Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[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".

Total freedom is impossible. 

It's not impossible, it's just not ideal.  It's like the old argument of the Soviets to the masses when they complained about want.  "When we reach a perfect communism, then we will all have enough".  But it is the process to the prefect that is the issue.  I've pointed this out to you repeatedly before.

  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?

It's a silly argument for an entirely different reason.  A child cannot consent, thus sex with children is sex slavery.  Your attempt at equating the argument for freedom for it's own sake with the wish of a predator to force his will upon another human being is not only an epic fail, it's also dishonest.  And trollish.  If we were to stoop to that level, it would be trivial to compare your desires to enforce IP laws for your own gains to taking the food out of a child's mouth because his father couldn't pay the fee you demand for his 'hunting license'.  Do you believe that a government has the right to require permission for subsistance hunting?  After all, if they don't then there is a risk that there won't be any game left for the wealthy hunters who can pay for the game warden's salary.  What if instead of food, it was a generic medicine that said child required to live.  What right do you have, as the patent holder, to deny the child the medicine even if it's made by your competitor in a nation that doesn't honor your pantents?  You try to make the argument that movies wouldn't be made without IP laws, an assertion that I find rediculous, and you never even make an argument as to why this would be the case beyond "some people would get a movie for free, therefore all people would get their movies free".  It doesn't follow.  Regardless, the business model of the entertainment industries is not a valid argument for the injustice of IP laws.  Even if it didn't exist as we now know it, something else would exist.  And even if it didn't, it's entertainment.  Why do you hate the children?

[1714145373]

1714145373

[MoonShadow]

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. 

Limiting the freedoms of the rare few as a direct consequence of their own actions is entirely a different topic than limiting the freedoms of the majority because of what could be done by the rare few.

[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. 

It's not impossible, it's just not ideal.  It's like the old argument of the Soviets to the masses when they complained about want.  "When we reach a perfect communism, then we will all have enough".  But it is the process to the prefect that is the issue.  I've pointed this out to you repeatedly before.

  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?

It's a silly argument for an entirely different reason.  A child cannot consent, thus sex with children is sex slavery.  Your attempt at equating the argument for freedom for it's own sake with the wish of a predator to force his will upon another human being is not only an epic fail, it's also dishonest.  And trollish.  If we were to stoop to that level, it would be trivial to ...snip...

OK - so can we stop the silly arguments?  Its possible to restrict freedom without making a person a slave.  Its possible to give someone freedom without allowing them to have sex with their kids.  Reducing each other's arguments to that level generates heat rather than light.  

[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".

Total freedom is impossible. 

It's not impossible, it's just not ideal.  It's like the old argument of the Soviets to the masses when they complained about want.  "When we reach a perfect communism, then we will all have enough".  But it is the process to the prefect that is the issue.  I've pointed this out to you repeatedly before.

  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?

It's a silly argument for an entirely different reason.  A child cannot consent, thus sex with children is sex slavery.  Your attempt at equating the argument for freedom for it's own sake with the wish of a predator to force his will upon another human being is not only an epic fail, it's also dishonest.  And trollish.  If we were to stoop to that level, it would be trivial to ...snip...

OK - so can we stop the silly arguments?  Its possible to restrict freedom without making a person a slave.  Its possible to give someone freedom without allowing them to have sex with their kids.  Reducing each other's arguments to that level generates heat rather than light.  

Then, as another already stated, don't open a door you cannot close.  And don't refer to your oppositions' arguments as "silly" sans a counter-argument.

[Hawker]

...snip...

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. 

Limiting the freedoms of the rare few as a direct consequence of their own actions is entirely a different topic than limiting the freedoms of the majority because of what could be done by the rare few.

For the majority, its an even easier decision.  They find torturing dogs repugnant.

[Hawker]

Then, as another already stated, don't open a door you cannot close.  And don't refer to your oppositions' arguments as "silly" sans a counter-argument.

Saying that all restrictions on freedom are part of a slippery slope to slavery is "something"

Work calls so offline.

[MoonShadow]

...snip...

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. 

Limiting the freedoms of the rare few as a direct consequence of their own actions is entirely a different topic than limiting the freedoms of the majority because of what could be done by the rare few.

For the majority, its an even easier decision.  They find torturing dogs repugnant.

Try requiring that dog owners pay a $300 'license' to fund an anti-dog torturing task force and see how much majority you have left.

[MoonShadow]

Then, as another already stated, don't open a door you cannot close.  And don't refer to your oppositions' arguments as "silly" sans a counter-argument.

