contract would be automatically included in any publication of works and that simply reading/hearing/being exposed to any portion of the work would invoke the contract.

It would be neigh impossible to justify a lawsuit without a contract.

The problem is with the being exposed invokes the contract.  That won't work.  Contracts require consent.  Walking into a room and hearing something or picking up a page torn out of a book or a book with the contract page torn out are all ways a person could be exposed and come into possession of this knowledge without consenting to the contract.  You could require a contract with every book sale and hold the original purchaser liable but I wouldn't be likely to sign that contract.  Who knows how much damages I could be held accountable for when my book is stolen and used to make 100,000 copies of the next big novel. 

Another possible scenario would be major publishing houses forming agreements to respect each others copyrights.  There would always be little guys who didn't respect the agreement but through economy of scale they can beat the little guy's price.  Unfortunately that means they could also use the little guy's material with impunity.  The people would have to keep all that in check by voting with their dollars.  In a free market consumer awareness and consumer activism (in the choosing where to spend their money way) would be indispensable.  I like to think it would also be more likely because the illusion of government protection is gone.

When talking about publications though there is a huge irony that the pro IP folks usually overlook.  Right now there exists many organizations backed by the force of government that offer just about any publication you want for free including CD's, DVD's, audio books etc.....  Public Libraries.  yet publishers are still making money.....hmmmm  There is a poster on this forum who tells me her local library said she was welcome to copy the DVD's she borrows just as long as they get the original back.  Yet Hollywood is thriving.....hhhmmmmm

Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: BenTucker on December 02, 2006, 04:02:18 PM
Royce,

how's the painting coming?
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Charles on December 02, 2006, 04:32:06 PM
I agree with Cyro's initial point that making it a government institution is probably not a good idea.  It'd be too difficult to pass a law to apply to every situation of IP.

I think a lot of people here are disregarding contract law.  If you create someone and than share it under a condition, and the person breaks that condition and duplicates it or whatever, they would be breaking that agreement.  If you start to disregard contract law made by two consenting adults, capitalism goes to shit.

If the government is not involved in copyrights, the lack of incentives and need for a lot of pre-existing capital to get the initial benefits of putting a product out there to make a normal profit leads me to believe that there should be protection to some extent.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 04:40:16 PM
Royce,

how's the painting coming?

Waiting for the phone to ring...  homeowner should have picked a color hours ago.  Gonna be a late night or just do it tomorrow.  Talking a shriner through operating her PC.  I have two of those.  One's giving Ubuntu a shot.  Crazy shriner, Ubuntu's for geeks.  You can't find DVD drivers because that's a CD-RW.  What the hell do you need a video capture card for anyway?  ohhh....  20 hours trying to figure out how to run the PS2 through the monitor and now you call me.  You could've worked overtime and bought a decent TV.  That kind of thing.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: BenTucker on December 02, 2006, 04:51:00 PM
Royce,

how's the painting coming?

Waiting for the phone to ring...  homeowner should have picked a color hours ago.  Gonna be a late night or just do it tomorrow. 

work is over-rated...you should try rent-seeking instead (pays you while you sleep) - I think some people refer to it as a "free lunch" although usually as TINSTAAFL.

I know better though!
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Charles on December 02, 2006, 04:51:14 PM
[quote[As for start-up capital; most start up capital now comes from investors, if anything that's only going to grow in a free market.
Quote

To a point.  The issue is that if only a few people control most of the wealth than barriers to entry will be created...hence, you'd lose the free market.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Ecolitan on December 02, 2006, 05:07:33 PM
work is over-rated...you should try rent-seeking instead (pays you while you sleep) - I think some people refer to it as a "free lunch" although usually as TINSTAAFL.


But I like building things.  Sometimes I like making them change color.  I'd do it if I were independently wealthy.  In comparison, every desk job I ever had sucks ass, two of them I thought I really liked at the time.  One of them I think I did.  But it wasn't just a desk job.  When I felt like it and all the paperwork was done.  I got to drive a forklift and/or push my little golf cart to the limits of it's capabilities and maybe just a teeny bit beyond.   That didn't suck.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Hittman on December 02, 2006, 05:20:52 PM
People have a right to profit from their labor.  Without IP that right vanishes for a lot of creative endeavors. 

A few years ago I was working for GE's R&D center.  They funded hundreds of research programs.  Sometimes they resulted in viable products they can manufacture or license.  Sometimes the research failed, or by the time the research was done there was no longer a market for it.   

One of their projects was a glass plate that was sensitive to x-rays.  It was designed to replace film for mammography.  The resolution was almost as good as film, it had all the advantages of digital images over physical ones (easy to store, no deterioration, could be sent to a specialist via e-mail instantly, etc.), and as a bonus used less radiation, so it was safer for the patient. 

They spent 30 million dollars and 7 years to prefect it. 

