Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

...snip...
Inventions take investment.  Drugs costs hundreds of millions to develop.  If you remove the protection of the patent system, research stops as there is no way to pay for it.

Strawman. That's not what we are talking about.

ALPHA - we are talking about why IP laws are a good idea.  The preference for encouraging research is one reason.  Wittering on about straw men doesn't advance your case.

Okay, so riddle me this: How has most of human civilization advanced without idea protection? Why was the Industrial Revolution so successful with all the captains of industry "stealing" from each other?

The Industrial Revolution happened in England first at a time when patent law was blossoming.  Everything from the cotton gin to the locomotive benefited from the incentive to invest the patent laws created.

Even more strangely, the countries where this patent regime persists are still the countries where most innovation take place.

Its almost as if there was some connection between the ability to monetise research and the flow of investment capital into research.

Could the 2 things be connected? 

[1714973958]

1714973958

[1714973958]

1714973958

[1714973958]

1714973958

[ALPHA.]

...snip...
Inventions take investment.  Drugs costs hundreds of millions to develop.  If you remove the protection of the patent system, research stops as there is no way to pay for it.

Strawman. That's not what we are talking about.

ALPHA - we are talking about why IP laws are a good idea.  The preference for encouraging research is one reason.  Wittering on about straw men doesn't advance your case.

Okay, so riddle me this: How has most of human civilization advanced without idea protection? Why was the Industrial Revolution so successful with all the captains of industry "stealing" from each other?

The Industrial Revolution happened in England first at a time when patent law was blossoming.  Everything from the cotton gin to the locomotive benefited from the incentive to invest the patent laws created.

Even more strangely, the countries where this patent regime persists are still the countries where most innovation take place.

Its almost as if there was some connection between the ability to monetise research and the flow of investment capital into research.

Could the 2 things be connected? 

Possibly but it doesn't change the fact that it infringes physical property rights.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Inventions take investment.  Drugs costs hundreds of millions to develop.  If you remove the protection of the patent system, research stops as there is no way to pay for it.

Strawman. That's not what we are talking about.

ALPHA - we are talking about why IP laws are a good idea.  The preference for encouraging research is one reason.  Wittering on about straw men doesn't advance your case.

Okay, so riddle me this: How has most of human civilization advanced without idea protection? Why was the Industrial Revolution so successful with all the captains of industry "stealing" from each other?

The Industrial Revolution happened in England first at a time when patent law was blossoming.  Everything from the cotton gin to the locomotive benefited from the incentive to invest the patent laws created.

Even more strangely, the countries where this patent regime persists are still the countries where most innovation take place.

Its almost as if there was some connection between the ability to monetise research and the flow of investment capital into research.

Could the 2 things be connected? 

Possibly but it doesn't change the fact that it infringes physical property rights.

Society gives you property rights.  They are legal constructs - they don't exist outside of laws and can be taken away in accordance with laws.  Our societies give us physical property rights and intellectual property rights.  Since both come from the same source, its silly to say that one infringes the other.

[ALPHA.]

...snip...
Inventions take investment.  Drugs costs hundreds of millions to develop.  If you remove the protection of the patent system, research stops as there is no way to pay for it.

Strawman. That's not what we are talking about.

ALPHA - we are talking about why IP laws are a good idea.  The preference for encouraging research is one reason.  Wittering on about straw men doesn't advance your case.

Okay, so riddle me this: How has most of human civilization advanced without idea protection? Why was the Industrial Revolution so successful with all the captains of industry "stealing" from each other?

The Industrial Revolution happened in England first at a time when patent law was blossoming.  Everything from the cotton gin to the locomotive benefited from the incentive to invest the patent laws created.

Even more strangely, the countries where this patent regime persists are still the countries where most innovation take place.

Its almost as if there was some connection between the ability to monetise research and the flow of investment capital into research.

Could the 2 things be connected? 

Possibly but it doesn't change the fact that it infringes physical property rights.

Society gives you property rights.  They are legal constructs - they don't exist outside of laws and can be taken away in accordance with laws.  Our societies give us physical property rights and intellectual property rights.  Since both come from the same source, its silly to say that one infringes the other.

No, my will and labor gives me property rights in exchange for the value I provide. I pay for the force that protects the property I hold. If it doesn't meet my demands, I will not pay and I will not create value!

[Hawker]

...snip...

Society gives you property rights.  They are legal constructs - they don't exist outside of laws and can be taken away in accordance with laws.  Our societies give us physical property rights and intellectual property rights.  Since both come from the same source, its silly to say that one infringes the other.

No, my will and labor gives me property rights in exchange for the value I provide. I pay for the force that protects the property I hold. If it doesn't meet my demands, I will not pay and I will not create value!