Saying that all restrictions on freedom are part of a slippery slope to slavery is "something"

Work calls so offline.

Still not an argument.

[FredericBastiat]

Then, as another already stated, don't open a door you cannot close.  And don't refer to your oppositions' arguments as "silly" sans a counter-argument.

Saying that all restrictions on freedom are part of a slippery slope to slavery is "something"

Work calls so offline.

There's a big difference in being capable of committing an act and the consequences related to that act. There is also a difference between freedom and slavery. Your actions define what side of that "line in the sand" you stand on.

Don't confuse freedom and liberty with capability of action. We are all capable of treachery as much as we are acts of kindness. Likewise you are "free" to act upon those persons and things for which you have acquired specific consent to do so, and no more. Without consent, you have lawlessness, violence, and injury, and that eventually leads toward slavery and all the various shades of gray between.

[MoonShadow]

"Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police state as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals and makes the executive state the unlimited master of society."

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/how-fascism-kills-the-american-dream/

Is there any objection to this casual definition?

[MoonShadow]

"Daniel Bartels, of the Columbia Business School, found that those who “endorse actions consistent with an ethic of utilitarianism – the view that what is the morally right thing to do is whatever produces the best overall consequences – tend to possess psychopathic and Machiavellian personality traits.”

http://www.strike-the-root.com/prohibition-did-work-sort-of

This stuff is too easy.

[Hawker]

"Daniel Bartels, of the Columbia Business School, found that those who “endorse actions consistent with an ethic of utilitarianism – the view that what is the morally right thing to do is whatever produces the best overall consequences – tend to possess psychopathic and Machiavellian personality traits.”

http://www.strike-the-root.com/prohibition-did-work-sort-of

This stuff is too easy.

Someone on the intraweb said it so it must be true?

Seriously, if that is the best you can come up as a reason why we should do without movies, consumer brands, product research and the other benefits of IP law, you may as well give up.

[BitterTea]

Seriously, if that is the best you can come up as a reason why we should do without movies, consumer brands, product research and the other benefits of IP law, you may as well give up.

Stop with the straw man. You're the only one (in this discussion) that thinks movies, consumer brands, and product research can only be accomplish through IP law.

To preempt you... "Cotton can't be picked without slavery! If you want to get rid of slavery, you have to give me a good reason why we should do without cotton!"

[Rassah]

Seriously, if that is the best you can come up as a reason why we should do without movies, consumer brands, product research and the other benefits of IP law, you may as well give up.

Stop with the straw man. You're the only one (in this discussion) that thinks movies, consumer brands, and product research can only be accomplish through IP law.

To preempt you... "Cotton can't be picked without slavery! If you want to get rid of slavery, you have to give me a good reason why we should do without cotton!"

Hawker: Stop comparing IP laws with slavery. They are not the same thing.

It's so predictably sad...

[Hawker]

Seriously, if that is the best you can come up as a reason why we should do without movies, consumer brands, product research and the other benefits of IP law, you may as well give up.

Stop with the straw man. You're the only one (in this discussion) that thinks movies, consumer brands, and product research can only be accomplish through IP law.

To preempt you... "Cotton can't be picked without slavery! If you want to get rid of slavery, you have to give me a good reason why we should do without cotton!"

If you have a business model that will allow movies without IP law, lets hear it.

[Rassah]

Seriously, if that is the best you can come up as a reason why we should do without movies, consumer brands, product research and the other benefits of IP law, you may as well give up.

Stop with the straw man. You're the only one (in this discussion) that thinks movies, consumer brands, and product research can only be accomplish through IP law.

To preempt you... "Cotton can't be picked without slavery! If you want to get rid of slavery, you have to give me a good reason why we should do without cotton!"

If you have a business model that will allow movies without IP law, lets hear it.

Why? What's the point! You totally ignored ideas about subscription-based service (like made-for-tv movies on Cable, or criterion Collection on Hulu), ignored or tossed aside the point about movie theaters relying on contracts instead of IP and mostly selling the movie-goingexperience than the movies, ignored the part about how economy trends towards services and away from goods, so it's very plausable that even if movies are freely copies, people will pay to have someone else store and organize movies for them...
Why don't you come up with a business model that will allow movies without IP yourself? We all have. It's your turn now.

[NghtRppr]

Seriously, if that is the best you can come up as a reason why we should do without movies, consumer brands, product research and the other benefits of IP law, you may as well give up.

