Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[NghtRppr]

The free download was not where they made their money - it was in the CD sales.

Just like Clerks could have made its money in DVD sales even though it would have been available for free download.

But that is entirely different from large projects that require budgets like computer games and movies.

Some movies and some games. Not all movies and not all games. We would still have great movies and games. They just might not be made using millions of dollars.

[1713999085]

1713999085

[1713999085]

1713999085

[1713999085]

1713999085

[Hawker]

The free download was not where they made their money - it was in the CD sales.

Just like Clerks could have made its money in DVD sales even though it would have been available for free download.

But that is entirely different from large projects that require budgets like computer games and movies.

Some movies and some games. Not all movies and not all games. We would still have great movies and games. They just might not be made using millions of dollars.

Um now you are being obtuse.  CD sales requires that the shopkeeper pays a for the CD.  DVD sales requires that the DVD be paid for.  Absent IP protection, CD and DVD sales will go close to zero.

And you edited out my question.  If the cost of the move to an IP less world is that you lose the movies and the games and the big research projects, do you think the tradeoff is still worth it?

[NghtRppr]

CD sales requires that the shopkeeper pays a for the CD.  DVD sales requires that the DVD be paid for.  Absent IP protection, CD and DVD sales will go close to zero.

The Nine Inch Nails CD made ~$1,000,000 dollars even though anyone could have downloaded it and burned their own copy. That means that the sales were mostly from people that wanted to support the band. If there are several different stores that have the same CD but only one of them is paying royalties to the band, most of those people will buy it there. The store can have a contract with the band to ensure exactly that. The official website could sell it there directly. I've laid it all out for you, there's nothing left to argue about.

If the cost of the move to an IP less world is that you lose the movies and the games and the big research projects, do you think the tradeoff is still worth it?

Yes. However, as I've explained to you several times now, all of those things are still possible and we won't lose them.

[fergalish]

I'm proposing we do away with intellectual property laws, consequences be damned. I've already explained how we can have brand names. Consumers will be able to sue business for fraud if they are misled into thinking that this "Burger King" is the same as that other "Burger King".

I said I was done with this thread, but there are so many holes in these pro-libertarian posts that I just can't help myself.  Here are just two such holes:

bitcoin2cash, in your libertarian utopia, can you please explain:

• how exactly will consumers be able to sue any given establishment?
• exactly why any given restaurant cannot declare itself to be the "real" burger king?

EDIT: Please be clear and don't avoid the questions.

If there are several different stores that have the same CD but only one of them is paying royalties to the band, most of those people will buy it there. The store can have a contract with the band to ensure exactly that. The official website could sell it there directly. I've laid it all out for you, there's nothing left to argue about.

Man, you just don't see the big FAIL written across this.  What's to prevent other sites saying the same thing?

[NghtRppr]

First of all, drop the hyperbole. If you can't argue on the merits of your ideas alone, few people are going to be convinced by name calling, "utopia", etc. It just makes your position seem weak because you feel the need to engage in such tactics.

how exactly will consumers be able to sue any given establishment?

Private courts. Will that business just be able to ignore the ruling? Sure, but it will make life difficult for them. Would you do business with a company that has a history of never allowing itself to be brought to justice? Probably not.

exactly why any given restaurant cannot declare itself to be the "real" burger king?

Let's say my name is Bill Gates and I sell software "made by Bill Gates". Of course I can slap my name on it. Of course I can claim I'm "the real" Bill Gates. What I can't do is intentionally lead anyone to believe that I'm "that other" Bill Gates. That's fraud, pure and simple.

[fergalish]

how exactly will consumers be able to sue any given establishment?

Private courts. Will that business just be able to ignore the ruling? Sure, but it will make life difficult for them. Would you do business with a company that has a history of never allowing itself to be brought to justice? Probably not.

Who chooses which private court?  Presumably there will be many, each catering to different markets for justice, and even some competing in the same market.

exactly why any given restaurant cannot declare itself to be the "real" burger king?

Let's say my name is Bill Gates and I sell software "made by Bill Gates". Of course I can slap my name on it. Of course I can claim I'm "the real" Bill Gates. What I can't do is intentionally lead anyone to believe that I'm "that other" Bill Gates. That's fraud, pure and simple.

It might be difficult for any random guy called Bill Gates to pretend to be the Microsoft (TM) guy - a small matter of not having an enormous personal fortune at hand.  But who can stop me opening a restaurant called "Burger King", with the same sign over the door, the same color seats, the same menu, the same everything - except (maybe) the food?  Likewise, the website catering to NineInchNails - who can stop me setting up a website claiming to be the "real" site that sends contributions to the musicians, even with a nice video (suitably 'shopped) from the lead singer?  If you answer to this latter is TOR, cryptography, etc, then you'll be waiting a long time for Joe Public to figure it out.  Bitcoiners are savvy, but it's clear bitcoins ain't never going mainstream for exactly this reason.