Why would any company take that level of risk if a month after bringing it to market a competitor could reverse engineer it and sell it without having to recoup that thirty million dollar investment?   Since they did the work, shouldn't they get the profit, at least for a while? 

If there were no IP, sure there would still be songs and books and poems, but how many $30 million inventions would we see? 

Quote
Under no circumstances should IP be protected by law. 

Then it won't be protected.  There has to be a bottom line, an ultimate gun at the end of the line, or it's meaningless. 

Quote
Where do guns come into in the free market? 

As the last resort for dealing with a thief.

If I write a book I should be the one to profit from that book.  You shouldn't be able to take my work, my labor, and produce it yourself and sell it at a profit, cutting me out of the loop.  You shouldn't be able to make a movie out of it without me getting something in return for my labor.

If you want to argue that today's copyright and patent laws are outrageous and ridiculous, I'm with you. Allowing business practices to be patented is stupid.  Allowing someone to patent using a laser pointer to entertain a cat is ridiculous.  And "For a limited time" was not intended to be 170 years.  And the draconian methods being used by the RIAA and the MPAA to protect their IP is not only stupid, but counterproductive.  (In any business, theft is a fact of life, and good business people build the cost of it into their bottom line.)  But the principle of reasonable protection for IP is sound.  The fact that it's become unreasonable doesn't invalidate the principle. 

The founding fathers gave very very few powers to the federal government.  Among them was the power to grant copyrights and patents.  I happen to think they were smarter than you, or me, or anyone else on this board. 


Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: brokenneckblues on December 03, 2006, 05:08:17 PM
if one writes a book or designs a logo it's their property to sell. you can't put your name on Walden and call it yours.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: gandhi2 on December 03, 2006, 06:05:36 PM
I have a difficult time with this one.  Its my belief that you can't own something intangible, so IP doesn't really work in that context.

I think that the owner of the idea has a responsibility to keep it as his own.  If he somehow reveals the information, without a conditional contract to the revealee, than any ownership rights cannot be believed to be retained.  It's kind of wierd, but under current IP law, if there is reason to believe that you didn't have a high enough degree of security in retaining the IP, your rights to claim it are arguable.  e.g.  You share an office space with two other companies, both from different sectors than yourself, and speak loudly about a business plan.  One of your competitors knows nothing about it, but knows some information about it, and that information was obtained with a contractual obligation to refrain from capitalizing on it.  However the competing customer upon visiting your office finds out that you often spead about idea swhile others outside the company are in earshot, and then they want to take advantage of it.  They capitalize on your idea, and when you sue for breach of contract, they provide the defense that your company didn't do a good enough job of protecting its IP.  Even though the neighboring companies didn't betray you, and the competitor broke his contract, they get absolved and you lose the IP.  This sort of case has happened in the past, and it's common business practice to have even the most trusted individuals sign non-disclosures and non-competes because of it.

That being said, I think that IP ownership will eventually fall to contracts and contract law, whether in the free market or government.  The owners will naturally practice suspicion and prudency when sharing the idea with others, and the only recourse is to prosecute violations of contracts.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Zhwazi on December 03, 2006, 06:39:00 PM
Damn I'm glad I made this thread.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Ben Tucker. BT, if you'd stop obsfucating what you're saying with stuff like "labor-based property rights" and just call it "property rights" a lot more people might be interested in what you have to say. You'll keep people's attention better if you keep it simple.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: BenTucker on December 03, 2006, 06:47:18 PM
Damn I'm glad I made this thread.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Ben Tucker. BT, if you'd stop obsfucating what you're saying with stuff like "labor-based property rights" and just call it "property rights" a lot more people might be interested in what you have to say. You'll keep people's attention better if you keep it simple.

you can't have law-based property rights (privilege) like IP to intangible property without violating labor-based, tangible property rights.

this is Stephan Kinsella's argument not mine.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: gandhi2 on December 03, 2006, 06:48:28 PM
Well, the fundamental difference is that land is tangible and exclusive, while ideas and information are not, at least not in the same terms.  50 people could have the same knowledge without created an burden on the others who have it.  The same cannot be said for land.  50 people on the same acre of land means that all have less resources than if they had owned the land singularly.

This may be an instance where Ben makes sense, but I think it takes a dramatic leap of logic to prove his other rhetoric on the same terms as this.  It's obvious that there are different properties in tangible property and ideas.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Zhwazi on December 03, 2006, 06:54:18 PM
you can't have law-based property rights (privilege) like IP to intangible property without violating labor-based, tangible property rights.
And that is slightly confusing. I'd probably have listened to you a few months ago if you were phrasing it more like "Legal privilige violates property rights." I still disagree with your ideas of land (let's NOT get into that in this thread), but I would have been better able to understand what you were saying had it been more simply and intuitively phrased.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: BenTucker on December 03, 2006, 08:50:19 PM
you can't have law-based property rights (privilege) like IP to intangible property without violating labor-based, tangible property rights.
And that is slightly confusing. I'd probably have listened to you a few months ago if you were phrasing it more like "Legal privilige violates property rights." I still disagree with your ideas of land (let's NOT get into that in this thread), but I would have been better able to understand what you were saying had it been more simply and intuitively phrased.

there is no difference to my argument as it relates to IP and land....

