This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

What if I spend 10 years designing a widget, and sell widgets?  Do you feel that by selling the widget I am also selling the design, and the right to manufacture my widget?

Do you think that by selling them an object, you can dictate what they do with their skills and materials? If they can determine the design from your widget, they can manufacture it. You can't sell them that right, because they already have it.

If your widget is sufficiently complex that it took you 10 years to design it, it should take quite some time for the new owner to reverse-engineer it, and gear up for competition, if he so desires. During that time, you have a monopoly on that widget. I suggest you exploit it. First to market is your competitive advantage.

You can restrict the new owner from reverse-engineering the widget via contract, if you want, or you can build anti-tamper measures into the widget itself, both will buy you some more time, but eventually someone's going to break that contract, or bypass the anti-tamper measures, and ferret out your design. If they broke a contract, then you can take the measures provided for in the contract for breach against the person who broke it, but if he, rather than manufacturing it himself, spreads the design far and wide, you can't exact anything from those third parties who get the design.

Bottom line is: You want a limited-term monopoly on the manufacture and sale of the widget? You got it, until someone reverse engineers it and tools up to manufacture it.

So, Thomas Edison spent 1000's of hours of trial and error before he came up with a tungsten filament for a light bulb, and you maintain that anyone should be able to profit from his work, right off the bat.  The system you propose would result in large monopolies controlling production;  If a small outfit makes a design, a large outfit could easily reverse-engineer it and manufacture the widget on a larger scale.  I'm afraid we must agree to disagree here, as what you propose will result in this: A low-liquidity outfit/entrepreneur sinks his millions of dollars and thousands of hours designing a widget and bringing it to market, and an outfit flush with liquidity then out-competes him because the outfit who designed the widget needs time to develop HIS market for HIS product design, whereas the liquidity-rich outfit already has a ready-made market due to it's financial power. 
What you propose is theft, which I feel is evident from the result it would have on the marketplace, and the players therein.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

all you people are doing is talking about gain!

Gain is what it's all about.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

So, if a buyer agrees to certain terms and conditions, you think he can just change his mind in an arbitrary fashion?  That would put an end to much commerce.  Personally, I think that before recording media was invented, an artist had to play before an audience, and a movie had to generate it's revenue in the cinema, and that is good, but, in the case of movies, should not the producer get a year or two of contractually protected ownership?  Some movies take millions to make, and if the producer cannot show a profit, then what is the motivation to make another movie?  I agree that IP rights have been exploited by the owners to a ridiculous degree, I torrent as much as the next guy, but not things that are still in the cinema, as I also feel that the work they do should be recognized in a commercial way.  I also agree that the business model of those greedy bastards like MPPIA and RIAA is broken, but a happy medium must exist, like a one or two year copyright, or, at worst, a copyright that lasts for the life of the author, never to exceed 50 years, or what have you.

Myrkul doesn't believe in a happy medium. It wouldn't be a good fit for his world-view. To summarise the dystopian Myrkul world:

• Communities don't really exist. Community is just a waffle-word for "group of individuals who happen to be temporarily cooperating with each other because their finely-tuned greed-o-meters tell them that that is how they will maximise their personal gain".
• Despite that, 'rights' are strong for individuals. Whatever that means. Presumably the individuals can forcefully scream at each other "I have the RIGHT to do this!" whenever they feel like doing something but another individual tries to get in the way. Myrkul does not recognise that rights are created by communities. Rights "just exist", http://youtu.be/pfmkRi_tr9c?t=1m  , and the N.A.P. scripture is only there to rationalise it to the unbelievers.
• One of these rights is for individuals to 'own' property. But don't bother explaining that ownership is a made-up concept (probably based on primitive territorial instincts). Or that the concept only makes sense if 'commons'/public property also exist and provide a sort of duality.
• Only physical property is really real. That's why they call it real estate. "The Arts" are non-physical, and their appreciation is just a product of the mind. Since the sensation of solid dirt under ones feet is more real than mere art, trespassers or vandals/homesteaders can be forcibly removed, whereas The Arts require contracts and all sorts of non-violent rituals to be performed if a contract is broken.

