Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FredericBastiat]

Videos are for people who think slowly.  If the message is worthwhile, there will be a transcript.

Here you go: http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html

Comparing being deprived of the right to profit from copying movies with the horrors of slavery is a childish appeal to emotion.  At least you haven't compared it to being in a concentration camp but  I'm sure you can find some minor inconvenience to compare it to.

Sorry, I can't help that your argument for copyright is also a valid argument for slavery.

So true. Hawker doesn't realize that IP results in slavery, as does any other type of aggression initiated by the monopolist. All monopolies (backed by force) are a form of slavery. It can easily be proven. But, what Hawker wants us to concede on, is that just a little bit of slavery could benefit society. I tend to disagree with this theory because it is always a slippery slope in the wrong direction.

Monopolists love the taste of power, and they loath having to work any harder than they have to. Giving them special rules and regulations allows them to supress the masses just enough that they don't notice too much, and when they do, it's hard to point the finger at "who dunnit". Actually we have a list of 7+ million patent holders, and an untold number of copyrights, who we can point the finger at, but nobody realizes that apparently.

Then there are those that seek to fix the patent system, thinking it will improve the situation, when it just shifts the problem around to arrive at the same or similar position again. You can't fix slavery with different slavery. Consuming your own excrement with a pretty bow on top, doesn't make it any less "excrementty".

What's more interesting about it is the fact that, the system does work to an extent, just like cotton pickers in the antebellum south. There was a vibrant trade in cotton. There were many that made huge fortunes. Patents and copyrights achieve the same effect in a more insidious fashion, because the "slave" doesn't know he's a slave until he "infringes", then he finds out how precarious his person and property really are. Then there are the side trades (patent and copyright lawyers) that would take a hit. Heaven forbid should they lose their "jobs". That would just be an unspeakable tragedy.

It used to be the royals who we put up on a pedestal. It was them we could easily point a finger at and pursue. We could blame them for the unfair application of law and the inequity in trade and services and the manipulation of competition. There's a reason why we negotiate patents and copyrights with "royalties", as that's where the name came from. Instead of a few royal bloods out there suppressing the masses, now anybody with a few hundred dollars can ensnare anybody else.

Doing a cost/benefit analysis for IP is the same kind analysis as cotton pickers did in the south 200+ years ago. Of course it benefits the masters to the detriment of the slave. Can you make money and produce wealth with slaves, or manipulate trade with reduced competition? Of course. Can you pick cotton another way? Apparently so. Get rid of slavery (all forms of it), and I bet you'll see a lot of interesting results. Probably better than what we have now. No doubt some things will wither and go away. Maybe that's the way it should be. That's life.

Give freedom and liberty a chance. You might get a better world.

[1714922725]

1714922725

[1714922725]

1714922725

[1714922725]

1714922725

[1714922725]

1714922725

[Hawker]

Fred as I said earlier, I think you'll find that most everything can be made into an argument for slavery or compared to genocide.  For example, "First they came for the Jews...then they came for the owners of intellectual property...then they came for me..."

See how easy and how stupid that is?  The error is comparing a trivial inconvenience with slavery.  Compare like with like and a more intelligent dialogue is possible.

[BitterTea]

Fred as I said earlier, I think you'll find that most everything can be made into an argument for slavery or compared to genocide.  For example, "First they came for the Jews...then they came for the owners of intellectual property...then they came for me..."

See how easy and how stupid that is? 

"First they came for..." is not an argument.

"Cotton cannot be picked without slavery, regardless of the morality of slavery" is an argument for slavery. "Movies cannot be made without IP, regardless of the morality of IP" is the same argument.

[FredericBastiat]

Fred as I said earlier, I think you'll find that most everything can be made into an argument for slavery or compared to genocide.  For example, "First they came for the Jews...then they came for the owners of intellectual property...then they came for me..."

See how easy and how stupid that is?  The error is comparing a trivial inconvenience with slavery.  Compare like with like and a more intelligent dialogue is possible.

So how bad, how oppressive, how nasty, how unsustainable, and how ridiculous does it have to get, before we say enough is enough?

I'm just waiting for somebody to patent breathing air. Mark my words, something like it will happen.