1. privilege is needed to entitle land as no one labors to create it
2. privilege is needed to entitle IP because it is non-rivalrous

to privilege means private (privi) law (lege) or treating one differently in the eyes of the law than the rest and as a result allows economic rent to be captured by the entitled from those being excluded which always (eventually with land) violates their absolute right to self-ownership.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Hittman on December 04, 2006, 12:49:15 AM
I'm still waiting to hear why any company would invest thirty million dollars in an invention if there's no patent to protect their potential profits.

Another issue that hasn't been addressed is trademark and business names.  Without IP, no one could protect their name or their logo.  Anyone could call themselves Burger King, Outback Steakhouse, or Nike, rendering the brand name useless, and making it impossible for consumers do know if they're dealing with the real company or not.  If someone has invested the time and money to build a brand, why should anyone be able to come along later and abscond with it? 
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: Zhwazi on December 04, 2006, 02:16:29 AM
you can't have law-based property rights (privilege) like IP to intangible property without violating labor-based, tangible property rights.
And that is slightly confusing. I'd probably have listened to you a few months ago if you were phrasing it more like "Legal privilige violates property rights." I still disagree with your ideas of land (let's NOT get into that in this thread), but I would have been better able to understand what you were saying had it been more simply and intuitively phrased.

there is no difference to my argument as it relates to IP and land....

1. privilege is need to entitle land as no one labors to create it
2. privilege is need to entitle IP because it is non-rivalrous

to privilege means private (privi) law (lege) or treating one differently in the eyes of the law than the rest and as a result allows economic rent to be captured by the entitled from those being excluded which always (eventually with land) violates their absolute right to self-ownership.
Dammit I'm not arguing with you right now. I'm just telling you to phrase things using a less proprietary phrase set so more people can understand it.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: gandhi2 on December 04, 2006, 02:21:29 AM
Doesn't he realize that every time he says that dreaded phrase a baby angel loses its wing, gets shot and then raped by imps, and then dies an excruciating death?  :( :( :(

Quote
Dammit I'm not arguing with you right now. I'm just telling you to phrase things using a less proprietary phrase set so more people can understand it.
I can sympathize.  It's a shame, because I think that he may have some valuable arguments in his brain.  If only he could refrain from espousing this particular philosophy, he might get more converts to his other ideas.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: BenTucker on December 04, 2006, 06:44:32 AM
I'm still waiting to hear why any company would invest thirty million dollars in an invention if there's no patent to protect their potential profits.

Another issue that hasn't been addressed is trademark and business names.  Without IP, no one could protect their name or their logo.  Anyone could call themselves Burger King, Outback Steakhouse, or Nike, rendering the brand name useless, and making it impossible for consumers do know if they're dealing with the real company or not.  If someone has invested the time and money to build a brand, why should anyone be able to come along later and abscond with it? 


no problem...just compensate those being excluded by the mnopoly so their right of self-onwership remains intact.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: gandhi2 on December 04, 2006, 11:35:03 AM
Quote
no problem...just compensate those being excluded by the mnopoly so their right of self-onwership remains intact.
Huh?  WTF does this have to do with anything?  Am I correct in assuming that as an artist, if I want restrict others from copying my works and calling them their own, I must pay them?  Do you want to destroy all art?  Some of the best art may have been done for philanthropic reasons more than monetary reasons, but ultimately, an individual either wants to be paid for a work or be recognized for it.

What sort of demon shat in your brain?  Do you find new ways to twist reality to make it fit in your world view every day, or is this a stock up from the day when you fell victim to bleeding-heart liberalism and started masturbating yourself to redistribution of all forms of wealth?
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: mrapplecastle on December 04, 2006, 11:59:35 AM
If I have an apple and you have an apple, and we exchange apples, we both still have one apple. If I have an idea and you have an idea, and we exchange ideas, then we both have 2 ideas.
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: BenTucker on December 04, 2006, 12:24:49 PM
Quote
Some of the best art may have been done for philanthropic reasons more than monetary reasons, but ultimately, an individual either wants to be paid for a work or be recognized for it.

philanthropy and recognition require no monetary obligations via force from anyone else...
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: gandhi2 on December 04, 2006, 12:34:50 PM
Quote
philanthropy and recognition require no monetary obligations via force from anyone else...
Yeah, but not all the great works of art come from people who are able to live comfortably due to some other source of money.  In fact, we know that society only started to create art when they had extra time with which they could pursue their endeavours.  In primitive cultures, art and religion were tied, and the shamans were tried like demigods...they had their lives totally taken care of so that they could pursue the artistic spirituality that was most important.  With the advent of agriculture, art become more commonplace and everyday, and was tied more to utilarians objects to which the aesthetic added value.  Alot of art history is rooted in religion and propaganda, and this has been the primary source of income from it.  Are you claiming that you want all art to be swayed by either popular religion or popular propaganda?

