Free speech is free data; free data is free speech.

[BrightAnarchist]

It had to be said.

F*ck SOPA

[1713890883]

1713890883

[1713890883]

1713890883

[1713890883]

1713890883

[1713890883]

1713890883

[1713890883]

1713890883

[SgtSpike]

But stealing data that the author didn't intend you to have isn't free speech.

I don't agree with SOPA, but piracy is stupid too.

[FredericBastiat]

But stealing data that the author didn't intend you to have isn't free speech.

I don't agree with SOPA, but piracy is stupid too.

You can't steal data, you can only steal physical things. If I have a pattern or composition of matter that matches yours that's on my property, are you going to violate my property? Remember you still have your pattern and/or composition contained on your property. You're abusing the definition of piracy. You know, the kind where you're on the high seas, stealing gold, food, starting wars, etc.

Free speech is free speech, or it isn't free speech. We've been down this road before. You want a monopoly on certain types of speech. Let the flame war begin.

Let it be known however, that while you may have the law on your side, I have consistency of logic.

Bring it.

[kokjo]

im with FredericBastiat, piracy should be legal.
and IP should not be allowed or enforced.

[westkybitcoins]

im with FredericBastiat, piracy should be legal.
and IP should not be allowed or enforced.

That's the only logical, consistent position.

Either your property rights are absolute, and only physical things can be property; or the concept of property is rightly arbitrary and subject to bureaucratic whims. I think it can be shown that any situation that doesn't fall into the former case falls into the latter.

[P4man]

I will agree piracy is not the same as theft; I think anyone here will agree sopa is a horrible idea. But that doesnt mean its even a remotely sane idea to abolish intellectual property all together.

[kokjo]

I will agree piracy is not the same as theft; I think anyone here will agree sopa is a horrible idea. But that doesnt mean its even a remotely sane idea to abolish intellectual property all together.

why not?
its an absurd thing to have ownership of an idea, and actually to think of an idea as your property.

if you want to have ownership of idea/music/copiable KEEP IT TO YOURSELF IN YOUR HEAD.

[P4man]

if you want to have ownership of idea/music/copiable KEEP IT TO YOURSELF IN YOUR HEAD.

So, you think, for instance writers should all get a day job and write books for free as a gift to society?
The same for patent laws; for sure they are widely abused now and something should be done about that, but the basic concept that you can protect what is potentially a life long investment in to some invention makes perfect sense to me. Who is going to spend billions developing new drugs if they cant be patented? The government?

[FredericBastiat]

if you want to have ownership of idea/music/copiable KEEP IT TO YOURSELF IN YOUR HEAD.

So, you think, for instance writers should all get a day job and write books for free as a gift to society?
The same for patent laws; for sure they are widely abused now and something should be done about that, but the basic concept that you can protect what is potentially a life long investment in to some invention makes perfect sense to me. Who is going to spend billions developing new drugs if they cant be patented? The government?

Where did anybody get their ideas from? Everything you've ever learned or used, you gained from others or from the observation of physical deterministic matter present in nature. Every thing you've ever done has, and will always be, a derivative of the raw materials others used before you. Do they own you too because they composed it first? If that's the case, then whoever was the first proto-man capable of putting two thoughts together could subjugte the entire world to his whims because he was first to think it. Imagine...

Let me ask you this. If I spent a billion dollars engineering and developing artistic manure hills, should I force you to compensate me for my effort? You're talking price not principle. That will take you nowhere fast.

You can't have private property and not have private property at the same time. Physical property and Intellectual property are two incompatible concepts. Mere compositional similarity and mimicry is not theft. If you want to create some type of psuedo intellectual property equivalent, you would need to contract for it. Neither can you legally force a specific type of contract either, as that would violate the concept of mutual consent.

Let freedom reign. Pretty please???

[SgtSpike]

if you want to have ownership of idea/music/copiable KEEP IT TO YOURSELF IN YOUR HEAD.

So, you think, for instance writers should all get a day job and write books for free as a gift to society?
The same for patent laws; for sure they are widely abused now and something should be done about that, but the basic concept that you can protect what is potentially a life long investment in to some invention makes perfect sense to me. Who is going to spend billions developing new drugs if they cant be patented? The government?

