Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 10:15:54 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 [82] 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!  (Read 96208 times)
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
October 06, 2011, 05:02:57 PM
 #1621

But the likes of Titanic or Toy Story that take millions in up front costs would never get made. 

So? If people aren't willing to pay to have those movies made, they shouldn't be made.

You're saying "if everyone else won't pay for high budget movies, we should MAKE them pay, because my view of how the world should be is right, and theirs is wrong!"
1481451355
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481451355

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481451355
Reply with quote  #2

1481451355
Report to moderator
1481451355
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481451355

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481451355
Reply with quote  #2

1481451355
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481451355
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481451355

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481451355
Reply with quote  #2

1481451355
Report to moderator
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
October 06, 2011, 05:07:21 PM
 #1622

...snip...

That's just it, there are many ways to get capital costs back.  As I have already mentioned, copyright is relatively weak law, and no rational production company is going to depend  upon it for their revenue.  They go to great lengths to keep advance copies from getting out, and they have contractural agreements with distributers to honor their "ownership".  That's also why software comes with 'swrink wrap' policies, as an attempt to shore up copyrights with contract law; pity it doesn't really fly unless the customer actually agrees to the terms in advance.  Why hasn't the shrink wrap licenses been challenged more in court?  Because most people buy the product and have no interest in sharing it online for no personal gain.  They respect the production company's 'ownership' of their work, even without the threat of legal action.  

The people who matter from this point of view are owners of movie theaters.  If they can get the movies without paying royalties, they will of course do so.  And that alone kills the incentive to make movies.  Of course you could make the case that some movies would still get made, especially CGI ones using college computers.  But the likes of Titanic or Toy Story that take millions in up front costs would never get made.  

It could also be that Netflix and Hulu will become the next WB, financing movies to show exclusively to their subscribers, and movie theaters will charge much cheaper rates to just provide the service of watching the movie in a more comfortable setting with a bigger screen.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 06, 2011, 05:10:35 PM
 #1623

But the likes of Titanic or Toy Story that take millions in up front costs would never get made. 

So? If people aren't willing to pay to have those movies made, they shouldn't be made.

You're saying "if everyone else won't pay for high budget movies, we should MAKE them pay, because my view of how the world should be is right, and theirs is wrong!"

Its not my view.  We live in democratic societies, we create the legal infrastructure that makes a movie possible and if you want to take away that, you need to offer something better.

So far, all I see if "who cares if movies are not made" or "something magical will happen and people will invest millions in products that they have to give away for free."

Neither is better than the system we have.  But I have an open mind...if you have something better of course I'd take it.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 06, 2011, 05:11:45 PM
 #1624

...snip...

That's just it, there are many ways to get capital costs back.  As I have already mentioned, copyright is relatively weak law, and no rational production company is going to depend  upon it for their revenue.  They go to great lengths to keep advance copies from getting out, and they have contractural agreements with distributers to honor their "ownership".  That's also why software comes with 'swrink wrap' policies, as an attempt to shore up copyrights with contract law; pity it doesn't really fly unless the customer actually agrees to the terms in advance.  Why hasn't the shrink wrap licenses been challenged more in court?  Because most people buy the product and have no interest in sharing it online for no personal gain.  They respect the production company's 'ownership' of their work, even without the threat of legal action.  

The people who matter from this point of view are owners of movie theaters.  If they can get the movies without paying royalties, they will of course do so.  And that alone kills the incentive to make movies.  Of course you could make the case that some movies would still get made, especially CGI ones using college computers.  But the likes of Titanic or Toy Story that take millions in up front costs would never get made.  

It could also be that Netflix and Hulu will become the next WB, financing movies to show exclusively to their subscribers, and movie theaters will charge much cheaper rates to just provide the service of watching the movie in a more comfortable setting with a bigger screen.

No IP law mean no exclusive movies for their subscribers.  Bittorrent isn't going away anytime soon.  And movie theaters will charge the same - tickets sell for what the market will bear.  Its the film maker that will get the shaft.

Anonymous
Guest

October 06, 2011, 05:14:05 PM
 #1625

Neither is better than the system we have.

That is not certain.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
October 06, 2011, 05:14:20 PM
 #1626

...snip...