[Hawker]

Fred as I said earlier, I think you'll find that most everything can be made into an argument for slavery or compared to genocide.  For example, "First they came for the Jews...then they came for the owners of intellectual property...then they came for me..."

See how easy and how stupid that is? 

"First they came for..." is not an argument.

"Cotton cannot be picked without slavery, regardless of the morality of slavery" is an argument for slavery. "Movies cannot be made without IP, regardless of the morality of IP" is the same argument.

Sigh.

Really you need to think and then post.

The point is that the same silly argument can be made about every restriction on your freedom.  Its not limited to IP law. 

Got it now?

[Hawker]

Fred as I said earlier, I think you'll find that most everything can be made into an argument for slavery or compared to genocide.  For example, "First they came for the Jews...then they came for the owners of intellectual property...then they came for me..."

See how easy and how stupid that is?  The error is comparing a trivial inconvenience with slavery.  Compare like with like and a more intelligent dialogue is possible.

So how bad, how oppressive, how nasty, how unsustainable, and how ridiculous does it have to get, before we say enough is enough?

I'm just waiting for somebody to patent breathing air. Mark my words, something like it will happen.

Thats the question we are discussing.  How do you balance the various wants and needs and what is the best option.  In the case of movies, taking them away would be a far great act of oppression than restricting your right to profit from copying movies.  So its an easy decision.

[FredericBastiat]

Thats the question we are discussing.  How do you balance the various wants and needs and what is the best option.  In the case of movies, taking them away would be a far great act of oppression than restricting your right to profit from copying movies.  So its an easy decision.

Cry me a river. Of course it will always be an easy decision by the oppressors. As long as they can oppress, they will, and the more power you give them, the more they will do it. There must always be a check in place, and that should be at the edge of my property. Poke holes in that boundary and property will eventually become meaningless and obfuscated.

Either I, or others I employ, can defend and maintain my property as mine, or it will eventually become somebody else's. As far as I can tell, the patent and trademark system, lovingly called IP, is nothing more than a mine field just waiting for somebody to step into and blow themselves to kingdom come.

IP law is nothing more than the ability (thru statutory assistance) to transfer physical property from one person to another due to the compositional characteristics the materials contain. So it's an easy decision. Stop it.

[Hawker]

Thats the question we are discussing.  How do you balance the various wants and needs and what is the best option.  In the case of movies, taking them away would be a far great act of oppression than restricting your right to profit from copying movies.  So its an easy decision.

Cry me a river. Of course it will always be an easy decision by the oppressors. As long as they can oppress, they will, and the more power you give them, the more they will do it. There must always be a check in place, and that should be at the edge of my property. Poke holes in that boundary and property will eventually become meaningless and obfuscated.

Either I, or others I employ, can defend and maintain my property as mine, or it will eventually become somebody else's. As far as I can tell, the patent and trademark system, lovingly called IP, is nothing more than a mine field just waiting for somebody to step into and blow themselves to kingdom come.

IP law is nothing more than the ability (thru statutory assistance) to transfer physical property from one person to another due to the compositional characteristics the materials contain. So it's an easy decision. Stop it.

Your property is a legal construct, just like any other property.  I have no interest at all in violating your property but you seem to have an unhealthy interest in violating mine.

And there you have it.  We don't agree.  Luckily we live in a democracy so you are free to lobby to get the law changed.  The whole concept is that people who have honest disagreements also have a non-violent way to resolve the disagreement.   

[BitterTea]

And there you have it.  We don't agree.  Luckily we live in a democracy so you are free to lobby to get the law changed.

"Luckily we live in a dictatorship so you are free to lobby to get the law changed"
or
"Luckily we live in a dictatorship so you are free to revolt to get the law changed"

The whole concept is that people who have honest disagreements also have a non-violent way to resolve the disagreement.   

You think politics is non-violent? You are hilarious!

Tell me, what happens when you win your vote and now some previously acceptable behavior of mine is made illegal?

[FirstAscent]

Tell me, what happens when you win your vote and now some previously acceptable behavior of mine is made illegal?

I don't know. What happened when Frederick Seitz was hired by R. J. Reynolds?

[Hawker]

And there you have it.  We don't agree.  Luckily we live in a democracy so you are free to lobby to get the law changed.