Exactly this.  Without protection for people who create IP, there will be no "good" IP.  Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.  Movies produced on a shoestring budget (because no one pays for IP anymore) will look like movies produced on a shoestring budget.  No pharmaceutical companies will spend money on drug research, because the moment their "formula" was released into the wild, anyone could make it, and they'd effectively lose however many hundreds of millions spent on researching the drugs.  No companies will innovate with new products, because their competitors could simply steal the design and sell it for less.

If your goal is to kill all innovation and creative works on the planet, except that which is created in someone's garage or as their hobby, then sure, go ahead and abolish protection of IP.

[P4man]

Let me ask you this. If I spent a billion dollars engineering and developing artistic manure hills, should I force you to compensate me for my effort?

Force me? no of course not. Whats that got to do with anything?
now you answer my question; who will be willing to invest billions of $'s on R&D to develop new medicine if anyone can just copy the formula after you've found some new miracle drug ?

[FredericBastiat]

Let me ask you this. If I spent a billion dollars engineering and developing artistic manure hills, should I force you to compensate me for my effort?

Force me? no of course not. Whats that got to do with anything?
now you answer my question; who will be willing to invest billions of $'s on R&D to develop new medicine if anyone can just copy the formula after you've found some new miracle drug ?

Why should I respond to a non-sequitur? You're not talking principle you're talking price. It's not the same.

EDIT: Do you respect private property?

[P4man]

No it is a principle. Some work benefits society but requires a large investment. If there is no way to recover the investment because you dont own a damn thing after having successfully invested, and everyone can copy your work and reap the benefits,  those investments wont happen. How is that good for society?

Either you solve this with IP, or you let a government do the investment and publish the results free of IP. I dont see a third way.

[Dan The Man]

Easy, everyone who benefits directly pays the R&D costs up front, kind of like how artists were patronized historically, except instead of one king backing an artist, all of their fans would. If you don't feel like patronizing an artist then don't, but then maybe they stop making that music that you like... same for medicines etc. If there is nobody willing to fund the research, then it doesn't get done. If that makes society as a whole poorer, then there is an automatic incentive for society to improve.

[FredericBastiat]

No it is a principle. Some work benefits society but requires a large investment. If there is no way to recover the investment because you dont own a damn thing after having successfully invested, and everyone can copy your work and reap the benefits,  those investments wont happen. How is that good for society?

Either you solve this with IP, or you let a government do the investment and publish the results free of IP. I dont see a third way.

Am I obligated to work for, or benefit society? Am I obligated or responsible to others for their risk taking? And since when is government ever needed for assisting private investment? The government in that capacity is no different than a den of thieves. Do you believe in freedom of competition? Do you believe in a market of free people?

You've probably never conceived of what real freedom is really about, so you fall back on your government to do your thinking and living for you.

[P4man]

If you cant read, I cant help.  Welcome to my ignore list.

[SgtSpike]

Let me ask you this. If I spent a billion dollars engineering and developing artistic manure hills, should I force you to compensate me for my effort?

Force me? no of course not. Whats that got to do with anything?
now you answer my question; who will be willing to invest billions of $'s on R&D to develop new medicine if anyone can just copy the formula after you've found some new miracle drug ?

Why should I respond to a non-sequitur? You're not talking principle you're talking price. It's not the same.

EDIT: Do you respect private property?

Seriously?

Do you have no clue of how businesses work?

If I am big pharma, and I want to research a new cure for cancer, then I do some cost-benefit analysis.  Something like this:

Cost to research:  $100M
Probability of coming up with a drug that works:  10%
Potential sale price per dose:  $1000
Potential total sales:  $1.5B

Risk-inclusive profit (loss).
$1.5B x (10%) - $100M = $50M

Now, if anyone else can copy the formula once the research is completed, then big pharma has to sell their drug for less to remain competitive.  Suddenly, the equation starts looking like this:

Potential sale price per dose:  $25
Potential total sales:  $37.5M

Risk-inclusive profit (loss).
$37.5M x (10%) - $100M = ($96.25M)

Suddenly, no one wants to do pharmaceutical research because it's going to lose them money, every time.