That's just it, there are many ways to get capital costs back.  As I have already mentioned, copyright is relatively weak law, and no rational production company is going to depend  upon it for their revenue.  They go to great lengths to keep advance copies from getting out, and they have contractural agreements with distributers to honor their "ownership".  That's also why software comes with 'swrink wrap' policies, as an attempt to shore up copyrights with contract law; pity it doesn't really fly unless the customer actually agrees to the terms in advance.  Why hasn't the shrink wrap licenses been challenged more in court?  Because most people buy the product and have no interest in sharing it online for no personal gain.  They respect the production company's 'ownership' of their work, even without the threat of legal action.  

The people who matter from this point of view are owners of movie theaters.  If they can get the movies without paying royalties, they will of course do so.  And that alone kills the incentive to make movies.  Of course you could make the case that some movies would still get made, especially CGI ones using college computers.  But the likes of Titanic or Toy Story that take millions in up front costs would never get made.  

It could also be that Netflix and Hulu will become the next WB, financing movies to show exclusively to their subscribers, and movie theaters will charge much cheaper rates to just provide the service of watching the movie in a more comfortable setting with a bigger screen.

No IP law mean no exclusive movies for their subscribers.  Bittorrent isn't going away anytime soon.

Can you download movies from Hulu? If yes, I'd love to know how.

By the way, how is it that Microsoft makes so much money from china, and is a company loved by its people, when China practically has no copyright protections for outside companies?

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 06, 2011, 05:19:55 PM
 #1627

...snip...

Can you download movies from Hulu? If yes, I'd love to know how.

By the way, how is it that Microsoft makes so much money from china, and is a company loved by its people, when China practically has no copyright protections for outside companies?

If Hulu has it, someone has recorded it somewhere and it will be on Bittorrent.

Feel free to ask Microsoft how they make make money in China.  My recollection is that they are pretty steamed about being ripped off but you may have an authoritative quote that proves me wrong.

Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
October 06, 2011, 05:50:51 PM
 #1628

...snip...

Can you download movies from Hulu? If yes, I'd love to know how.

By the way, how is it that Microsoft makes so much money from china, and is a company loved by its people, when China practically has no copyright protections for outside companies?

If Hulu has it, someone has recorded it somewhere and it will be on Bittorrent.

Feel free to ask Microsoft how they make make money in China.  My recollection is that they are pretty steamed about being ripped off but you may have an authoritative quote that proves me wrong.

They worked with the people, picked a price people there would feel is fair based on that country's average income and what people felt they would be willing to "donate," and are now raking in hundreds of millions from hundreds of millions of people who willingly pay $2.50 to $7 for a copy of Windows, who are now also extremely loyal customers of Microsoft products, because they believe it is one of the few companies that understands and values them ("unlike those other greedy western companies that are only there to esploit them").
As opposed to in US and Europe, where they make a few million from customers they charge $200+ for that same copy, where the general view of their company is as being evil assholes.
Microsoft is one of the premiere business cases of how to do business with China, and thrive in a world without IP protections. (Though the Harvard Business case is rather long and boring to read).

MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 06, 2011, 06:08:37 PM
 #1629

...snip...

That's just it, there are many ways to get capital costs back.  As I have already mentioned, copyright is relatively weak law, and no rational production company is going to depend  upon it for their revenue.  They go to great lengths to keep advance copies from getting out, and they have contractural agreements with distributers to honor their "ownership".  That's also why software comes with 'swrink wrap' policies, as an attempt to shore up copyrights with contract law; pity it doesn't really fly unless the customer actually agrees to the terms in advance.  Why hasn't the shrink wrap licenses been challenged more in court?  Because most people buy the product and have no interest in sharing it online for no personal gain.  They respect the production company's 'ownership' of their work, even without the threat of legal action.  

The people who matter from this point of view are owners of movie theaters.  If they can get the movies without paying royalties, they will of course do so.  And that alone kills the incentive to make movies.  Of course you could make the case that some movies would still get made, especially CGI ones using college computers.  But the likes of Titanic or Toy Story that take millions in up front costs would never get made.  

