Awesome free state project open to bitcoin donations

[kiba]

I information is always owned (i.e. someone's property), how come there should be no property rights for information?

There is. You just don't own the musics I brought.

[1713538780]

1713538780

[1713538780]

1713538780

[1713538780]

1713538780

[1713538780]

1713538780

[1713538780]

1713538780

[onarchy]

I information is always owned (i.e. someone's property), how come there should be no property rights for information?

There is. You just don't own the musics I brought.

But suppose that my music gets stolen (someone steals my hard disk with all my music on) and the thief uploads all my music. Do I still own that music, or is it now ok for everyone to copy and distribute that music?

[kiba]

But suppose that my music gets stolen (someone steals my hard disk with all my music on) and the thief uploads all my music. Do I still own that music, or is it now ok for everyone to copy and distribute that music?

You can just download the music and viola! You have your musics.

You lost out on potential profit though.(Not to mention that he stolen your harddrive)

[Anonymous]

I information is always owned (i.e. someone's property), how come there should be no property rights for information?

There is. You just don't own the musics I brought.

But suppose that my music gets stolen (someone steals my hard disk with all my music on) and the thief uploads all my music. Do I still own that music, or is it now ok for everyone to copy and distribute that music?

The music is only a template for the medium which it is written. The ownership of the medium supersedes its form and its supposed ownership.

[Anonymous]

In addition, let's say Jane writes a book. Bob borrows the book from Jane in a formal agreement that nobody else must see it. Bob loses the book and John reads it and spreads it everywhere. Bob broke the contract; however, whatever John does is free game. He has no knowledge of said agreement and as far as he is concerned and the mediums which the book is written should remain in the hands of the medium holders.

I believe in copyright but only in a contract-basis. Hence, the contracts can be broken.

[onarchy]

This is getting pretty twisted.

I can't think of anywhere else on the planet that will throw you in prison or shoot you for having an unlicensed copy of Windows. I'm disturbed that anybody would create such a place.

The whole question boils down to this: should it be a right to have your WORK protected by property rights? Because what you find so twisted is that all the people who work at Microsoft actually should get PAID for the work they do by the people who USE their work. Basically it is just a rationalization of theft. All people have a strong desire to be a GOOD person. Therefore a criminal has a very strong incentive to justify his violations of other people, so that he can hide behind a veil of good conscience that he is the good guy and his victims the bad guys. We see it with rapists ("she wanted it, she got what she deserved"), we see it with thieves ("all people are thieves, I'm just taking back my rightful share of the loot"), murderers do it ("he was lowly animal, he deserved to die") and the same is true with all violators. Even Hitler viewed himself as one of the most moral people to ever have walked the Earth. Anti-IP arguments are basically designed to justify parasiting on creators, and are very often heartfully embraced by people who like to download stuff without paying for them. The morality of information Marxism allows them to do it, not only with a clear conscience, but to view anyone who defends the victims as "pretty twisted."

Or are you denying that someone at Microsoft made something that was of value to the unlicensed user? If it was not of value, why did he acquire a copy? What do you normally do with things that are of value to you that someone else has labored hard to create? You BUY it. Obviously the people at Microsoft do all this hard work in order to get PAID for their work, and by deliberately NOT paying for a copy of Windows despite their explicit intention that you should pay for their work, you are exploiting the fruits of their labor against their will without paying. Any remotely decent human being understands that this is parasitism, and it is NOT "pretty twisted" to defend a creator's right to make money from his own creation by restriction distribution rights.

[PLATO]

Creighto - If I download your movie, it doesn't economically hurt you directly. However, if I code a new CPU miner that automagically gets 1GH/s on my Pentium, and someone steals and releases the source code, many people would use it, and I would get fewer bitcoins from my invention. Shouldn't the robber be punished, if possible?

[Anonymous]

John creates a wheel out of wood. I like John's wheel. After viewing it, I decide to make my own.With MY wood, MY labor and MY tools I create an identical wheel. Have I really stolen anything from John?