So who does research for new drugs if there is no profit to be made?  Taxpayers?  Or do you have something else in mind?

[SgtSpike]

Easy, everyone who benefits directly pays the R&D costs up front, kind of like how artists were patronized historically, except instead of one king backing an artist, all of their fans would. If you don't feel like patronizing an artist then don't, but then maybe they stop making that music that you like... same for medicines etc. If there is nobody willing to fund the research, then it doesn't get done. If that makes society as a whole poorer, then there is an automatic incentive for society to improve.

Kind of like how there are various campaigns to bring in donations towards cancer research?

Ok, I get it.  But it won't bring in enough money to pay for the current level of research being done.  Case in point - just look at some of the drugs with higher prices.  Some pills that people take cost $100/dose, and they have to take them daily.  It doesn't cost $100 to produce the pill, but that is simply the price to help recover the cost of the research that went along with it.  Therefore, if the research hadn't already been done, and everyone who is currently taking the pill instead had the option to donate $100/day towards research, I doubt the research would ever get done.  Is someone with some uncurable disease going to donate $3,000/month to an organization doing research for their problem, when there is no guarantee of a successful solution?  I seriously doubt it.  But, they'll probably be much more willing to pay for a for-sure solution that they can benefit from immediately.

Sorry, but the potential for corporate profits is still the best way to motivate teams of people into spending hundreds of millions of dollars on drug research.  Even people with life-threatening diseases will likely find better use of their money than sending it to a research agency that may or may not have a solution for them 10 years down the road.

[FredericBastiat]

Seriously?

Do you have no clue of how businesses work?

If I am big pharma, and I want to research a new cure for cancer, then I do some cost-benefit analysis.  Something like this:

Cost to research:  $100M
Probability of coming up with a drug that works:  10%
Potential sale price per dose:  $1000
Potential total sales:  $1.5B

Risk-inclusive profit (loss).
$1.5B x (10%) - $100M = $50M

Now, if anyone else can copy the formula once the research is completed, then big pharma has to sell their drug for less to remain competitive.  Suddenly, the equation starts looking like this:

Potential sale price per dose:  $25
Potential total sales:  $37.5M

Risk-inclusive profit (loss).
$37.5M x (10%) - $100M = ($96.25M)

Suddenly, no one wants to do pharmaceutical research because it's going to lose them money, every time.

So who does research for new drugs if there is no profit to be made?  Taxpayers?  Or do you have something else in mind?

Yes, of course I'm serious. I don't care if you make a profit or not. It isn't my business. It isn't my risk. It isn't my stuff. I'm not interested in getting involved in your bureaucracy. Leave me out of it. I'll do my stuff, you do yours. However, if I like what you do, I might compete with you in the market. I may very closely emulate what you do. That's what competition does: emulate, simulate, mimic, copy, and innovate etc. All of those things. It's my stuff, and I should be able to make it do and appear exactly how I want.

Your example is tainted. You don't have a free market, so I don't know if those numbers actually mean anything. For all I know it might cost $100 dollars to make drugs. Who cares? Again, stick to the principles. If your principle logically violates another principle, maybe you should be more introspective.

[SgtSpike]

Yes, of course I'm serious. I don't care if you make a profit or not. It isn't my business. It isn't my risk. It isn't my stuff. I'm not interested in getting involved in your bureaucracy. Leave me out of it. I'll do my stuff, you do yours. However, if I like what you do, I might compete with you in the market. I may very closely emulate what you do. That's what competition does: emulate, simulate, mimic, copy, and innovate etc. All of those things. It's my stuff, and I should be able to make it do and appear exactly how I want.

Your example is tainted. You don't have a free market, so I don't know if those numbers actually mean anything. For all I know it might cost $100 dollars to make drugs. Who cares? Again, stick to the principles. If your principle logically violates another principle, maybe you should be more introspective.

If you're ok with no new drugs being developed, well, I can't argue against that.  Me, I rather like corporations spending billions of dollars on research so I can live healthier and longer.