But there is much more than "The Arts" represented by IP, like patents and proprietary designs.  Not recognizing ownership of design could have drastic effects on commerce.

Don't mind him. I've tried to explain Liberty to him more times than I can count. He's a bigger windbag than I am.

I'm a bit of a windbag myself, so don't mind me if I try to use logic to show him the folly of his ways.  That being said, if you could provide me with links to discussions you've had with this...anarchist..., post 'em, so I don't wind up re-inventing the wheel, as it were.  BTW are you an AnCap as well?

[myrkul]

What if I spend 10 years designing a widget, and sell widgets?  Do you feel that by selling the widget I am also selling the design, and the right to manufacture my widget?

Do you think that by selling them an object, you can dictate what they do with their skills and materials? If they can determine the design from your widget, they can manufacture it. You can't sell them that right, because they already have it.

If your widget is sufficiently complex that it took you 10 years to design it, it should take quite some time for the new owner to reverse-engineer it, and gear up for competition, if he so desires. During that time, you have a monopoly on that widget. I suggest you exploit it. First to market is your competitive advantage.

You can restrict the new owner from reverse-engineering the widget via contract, if you want, or you can build anti-tamper measures into the widget itself, both will buy you some more time, but eventually someone's going to break that contract, or bypass the anti-tamper measures, and ferret out your design. If they broke a contract, then you can take the measures provided for in the contract for breach against the person who broke it, but if he, rather than manufacturing it himself, spreads the design far and wide, you can't exact anything from those third parties who get the design.

Bottom line is: You want a limited-term monopoly on the manufacture and sale of the widget? You got it, until someone reverse engineers it and tools up to manufacture it.

So, Thomas Edison spent 1000's of hours of trial and error before he came up with a tungsten filament for a light bulb, and you maintain that anyone should be able to profit from his work, right off the bat.

If they can copy the design and the metallurgy, sure. That's more work than you seem to think.

  The system you propose would result in large monopolies controlling production;  If a small outfit makes a design, a large outfit could easily reverse-engineer it and manufacture the widget on a larger scale.

Possibly. And cheaper, too. I don't see that as a problem. A smart design firm would just sell the design directly to the large firm, rather than trying to compete with them.

I'm afraid we must agree to disagree here, as what you propose will result in this: A low-liquidity outfit/entrepreneur sinks his millions of dollars and thousands of hours designing a widget and bringing it to market, and an outfit flush with liquidity then out-competes him because the outfit who designed the widget needs time to develop HIS market for HIS product design, whereas the liquidity-rich outfit already has a ready-made market due to it's financial power.

Again, a smart man would just sell his design, because if there is a large enough market, the larger firm can outcompete him anyway. Of course, he could try to exploit his monopoly on the manufacture while it lasts, but it might not be enough to recoup his R&D loss.

What you propose is theft, which I feel is evident from the result it would have on the marketplace, and the players therein.

Copying is not theft. What you propose is allowing those big monopolies to purchase the rights and charge whatever they want for it until the patent expires. Mine is fairer to the consumer, and if the big company starts charging more than the original inventor can make profit on, he can go back into competing with them, and make a good bit of profit.

I'm a bit of a windbag myself, so don't mind me if I try to use logic to show him the folly of his ways.  That being said, if you could provide me with links to discussions you've had with this...anarchist..., post 'em, so I don't wind up re-inventing the wheel, as it were.  BTW are you an AnCap as well?

Blablahblah is just a troll. But I did have a great conversation with a left-anarchist in the "Libertarian my ass!" thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160726.0

And yes, I am AnCap as well.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

What if I spend 10 years designing a widget, and sell widgets?  Do you feel that by selling the widget I am also selling the design, and the right to manufacture my widget?

Do you think that by selling them an object, you can dictate what they do with their skills and materials? If they can determine the design from your widget, they can manufacture it. You can't sell them that right, because they already have it.

If your widget is sufficiently complex that it took you 10 years to design it, it should take quite some time for the new owner to reverse-engineer it, and gear up for competition, if he so desires. During that time, you have a monopoly on that widget. I suggest you exploit it. First to market is your competitive advantage.