"Luckily we live in a dictatorship so you are free to lobby to get the law changed"
or
"Luckily we live in a dictatorship so you are free to revolt to get the law changed"

The whole concept is that people who have honest disagreements also have a non-violent way to resolve the disagreement.   

You think politics is non-violent? You are hilarious!

Tell me, what happens when you win your vote and now some previously acceptable behavior of mine is made illegal?

What totalitarian hellhole do you live in where politics requires violence?  I'm a member of Amnesty International so I may have written to you Minister for "Justice."

[FredericBastiat]

Your property is a legal construct, just like any other property.  I have no interest at all in violating your property but you seem to have an unhealthy interest in violating mine.

And there you have it.  We don't agree.  Luckily we live in a democracy so you are free to lobby to get the law changed.  The whole concept is that people who have honest disagreements also have a non-violent way to resolve the disagreement.  

Yes, the definition of legal, property, and law are all ideological conceptual constructs. However, the basic idea behind any legal/law concept is that it should have no logical conflict with itself. Inconsistencies typically only benefit the more intelligent, powerful and manipulative at the expense of the ignorant and weak. Let's not make this a "might makes right" world, rather a world of equitable and logically consistent application of the rule of law.

The definition of intellectual property conflicts with the definition of physical property and implementation of laws related thereto.

I wish to solve that problem, not make 7+ million more problems of the same. Creating legal "land mines" aren't nice. They harm more than help.

[Hawker]

Your property is a legal construct, just like any other property.  I have no interest at all in violating your property but you seem to have an unhealthy interest in violating mine.

And there you have it.  We don't agree.  Luckily we live in a democracy so you are free to lobby to get the law changed.  The whole concept is that people who have honest disagreements also have a non-violent way to resolve the disagreement.  

Yes, the definition of legal, property, and law are all ideological conceptual constructs. However, the basic idea behind any legal/law concept is that it should have no logical conflict with itself. Inconsistencies typically only benefit the more intelligent, powerful and manipulative at the expense of the ignorant and weak. Let's not make this a "might makes right" world, rather a world of equitable and logically consistent application of the rule of law.

The definition of intellectual property conflicts with the definition of physical property and implementation of laws related thereto.

I wish to solve that problem, not make 7+ million more problems of the same. Creating legal "land mines" aren't nice. They harm more than help.

Laws do contradict one another.  Your right to privacy is contradicted by the right to make a search warrant.  Your right to own a dog is contradicted by animal cruelty laws that take the dog off you for cruelty.  A single seamless law without exceptions is impossible.

[MoonShadow]

The point is that the same silly argument can be made about every restriction on your freedom.  Its not limited to IP law. 

The great irony of this statement is that we understand this far greater than you do, and despite knowing this is true, you regard the defense of freedom for it's own sake to be a "silly argument".

[FirstAscent]

Your property is a legal construct, just like any other property.  I have no interest at all in violating your property but you seem to have an unhealthy interest in violating mine.

And there you have it.  We don't agree.  Luckily we live in a democracy so you are free to lobby to get the law changed.  The whole concept is that people who have honest disagreements also have a non-violent way to resolve the disagreement.  

Yes, the definition of legal, property, and law are all ideological conceptual constructs. However, the basic idea behind any legal/law concept is that it should have no logical conflict with itself. Inconsistencies typically only benefit the more intelligent, powerful and manipulative at the expense of the ignorant and weak. Let's not make this a "might makes right" world, rather a world of equitable and logically consistent application of the rule of law.

The definition of intellectual property conflicts with the definition of physical property and implementation of laws related thereto.

I wish to solve that problem, not make 7+ million more problems of the same. Creating legal "land mines" aren't nice. They harm more than help.

Laws do contradict one another.  Your right to privacy is contradicted by the right to make a search warrant.  Your right to own a dog is contradicted by animal cruelty laws that take the dog off you for cruelty.  A single seamless law without exceptions is impossible.

Regarding the dog, I believe Fred said rights stop with people. Thus, to Fred, dogs are just property, like a pieces of furniture.

[FredericBastiat]

When 90%+ of law results in some form of violence, voting has no meaning any more. It isn't representation any longer when I can vote to take, manipulate, or disburse thru whatever means available, property that isn't mine and give it to somebody else.

