Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 03:42:17 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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 95861 times)
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 19, 2011, 09:30:15 PM
 #2081

MoonShadow,

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. 70 years, five notes, etc. We're in agreement.

But somewhere in there is a line that is defensible. It's not 70 years, and it's not five notes.

But if it's defensible, then it's just as defensible as a licensing contract.  If it requires the use of a government monopoly supported business model to exist, it's not defensible.  If copyrights ended after 15 years following the first publication (or patents 15 years after the first product in production or demonstration) then we wouldn't likely be having this debate, simply because it wouldn't be a worthwhile issue.  There would be much more important issues to fight about than the morality of a 15 year long monopoly on copying of published works.  The problem isn't so much that immoral and inconsistant laws exist, nor that there are businesses that exist to take advantage of those laws; but what those laws, when their immorality is left unchallenged, become over time.  Legal weapons to be wielded and expanded by and for the benefit of entrenched businesses.  At the core, this is the reality that you support when you argue in favor of IP laws, of any sort and for any reason.

"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'
1480779737
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480779737

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480779737
Reply with quote  #2

1480779737
Report to moderator
1480779737
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480779737

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480779737
Reply with quote  #2

1480779737
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 19, 2011, 09:36:15 PM
 #2082

If I go to the trouble, would you even consider changing your position?  Be honest, now.

Are you speaking to me? I won't change my position with regard to works represented by numbers so large that they would never be available to anyone other than the fact that some entity went to the effort to create it.

I was speaking to anyone, really.  Thanks for the honesty.  Ultimately, the morality of IP laws are an irrelevant argument then?  The 'greater good' of the general public is of no concern, even though that is exactly the (official) reason that IP laws presently exist.

This is exactly why I called this entire topic an intellectual circle jerk.  I'm not going to change my opinion, unless you can demonstrate a moral foundation for their support, which I believe to be impossible.  And you're not going to change your position unless I, do what exactly?

"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'
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 19, 2011, 09:49:54 PM
 #2083

If I go to the trouble, would you even consider changing your position?  Be honest, now.

Are you speaking to me? I won't change my position with regard to works represented by numbers so large that they would never be available to anyone other than the fact that some entity went to the effort to create it.

I was speaking to anyone, really.  Thanks for the honesty.  Ultimately, the morality of IP laws are an irrelevant argument then?  The 'greater good' of the general public is of no concern, even though that is exactly the (official) reason that IP laws presently exist.

This is exactly why I called this entire topic an intellectual circle jerk.  I'm not going to change my opinion, unless you can demonstrate a moral foundation for their support, which I believe to be impossible.  And you're not going to change your position unless I, do what exactly?

The moral foundation is well established.  We live in societies that have the right to act to prevent harm.  If the abolition of IP laws is believed to be harmful, society has every right to protect itself by creating and enforcing IP laws.

The only real issue is whether or not society is justified in believing that removal of IP laws would cause harm.


MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 19, 2011, 09:55:18 PM
 #2084

If I go to the trouble, would you even consider changing your position?  Be honest, now.

Are you speaking to me? I won't change my position with regard to works represented by numbers so large that they would never be available to anyone other than the fact that some entity went to the effort to create it.

I was speaking to anyone, really.  Thanks for the honesty.  Ultimately, the morality of IP laws are an irrelevant argument then?  The 'greater good' of the general public is of no concern, even though that is exactly the (official) reason that IP laws presently exist.

This is exactly why I called this entire topic an intellectual circle jerk.  I'm not going to change my opinion, unless you can demonstrate a moral foundation for their support, which I believe to be impossible.  And you're not going to change your position unless I, do what exactly?

The moral foundation is well established.  We live in societies that have the right to act to prevent harm.  If the abolition of IP laws is believed to be harmful, society has every right to protect itself by creating and enforcing IP laws.

The only real issue is whether or not society is justified in believing that removal of IP laws would cause harm.



That's not a moral question, and I think that you know it.  Whether or not a particular law causes harm or not, is not the moral question.  It's a practical question.  But a corrolary to the question, "would repeal of IP laws cause harm" is "do IP laws cause harm now?"  The answer to both questions is, provablely, yes.  So which is the moral cause?  Neither.  Harm avoidance is not a principle to decide laws upon.

"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'
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
October 19, 2011, 10:16:37 PM
 #2085

You're confusing a lot of things here. Honestly, it all sounds like a grab bag of half assed arguments to try and bolster your belief that you can disrespect the efforts of others.

Can you please do me the courtesy of responding to my arguments, the same standard to which you hold me, instead of dismissing them?