You can restrict the new owner from reverse-engineering the widget via contract, if you want, or you can build anti-tamper measures into the widget itself, both will buy you some more time, but eventually someone's going to break that contract, or bypass the anti-tamper measures, and ferret out your design. If they broke a contract, then you can take the measures provided for in the contract for breach against the person who broke it, but if he, rather than manufacturing it himself, spreads the design far and wide, you can't exact anything from those third parties who get the design.

Bottom line is: You want a limited-term monopoly on the manufacture and sale of the widget? You got it, until someone reverse engineers it and tools up to manufacture it.

So, Thomas Edison spent 1000's of hours of trial and error before he came up with a tungsten filament for a light bulb, and you maintain that anyone should be able to profit from his work, right off the bat.

If they can copy the design and the metallurgy, sure. That's more work than you seem to think.

  The system you propose would result in large monopolies controlling production;  If a small outfit makes a design, a large outfit could easily reverse-engineer it and manufacture the widget on a larger scale.

Possibly. And cheaper, too. I don't see that as a problem. A smart design firm would just sell the design directly to the large firm, rather than trying to compete with them.

I'm afraid we must agree to disagree here, as what you propose will result in this: A low-liquidity outfit/entrepreneur sinks his millions of dollars and thousands of hours designing a widget and bringing it to market, and an outfit flush with liquidity then out-competes him because the outfit who designed the widget needs time to develop HIS market for HIS product design, whereas the liquidity-rich outfit already has a ready-made market due to it's financial power.

Again, a smart man would just sell his design, because if there is a large enough market, the larger firm can outcompete him anyway. Of course, he could try to exploit his monopoly on the manufacture while it lasts, but it might not be enough to recoup his R&D loss.

What you propose is theft, which I feel is evident from the result it would have on the marketplace, and the players therein.

Copying is not theft. What you propose is allowing those big monopolies to purchase the rights and charge whatever they want for it until the patent expires. Mine is fairer to the consumer, and if the big company starts charging more than the original inventor can make profit on, he can go back into competing with them, and make a good bit of profit.

I'm a bit of a windbag myself, so don't mind me if I try to use logic to show him the folly of his ways.  That being said, if you could provide me with links to discussions you've had with this...anarchist..., post 'em, so I don't wind up re-inventing the wheel, as it were.  BTW are you an AnCap as well?

Blablahblah is just a troll. But I did have a great conversation with a left-anarchist in the "Libertarian my ass!" thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160726.0

And yes, I am AnCap as well.

There is very little motivation to design and build a widget with the knowledge one must sell it to a larger outfit.  If a movie like "Star Wars" was freely available to the market, and anyone with a cinema, with no fees, as soon as it's first screening, do you think that the creators and producers would have been able to show a profit?

[myrkul]

There is very little motivation to design and build a widget with the knowledge one must sell it to a larger outfit.  If a movie like "Star Wars" was freely available to the market, and anyone with a cinema, with no fees, as soon as it's first screening, do you think that the creators and producers would have been able to show a profit?

Certainly they could have. Bootleg copies are typically very poor, and especially back then.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

There is very little motivation to design and build a widget with the knowledge one must sell it to a larger outfit.  If a movie like "Star Wars" was freely available to the market, and anyone with a cinema, with no fees, as soon as it's first screening, do you think that the creators and producers would have been able to show a profit?

Certainly they could have. Bootleg copies are typically very poor, and especially back then.

I've seen some very good bootleg copies in my day, and with no protection, the investment in copying technology may inhibit the profitability of multi-million-dollar movies.  I'm with you half-way, like while a movie is in the cinema, it enjoys some degree of protection, and same thing, to a lesser degree for music, but proprietary designs need even stronger protection, and, as an AnCap, I would hire a security/arbitration firm that would vigorously prosecute those who would try to profit from my work.
I assume you've read "The Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman?  He and his publisher have put it out for free as a .pdf download.

[hawkeye]

I've seen some very good bootleg copies in my day, and with no protection, the investment in copying technology may inhibit the profitability of multi-million-dollar movies.  I'm with you half-way, like while a movie is in the cinema, it enjoys some degree of protection, and same thing, to a lesser degree for music, but proprietary designs need even stronger protection, and, as an AnCap, I would hire a security/arbitration firm that would vigorously prosecute those who would try to profit from my work.
I assume you've read "The Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman?  He and his publisher have put it out for free as a .pdf download.

