Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FredericBastiat]

Literally, not as attached as your are to your thumb

If you were to attempt take it from me, you'd find out how attached it really is. I make no distinction whatsoever. Were not talking biologically attached, no doubt, but I could really care less.

[1714044179]

1714044179

[1714044179]

1714044179

[Hawker]

Intellectual property rights are an excellent example of interdependence between the content and the creator.

Intellectual property rights are an excellent example of the interdependence between the content of the creator and the physical property owned by others. It is equivalent to theft, coercion and censorship.

Again its a balance of harms thing.  The good IP brings is more important than the loss of the ability of someone else to make free copies.  Its not hard to choose the good option here.  If you disagree, its not enough to point out that there is a price to be paid.  You need to demonstrate that the price is too high or else its an easy decision to take the goodies that come from IP.
 

[FredericBastiat]

Again its a balance of harms thing.  The good IP brings is more important than the loss of the ability of someone else to make free copies.  Its not hard to choose the good option here.  If you disagree, its not enough to point out that there is a price to be paid.  You need to demonstrate that the price is too high or else its an easy decision to take the goodies that come from IP.

So why don't we rescind IP law and find out? With monopoly or without, a question for the ages? The only way to know is to try it.

[Hawker]

Again its a balance of harms thing.  The good IP brings is more important than the loss of the ability of someone else to make free copies.  Its not hard to choose the good option here.  If you disagree, its not enough to point out that there is a price to be paid.  You need to demonstrate that the price is too high or else its an easy decision to take the goodies that come from IP.

So why don't we rescind IP law and find out? With monopoly or without, a question for the ages? The only way to know is to try it.

For the same reason we don't rescind land law.  You can't take property of people on a whim.  You have to make a logical case, get it voted through and then implement it.  So far your issue is the lack of a logical case.  I don't see what I gain in return for losing my income from from trademarks and copyrights.

[NghtRppr]

Again its a balance of harms thing.  The good IP brings is more important than the loss of the ability of someone else to make free copies.  Its not hard to choose the good option here.  If you disagree, its not enough to point out that there is a price to be paid.  You need to demonstrate that the price is too high or else its an easy decision to take the goodies that come from IP.

So why don't we rescind IP law and find out? With monopoly or without, a question for the ages? The only way to know is to try it.

For the same reason we don't rescind land law.  You can't take property of people on a whim.  You have to make a logical case, get it voted through and then implement it.  So far your issue is the lack of a logical case.  I don't see what I gain in return for losing my income from from trademarks and copyrights.

You were all about society but now you're talking about your personal gain.

[MoonShadow]

We don't need to offer anything.  You are the one who wants to take away intellectual property rights.  Offer something to justify the loss or accept that your position will never be adopted.

IP aren't rights, they are a protected monopoly.  Explain how, in the absence of that explict force of government, I do you harm by copying your ideas?  Do I prevent you from using your own ideas, like I do if I take your bike?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIeTybKL1pM4&ei=5ceMTtnCOaXJsQLnsOSaBA&usg=AFQjCNEDg7_ap8otqvRJxjUWZn4Bw2kP7g

[FredericBastiat]

For the same reason we don't rescind land law.  You can't take property of people on a whim.  You have to make a logical case, get it voted through and then implement it.  So far your issue is the lack of a logical case.  I don't see what I gain in return for losing my income from from trademarks and copyrights.

Follow my logic then.

GIVEN:

Nobody is perfect.
If no one is perfect, then people may make mistakes.
If mistakes happen, some laws will be unjust.
If some laws are unjust, those laws may cause harm.
If some laws cause harm, we should rescind unjust laws.
If we rescind unjust laws, fewer mistakes may occur.
If there are less mistakes, there may be more justice.
If there is more justice, there may be more perfection.
We should strive for perfection.

Given the above, apply that to IP law and reconcile it with private property law.

[Hawker]

We don't need to offer anything.  You are the one who wants to take away intellectual property rights.  Offer something to justify the loss or accept that your position will never be adopted.

IP aren't rights, they are a protected monopoly.  Explain how, in the absence of that explict force of government, I do you harm by copying your ideas?  Do I prevent you from using your own ideas, like I do if I take your bike?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIeTybKL1pM4&ei=5ceMTtnCOaXJsQLnsOSaBA&usg=AFQjCNEDg7_ap8otqvRJxjUWZn4Bw2kP7g

I pay people to make software.  I sell the software.  If you copy it and redistribute it for free, it does harm me.