[error]

Don't put words in my mouth. I paid for my copy of Windows. (I regret it now, but that's another story.)

[kiba]

The whole question boils down to this: should it be a right to have your WORK protected by property rights? Because what you find so twisted is that all the people who work at Microsoft actually should get PAID for the work they do by the people who USE their work. Basically it is just a rationalization of theft. All people have a strong desire to be a GOOD person. Therefore a criminal has a very strong incentive to justify his violations of other people, so that he can hide behind a veil of good conscience that he is the good guy and his victims the bad guys. We see it with rapists ("she wanted it, she got what she deserved"), we see it with thieves ("all people are thieves, I'm just taking back my rightful share of the loot"), murderers do it ("he was lowly animal, he deserved to die") and the same is true with all violators. Even Hitler viewed himself as one of the most moral people to ever have walked the Earth. Anti-IP arguments are basically designed to justify parasiting on creators, and are very often heartfully embraced by people who like to download stuff without paying for them. The morality of information Marxism allows them to do it, not only with a clear conscience, but to view anyone who defends the victims as "pretty twisted."

I have ads revenues and I earned bitcoin for my work. That's good enough justification for me. I don't need somebody to tell me that I can't make a living without copyright.

Go die in the marketplace.

[Anonymous]

This is getting pretty twisted.

I can't think of anywhere else on the planet that will throw you in prison or shoot you for having an unlicensed copy of Windows. I'm disturbed that anybody would create such a place.

Obviously the people at Microsoft do all this hard work in order to get PAID for their work, and by deliberately NOT paying for a copy of Windows despite their explicit intention that you should pay for their work, you are exploiting the fruits of their labor against their will without paying.

John Doe can run all day on a treadmill all in the intention of making a few hundred bucks. Frankly, I couldn't care less if he thinks his sweat-infused breathes are worth all the money in the world. I am not paying.

Welcome to the free-market, bud.

[onarchy]

But suppose that my music gets stolen (someone steals my hard disk with all my music on) and the thief uploads all my music. Do I still own that music, or is it now ok for everyone to copy and distribute that music?

You can just download the music and viola! You have your musics.

You lost out on potential profit though.(Not to mention that he stolen your harddrive)

So in other words, you use the term "own" in a completely empty manner. To own information means to be able to control it. If you cannot legally use force to control your ownership of information then you don't own it. What you are describing is ownership of your hard drive, not the information on that hard drive. When you say that you "own" the music you're really saying that you are allowed to freely reconfigure the content of your hard drive, but that's it. But that's not INFORMATION rights. Information rights cannot be reduced to local physical rights. Information rights imply GLOBAL rights. Example: in a sane world YOU own the information content of your face. This means that people cannot make forgeries of your face and place you in realistic gay porn or depict you as a baby raper or mass murderer without your consent. THAT'S what information ownership means, not that you are allowed to download a copy of your false baby raping and put it on your hard drive.

[onarchy]

John creates a wheel out of wood. I like John's wheel. After viewing it, I decide to make my own.With MY wood, MY labor and MY tools I create an identical wheel. Have I really stolen anything from John?

If no-one had ever invented a wheel before and it therefore was a unique invention that is of immense economic value and John spent 10 years of his very finite life thinking about a way to improve transportation efficiency, then yes, you have really stolen something from John, something you would have been unable to make on your own without the input from John.

[Anonymous]

But suppose that my music gets stolen (someone steals my hard disk with all my music on) and the thief uploads all my music. Do I still own that music, or is it now ok for everyone to copy and distribute that music?

You can just download the music and viola! You have your musics.