How would you prosecute someone in a free society for copying something?

[myrkul]

There is very little motivation to design and build a widget with the knowledge one must sell it to a larger outfit.  If a movie like "Star Wars" was freely available to the market, and anyone with a cinema, with no fees, as soon as it's first screening, do you think that the creators and producers would have been able to show a profit?

Certainly they could have. Bootleg copies are typically very poor, and especially back then.

I've seen some very good bootleg copies in my day, and with no protection, the investment in copying technology may inhibit the profitability of multi-million-dollar movies.  I'm with you half-way, like while a movie is in the cinema, it enjoys some degree of protection, and same thing, to a lesser degree for music, but proprietary designs need even stronger protection, and, as an AnCap, I would hire a security/arbitration firm that would vigorously prosecute those who would try to profit from my work.
I assume you've read "The Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman?  He and his publisher have put it out for free as a .pdf download.

I have indeed, I even reformatted it to ePub, if you'd like a more portable format.

The problem lies in enforcing contracts on third parties. Once the data is out there, there's no stopping someone from using it. If someone makes a copy of your doodad, and you don't have him on contract saying he won't, well, you're in a boat.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

There is very little motivation to design and build a widget with the knowledge one must sell it to a larger outfit.  If a movie like "Star Wars" was freely available to the market, and anyone with a cinema, with no fees, as soon as it's first screening, do you think that the creators and producers would have been able to show a profit?

Certainly they could have. Bootleg copies are typically very poor, and especially back then.

I've seen some very good bootleg copies in my day, and with no protection, the investment in copying technology may inhibit the profitability of multi-million-dollar movies.  I'm with you half-way, like while a movie is in the cinema, it enjoys some degree of protection, and same thing, to a lesser degree for music, but proprietary designs need even stronger protection, and, as an AnCap, I would hire a security/arbitration firm that would vigorously prosecute those who would try to profit from my work.
I assume you've read "The Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman?  He and his publisher have put it out for free as a .pdf download.

I have indeed, I even reformatted it to ePub, if you'd like a more portable format.

The problem lies in enforcing contracts on third parties. Once the data is out there, there's no stopping someone from using it. If someone makes a copy of your doodad, and you don't have him on contract saying he won't, well, you're in a boat.

If I make a movie, I can sell it to second parties who will abide by my contractual obligations, and not let third parties in to copy it, and if one sneaks in, well, there are no doubt digital watermarking technologies that will allow me and/or my security/arbitration company see where the the bootleg copy came from, and then I can measure the cost-effectiveness of prosecuting versus laissez-faire, along with the 2nd party to whom I sold the display rights to.

Epub?  Isn't that part of the Apple Ecology?..or should I say the Apple Police State?

[myrkul]

If I make a movie, I can sell it to second parties who will abide by my contractual obligations, and not let third parties in to copy it, and if one sneaks in, well, there are no doubt digital watermarking technologies that will allow me and/or my security/arbitration company see where the the bootleg copy came from, and then I can measure the cost-effectiveness of prosecuting versus laissez-faire, along with the 2nd party to whom I sold the display rights to.

Possibly. About all you could get him for though is theft of service if he indeed "snuck in" or breach of contract if he had to sign a waiver to get in. But theater-level bootlegs are typically the worst kind. Audience heads, laughter, breaks in the movie where an usher came in, etc. Those, if anything, drive ticket sales. What you should be worried about is the projectionist. He's got access to all the equipment needed to make high-quality copies. So, if you catch him making copies, you fire him. Problem solved.

And DVD sales are (or at least, should be) pure profit anyway, so loss of those to competition isn't that big a deal. You made your money in the theater.

Epub?  Isn't that part of the Apple Ecology?..or should I say the Apple Police State?