Stop with the straw man. You're the only one (in this discussion) that thinks movies, consumer brands, and product research can only be accomplish through IP law.

To preempt you... "Cotton can't be picked without slavery! If you want to get rid of slavery, you have to give me a good reason why we should do without cotton!"

If you have a business model that will allow movies without IP law, lets hear it.

Why? What's the point! You totally ignored ideas about subscription-based service (like made-for-tv movies on Cable, or criterion Collection on Hulu), ignored or tossed aside the point about movie theaters relying on contracts instead of IP and mostly selling the movie-goingexperience than the movies, ignored the part about how economy trends towards services and away from goods, so it's very plausable that even if movies are freely copies, people will pay to have someone else store and organize movies for them...
Why don't you come up with a business model that will allow movies without IP yourself? We all have. It's your turn now.

I'm sure you've figured out how people like Hawker and FirstAscent operate by now. They don't put forth complete ideas. They demand that you explain an entire system for them and then they will fire off a few objections from the top of their head that are either trivial to fix or live with. When you overcome all of their objections or point out how minor they are they'll just say something like "it's not that simple, educate yourself" or "you need to explain why society should change for you". They clearly aren't here to think but rather they are here to justify and rationalize their preexisting beliefs.

[Hawker]

Seriously, if that is the best you can come up as a reason why we should do without movies, consumer brands, product research and the other benefits of IP law, you may as well give up.

Stop with the straw man. You're the only one (in this discussion) that thinks movies, consumer brands, and product research can only be accomplish through IP law.

To preempt you... "Cotton can't be picked without slavery! If you want to get rid of slavery, you have to give me a good reason why we should do without cotton!"

If you have a business model that will allow movies without IP law, lets hear it.

Why? What's the point! You totally ignored ideas about subscription-based service (like made-for-tv movies on Cable, or criterion Collection on Hulu), ignored or tossed aside the point about movie theaters relying on contracts instead of IP and mostly selling the movie-goingexperience than the movies, ignored the part about how economy trends towards services and away from goods, so it's very plausable that even if movies are freely copies, people will pay to have someone else store and organize movies for them...
Why don't you come up with a business model that will allow movies without IP yourself? We all have. It's your turn now.

Actually I pointed out why they fail.  That's not ignoring - that correcting your sloppy thinking.  If the movie is on bittorrent and there is no IP law, all of those ideas will generate zero revenue.  It costs millions of dollars to make a decent film - no one will invest that money unless there is a way to protect the investment.  So if we lose IP laws and that's all you got, we lose movies as well.

Asking me to come up with business plans to finance your half baked ideas is self-defeating.  We already have a thriving movie industry based on IP law - if you feel you have something better tell us.  So far, all I see is people saying "You have no right to create IP laws" which is nonsense or "If there were no IP laws, some miracle will occur that makes movies possible" without saying what the miracle is.  Neither of these arguments offer an improvement on the existing set-up.  If you don't have anything better than what we have now, then I guess we have to live with the fact that IP laws are useful and move on to looking at ideas to make life better.  

[Hawker]

...snip...

I'm sure you've figured out how people like Hawker and FirstAscent operate by now. They don't put forth complete ideas. They demand that you explain an entire system for them and then they will fire off a few objections from the top of their head that are either trivial to fix or live with. When you overcome all of their objections or point out how minor they are they'll just say something like "it's not that simple, educate yourself" or "you need to explain why society should change for you". They clearly aren't here to think but rather they are here to justify and rationalize their preexisting beliefs.

You agreed with me earlier in the thread that the movie industry depends on IP law but you thought that we should accept the loss of movies as a price worth paying for increased liberty.  Is that still the case?

[BitterTea]

...snip...

I'm sure you've figured out how people like Hawker and FirstAscent operate by now. They don't put forth complete ideas. They demand that you explain an entire system for them and then they will fire off a few objections from the top of their head that are either trivial to fix or live with. When you overcome all of their objections or point out how minor they are they'll just say something like "it's not that simple, educate yourself" or "you need to explain why society should change for you". They clearly aren't here to think but rather they are here to justify and rationalize their preexisting beliefs.

You agreed with me earlier in the thread that the movie industry depends on IP law but you thought that we should accept the loss of movies as a price worth paying for increased liberty.  Is that still the case?

There's your logical fallacy again. Just because the current movie industry depends on IP, doesn't mean that without IP movies won't be made. Just as the (at the time) current cotton picking industry depended on slavery, but the end of slavery didn't mean the end of cotton.