That's your theory and you are welcome to it.  To fall foul of IP laws, you need to actively steal someone's IP and if you do that, you may find they also have a theory about rights and that generally, people prefer to encourage innovation that to encourage theft.  So I suggest you simply not try to profit from reselling other people's work.

[ALPHA.]

I'll stand by the theory of over ownership over oneself. All other theories require me to be a slave.

[Hawker]

I'll stand by the theory of over ownership over oneself. All other theories require me to be a slave.

Um - actually you are insisting that you are entitled to take the product of other people's labour without their consent. That's getting uncomfortable close to slavery and no-one made you boss.

[ALPHA.]

I'll stand by the theory of over ownership over oneself. All other theories require me to be a slave.

Um - actually you are insisting that you are entitled to take the product of other people's labour without their consent. That's getting uncomfortable close to slavery and no-one made you boss.

No, I am not. I am insisting on using my physical property as I please regardless of its form. IP is insisting that others can have a claim to it if it happens meet some of their subjective criteria.

[Hawker]

I'll stand by the theory of over ownership over oneself. All other theories require me to be a slave.

Um - actually you are insisting that you are entitled to take the product of other people's labour without their consent. That's getting uncomfortable close to slavery and no-one made you boss.

No, I am not. I am insisting on using my physical property as I please regardless of its form. IP is insisting that others can have a claim to it if it happens meet some of their subjective criteria.

Both statements can be true.

I pay a team of developers to make a clever program, pay for advertising and I sell it for profit.  You buy a copy and then make copies and sell them for profit.

Are you taking the product of my labour for your profit? Yes.

Are you using your own hardware? Yes.

Will I be entitled to sue your greedy ass?  Yes.  And if you have a problem with that, I don't care.  Go create your own product instead of trying to profit off selling mine.

[ALPHA.]

I'll stand by the theory of over ownership over oneself. All other theories require me to be a slave.

Um - actually you are insisting that you are entitled to take the product of other people's labour without their consent. That's getting uncomfortable close to slavery and no-one made you boss.

No, I am not. I am insisting on using my physical property as I please regardless of its form. IP is insisting that others can have a claim to it if it happens meet some of their subjective criteria.

Both statements can be true.

I pay a team of developers to make a clever program, pay for advertising and I sell it for profit.  You buy a copy and then make copies and sell them for profit.

Are you taking the product of my labour for your profit? Yes.

Are you using your own hardware? Yes.

Will I be entitled to sue your greedy ass?  Yes.  And if you have a problem with that, I don't care.  Go create your own product instead of trying to profit off selling mine.

Good luck catching me under Tor and pseudonyms. We can play it both ways. People can be just as sovereign in this metaphysical world you call "intellectual property".

I can take your software, seed it on several torrents and profit off all of the sites I please with no repercussions.

Your society's whims that you call laws have nothing on a man who cannot be found nor coerced. He will be just as imaginary as your idea of property.

The point: Intellectual property is hardly enforceable.

[Hawker]

I'll stand by the theory of over ownership over oneself. All other theories require me to be a slave.

Um - actually you are insisting that you are entitled to take the product of other people's labour without their consent. That's getting uncomfortable close to slavery and no-one made you boss.

No, I am not. I am insisting on using my physical property as I please regardless of its form. IP is insisting that others can have a claim to it if it happens meet some of their subjective criteria.

Both statements can be true.

I pay a team of developers to make a clever program, pay for advertising and I sell it for profit.  You buy a copy and then make copies and sell them for profit.

Are you taking the product of my labour for your profit? Yes.

Are you using your own hardware? Yes.

Will I be entitled to sue your greedy ass?  Yes.  And if you have a problem with that, I don't care.  Go create your own product instead of trying to profit off selling mine.

Good luck catching me under Tor and pseudonyms. We can play it both ways. People can be just as sovereign in this metaphysical world you call "intellectual property".

I can take your software, seed it on several torrents and profit off all of my sites I please with no repercussions.

Your society's whims you call laws have nothing on a man or his property who cannot be found nor coerced.

That's really irrelevant as you can only get people who would never have paid anyway that way.  At the end of the day, you will be out of pocket and I won't have lost a penny.  But at least you are honest in saying that your main concern is finding a way to take the product of other people's labour off them instead of having to work yourself.

What IP law prevents is you openly reselling protected property and making a huge profit.  If a drug costs $100 million to make, and sells for $1 per tablet, you can make a $billion selling it for 90 cents and the guy who invested the $100 million will be screwed.  Since we actively want to encourage development of new drugs, the law doesn't' allow you to openly do that.

[ALPHA.]

I'll stand by the theory of over ownership over oneself. All other theories require me to be a slave.

Um - actually you are insisting that you are entitled to take the product of other people's labour without their consent. That's getting uncomfortable close to slavery and no-one made you boss.