Heh. I don't care who came up with the format, it's zipped xml, so it's human-readable and editable, it's DRM-free, and can be easily converted to any other format (like mobi for my kindle). It's my default "library" format.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

If I make a movie, I can sell it to second parties who will abide by my contractual obligations, and not let third parties in to copy it, and if one sneaks in, well, there are no doubt digital watermarking technologies that will allow me and/or my security/arbitration company see where the the bootleg copy came from, and then I can measure the cost-effectiveness of prosecuting versus laissez-faire, along with the 2nd party to whom I sold the display rights to.

Possibly. About all you could get him for though is theft of service if he indeed "snuck in" or breach of contract if he had to sign a waiver to get in. But theater-level bootlegs are typically the worst kind. Audience heads, laughter, breaks in the movie where an usher came in, etc. Those, if anything, drive ticket sales. What you should be worried about is the projectionist. He's got access to all the equipment needed to make high-quality copies. So, if you catch him making copies, you fire him. Problem solved.

And DVD sales are (or at least, should be) pure profit anyway, so loss of those to competition isn't that big a deal. You made your money in the theater.

Epub?  Isn't that part of the Apple Ecology?..or should I say the Apple Police State?

Heh. I don't care who came up with the format, it's zipped xml, so it's human-readable and editable, it's DRM-free, and can be easily converted to any other format (like mobi for my kindle). It's my default "library" format.

"About all you could get him for though is theft of service if he indeed "snuck in" or breach of contract if he had to sign a waiver to get in. "

With the right sort of contracts between me and the cinema, and the cinema and the viewer, I could reduce the perp. to indentured labor for a long time.

I agree DVD sales are pure profit, I only want protection for the time the movie generates revenue in the cinema.  I've seen some really good cinema copies made, and, without some form of protection, then the technology to make cinema copies would outstrip the profitability of the "legitimate" vendors.

[myrkul]

I agree DVD sales are pure profit, I only want protection for the time the movie generates revenue in the cinema.  I've seen some really good cinema copies made, and, without some form of protection, then the technology to make cinema copies would outstrip the profitability of the "legitimate" vendors.

Those "really good" cinema copies are almost all projectionists. Security camera in the projection booth, and fire the guy when you catch him. Some theaters are already doing just that.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

I agree DVD sales are pure profit, I only want protection for the time the movie generates revenue in the cinema.  I've seen some really good cinema copies made, and, without some form of protection, then the technology to make cinema copies would outstrip the profitability of the "legitimate" vendors.

Those "really good" cinema copies are almost all projectionists. Security camera in the projection booth, and fire the guy when you catch him. Some theaters are already doing just that.

Good.  I'm a sort of "Power to the People Who Worked for It" Kinda guy.  I'd more than fire him, I'd ..ahem..coerce... the the guy into labor, as a sentence for the crime of stealing my IP.  It would depend on the power of my security/arbitration agency versus those of the "thief".  It can all work out in the end.

[myrkul]

I'd more than fire him, I'd ..ahem..coerce... the the guy into labor, as a sentence for the crime of stealing my IP. 

Hmm. I think you would have a hard time finding employees after that got out.

It would depend on the power of my security/arbitration agency versus those of the "thief". 

I suppose, if you wanted to start a fight. But remember that there would likely be more people willing to pay more to not be forced into labor than there would be people willing to pay more for being able to force people into labor. You might get a judgment against him if he caused you damages, but I wouldn't hold much hope for having him breaking rocks for you.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

I'd more than fire him, I'd ..ahem..coerce... the the guy into labor, as a sentence for the crime of stealing my IP. 

Hmm. I think you would have a hard time finding employees after that got out.

It would depend on the power of my security/arbitration agency versus those of the "thief". 

I suppose, if you wanted to start a fight. But remember that there would likely be more people willing to pay more to not be forced into labor than there would be people willing to pay more for being able to force people into labor. You might get a judgment against him if he caused you damages, but I wouldn't hold much hope for having him breaking rocks for you.

"Hmm. I think you would have a hard time finding employees after that got out." <--you mean not hiring thieves?  I disagree.  This is the job contract, take it or leave it.  Do you want to be a projectionist or a thief (as defined by the contract)?

