Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Rassah]

Contract requires consideration, i.e. both people giving something up. I am giving up my money in exchange for the DVD. The movie maker is giving up what exactly for my money?

[1713887122]

1713887122

[1713887122]

1713887122

[1713887122]

1713887122

[1713887122]

1713887122

[1713887122]

1713887122

[1713887122]

1713887122

[BitterTea]

When you buy a DVD, you have entered into a contract. The intended use is clearly stated on the packaging, and you can make a choice then and there to either buy or not buy. Nobody is forcing you to buy.

So let's say I break that contract and I make a copy without any of that "clearly stated" intended use crap. Then I give that copy to MoonShadow, and he makes a copy, etc. If we agree that I agree to the IP law contract (which I don't) by opening the package, has MoonShadow done any such thing? What about the people to which he gives copies?

[FirstAscent]

Contract requires consideration, i.e. both people giving something up. I am giving up my money in exchange for the DVD. The movie maker is giving up what exactly for my money?

They gave up the opportunity to engage in an activity which would have a more consistent and earlier payoff, and instead chose to spend a great deal of time and effort as well as spend money up front to risk making a product in the hope that you and others would, at your discretion, choose to purchase it sometime in the future.

[FirstAscent]

When you buy a DVD, you have entered into a contract. The intended use is clearly stated on the packaging, and you can make a choice then and there to either buy or not buy. Nobody is forcing you to buy.

So let's say I break that contract and I make a copy without any of that "clearly stated" intended use crap. Then I give that copy to MoonShadow, and he makes a copy, etc. If we agree that I agree to the IP law contract (which I don't) by opening the package, has MoonShadow done any such thing? What about the people to which he gives copies?

If MoonShadow can effectively demonstrate in court that he was not aware of any such contract, then he shouldn't have any problems. Tell me, is MoonShadow not aware of any such contract? A jury will decide. If it can be demonstrated that he has watched DVD movies sometime in his life, seen the FBI warning on the screen, purchased any DVD in the past, and in general, didn't crawl out from a underneath a rock yesterday, the jury might not be convinced. It's not complex. MoonShadow needs to convince the court he's not lying when he says he was not aware of any contract. Can he do that? It's a court case, and you libertarians admit that in your libertarian world, there will still be courts, and there will still be a need to convince others the real truth of the matter. So there is no real difference there.

This thread would probably serve as evidence that you and MoonShadow are indeed aware of the laws.

[BitterTea]

When you buy a DVD, you have entered into a contract. The intended use is clearly stated on the packaging, and you can make a choice then and there to either buy or not buy. Nobody is forcing you to buy.

So let's say I break that contract and I make a copy without any of that "clearly stated" intended use crap. Then I give that copy to MoonShadow, and he makes a copy, etc. If we agree that I agree to the IP law contract (which I don't) by opening the package, has MoonShadow done any such thing? What about the people to which he gives copies?

If MoonShadow can effectively demonstrate in court that he was not aware of any such contract, then he shouldn't have any problems. Tell me, is MoonShadow not aware of any such contract? A jury will decide. If it can be demonstrated that he has watched DVD movies sometime in his life, seen the FBI warning on the screen, purchased any DVD in the past, and in general, didn't crawl out from a underneath a rock yesterday, the jury might not be convinced. It's not complex. MoonShadow needs to convince the court he's not lying when he says he was not aware of any contract. Can he do that? It's a court case, and you libertarians admit that in your libertarian world, there will still be courts, and there will still be a need to convince others the real truth of the matter. So there is no real difference there.

This thread would probably serve as evidence that you and MoonShadow are indeed aware of the laws.

So you don't have to actually agree to the "contract" (buying/opening the DVD), you merely have to be aware of it? Aren't you contradicting what you said here?

When you buy a DVD, you have entered into a contract. The intended use is clearly stated on the packaging, and you can make a choice then and there to either buy or not buy. Nobody is forcing you to buy.

MoonShadow did not buy the DVD, this "contract" is not clearly stated on the packaging. So how can you hold him to the same standard as I, who clearly "agreed" to the "contract"?