You lost out on potential profit though.(Not to mention that he stolen your harddrive)

So in other words, you use the term "own" in a completely empty manner. To own information means to be able to control it. If you cannot legally use force to control your ownership of information then you don't own it. What you are describing is ownership of your hard drive, not the information on that hard drive. When you say that you "own" the music you're really saying that you are allowed to freely reconfigure the content of your hard drive, but that's it. But that's not INFORMATION rights. Information rights cannot be reduced to local physical rights. Information rights imply GLOBAL rights. Example: in a sane world YOU own the information content of your face. This means that people cannot make forgeries of your face and place you in realistic gay porn or depict you as a baby raper or mass murderer without your consent. THAT'S what information ownership means, not that you are allowed to download a copy of your false baby raping and put it on your hard drive.

There's no such thing as your "sane world" except in your own perception. It simply doesn't exist objectively. Good luck getting that by me. Frankly, if someone pastes my face in a rape scene, it's their energy. There's nothing I can do about it. If people take it as a defamation of my character, it's their loss. They are only denying themselves a perfectly fine individual.

Learn your idea of reality is completely subjective and not everybody is going to agree that the shape of their feces is worth something.

[error]

John creates a wheel out of wood. I like John's wheel. After viewing it, I decide to make my own.With MY wood, MY labor and MY tools I create an identical wheel. Have I really stolen anything from John?

If no-one had ever invented a wheel before and it therefore was a unique invention that is of immense economic value and John spent 10 years of his very finite life thinking about a way to improve transportation efficiency, then yes, you have really stolen something from John, something you would have been unable to make on your own without the input from John.

Ah, so you're going to have patent prisons, too. Sounds nice!

[kiba]

If no-one had ever invented a wheel before and it therefore was a unique invention that is of immense economic value and John spent 10 years of his very finite life thinking about a way to improve transportation efficiency, then yes, you have really stolen something from John, something you would have been unable to make on your own without the input from John.

Nobody cares about the physical or mental work he put in. The only question is: will he make money or will he not?

[Anonymous]

John creates a wheel out of wood. I like John's wheel. After viewing it, I decide to make my own.With MY wood, MY labor and MY tools I create an identical wheel. Have I really stolen anything from John?

If no-one had ever invented a wheel before and it therefore was a unique invention that is of immense economic value and John spent 10 years of his very finite life thinking about a way to improve transportation efficiency, then yes, you have really stolen something from John, something you would have been unable to make on your own without the input from John.

What if John spends nearly an eternity learning to take the most efficient shit and I do it in a second? I'm a parasite?

Also, without the input from John? Let's say I've never seen John in my life and I make the wheel. Am I still a thief in your view?

[NghtRppr]

The whole question boils down to this: should it be a right to have your WORK protected by property rights? Because what you find so twisted is that all the people who work at Microsoft actually should get PAID for the work they do by the people who USE their work. Basically it is just a rationalization of theft.

I'm a software developer. I've made over a million dollars in the last three years by selling my software online. When I originally started to question the legitimacy of intellectual property, I was biased in favor of it. I was wishful in thinking that a case could be made for it. Unfortunately, I couldn't accomplish that. I had to follow reason wherever it took me and the conclusion was, intellectual property is partial theft of tangible property. If I own a piece of paper, I get to control it, that's what ownership is. To make a claim against what I can or cannot do with my piece of paper is to assert partial ownership over it, which is theft. I do have an incentive to maximize my profits, i.e. I wish intellectual property was legitimate, but not at the cost of sacrificing my ethics. Maybe now you can drop the ad hominems against intellectual property opponents by insinuating that we are all thieves trying to justify our actions, as if that somehow affected to truth of our arguments.

[Anonymous]

You have yet to convince me that IP law is just another way for the state to limit how I can manipulate MY matter and MY energy due to some supposed subjective sacredity placed around the ideas of others. There is no strong basis for this.

[kiba]

You have yet to convince me that IP law is just another way for the state to limit how I can manipulate MY matter and MY energy due to some supposed subjective sacredity placed around the ideas of others. There is no strong basis for this.

Sometime, you're just right.