[Hawker]

CD sales requires that the shopkeeper pays a for the CD.  DVD sales requires that the DVD be paid for.  Absent IP protection, CD and DVD sales will go close to zero.

The Nine Inch Nails CD made ~$1,000,000 dollars even though anyone could have downloaded it and burned their own copy. That means that the sales were mostly from people that wanted to support the band. If there are several different stores that have the same CD but only one of them is paying royalties to the band, most of those people will buy it there. The store can have a contract with the band to ensure exactly that. The official website could sell it there directly. I've laid it all out for you, there's nothing left to argue about.

If the cost of the move to an IP less world is that you lose the movies and the games and the big research projects, do you think the tradeoff is still worth it?

Yes. However, as I've explained to you several times now, all of those things are still possible and we won't lose them.

Actually when we look example by example, it seems we do lose them.  Not that it matters as you don't care - your ideas are more important than the consequences for other people of your ideas. 

I'll stop replying to you on this; I'm comfortable that you see the absence of IP and being more important than the presence of movies, games, etc. and in your utopia, if these things did miraculously survive it would be a bonus.   That's not my utopia but we all have our own ideal so peace out.

[NghtRppr]

Who chooses which private court?  Presumably there will be many, each catering to different markets for justice, and even some competing in the same market.

Exactly right. Let's say that we have a disagreement and we each go to our courts, my court A and your court B. There are four possible outcomes.

1. A and B both rule in my favor
2. A and B both rule in your favor
3. A rules in your favor and B rules in my favor
4. A rules in my favor and B rules in you favor

Outcomes (1) and (2) present no problem. The matter is settled. Outcome (3) is where each of our courts rule against us. That's unlikely so we'll ignore that. The real issue I'm betting you're worried about is (4) where my court rules in my favor and your court rules in your favor. There are then two additional possibilities.

1. A and B have a mechanism to settle this by going to court C to settle the dispute
2. A and B don't have a mechanism in place and simply go to war with each other

We'll call the courts that have a mechanism in place "legitimate courts" and we'll call the courts that don't have a mechanism in place "bandit courts". Since as you pointed out, there will be competition, who has the advantage? I'll quote Walter Block on this.

For suppose there are two types of courts: those who will mediate, when they find themselves on opposite sides of a decision from another court (call them the "legitimate" courts), and those who will not (call them the "bandit" courts). The latter, it is clear, will have to fight in every case. The former, only when faced with one of the latter. The point is, there will be a competitive advantage enjoyed by the legitimate courts vis a vis the bandits. Fighting is expensive. A firm that regularly engages in such activities will suffer additional costs for ammunition, tanks, planes, to say nothing of combat pay for its employees. Bandit courts will have to fight all of the time, legitimate ones only some of the time. There will be a tendency, therefore, for the legitimate firms to out compete the bandits. This furnishes yet an additional reason for expecting bandits to be very much the exception to the rule. For if even would be or potential bandit courts realize they are likely to be consigned to the dust bin of economics, they will be less likely to start on this path than otherwise.

But who can stop me opening a restaurant called "Burger King", with the same sign over the door, the same color seats, the same menu, the same everything - except (maybe) the food?

If you defraud me into thinking that your restaurant is some other restaurant or that I'm buying a CD from Trent Reznor when I'm really buying it from Rent Treznor, I'll sue you in the aforementioned private courts. If you're not committing fraud, if I'm just a consumer not doing his homework, well, caveat emptor.

[FirstAscent]

Not that it matters as you don't care - your ideas are more important than the consequences for other people of your ideas.

Actually, take heart. Society has decided that our view is more important than bitcoin2cash's views.

[Hawker]

Not that it matters as you don't care - your ideas are more important than the consequences for other people of your ideas.

Actually, take heart. Society has decided that our view is more important than bitcoin2cash's views.

I know but its refreshing to have to examine your basic assumptions again.  Without him, there would not actually be a conversation so I'm happy he posts.

[NghtRppr]

Not that it matters as you don't care - your ideas are more important than the consequences for other people of your ideas.

Actually, take heart. Society has decided that our view is more important than bitcoin2cash's views.

I know but its refreshing to have to examine your basic assumptions again.  Without him, there would not actually be a conversation so I'm happy he posts.

Right, because we know that society always decides what's moral and just.

[The Script]

Not that it matters as you don't care - your ideas are more important than the consequences for other people of your ideas.

Actually, take heart. Society has decided that our view is more important than bitcoin2cash's views.

Don't kid yourself. Most people simply allow the current system to propagate itself without actually actively examining and deciding that it is what they want. Have you ever seen how Americans vote?

[FirstAscent]

Not that it matters as you don't care - your ideas are more important than the consequences for other people of your ideas.