[FirstAscent]

When you buy a DVD, you have entered into a contract. The intended use is clearly stated on the packaging, and you can make a choice then and there to either buy or not buy. Nobody is forcing you to buy.

So let's say I break that contract and I make a copy without any of that "clearly stated" intended use crap. Then I give that copy to MoonShadow, and he makes a copy, etc. If we agree that I agree to the IP law contract (which I don't) by opening the package, has MoonShadow done any such thing? What about the people to which he gives copies?

If MoonShadow can effectively demonstrate in court that he was not aware of any such contract, then he shouldn't have any problems. Tell me, is MoonShadow not aware of any such contract? A jury will decide. If it can be demonstrated that he has watched DVD movies sometime in his life, seen the FBI warning on the screen, purchased any DVD in the past, and in general, didn't crawl out from a underneath a rock yesterday, the jury might not be convinced. It's not complex. MoonShadow needs to convince the court he's not lying when he says he was not aware of any contract. Can he do that? It's a court case, and you libertarians admit that in your libertarian world, there will still be courts, and there will still be a need to convince others the real truth of the matter. So there is no real difference there.

This thread would probably serve as evidence that you and MoonShadow are indeed aware of the laws.

So you don't have to actually agree to the "contract" (buying/opening the DVD), you merely have to be aware of it? Aren't you contradicting what you said here?

When you buy a DVD, you have entered into a contract. The intended use is clearly stated on the packaging, and you can make a choice then and there to either buy or not buy. Nobody is forcing you to buy.

MoonShadow did not buy the DVD, this "contract" is not clearly stated on the packaging. So how can you hold him to the same standard as I, who clearly "agreed" to the "contract"?

Ask the court what they think. I'm sure they can give you a more precise answer than I can. I didn't write the law - I just think it's fairly reasonable.

Tell me this - why do you feel it is it such a horrific burden for you? By following those relatively simple rules, has it somehow rendered you into indentured servitude with a taskmaster behind you snapping a whip at your back?

[BitterTea]

Ask the court what they think. I'm sure they can give you a more precise answer than I can. I didn't write the law - I just think it's fairly reasonable.

I didn't ask you the law, I asked you the justification behind the law. First you say it's because I "agree to a contract when I buy a DVD", then you have no answer so you fall back to "ask the court".

Tell me this - why do you feel it is it such a horrific burden for you? By following those relatively simple rules, has it somehow rendered you into indentured servitude with a taskmaster behind you snapping a whip at your back?

Not literally, but not too far from that. By the mere act of participating in a computer network and sharing copied data, I am considered a criminal according to the law and can be legally kidnapped, or killed if I resist kidnapping. Seems pretty fucking bad to me.

[FirstAscent]

I didn't ask you the law, I asked you the justification behind the law. First you say it's because I "agree to a contract when I buy a DVD", then you have no answer so you fall back to "ask the court".

The justification is simple and has already been mentioned here many times. Large time consuming projects such as book writing, filmmaking, etc. require a lot of sacrifice up front, in the form of time, effort, and/or money, as well as paying your dues in learning how to write, make films, etc. There's risk involved there, and it deserves compensation.

Tell me this - why do you feel it is it such a horrific burden for you? By following those relatively simple rules, has it somehow rendered you into indentured servitude with a taskmaster behind you snapping a whip at your back?

Not literally, but not too far from that. By the mere act of participating in a computer network and sharing copied information, I am considered a criminal according to the law and can be legally kidnapped, or killed if I resist kidnapping. Seems pretty fucking bad to me.

Well, then, stop using the computer network. You're going to have to admit, that even in your perfect libertarian world, there are going to be things that you can physically do, would physically like to do, but that you will refrain from doing because there are perceived consequences.

Stay on the computer network or don't. I personally don't care one way or another.

[BitterTea]

The justification is simple and has already been mentioned here many times. Large time consuming projects such as book writing, filmmaking, etc. require a lot of sacrifice up front, in the form of time, effort, and/or money, as well as paying your dues in learning how to write, make films, etc. There's risk involved there, and it deserves compensation.

What if nobody buys the work? That risk receives no compensation.

