Read this before having an opinion on economics

[NghtRppr]

Great works of art existed long before copyrights. There are ways to make money while giving away content. Just ask Google or the developers of "Angry Birds".

[Gluskab]

You cannot steal anything you cannot exclude.

So if you can't stop me from taking something, it wasn't yours to begin with?

Every person and business has costs of exclusion.

This argument is mostly moot anyways as the internet has effectively removed any effective means of enforceable copyright.  Those who adapt will prosper, those who fight the change will stagnate and die.

[rezin777]

OK b2c, basically you think that intellectual property shouldn't exist and property should. Interesting considering the concept of property has to come from the mind of a human.

[Gluskab]

OK b2c, basically you think that intellectual property shouldn't exist and property should. Interesting considering the concept of property has to come from the mind of a human.

But the concept of property is not property.

[goatpig]

How do you think intellectual property laws are enforced? Harsh language?

How could I possibly enforce them? You people don't acknowledge that the fruit of my mind is my property and are going to take away from me my ability to make a profit with my brains, so be it. I can't rise against a mass of thieves, nor do I need to. As long as I have nothing to steal, I'll be fine.

There are ways to make money while giving away content

There is a fine line between "voluntary" charity and "mandatory" charity, which is technically slavery, and there is but one way to put an end to slavery, to refuse to produce. You like libertarianism, so you should understand that the absence of rules certainly doesn't imply the absence of rights. If you do not wish to recognize the right I have to my intellect, I just have no incentive to produce anything that you can use, and hide whatever it is that i need to come up with anyways.

Your stand point implies that the fruit of the mind does not belong to the bearer, as such you are effectively rendering professions such as mathematician, physicist, philosopher, economist or doctor unprofitable. Looking back at the early years of USSR much? Where wealth was considered to only possibly be labor, that intellect belonged to the people and that scientists were put to death for stealing it from the masses?

What about if I make a better machine than yours? I'm also hurting your ability to profit. Is that OK? Did the the automobile industry damage the horse and buggy industry? You betcha'. I don't see the problem. Maybe you want to outlaw competition? Some people do.

You make no sense. There is a clear difference between besting me in a race and letting me run the race alone, walking to the charter, erasing my name, putting yours where mine used to be, and cashing my prize.

Intellect is the one most valuable resource known to mankind, no wonder people want to take it away for free.

Anyways, the problem is quite easy to fix. You don't pay, I don't think, and I'll be asking for front payments.

But the concept of property is not property.

Spare us the riddle and expose your point.

those who fight the change will stagnate and die

I wonder. When it takes on average 10 billion dollars to develop an anti cancer drug, I'm pretty sure that stubborn medical researcher that can't give up his evil demand for funds is going to take you guys down in the crapper with himself.

[NghtRppr]

There is a fine line between "voluntary" charity and "mandatory" charity, which is technically slavery, and there is but one way to put an end to slavery, to refuse to produce.

It's not charity because I'm not taking any property from you. I'm depriving you of the ability to profit, a right which you were never guaranteed in the first place.

Your stand point implies that the fruit of the mind does not belong to the bearer, as such you are effectively rendering professions such as mathematician, physicist, philosopher, economist or doctor unprofitable.

argumentum ad consequentiam

[goatpig]

It's not charity because I'm not taking any property from you. I'm depriving you of the ability to profit, a right which you were never guaranteed in the first place.

You choose to not regard it as property, which allows you rationalize taking it from me without my consent, kinda like religious people with their loonie book, ya know. Nevertheless, it needs not be property for it to be charity. Last time I checked labor can be given (read taken) for free, and thinking is a form of labor, unless you're going to step that far in your delusion...

As for the ability to profit, it can't be my right if you are not willing to recognize it as such. There are no guaranteed rights. Which will naturally drive people to stop trying to make a profit off of such practices (read they gonna stop doing it altogether, instead of giving it up for free like you're expecting them to)

[NghtRppr]

You choose to not regard it as property, which allows you rationalize taking it from me without my consent, kinda like religious people with their loonie book, ya know.