The real question is whether it matters.  Is society harmed?  I make cheats for games so society would cope just fine if I went out of business.  But, without IP protection, the game makers themselves would also be wiped and that would be a loss.  Likewise movies totally depend on IP protection.  And then you get onto industrial research which again would be a waste of tiem if you could not protect your discoveries.  

So there are things that society values which the loss of IP law would result in society losing.  In order for that to happen, you need to offer something that is better.  Otherwise its pointless to change.

[Hawker]

For the same reason we don't rescind land law.  You can't take property of people on a whim.  You have to make a logical case, get it voted through and then implement it.  So far your issue is the lack of a logical case.  I don't see what I gain in return for losing my income from from trademarks and copyrights.

Follow my logic then.

GIVEN:

Nobody is perfect.
If no one is perfect, then people may make mistakes.
If mistakes happen, some laws will be unjust.
If some laws are unjust, those laws may cause harm.
If some laws cause harm, we should rescind unjust laws.
If we rescind unjust laws, fewer mistakes may occur.
If there are less mistakes, there may be more justice.
If there is more justice, there may be more perfection.
We should strive for perfection.

Given the above, apply that to IP law and reconcile it with private property law.

Taking away the benefits of IP law without offering something better would be unjust.  So if we strive for perfection, we will never do that.

[MoonShadow]

We don't need to offer anything.  You are the one who wants to take away intellectual property rights.  Offer something to justify the loss or accept that your position will never be adopted.

IP aren't rights, they are a protected monopoly.  Explain how, in the absence of that explict force of government, I do you harm by copying your ideas?  Do I prevent you from using your own ideas, like I do if I take your bike?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIeTybKL1pM4&ei=5ceMTtnCOaXJsQLnsOSaBA&usg=AFQjCNEDg7_ap8otqvRJxjUWZn4Bw2kP7g

I pay people to make software.  I sell the software.  If you copy it and redistribute it for free, it does harm me.

How?  Because you believe you would lose a sale?  The reverse is likely true, young people share copies of all kinds of media, but tend to grow loyal to the media companies that don't treat them like criminals.  You don't have to make it easy, no one has anything against charging a fee for the convience of, for example, VALVe's Steam software.  And Steam is a beautiful example of a company that does not treat their customers like criminals.  Team Fortress 2 was about $50 two years ago.  Two months ago it was $10.  Today it's free, if you are getting it directly via Steam servers.  Why?  Because it's a very popular game, and in order for young adults to get it free, they have to install (also free) Steam on their machine.  And then VALVe gets to advertise directly to your Steam account.  When you get a job, and finally have money to spend, where are you going to get your PC games then?  Are you going to trudge down to the store and buy a retail CD box set, or walk into your living room and order it through the Steam interface that you already have?  If you are dependent upon the monopoly for your revenue, your business model is wrong. 

The real question is whether it matters.  Is society harmed?  I make cheats for games so society would cope just fine if I went out of business.  But, without IP protection, the game makers themselves would also be wiped and that would be a loss.  Likewise movies totally depend on IP protection.  And then you get onto industrial research which again would be a waste of tiem if you could not protect your discoveries.  

VALVe isn't dependent upon IP protection for revenue, although I'm sure that they would swing that stick if some major operation were to pop up making profits off of their work.  That short video that I linked to was produced by an independent film maker who used to believe that copyright laws protected artists, until she independently produced a full-length cartoon movie, and couldn't release it for sale because the basket of licenses required would have cost her $50K more than what it cost to produce the movie to begin with.  In the end, she released the movie several years after it was finished, but for no charge.  She can never charge any money for that magnum opus, yet she still manages to earn a living releasing her art as copyleft licensed work.

So there are things that society values which the loss of IP law would result in society losing.

That is an unproven claim. You don't get to state it as a given.  I've already provided two real world and current examples of business models that can and do work sans a copyright monopoly, without even trying.  You need to at least match that to be taken seriously.

[Hawker]

...snip...

VALVe isn't dependent upon IP protection for revenue, although I'm sure that they would swing that stick if some major operation were to pop up making profits off of their work.  That short video that I linked to was produced by an independent film maker who used to believe that copyright laws protected artists, until she independently produced a full-length cartoon movie, and couldn't release it for sale because the basket of licenses required would have cost her $50K more than what it cost to produce the movie to begin with.  In the end, she released the movie several years after it was finished, but for no charge.  She can never charge any money for that magnum opus, yet she still manages to earn a living releasing her art as copyleft licensed work.
...snip...