Actually, take heart. Society has decided that our view is more important than bitcoin2cash's views.

Don't kid yourself. Most people simply allow the current system to propagate itself without actually actively examining and deciding that it is what they want. Have you ever seen how Americans vote?

I'm well aware of all that you mentioned. Just because my views are often nearly opposite bitcoin2cash's does not mean my views are not well thought out or absent of independent thinking.

[The Script]

Not that it matters as you don't care - your ideas are more important than the consequences for other people of your ideas.

Actually, take heart. Society has decided that our view is more important than bitcoin2cash's views.

Don't kid yourself. Most people simply allow the current system to propagate itself without actually actively examining and deciding that it is what they want. Have you ever seen how Americans vote?

I'm well aware of all that you mentioned. Just because my views are often nearly opposite bitcoin2cash's does not mean my views are not well thought out or absent of independent thinking.

I never said they were.  I'm simply pointing out it's not very accurate to say "society has decided" when most of society doesn't give a fuck.  I guess you could define "decided" to also mean "absence of a decision" because you could decide by not caring.  I suppose.

If a majority of society actually got off their asses, thought for themselves and did some critical thinking, who knows what they would actually decide?  I just don't think humanity operates that way.  There's usually a powerful minority that free-rides off of the passive acceptance of the vast majority.

[fergalish]

I never said they were.  I'm simply pointing out it's not very accurate to say "society has decided" when most of society doesn't give a fuck.  I guess you could define "decided" to also mean "absence of a decision" because you could decide by not caring.  I suppose.

If a majority of society actually got off their asses, thought for themselves and did some critical thinking, who knows what they would actually decide?  I just don't think humanity operates that way.  There's usually a powerful minority that free-rides off of the passive acceptance of the vast majority.

Excellent point.  Most people are too ignorant and lazy to see and fix the political problems of the day.  How would such 'sheeple' ever survive, let alone thrive, in a libertarian utopia.  And I'm not spouting hyperbole, I actually like the libertarian ideal and think it *would* be a utopia in a small society.  But in the global village you'd never know who to trust, unless there was, e.g., one emergent international standard (perhaps amongst many other competing standards) for food safety & quality, perhaps with different levels (e.g. 1 to 5 stars).  And then, well, only restaurants that adhere to that standard would survive, and we'd be back to one standard for everyone - a standard, oooh, somehow chosen by, what's that word... *society*.  And all the neo-libertarians of the day would then complain and say it's not fair that we must follow that standard.
Only problem is, the path to be *that* international standard is open to whoever has the most money & power and is willing to use it, which is unlikely to be the one with the consumer's welfare at heart.  I admit the current system doesn't inspire total confidence, but at least they have to make it look like the consumer's welfare is important.

[fergalish]

1. A and B have a mechanism to settle this by going to court C to settle the dispute
2. A and B don't have a mechanism in place and simply go to war with each other

We'll call the courts that have a mechanism in place "legitimate courts" and we'll call the courts that don't have a mechanism in place "bandit courts". Since as you pointed out, there will be competition, who has the advantage? I'll quote Walter Block on this.

So wouldn't everybody just be better off going to court C in the first place?  So court C would naturally emerge as a kind of universal dispenser of justice for everybody, automatically chosen by... guess what... society!

If you defraud me into thinking that your restaurant is some other restaurant or that I'm buying a CD from Trent Reznor when I'm really buying it from Rent Treznor, I'll sue you in the aforementioned private courts. If you're not committing fraud, if I'm just a consumer not doing his homework, well, caveat emptor.

So when the lynchmob comes for me I'll move on to another place and abuse more people.  'cos the lynchmob can't actually lynch me 'cos you're not allowed to be violent. Right?

[deuxmill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be1ihuZNg84&

[NghtRppr]

So wouldn't everybody just be better off going to court C in the first place?  So court C would naturally emerge as a kind of universal dispenser of justice for everybody, automatically chosen by... guess what... society!

If everyone choose to go to court C that's fine because it's still voluntary. I'm against coercion, not organization.

So when the lynchmob comes for me I'll move on to another place and abuse more people.  'cos the lynchmob can't actually lynch me 'cos you're not allowed to be violent. Right?

I'm only allowed to use violence as a proportional response to you. If you steal my shirt, I can take it back. If you fight me, I can fight back.

[FirstAscent]

I'm only allowed to use violence as proportional response to you. If you steal my shirt, I can take it back. If you fight me, I can fight back.

Really? Because although you use the NAP court, how do you know I don't use the NNNAP court?

[NghtRppr]

I'm only allowed to use violence as proportional response to you. If you steal my shirt, I can take it back. If you fight me, I can fight back.

Really? Because although you use the NAP court, how do you know I don't use the NNNAP court?

The non-non-non-aggression-principle court?