You previously stated that the reason it is unacceptable for me to do whatever I want with a DVD is because I agreed to a "contract" by purchasing it. Have you abandoned this position? If not, then how do you reconcile that MoonShadow did not agree to a contract because I gave him a copy with all references to copyright and acceptable use stripped out?

You're going to have to admit, that even in your perfect libertarian world, there are going to be things that you can physically do, would physically like to do, but that you will refrain from doing because there are perceived consequences.

Sure, like murder, rape, and theft. Copying information is not an initiation of violence.

[FirstAscent]

The justification is simple and has already been mentioned here many times. Large time consuming projects such as book writing, filmmaking, etc. require a lot of sacrifice up front, in the form of time, effort, and/or money, as well as paying your dues in learning how to write, make films, etc. There's risk involved there, and it deserves compensation.

What if nobody buys the work? That risk receives no compensation.

That is precisely why there is risk - that nobody will buy the work. Thus, the need for a way to ensure that if there actually is demand for the work, people will be obliged to pay for it, rather than helping themselves to it via a means which do not credit the creator.

You previously stated that the reason it is unacceptable for me to do whatever I want with a DVD is because I agreed to a "contract" by purchasing it. Have you abandoned this position? If not, then how do you reconcile that MoonShadow did not agree to a contract because I gave him a copy with all references to copyright and acceptable use stripped out?

Is this your idea of trying to win your argument? Why something is unacceptable is based on the justification, not the contract. A contract is to prevent what is unacceptable - not to justify why it is unacceptable. If you must resort to these contortions, then find someone else to bicker with.

You're going to have to admit, that even in your perfect libertarian world, there are going to be things that you can physically do, would physically like to do, but that you will refrain from doing because there are perceived consequences.

Sure, like murder, rape, and theft. Copying information is not an initiation of violence.

No, not just murder, rape and theft. In addition, you'll have to take care with what you do on your own property if it might have consequences on another's property. Also, I'm sure there will be plenty of things you'd like to do on other people's property, but prudently decide that you should not. Risks and desires will not go away in your libertarian world. As an example, you may very well want to go engage in photography and filmmaking from the top of the ridge on your neighbor's land, but perhaps he doesn't like you and is quite fond of his shotgun.

[Hawker]

Not clear on something - how exactly does the enforcement of IP rights lead to slavery?

When grandma downloads 2,500 songs illegally, the RIAA breaks down her door, she is taken to court, and is fined $250,000. Since grandma obviously doesn't have that kind of cash, she is taken to jail instead, where she is forced to work off her "debt to society" by either picking up litter off the side of the roads, or by breaking rocks with sledgehammers.
Slavery.

Um no.  Its a civil action so there is no prospect of jail. 

[Hawker]

...snip...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

There have always been some that express the idea that slavery is immoral, just as there have always been some that express the idea that statism is immoral and intellectual property is immoral. You do realize also that the idea of intellectual property is only a couple of hundred years old, right?

Given that all religions allow slavery, I don't see where you get the notion that that there has always moral opposition to it.  Please substantiate.

[Hawker]

..snip...

So would you.  The idea of slavery being immoral is relatively new and just as 1000 years ago, we would not have discussed air fares, we would also not have discussed the abolition of slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

I would have only out of ignorance. Once I had been pointed out that slaves have the same felings and wants as non-slaves, I.e. not been ignorant any more, I would not have supported slavery
...snip...

Sorry but you are kidding yourself.  Perfectly moral people like Moses, Jesus and the Buddha were fine with slavery.  Can you really argue that Jesus had no idea slaves had feelings?

[BitterTea]

..snip...

So would you.  The idea of slavery being immoral is relatively new and just as 1000 years ago, we would not have discussed air fares, we would also not have discussed the abolition of slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

I would have only out of ignorance. Once I had been pointed out that slaves have the same felings and wants as non-slaves, I.e. not been ignorant any more, I would not have supported slavery
...snip...

Sorry but you are kidding yourself.  Perfectly moral people like Moses, Jesus and the Buddha were fine with slavery.  Can you really argue that Jesus had no idea slaves had feelings?

Surely you realize that fictional characters represent the morals of the men who create them.