Even without money, what guarantees are there that the actual creator of the work is able to receive credit?  You are advocated an IP tax, so that those excluded from capitalizing on the idea get money because they weren't allowed to.  So what happens when two creators both claim to have originated the idea?  Or what happens when one artist validly creates an original work, yet somebody else steals it and starts telling all the world that it is his?  So long as he gets a few people to support his lie, he will be marked down in history as the original creator.  How is collection of IP tax going to resolve this at all?
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: BenTucker on December 04, 2006, 12:47:40 PM
Quote
How is collection of IP tax going to resolve this at all

how are you going to resolve the fact that IP is the state granting of privilege which creates an obligation on those being excluded as the social commons (which no individual creates via their labor) is privately enclosed that violates the excluded's absolute right to self-ownership? (this is not my argument but rather Stephan Kinsella's)

all privileges (treating one entity differently in the eyes of the law) create obligations on those excluded...

Thomas Jefferson's original solution was to LIMIT the time (14 years) for the coercion - in other words to make intellectual property CONDITIONAL not ABSOLUTE else we will have to make the right of self-ownership CONDITIONAL not ABSOLUTE...
Title: Re: Is IP legit or illegit?
Post by: gandhi2 on December 04, 2006, 01:11:16 PM
Quote
how are you going to resolve the fact that IP is the state granting of privilege which creates an obligation on those being excluded as the social commons (which no individual creates via their labor) is privately enclosed that violates the excluded's absolute right to self-ownership? (this is not my argument but rather Stephan Kinsella's)

Quite simply, and without government, in the form of contract law.  It's like the GPL, whenever you download code under GPL, you agree to a contract that will binds you to the terms of GPL, and also binds you to a contract stating no other person can look at or copy your version of the code without also agreeing to GPL.  Therefore it is the responsibility of the downloader of the code to enforce those terms or limit who sees or has access to his version of the code.

If I have a painting which I don't want copied, I would bind people that I show or give the painting to a contract which states the following:

1.  You recognize that I am the original creator.
2.  Before showing this painting or giving this painting to anybody else, you must first bind them to this same contract.
3.  If any violation of this contract occurs, all parties who are signed to this contract are responsible for $X in reperations to me, the artist.  The signers of the contract shall collectively pay the reperations, such that the cost is evenly distributed among the possible violators of this contract.
4.  If it can be reasonably proved that a contract signer did not violate the contract, they are not liable to pay reparations, and the number of possible violators of the contract does not include them.  If it cannot be proved that a contract signer did not violate the contract, they are still liable to pay reperations, regardless of whether the original violation came from them or not.
5. I the artist agree to sign this contract as a party to the IP.

Now, if I show this painting to 9 people and the reperations are set at, say, $25,000, those people have a vested interested in both maintaining the contract and keeping proof that they are in the clear.  Even if I decide that I'm going to get all sneaky and try to fleece their money, and I manage to prove to a 3rd party arbitrator that I am in the clear, I only get 90% of the amount, and lose 10% of the amount that all parties involved agreed was a reasonable amount of reparations.  Not only that, but if one of the parties has clear proof that a violation occured, they have a vested interest to point it out, to avoid having to pay the $2500.  If through this method, 1000 people are shown the work and sign the contract, and there is a violation, then their will be 1000 people determined to prove their innocence, and the best way to do this is to prove the guilt of another person.  It's the same thing with IP today...you don't have to prove you had the idea first, only that the original party didn't do enough to protect the idea.

-add-
Quote
Thomas Jefferson's original solution was to LIMIT the time (14 years) for the coercion - in other words to make intellectual property CONDITIONAL not ABSOLUTE else we will have to make the right of self-ownership CONDITIONAL not ABSOLUTE...
I personally think that artists will want to maintain some level of the contract for a very long period of time, to ensure they are recognized as the original creator of the work.  I don't really have a problem with limits either, or public domain, and think that with the contract above, not many people would even agree to look at the work.  If you declare that so long as 1,000,000 people are party to the contract, the reparations are void under most circumstances, e.g. that the contract creator can audit some aspect of the painting with reasonable suspicion of violation coming from you to determine if you are in fact protecting the IP, and if you fail the audit, you must pay $X fines.  Another condition is that perhaps the strict contract need only be held for X years...long enough time for history to note the real creator and for you to earn your daily bread.
-add-