No, I am not. I am insisting on using my physical property as I please regardless of its form. IP is insisting that others can have a claim to it if it happens meet some of their subjective criteria.

Both statements can be true.

I pay a team of developers to make a clever program, pay for advertising and I sell it for profit.  You buy a copy and then make copies and sell them for profit.

Are you taking the product of my labour for your profit? Yes.

Are you using your own hardware? Yes.

Will I be entitled to sue your greedy ass?  Yes.  And if you have a problem with that, I don't care.  Go create your own product instead of trying to profit off selling mine.

Good luck catching me under Tor and pseudonyms. We can play it both ways. People can be just as sovereign in this metaphysical world you call "intellectual property".

I can take your software, seed it on several torrents and profit off all of my sites I please with no repercussions.

Your society's whims you call laws have nothing on a man or his property who cannot be found nor coerced.

That's really irrelevant as you can only get people who would never have paid anyway that way.  At the end of the day, you will be out of pocket and I won't have lost a penny.  But at least you are honest in saying that your main concern is finding a way to take the product of other people's labour off them instead of having to work yourself.

What IP law prevents is you openly reselling protected property and making a huge profit.  If a drug costs $100 million to make, and sells for $1 per tablet, you can make a $billion selling it for 90 cents and the guy who invested the $100 million will be screwed.  Since we actively want to encourage development of new drugs, the law doesn't' allow you to openly do that.

So the underpinning philosophy here is envy: The idea that if you share your information freely, people will benefit from it and those people should be hated for their success. Lovely.

Anyways, these development prices are skewed. The corporations are overpowered in legal stature and the small guys along with individuals are never allowed into the ring.

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

In a free market, if a drug was desired and was truly useful, it would find the capital, guaranteed. If people truly wanted to prevent disease, they would build the capital and they do. The government is made of people albeit in an inefficient and parasitic form.

So moot point.

You have to prove government (VIOLENCE) can only do these things which you haven't.

[Hawker]

...snip...
So the underpinning philosophy here is envy: The idea that if you share your information freely, people will benefit from it and those people should be hated for their success. Lovely.

Anyways, these development prices are skewed. The corporations are overpowered in legal stature and the small guys along with individuals are never allowed into the ring.

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

In a free market, if a drug was desired and was truly useful, it would find the capital, guaranteed. If people truly wanted to prevent disease, they would build the capital and they do. The government is made of people albeit in an inefficient and parasitic form.

So moot point.

You have to prove government (VIOLENCE) can only do these things which you haven't.

You have posted a link to a quack:

"Data supporting the efficacy of Burzynski's treatments are lacking and his use of antineoplastons has generated considerable controversy among medical authorities and regulatory agencies."

"Burzynski was also found guilty of fraud in 1994, as he claimed reimbursement from a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment"

So based on the fact that you have found one quack, you want the rest of the world to give up medical research?

[ALPHA.]

...snip...
So the underpinning philosophy here is envy: The idea that if you share your information freely, people will benefit from it and those people should be hated for their success. Lovely.

Anyways, these development prices are skewed. The corporations are overpowered in legal stature and the small guys along with individuals are never allowed into the ring.

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

In a free market, if a drug was desired and was truly useful, it would find the capital, guaranteed. If people truly wanted to prevent disease, they would build the capital and they do. The government is made of people albeit in an inefficient and parasitic form.

So moot point.

You have to prove government (VIOLENCE) can only do these things which you haven't.

You have posted a link to a quack:

"Data supporting the efficacy of Burzynski's treatments are lacking and his use of antineoplastons has generated considerable controversy among medical authorities and regulatory agencies."

"Burzynski was also found guilty of fraud in 1994, as he claimed reimbursement from a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment"

So based on the fact that you have found one quack, you want the rest of the world to give up medical research?

Oh, he's no quack. The FDA and the corporations have made him labeled as such but there are many people and many medical charts that can claim he has saved countless lives. His drugs have a 25% rate of resolving all types of cancer.

[Hawker]

...snip...
So the underpinning philosophy here is envy: The idea that if you share your information freely, people will benefit from it and those people should be hated for their success. Lovely.

Anyways, these development prices are skewed. The corporations are overpowered in legal stature and the small guys along with individuals are never allowed into the ring.

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

In a free market, if a drug was desired and was truly useful, it would find the capital, guaranteed. If people truly wanted to prevent disease, they would build the capital and they do. The government is made of people albeit in an inefficient and parasitic form.

So moot point.

You have to prove government (VIOLENCE) can only do these things which you haven't.

You have posted a link to a quack:

"Data supporting the efficacy of Burzynski's treatments are lacking and his use of antineoplastons has generated considerable controversy among medical authorities and regulatory agencies."

"Burzynski was also found guilty of fraud in 1994, as he claimed reimbursement from a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment"

So based on the fact that you have found one quack, you want the rest of the world to give up medical research?