Maybe, maybe not.  You're still arguing from the perspective that a particular business model has a right to exist, just because it presently does and is generally a net positive for society.  Even if I were to accept the position that major motion picture production companies have a right to exist by continuing under the present copyright monopoly business model, (which I don't, and neither does the free market) it still wouldn't have any bearing on the legitimacy of the copyright laws themselves.  Why doesn't Nina Paley have the right to profit from her life's work, just because some company bought the rights to a blues song from 1938 from the grandchild of a long dead artist?  Even if information (such as the arrangement of notes and words to make a blues song) were the real 'intellectual property' of the singer/songwriter by reason of his work within his own lifetime (or 15 years, as was the original copyright term, plently long enough for movies, software and music), what right does the company (or even the grandchild) have to profit from the labors of the dead artist?  He can't sell his mind, nor is it useful to anyone else if he could.  The best arguement for copyright isn't that IP is actually property, but that a limited term legal monopoly on reproduction encourages the talented artists to produce more.  The modern take on copyrights, that they can be sold like a tangible property, does nothing at all to encourage the further production of such art after the death of the artists involved; and thus can only be a net negative for society at large, preventing the lower classes from access to established popular culture in favor of the royalties of a surviving adult child or for the recording company.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 06, 2011, 06:09:49 PM
 #1630

But the likes of Titanic or Toy Story that take millions in up front costs would never get made. 

So? If people aren't willing to pay to have those movies made, they shouldn't be made.

You're saying "if everyone else won't pay for high budget movies, we should MAKE them pay, because my view of how the world should be is right, and theirs is wrong!"

+1

Same could be said about any industry that is hampered or tied down with regulatory oversight. The question is always the same. If we can't force them to make it happen, how would it happen? Maybe it just shouldn't, period. We don't pick cotton using slaves anymore. Maybe if we're smart enough, we'll find another way. If not, who cares (except for our masters and monopolists). Same difference.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 06, 2011, 06:13:09 PM
 #1631

Maybe, maybe not.  You're still arguing from the perspective that a particular business model has a right to exist, just because it presently does and is generally a net positive for society.  Even if I were to accept the position that major motion picture production companies have a right to exist by continuing under the present copyright monopoly business model, (which I don't, and neither does the free market) it still wouldn't have any bearing on the legitimacy of the copyright laws themselves.  Why doesn't Nina Paley have the right to profit from her life's work, just because some company bought the rights to a blues song from 1938 from the grandchild of a long dead artist?  Even if information (such as the arrangement of notes and words to make a blues song) were the real 'intellectual property' of the singer/songwriter by reason of his work within his own lifetime (or 15 years, as was the original copyright term, plently long enough for movies, software and music), what right does the company (or even the grandchild) have to profit from the labors of the dead artist?  He can't sell his mind, nor is it useful to anyone else if he could.  The best arguement for copyright isn't that IP is actually property, but that a limited term legal monopoly on reproduction encourages the talented artists to produce more.  The modern take on copyrights, that they can be sold like a tangible property, does nothing at all to encourage the further production of such art after the death of the artists involved; and thus can only be a net negative for society at large, preventing the lower classes from access to established popular culture in favor of the royalties of a surviving adult child or for the recording company.

Better be careful MoonShadow. Someone might say the same for inheritance on real estate of physical property acquired during the life of the deceased now transferred to the children or assigns.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 06, 2011, 06:28:44 PM
 #1632

Maybe, maybe not.  You're still arguing from the perspective that a particular business model has a right to exist, just because it presently does and is generally a net positive for society.  Even if I were to accept the position that major motion picture production companies have a right to exist by continuing under the present copyright monopoly business model, (which I don't, and neither does the free market) it still wouldn't have any bearing on the legitimacy of the copyright laws themselves.  Why doesn't Nina Paley have the right to profit from her life's work, just because some company bought the rights to a blues song from 1938 from the grandchild of a long dead artist?  Even if information (such as the arrangement of notes and words to make a blues song) were the real 'intellectual property' of the singer/songwriter by reason of his work within his own lifetime (or 15 years, as was the original copyright term, plently long enough for movies, software and music), what right does the company (or even the grandchild) have to profit from the labors of the dead artist?  He can't sell his mind, nor is it useful to anyone else if he could.  The best arguement for copyright isn't that IP is actually property, but that a limited term legal monopoly on reproduction encourages the talented artists to produce more.  The modern take on copyrights, that they can be sold like a tangible property, does nothing at all to encourage the further production of such art after the death of the artists involved; and thus can only be a net negative for society at large, preventing the lower classes from access to established popular culture in favor of the royalties of a surviving adult child or for the recording company.

Better be careful MoonShadow. Someone might say the same for inheritance on real estate of physical property acquired during the life of the deceased now transferred to the children or assigns.