Voting to remove the element of "stealth-theft" of liberty and property is literally impossible when society is so engrossed and relies so heavily on it's application. My vote would be to take away all patent examiners jobs, patent lawyers, and IP laws, and in addition to that, would require a constitutional amendment. It will never happen.

As long as the majority thinks it's okay to redistribute wealth, or is ignorant on how that happens, the status quo will remain. Look how long slavery lasted. In fact, it still exists in small pockets of society all over the world.

Don't tell me governments have a solution to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They introduced the problem from the beginning. I have to overcome 300+ years of indoctrination. Au contraire, they retard it's progress.

[FredericBastiat]

Regarding the dog, I believe Fred said rights stop with people. Thus, to Fred, dogs are just property, like a pieces of furniture.

This is true, because otherwise, you and yours could possibly make a law which could say I couldn't cut my grass because it might possibly cause ecological damage to the environment. I invite you to not open a door you likely can't close. You're just asking for murder and mayhem.

I care about the enviroment, I just care about human rights more.

[MoonShadow]

We are talking about conflicts between police forces in a stateless society.  A sniper on either side won't help.

Did you really write this?  Are you being serious?

Off topic, but can I recommend you read "A Frozen Hell" by Trotter.  It will give you a better idea of how the Finns beat the Russians.  The key factor was logistics for the Finnish army.  Once the Russians fixed their logistics in WW2, the Finns lost all they had gained and more.

I'm open to being corrected but as far as I know, there hasn't been a war between Western forces in which infantry did even 50% of the killing in over a century.  I read that in WW1 it was about 10% infantry and the rest artillery.  So if there are 2 courts and one has a police force with trained soldiers with aircraft and tanks, and the other has civilians equipped with firearms, the civilians will lose the case.

Be wary of what you read.  I won't argue that artillery can kill more people, particularly in a war of attritian.  They are a force advantage, but you still require a target.  It's hard to target the enemy discriminately, when they are a minority mixed into the general population.  As for your courts in mortal conflict example, it depends.  If those civilians outnumber the trained professional force by any significant margin, and half or more of those civilians are either former military themselves, or graduates of 'Appleseed' your mercs are going to have much to consider concerning their loyalties after contact with the enemy.  Don't expect that books, even history textbooks that focus on military history, are going to make up for your lack of direct experience in this field.  I served 8 years in the USMC.  There is nothing more frightening than a civilian with a rifle who doesn't have anything left to lose.

What puzzles me is why you'd even think that is a good way to settle a dispute.

What puzzles me is why you keep assuming that when I state the obvious, that you jump to the conclusion that I find that reality preferable.  This side-track was all started when you tried to claim that a group of men with guns was just a lawless rabble, and I pointed out that is exactly what government boils down to.  Regardless of how fair, or "democratic" or otherwise justifiable you (or I) might consider any particular goverment structure to be; governments always boils down to the set of rought men willing to do violence against others on the command of a perceived superior.  Government IS force.  There is no way around this.  Likewise, there is no way around the fact that IP laws are specific applications of said force (and threat of force) against one group of citizens to the benefit of another group of citizens.

[Hawker]

The point is that the same silly argument can be made about every restriction on your freedom.  Its not limited to IP law. 

The great irony of this statement is that we understand this far greater than you do, and despite knowing this is true, you regard the defense of freedom for it's own sake to be a "silly argument".

Total freedom is impossible.   You can choose any human activity and find its possible to take it too far.  There are people who feel sex with children is a good thing and people who don't.  One group is oppressing the other right now.  Do you think that a man who loves sex with boys saying "Restricting my sexual self-expression impinges my freedom and impinging freedom leads to slavery" suddenly makes the problem go away?  Or is it a silly argument?

[Hawker]

Regarding the dog, I believe Fred said rights stop with people. Thus, to Fred, dogs are just property, like a pieces of furniture.

This is true, because otherwise, you and yours could possibly make a law which could say I couldn't cut my grass because it might possibly cause ecological damage to the environment. I invite you to not open a door you likely can't close. You're just asking for murder and mayhem.

I care about the enviroment, I just care about human rights more.

Its not either/or.  Vast numbers of people have dogs.  Only a few get their jollies from torturing dogs.  Since pointless cruelty is something our societies abhor, we take the dogs off that few people.  On a balance of benefits, taking away the freedom to torture dogs is less harmful than leaving the dogs get tortured.