I already presented my arguments. Feel free to go back and reread them. I don't hold that your current arguments need addressing. For example, if I presented an argument to you regarding this topic, and you came back and started discussing the length of giraffe necks, I'd just shake my head and move on.

If you wish to address why you believe a particular film would just magically come into being in the absence of those who created it, or wish to address why you believe you can deny compensation to those who put forth a huge effort to make a film, then do so.

As it stands though, your arguments just aren't worth much.

If you've got arguments that address the issues highlighted in this post, please use them. Otherwise, if you continue to insist that others respond to your posts but deny them the same courtesy, then you are a hypocrite and have nothing further to offer this discussion. If you refuse to respond to my arguments and instead rely upon character attacks, you are admitting to this fact.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 20, 2011, 01:45:07 AM
 #2086

IP law is intended to be of benefit to society.  If you can't persuade your legislature that granting IP protection to recipes is a good idea, you are stuffed.

Creating positive law is always damaging to someone.

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

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 20, 2011, 01:49:44 AM
 #2087

MoonShadow,

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. 70 years, five notes, etc. We're in agreement.

But somewhere in there is a line that is defensible. It's not 70 years, and it's not five notes.

The only line that is defensible is the one that crosses over onto other peoples property. The definition of which must be grounded in physical things (isn't everything anyway). It seems the older we get, the smarter we think we are. We think the intangible is somehow tangible. That an idea is somehow property. A reified object (intangible) is one that doesn't exist, and yet here we are arguing over who owns it. Impossibly childish.

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

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 20, 2011, 01:52:27 AM
 #2088

That's not a moral question, and I think that you know it.  Whether or not a particular law causes harm or not, is not the moral question.  It's a practical question.  But a corrolary to the question, "would repeal of IP laws cause harm" is "do IP laws cause harm now?"  The answer to both questions is, provablely, yes.  So which is the moral cause?  Neither.  Harm avoidance is not a principle to decide laws upon.

Isn't "harm avoidance" effectively the NAP?

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

Activity: 812


View Profile
October 20, 2011, 03:24:34 AM
 #2089

MoonShadow,

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. 70 years, five notes, etc. We're in agreement.

But somewhere in there is a line that is defensible. It's not 70 years, and it's not five notes.

The only line that is defensible is the one that crosses over onto other peoples property. The definition of which must be grounded in physical things (isn't everything anyway). It seems the older we get, the smarter we think we are. We think the intangible is somehow tangible. That an idea is somehow property. A reified object (intangible) is one that doesn't exist, and yet here we are arguing over who owns it. Impossibly childish.

Just wrong. And it's not childish. For everyday numbers, yes. But not for numbers with a hundred thousand plus digits, which when interpreted a certain way, represent something meaningful.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
October 20, 2011, 03:45:48 AM
 #2090

You're confusing a lot of things here. Honestly, it all sounds like a grab bag of half assed arguments to try and bolster your belief that you can disrespect the efforts of others.

Can you please do me the courtesy of responding to my arguments, the same standard to which you hold me, instead of dismissing them?

I already presented my arguments. Feel free to go back and reread them. I don't hold that your current arguments need addressing. For example, if I presented an argument to you regarding this topic, and you came back and started discussing the length of giraffe necks, I'd just shake my head and move on.

If you wish to address why you believe a particular film would just magically come into being in the absence of those who created it, or wish to address why you believe you can deny compensation to those who put forth a huge effort to make a film, then do so.

As it stands though, your arguments just aren't worth much.

If you've got arguments that address the issues highlighted in this post, please use them. Otherwise, if you continue to insist that others respond to your posts but deny them the same courtesy, then you are a hypocrite and have nothing further to offer this discussion. If you refuse to respond to my arguments and instead rely upon character attacks, you are admitting to this fact.

I will be happy to address your points if you'd take care to first edit them into points that matter. For example, I don't wish to debate the nuances of how plagiarism is a subset of copying. Nor am I interested in engaging in an endless debate about your comparisons to slavery. It's obvious that there are extreme disparities that render the comparison weak at best, and more generally, just absurd. I don't care to do your work for you, so if you'd like to strengthen your point of view by trimming the weak parts from it, then I can engage in the real work of debating you.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
October 20, 2011, 03:56:13 AM
 #2091

What about if i was to take my property consisting of raw materials like steel, glass, leather, and plastic, and convert those materials into a perfect copy of a Porche? Did I just steal a Porche by doing that?

BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
October 20, 2011, 04:09:25 AM
 #2092

I don't wish to debate the nuances of how plagiarism is a subset of copying.