That's one person.  There is a free market in movies - anyone can make one.  But all the good ones are made by firms that protect their IP.  If you are correct, there is no need to change the law as the copyleft movies will drive the expensive copyrighted movie makers out of business.

I say this not to prove you wrong btw - my point is that we don't need to take one another's arguments as being based on faith alone.  The market is working right now telling us what kind of movies people like.

[MoonShadow]

...snip...

VALVe isn't dependent upon IP protection for revenue, although I'm sure that they would swing that stick if some major operation were to pop up making profits off of their work.  That short video that I linked to was produced by an independent film maker who used to believe that copyright laws protected artists, until she independently produced a full-length cartoon movie, and couldn't release it for sale because the basket of licenses required would have cost her $50K more than what it cost to produce the movie to begin with.  In the end, she released the movie several years after it was finished, but for no charge.  She can never charge any money for that magnum opus, yet she still manages to earn a living releasing her art as copyleft licensed work.
...snip...

That's one person.  There is a free market in movies - anyone can make one.  But all the good ones are made by firms that protect their IP.  If you are correct, there is no need to change the law as the copyleft movies will drive the expensive copyrighted movie makers out of business.

I say this not to prove you wrong btw - my point is that we don't need to take one another's arguments as being based on faith alone.  The market is working right now telling us what kind of movies people like.

And, again, you completely failed to present a counter example.  Why are you here?

[Hawker]

...snip...

VALVe isn't dependent upon IP protection for revenue, although I'm sure that they would swing that stick if some major operation were to pop up making profits off of their work.  That short video that I linked to was produced by an independent film maker who used to believe that copyright laws protected artists, until she independently produced a full-length cartoon movie, and couldn't release it for sale because the basket of licenses required would have cost her $50K more than what it cost to produce the movie to begin with.  In the end, she released the movie several years after it was finished, but for no charge.  She can never charge any money for that magnum opus, yet she still manages to earn a living releasing her art as copyleft licensed work.
...snip...

That's one person.  There is a free market in movies - anyone can make one.  But all the good ones are made by firms that protect their IP.  If you are correct, there is no need to change the law as the copyleft movies will drive the expensive copyrighted movie makers out of business.

I say this not to prove you wrong btw - my point is that we don't need to take one another's arguments as being based on faith alone.  The market is working right now telling us what kind of movies people like.

And, again, you completely failed to present a counter example.  Why are you here?

http://www.showcasecinemas.co.uk/showtimes/default.asp?selectTheatre=8509

Is that enough counter examples?

As I said, if IP laws are not needed for movies, you'd see copyleft movies replacing Hollywood ones.  That's how a market works.  At the moment you don't see that so it looks like copyleft films are not that popular.

[BitterTea]

The good IP brings is more important than the loss of the ability of someone else to make free copies.

So intellectually dishonest. How about comparing "the good IP brings" with all the bad IP brings, not just one cherry picked example.

The concept of property comes about from the nature of physical resources as finite, and the desires of human beings as infinite. Based upon these two factors, a method of preventing and resolving disputes over those scarce physical resources is necessary. One common method is for a single individual (or group of individuals) to have absolute authority over the use of some of the resources. We call this their property, and we call them its owners. The system of rules by which the owner of a property is determined must be visible and just. Visible, as Stephen Kinsella says in Against Intellectual Property, because

in order for individuals to avoid using property owned by others, property borders and property rights must be objective (intersubjectively ascertainable); they must be visible. For this reason, property rights must be objective and unambiguous.

Just,

because they cannot serve their function of preventing conflict unless they are acceptable as fair by those affected by the rules. If property rights are allocated unfairly, or simply grabbed by force, this is like having no property rights at all;

The concept of Intellectual property does not solve a similar basic problem. Ideas are not scarce, once shared they can be equally beneficial to all of humanity. If I wanted to share any actual property of mine with the whole of humanity, each would receive a tiny fraction of its value. Nor does it conform to the necessary attributes for property law, visibility and justness. Unlike physical property, there is nothing you can modify about an idea to inform me that it is owned by you. Then there's the problem of people like me, who are becoming more numerous not less. We do not find these rules acceptable as fair, thus we will not submit to the rules.