And they have.  In the first 30 years or so of the United States, to pass on real estate owned to only one child was a will that was unenforceble.  The idea was that, massive land grants to former agents of the British crown would be honored within the lifetime of the living owner, but the grants themselves were 'unearned' and thus the living owners didn't get to decide how the land was dispersed after their death.  The idea of spreading it equally among heirs would prevent it from becoming a 'legacy' similar to a dukedom, and that the property would disperse to the society over a generation or two.  It worked, and is the primary reason that decendents of colony governors don't own half of Vermont or Louisiana.  They could have siezed the property outright under the same logic, but then they would be screwing over natural born decendents of the grantee who honestly had never done anything to deserve it.  It was a compromise, just like copyright law & fair use laws were intended to be a compromise between the desire to encourage cultural works and the needs of the society to have access to the cultural works that have shaped their societies.  But IP laws no longer respect that compromise, and treat cultural works as literal "intelectual property".

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 06, 2011, 06:37:28 PM
 #1633

And they have.  In the first 30 years or so of the United States, to pass on real estate owned to only one child was a will that was unenforceble.  The idea was that, massive land grants to former agents of the British crown would be honored within the lifetime of the living owner, but the grants themselves were 'unearned' and thus the living owners didn't get to decide how the land was dispersed after their death.  The idea of spreading it equally among heirs would prevent it from becoming a 'legacy' similar to a dukedom, and that the property would disperse to the society over a generation or two.  It worked, and is the primary reason that decendents of colony governors don't own half of Vermont or Louisiana.  They could have siezed the property outright under the same logic, but then they would be screwing over natural born decendents of the grantee who honestly had never done anything to deserve it.  It was a compromise, just like copyright law & fair use laws were intended to be a compromise between the desire to encourage cultural works and the needs of the society to have access to the cultural works that have shaped their societies.  But IP laws no longer respect that compromise, and treat cultural works as literal "intelectual property".

So what if the property was transferred prior to death. Would not that contract be honored? I can potentially see how a contract could be null and void, and hence unenforceable, for a dead man. A contract is between 2 live individuals for it to be valid, but that would be one way to continue the deceased's legacy.

We must protect property rights, including the right to transfer said property.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 06, 2011, 08:05:18 PM
 #1634

And they have.  In the first 30 years or so of the United States, to pass on real estate owned to only one child was a will that was unenforceble.  The idea was that, massive land grants to former agents of the British crown would be honored within the lifetime of the living owner, but the grants themselves were 'unearned' and thus the living owners didn't get to decide how the land was dispersed after their death.  The idea of spreading it equally among heirs would prevent it from becoming a 'legacy' similar to a dukedom, and that the property would disperse to the society over a generation or two.  It worked, and is the primary reason that decendents of colony governors don't own half of Vermont or Louisiana.  They could have siezed the property outright under the same logic, but then they would be screwing over natural born decendents of the grantee who honestly had never done anything to deserve it.  It was a compromise, just like copyright law & fair use laws were intended to be a compromise between the desire to encourage cultural works and the needs of the society to have access to the cultural works that have shaped their societies.  But IP laws no longer respect that compromise, and treat cultural works as literal "intelectual property".

So what if the property was transferred prior to death. Would not that contract be honored? I can potentially see how a contract could be null and void, and hence unenforceable, for a dead man. A contract is between 2 live individuals for it to be valid, but that would be one way to continue the deceased's legacy.

We must protect property rights, including the right to transfer said property.

You're caught in a mental loop.  Information isn't property, and doesn't act like property in the absence of monopoly force.  By definition, force or the threat of same distorts the free market, so it's no longer free.  It is impossible for a free market in information to exist in the presence of IP monopoly laws.  Can an artist contract for the exclusive rights of distribution?  Sure, so long as he can maintain the "business secret" without it getting out.  That's not impossible beyond his death, if he should choose to never release his art.  If he releases it in any form, his fans owe the distribution company no loyalty.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 06, 2011, 08:46:08 PM
 #1635

You're caught in a mental loop.  Information isn't property, and doesn't act like property in the absence of monopoly force.  By definition, force or the threat of same distorts the free market, so it's no longer free.  It is impossible for a free market in information to exist in the presence of IP monopoly laws.  Can an artist contract for the exclusive rights of distribution?  Sure, so long as he can maintain the "business secret" without it getting out.  That's not impossible beyond his death, if he should choose to never release his art.  If he releases it in any form, his fans owe the distribution company no loyalty.

Sorry I confused you. I never meant IP. There is no such physical property in knowledge. I meant physical property transferred prior to death. It was a continuation of the Vermont/Louisiana question. I give zero validity to IP. I'm not caught in any mental loop. You didn't follow your own thread (physical property).