"You might get a judgment against him if he caused you damages, but I wouldn't hold much hope for having him breaking rocks for you." 
Damages = cutting into my profits.  As I said, depends on the power of my security/arbitration company.  It's not more people willing to pay not to go into indentured labor that is the deciding factor, but rather, more people with money willing to hire the company to protect my IP rights.  You do have a point, and in a free world, the market will decide.

[myrkul]

I'd more than fire him, I'd ..ahem..coerce... the the guy into labor, as a sentence for the crime of stealing my IP. 

Hmm. I think you would have a hard time finding employees after that got out.

you mean not hiring thieves?  I disagree.  This is the job contract, take it or leave it.  Do you want to be a projectionist or a thief (as defined by the contract)?

Well, if people know that you like to send people who wronged you to the salt mines, I think it would be tough finding someone willing to deal with you, and people would prefer to deal with people who sought less harsh penalties for their contracts.

Damages = cutting into my profits.

Uh... no. Lost profit due to competition is not damages. Sorry. If it were, Folgers could sue Starbucks.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

I'd more than fire him, I'd ..ahem..coerce... the the guy into labor, as a sentence for the crime of stealing my IP. 

Hmm. I think you would have a hard time finding employees after that got out.

you mean not hiring thieves?  I disagree.  This is the job contract, take it or leave it.  Do you want to be a projectionist or a thief (as defined by the contract)?

Well, if people know that you like to send people who wronged you to the salt mines, I think it would be tough finding someone willing to deal with you, and people would prefer to deal with people who sought less harsh penalties for their contracts.

Damages = cutting into my profits.

Uh... no. Lost profit due to competition is not damages. Sorry. If it were, Folgers could sue Starbucks.

"Well, if people know that you like to send people who wronged you to the salt mines, I think it would be tough finding someone willing to deal with you, and people would prefer to deal with people who sought less harsh penalties for their contracts."

Good luck to them.  I have been at the high level (25$+/hr) and the low level (10$-/hr), and I find that people will work under many conditions.  At this point in my life, I'm at the low level, and would happily work for more, even with the threat of the "salt mines", if I tried to rip off my employer or his suppliers.

"Uh... no. Lost profit due to competition is not damages. Sorry. If it were, Folgers could sue Starbucks."

The arbitration companies will decide.
Will you admit that there are enough folk who believe that IP rights exist to make a significant dent in the arbitration companies defense of these so-called rights?

[myrkul]

Good luck to them.  I have been at the high level (25$+/hr) and the low level (10$-/hr), and I find that people will work under many conditions.  At this point in my life, I'm at the low level, and would happily work for more, even with the threat of the "salt mines", if I tried to rip off my employer or his suppliers.

You're also assuming today's marketplace resembles in the least the one that would exist under a free market. The balance of power would shift radically toward the worker, rather than the employer.

The arbitration companies will decide.
Will you admit that there are enough folk who believe that IP rights exist to make a significant dent in the arbitration companies defense of these so-called rights?

I think there are enough who reject the concept of imaginary property to make defending it prohibitively expensive.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Good luck to them.  I have been at the high level (25$+/hr) and the low level (10$-/hr), and I find that people will work under many conditions.  At this point in my life, I'm at the low level, and would happily work for more, even with the threat of the "salt mines", if I tried to rip off my employer or his suppliers.

You're also assuming today's marketplace resembles in the least the one that would exist under a free market. The balance of power would shift radically toward the worker, rather than the employer.

The arbitration companies will decide.
Will you admit that there are enough folk who believe that IP rights exist to make a significant dent in the arbitration companies defense of these so-called rights?

I think there are enough who reject the concept of imaginary property to make defending it prohibitively expensive.

"You're also assuming today's marketplace resembles in the least the one that would exist under a free market. The balance of power would shift radically toward the worker, rather than the employer."

I make only assumptions based upon what currently exists.

"I think there are enough who reject the concept of imaginary property to make defending it prohibitively expensive."

Perhaps, as I said before, the free market should be the entity that decides.  I know that any entrepreneur would like to have ownership of his ideas and work, and that the arbitration companies that may or may not come into existence will reflect this fact, just as you know that the arbitration companies will defend what you percieve to be one's right to use the ideas of others, without permission, to make a profit.  I can only hope and pray for the day when one of us will be proved right or wrong.