Its not hard to choose the good option here.  If you disagree, its not enough to point out that there is a price to be paid.  You need to demonstrate that the price is too high or else its an easy decision to take the goodies that come from IP.

You do not. Understand. Economics. The "goodies that come from IP" don't come from nowhere, and get disbursed among the people. Those goodies come from everyone, and go to specific groups of people. It's incentives 101. A small group of people benefit greatly from intellectual property law, and a much larger group of people suffer mildly. Which one is going to have the incentive to defend the concept of the ownership of ideas to the bitter end?

[BitterTea]

As I said, if IP laws are not needed for movies, you'd see copyleft movies replacing Hollywood ones.  That's how a market works.  At the moment you don't see that so it looks like copyleft films are not that popular.

Copyleft is a loophole in and pun about copyright. As I said in my previous post, it's all about incentives.

[Hawker]

As I said, if IP laws are not needed for movies, you'd see copyleft movies replacing Hollywood ones.  That's how a market works.  At the moment you don't see that so it looks like copyleft films are not that popular.

Copyleft is a loophole in and pun about copyright. As I said in my previous post, it's all about incentives.

I was part of a GPL project years ago and am more than familiar with RMS and his dreadful sense of humour based on recursive logic.  The fact that he chose GNU as a project name still makes me smile.

[Hawker]

The good IP brings is more important than the loss of the ability of someone else to make free copies.

So intellectually dishonest. How about comparing "the good IP brings" with all the bad IP brings, not just one cherry picked example.

The concept of property comes about from the nature of physical resources as finite, and the desires of human beings as infinite. ...snip...

Um no it doesn't.  Intellectual property is not based on anything physical or anything in short supply.  Its based on protecting the investment of the people who pay for the work to be done.  For example, a movie costs money to make and to market.  IP law allows you to recover that money if people go to the movie theatre to watch it.  Absent IP law, the movie theatre owner could get a free copy of your movie and you would lose your investment.

[BitterTea]

As I said, if IP laws are not needed for movies, you'd see copyleft movies replacing Hollywood ones.  That's how a market works.  At the moment you don't see that so it looks like copyleft films are not that popular.

Posting this on it's own...

Let us assume that money is a necessary incentive for creative works, and that without copyright, people would consume but not pay for such work. Truly a worst case scenario for the argument against copy, for if money is not a necessity or, people would voluntarily provide the incentive, then there is no argument for copyright. What happens in this situation? As the incentive to create new works disappears, the supply of new works decrease. Assuming that people still want new works (if they don't then what's the problem?), the demand is constant. What do we know about prices when supply shrinks and demand remains constant? Prices go up. An equilibrium is reached. All without intellectual property law.

[Hawker]

As I said, if IP laws are not needed for movies, you'd see copyleft movies replacing Hollywood ones.  That's how a market works.  At the moment you don't see that so it looks like copyleft films are not that popular.

Posting this on it's own...

Let us assume that money is a necessary incentive for creative works, and that without copyright, people would consume but not pay for such work. Truly a worst case scenario for the argument against copy, for if money is not a necessity or, people would voluntarily provide the incentive, then there is no argument for copyright. What happens in this situation? As the incentive to create new works disappears, the supply of new works decrease. Assuming that people still want new works (if they don't then what's the problem?), the demand is constant. What do we know about prices when supply shrinks and demand remains constant? Prices go up. An equilibrium is reached. All without intellectual property law.

Price for what goes up?  How does the demand get transferred to the movie makers?  If their product can be got for free, they can't recover the cost of making a movie so there will be far fewer movies.

[BitterTea]

The good IP brings is more important than the loss of the ability of someone else to make free copies.

So intellectually dishonest. How about comparing "the good IP brings" with all the bad IP brings, not just one cherry picked example.

The concept of property comes about from the nature of physical resources as finite, and the desires of human beings as infinite. ...snip...

Um no it doesn't.  Intellectual property is not based on anything physical or anything in short supply.

Exactly. If you continue reading, you'll see I explain that's why it makes no sense at all.

Its based on protecting the investment of the people who pay for the work to be done.

You're willing to put people in jail to protect investments? Sounds fucking harsh.

For example, a movie costs money to make and to market.  IP law allows you to recover that money if people go to the movie theatre to watch it.  Absent IP law, the movie theatre owner could get a free copy of your movie and you would lose your investment.

Seriously? If you're in the movie theater business and piss off the people who make the movies you show, you're not going to be in the movie theater business very long...