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 06, 2011, 09:08:41 PM
 #1636

You're caught in a mental loop.  Information isn't property, and doesn't act like property in the absence of monopoly force.  By definition, force or the threat of same distorts the free market, so it's no longer free.  It is impossible for a free market in information to exist in the presence of IP monopoly laws.  Can an artist contract for the exclusive rights of distribution?  Sure, so long as he can maintain the "business secret" without it getting out.  That's not impossible beyond his death, if he should choose to never release his art.  If he releases it in any form, his fans owe the distribution company no loyalty.

Sorry I confused you. I never meant IP. There is no such physical property in knowledge. I meant physical property transferred prior to death. It was a continuation of the Vermont/Louisiana question. I give zero validity to IP. I'm not caught in any mental loop. You didn't follow your own thread (physical property).

Whatever real, physical wealth that the artist was able to trade his information for during his lifetime can logically be willed to his heirs.  Originally, the term for copyright protection was 15 years.  I consider that to be a good compromise even in the modern world.  Patents generally are still only 15 years, and society benefits both by the initial research paid for by the sick wealthy (and middle class with old school health coverage) and then all of society then benefits forevermore once the patent expires and generics can legally be marketed.  It's not a libertarian ideal, and wouldn't function without the explicit force of government, but from a practical standpoint it's one of the last injustices of government that I would be inclined to worry about.  It's logically inarguable that it's an injustice to deny the dying an effective medicine simply because s/he can't afford more than the cost of production, but in the grand scheme of injustices that result from government edicts, I can think of many greater and more widespread injustices.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 06, 2011, 09:16:29 PM
 #1637

Whatever real, physical wealth that the artist was able to trade his information for during his lifetime can logically be willed to his heirs.  Originally, the term for copyright protection was 15 years.  I consider that to be a good compromise even in the modern world.  Patents generally are still only 15 years, and society benefits both by the initial research paid for by the sick wealthy (and middle class with old school health coverage) and then all of society then benefits forevermore once the patent expires and generics can legally be marketed.  It's not a libertarian ideal, and wouldn't function without the explicit force of government, but from a practical standpoint it's one of the last injustices of government that I would be inclined to worry about.  It's logically inarguable that it's an injustice to deny the dying an effective medicine simply because s/he can't afford more than the cost of production, but in the grand scheme of injustices that result from government edicts, I can think of many greater and more widespread injustices.

Please answer the real estate/physical property transfer prior-to-death question.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 06, 2011, 09:30:43 PM
 #1638

...snip...

Maybe, maybe not.  You're still arguing from the perspective that a particular business model has a right to exist, just because it presently does and is generally a net positive for society. Even if I were to accept the position that major motion picture production companies have a right to exist by continuing under the present copyright monopoly business model, (which I don't, and neither does the free market) it still wouldn't have any bearing on the legitimacy of the copyright laws themselves.  

...snip...

Its a balance between the freedom to copy and sell someone else's work and the ability to watch movies.  You feel the freedom is more important.  I feel the movie is more important.  

Legitimacy is a difficult concept.  People do organise into societies and do make laws aimed at making life better.  If you feel the entire basis on which society makes laws is bad, it makes it hard for you to get things changed as its easier to change things incrementally than to wait for a revolution.

MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 06, 2011, 09:37:39 PM
 #1639

Whatever real, physical wealth that the artist was able to trade his information for during his lifetime can logically be willed to his heirs.  Originally, the term for copyright protection was 15 years.  I consider that to be a good compromise even in the modern world.  Patents generally are still only 15 years, and society benefits both by the initial research paid for by the sick wealthy (and middle class with old school health coverage) and then all of society then benefits forevermore once the patent expires and generics can legally be marketed.  It's not a libertarian ideal, and wouldn't function without the explicit force of government, but from a practical standpoint it's one of the last injustices of government that I would be inclined to worry about.  It's logically inarguable that it's an injustice to deny the dying an effective medicine simply because s/he can't afford more than the cost of production, but in the grand scheme of injustices that result from government edicts, I can think of many greater and more widespread injustices.

Please answer the real estate/physical property transfer prior-to-death question.

I guess I don't understand the question.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 06, 2011, 09:39:26 PM
 #1640


Legitimacy is a difficult concept.  People do organise into societies and do make laws aimed at making life better.  If you feel the entire basis on which society makes laws is bad, it makes it hard for you to get things changed as its easier to change things incrementally than to wait for a revolution.

Indeed.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Pages: « 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 [82] 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!