[BitterTea]

Not clear on something - how exactly does the enforcement of IP rights lead to slavery?

When grandma downloads 2,500 songs illegally, the RIAA breaks down her door, she is taken to court, and is fined $250,000. Since grandma obviously doesn't have that kind of cash, she is taken to jail instead, where she is forced to work off her "debt to society" by either picking up litter off the side of the roads, or by breaking rocks with sledgehammers.
Slavery.

Um no.  Its a civil action so there is no prospect of jail. 

So if I refuse to pay the leeches a dime, what happens then?

[Hawker]

Not clear on something - how exactly does the enforcement of IP rights lead to slavery?

When grandma downloads 2,500 songs illegally, the RIAA breaks down her door, she is taken to court, and is fined $250,000. Since grandma obviously doesn't have that kind of cash, she is taken to jail instead, where she is forced to work off her "debt to society" by either picking up litter off the side of the roads, or by breaking rocks with sledgehammers.
Slavery.

Um no.  Its a civil action so there is no prospect of jail. 

So if I refuse to pay the leeches a dime, what happens then?

Eventually your assets will be taken and sold.  If that doesn't suffice, your earning will be garnished so that when you start to make money, you will repay the damage you have done.

[Hawker]

..snip...

So would you.  The idea of slavery being immoral is relatively new and just as 1000 years ago, we would not have discussed air fares, we would also not have discussed the abolition of slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

I would have only out of ignorance. Once I had been pointed out that slaves have the same felings and wants as non-slaves, I.e. not been ignorant any more, I would not have supported slavery
...snip...

Sorry but you are kidding yourself.  Perfectly moral people like Moses, Jesus and the Buddha were fine with slavery.  Can you really argue that Jesus had no idea slaves had feelings?

Surely you realize that fictional characters represent the morals of the men who create them.

The morals are a creation too.  Unless you think moral laws are written in the stars or some such superstition, you accept that morality is a social construct.

[FredericBastiat]

Given that all religions allow slavery, I don't see where you get the notion that that there has always moral opposition to it.  Please substantiate.

False and unsubstantiated. Straw man.

[FredericBastiat]

Um no.  Its a civil action so there is no prospect of jail. 

Let me guess, if I were to resist the civil action, you tell me what would happen eventually.  Sure it may be civil, but if I never show up in court, they will attempt to confiscate my property, and if I resist that, they will attempt to arrest me, and if I resist that, I could very well get a bullet in the head.

Yes, all laws that are enforced will lead to dire circumstances given enough resistance. That's the nature of law.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master! It is an instrument of force and unless our conscience is clear that we would not hesitate to put a man to death, put him in jail or forcibly deprive him of his property for failing to obey a given law, we should oppose it.” --George Washington

[FredericBastiat]

If MoonShadow can effectively demonstrate in court that he was not aware of any such contract, then he shouldn't have any problems. Tell me, is MoonShadow not aware of any such contract? A jury will decide. If it can be demonstrated that he has watched DVD movies sometime in his life, seen the FBI warning on the screen, purchased any DVD in the past, and in general, didn't crawl out from a underneath a rock yesterday, the jury might not be convinced. It's not complex. MoonShadow needs to convince the court he's not lying when he says he was not aware of any contract. Can he do that? It's a court case, and you libertarians admit that in your libertarian world, there will still be courts, and there will still be a need to convince others the real truth of the matter. So there is no real difference there.

This thread would probably serve as evidence that you and MoonShadow are indeed aware of the laws.

Being aware of a law/contract does not a just law/contract make. See below.

So let me ask you this. This new and creative form of contract seems like it could be taken advantage of. There's the shrink-wrapped version of it, the law-warning version of it, and the copyright-notice version of it.

Given the above "contract" styles, I'm going to try a little experiment. I'm going to rent a billboard, and on that billboard I'm going to write a message, but before the message I'm going to list the copyright notice, and a warning. The billboard will essentially say this, "Anyone reading this billboard without the prior permission of the copyright holder owes the owner $10,000."

Now given that one need only be "aware of", "unwraps" or gives "warning" regarding the message, that contract should be valid. I should be able to legally collect fees.

I think you have no idea what a contract is.