You don't even understand the difference between copying and plagiarism, do you? There are no nuances here, they are completely different things.

Also, you better not demand anyone respond to your "arguments" (I literally lol'd typing that) anymore, or else I will arrive quickly to call you out for being a hypocrite.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
October 20, 2011, 04:14:55 AM
 #2093

What about if i was to take my property consisting of raw materials like steel, glass, leather, and plastic, and convert those materials into a perfect copy of a Porche? Did I just steal a Porche by doing that?

No, you infringed upon the intellectual property of Porsche. Tell me, how many times can you do that without it costing you a huge amount of time and effort?
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
October 20, 2011, 04:22:17 AM
 #2094

I don't wish to debate the nuances of how plagiarism is a subset of copying.

You don't even understand the difference between copying and plagiarism, do you? There are no nuances here, they are completely different things.

Also, you better not demand anyone respond to your "arguments" (I literally lol'd typing that) anymore, or else I will arrive quickly to call you out for being a hypocrite.

I made some posts. They went unanswered. Rather than make new posts, I pointed to them, indicating that they could be addressed. You then did make some posts addressing my posts. Then you demanded I answer them. I opted to answer them in a way I saw fit given my current level of mental energy, time and desire.

Take it as you will.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 20, 2011, 07:26:11 AM
 #2095

That's not a moral question, and I think that you know it.  Whether or not a particular law causes harm or not, is not the moral question.  It's a practical question.  But a corrolary to the question, "would repeal of IP laws cause harm" is "do IP laws cause harm now?"  The answer to both questions is, provablely, yes.  So which is the moral cause?  Neither.  Harm avoidance is not a principle to decide laws upon.

Isn't "harm avoidance" effectively the NAP?

Its NAP done properly.  People do get together in societies and societies do act to protect themselves from harm.  If the society believes losing the benefits of IP law is harmful, it will protect and enforce IP laws.

...snip...
The moral foundation is well established.  We live in societies that have the right to act to prevent harm.  If the abolition of IP laws is believed to be harmful, society has every right to protect itself by creating and enforcing IP laws.

The only real issue is whether or not society is justified in believing that removal of IP laws would cause harm.



That's not a moral question, and I think that you know it.  Whether or not a particular law causes harm or not, is not the moral question.  It's a practical question.  But a corrolary to the question, "would repeal of IP laws cause harm" is "do IP laws cause harm now?"  The answer to both questions is, provablely, yes.  So which is the moral cause?  Neither.  Harm avoidance is not a principle to decide laws upon.

The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP laws.  Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP law will be harmful in some cases.

I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives.

BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
October 20, 2011, 12:51:51 PM
 #2096

The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP slavery laws.  Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP slavery law will be harmful in some cases.

I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 20, 2011, 01:34:43 PM
 #2097

The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP slavery ANY laws.  Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP slavery ANY law will be harmful in some cases.

I agree that the practical question of what to protect is not a moral question - it's something that ideally should be decided by a group of elected representatives.

I can use strikethrough too.  Does that prove anything?



Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
October 20, 2011, 01:45:58 PM
 #2098

The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP laws.  Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP law will be harmful in some cases.

Considering the continuing increase of illegal downloading, and more and more people not considering downloading or copying music/movies a crime (especially among the youngest/future generation), I think society disagrees with you.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 20, 2011, 02:09:13 PM
 #2099

The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP laws.  Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP law will be harmful in some cases.

Considering the continuing increase of illegal downloading, and more and more people not considering downloading or copying music/movies a crime (especially among the youngest/future generation), I think society disagrees with you.

Indiciduals copying movies or games is not a huge issue.  In most countries, that's covered by laws allowing back-ups.  They are mostly people who would never have bought the movie or game in the first place. 

Its individuals who make copies and sell them that are the more serious problem.  If someone puts their own splash screen on a game and resell it for $5 less than the game developer, the game developer will not risk the millions it takes to make a game. I don't see people supporting that.  Same applies to movie theater owners charging the public for access to a movie but not paying royalties.  That would kill the movie industry.  And I don't see people supporting that either.  Its the profiteering from copying that the law makes hard and I think that's fair.

Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
October 20, 2011, 02:30:48 PM
 #2100

If someone puts their own splash screen on a game and resell it for $5 less than the game developer, the game developer will not risk the millions it takes to make a game.

Why would anyone pay $5 when they can just download the game for free? Unless they are just paying because they don't have internet, or want the service of someone else doing the searching, downloading, and burning for them, in which case the game company should really have been selling direct $5 downloads themselves (like through steam)

Pages: « 1 ... 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!