Oh, he's no quack. The FDA and the corporations have made him labeled as such but there are many people and many medical charts that can claim he has saved countless lives. His drugs have a 25% rate of resolving all types of cancer.

Sorry but you have no right to force others to give up medical research for the sake of someone who is a quack.  You may support his quackery - every quack has supporters - but that doesn't give you the right to copy the research work of people who are not quacks and resell their work for profit.

[ALPHA.]

...snip...
So the underpinning philosophy here is envy: The idea that if you share your information freely, people will benefit from it and those people should be hated for their success. Lovely.

Anyways, these development prices are skewed. The corporations are overpowered in legal stature and the small guys along with individuals are never allowed into the ring.

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

In a free market, if a drug was desired and was truly useful, it would find the capital, guaranteed. If people truly wanted to prevent disease, they would build the capital and they do. The government is made of people albeit in an inefficient and parasitic form.

So moot point.

You have to prove government (VIOLENCE) can only do these things which you haven't.

You have posted a link to a quack:

"Data supporting the efficacy of Burzynski's treatments are lacking and his use of antineoplastons has generated considerable controversy among medical authorities and regulatory agencies."

"Burzynski was also found guilty of fraud in 1994, as he claimed reimbursement from a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment"

So based on the fact that you have found one quack, you want the rest of the world to give up medical research?

Oh, he's no quack. The FDA and the corporations have made him labeled as such but there are many people and many medical charts that can claim he has saved countless lives. His drugs have a 25% rate of resolving all types of cancer.

Sorry but you have no right to force others to give up medical research for the sake of someone who is a quack.  You may support his quackery - every quack has supporters - but that doesn't give you the right to copy the research work of people who are not quacks and resell their work for profit.

It doesn't because I'll be arrested at the expense of society. Enjoy fighting for your life for overpriced vaccines and treatments in the future.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Sorry but you have no right to force others to give up medical research for the sake of someone who is a quack.  You may support his quackery - every quack has supporters - but that doesn't give you the right to copy the research work of people who are not quacks and resell their work for profit.

It doesn't because I'll be arrested at the expense of society. Enjoy fighting for your life for overpriced vaccines and treatments in the future.

And rightly so.  Do your own research and stop looking for excuses to profit from other people's work.

[ALPHA.]

...snip...

Sorry but you have no right to force others to give up medical research for the sake of someone who is a quack.  You may support his quackery - every quack has supporters - but that doesn't give you the right to copy the research work of people who are not quacks and resell their work for profit.

It doesn't because I'll be arrested at the expense of society. Enjoy fighting for your life for overpriced vaccines and treatments in the future.

And rightly so.  Do your own research and stop looking for excuses to profit from other people's work.

I can profit off whatever I please. It's only a matter of who is going to stop me and my preferences. I prefer not to deny people rights to their actual property.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Sorry but you have no right to force others to give up medical research for the sake of someone who is a quack.  You may support his quackery - every quack has supporters - but that doesn't give you the right to copy the research work of people who are not quacks and resell their work for profit.

It doesn't because I'll be arrested at the expense of society. Enjoy fighting for your life for overpriced vaccines and treatments in the future.

And rightly so.  Do your own research and stop looking for excuses to profit from other people's work.

I can profit off whatever I please. It's only a matter of who is going to stop me and my preferences. I prefer not to deny people rights to their actual property.

The people stopping you are likely to be the people you are trying to rip off by selling their work for your profit.  The important issue here is that you will be stopped because society values innovation.  Which takes us back to where you came in...

[FredericBastiat]

And rightly so.  Do your own research and stop looking for excuses to profit from other people's work.

Everybody profits from other people's work. Where do you think their or your knowledge came from? A vacuum? Everything everybody learns, mimics, copies, or observes is either going to come from somebody that told them, taught them, or they observed from nature.

In which case, everybody living is "stealing" from everybody all the time and everybody should be in jail. Lovely logic. Give it up Hawker, your logic has failed you. Physical property and intellectual property conflict in their implementation. They are logically inconsistent.

Physical property: Control over physical material matter to the exclusion of all other persons. To wit, physical material matter can only be in one place at any one point in time under the dominion of that person.

Intellectual property: Control over patterns and compositions of physical material matter contained in all physical property owned or otherwise (by you and others). This equates to ownership of physical matter due to its composition and characteristics, regardless of the current physical possession of the owner.

Intellectual property is in constant conflict with physical property. IP and PP are logically inconsistent. Any law that conflicts with another law, is either not a law, or the other law with which it is incompatible, must be abolished.

A good example would be slavery. I know you don't like the analogy, but it works well. If one human can own another human, then skin color should be irrelevant, in which case blacks could own whites and vice versa. The only determining factor here now is superior force or majority rule - which is the same.