That's an ad hominem. I'm either right or wrong based on the merits of my arguments, not on my motivation for putting them forth. However, just so you know, I've made over a million dollars as a computer programmer selling software directly to customers. I've sold over 100,000 copies of a certain piece of software. Piracy has always been a concern for me. I was a Libertarian long before I even considered intellectual property laws. I went into the debate wanting to find support for them, biased as I was. However, I had to be intellectually honest with myself and admit that intellectual property laws are incompatible with Libertarianism. Being that as it may, I abandoned my support of the former rather than the latter, even if it means giving up all those juicy profits.

Nevertheless, it needs not be property for it to be charity. Last time I checked labor can be given (read taken) for free, and thinking is a form of labor, unless you're going to step that far in your delusion...

The property in question is your body, which you own. Slavery is just stealing ownership of it from you.

[goatpig]

That's an ad hominem. I'm either right or wrong based on the merits of my arguments, not on my motivation for putting them forth. However, just so you know, I've made over a million dollars as a computer programmer selling software directly to customers. I've sold over 100,000 copies of a certain piece of software. Piracy has always been a concern for me. I was a Libertarian long before I even considered intellectual property laws. I went into the debate wanting to find support for them, biased as I was. However, I had to be intellectually honest with myself and admit that intellectual property laws are incompatible with Libertarianism. Being that as it may, I abandoned my support of the former rather than the latter, even if it means giving up all those juicy profits.

That's your choice, not mine, and I have clearly stated that I don't intent to let you take what I create for free. Are you still going to try and take it? You do understand the aggression comes from you in that case. Being a "libertarian" as you pretend, you ought to be respecting my wish to not be involved with you, don't you? Or how do you explain the breaking and entering to "rightfully acquire" the blue print of my gizmo?

It is not ad hominem since you are trying to discuss the nature of actions I perform, and the principles of ownership (of my body and mind) says that I set the premise. As such your arguments only have merit based upon the set premise of this discussion.

The property in question is your body, which you own. Slavery is just stealing ownership of it from you.

Where are you going with this exactly? That the muscle is off limit but the brain isn't? Last time I checked it's part of my body.

[NghtRppr]

Or how do you explain the breaking and entering to "rightfully acquire" the blue print of my gizmo?

You're mistaken. I never advocated that. You have the right to keep whatever you like on your private property and I won't make any illegitimate attempts to obtain it. However, the minute you release it to the public, all bets are off.

Where are you going with this exactly? That the muscle is off limit but the brain isn't? Last time I checked it's part of my body.

Forcing you to do labor or depriving you of the fruits of it, when it is tangible, is depriving you of something. If I copy your idea, you still get to keep the idea and use it yourself. Like I said, you are only being deprived of the ability to profit, which isn't a right that I recognize.

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

I imagine a lot of people losing motivation to create new products if they can't copyright and patent them.
Obviously it hasn't happen so we can't be for sure.

What inspires people to create new products in this world where they can't hold on to their IP?
I'm talking about business and profit minded individuals not products that are designed to make the world a better place / non profit art etc.
I'm saying would we have a "microsoft windows" etc, (maybe we'd be better without in this case).

[goatpig]

You're mistaken. I never advocated that. You have the right to keep whatever you like on your private property and I won't make any illegitimate attempts to obtain it. However, the minute you release it to the public, all bets are off.

So you're saying if I build some gigantic gizmo on my property and you see it, you won't try to copy it? Cause that's not what you're implying.

you still get to keep the idea and use it yourself

If my intended use was to profit out of it, how am I gonna do that hmm?

which isn't a right that I recognize.

That's part of property rights, you are starting to deny the whole thing now.

I'm talking about business and profit minded individuals not products that are designed to make the world a better place / non profit art etc.

Physics and Medicine are some of the fields that require the most funds to research, how is that research to be financed if there is no profit to be made at the end?

[NghtRppr]

So you're saying if I build some gigantic gizmo on my property and you see it, you won't try to copy it? Cause that's not what you're implying.

If you let photons bounce off your object and those photons leave your property and strike my retinas, again, all bets are off. Keep your photons to yourself if you don't want me making use of the information they carry.

If my intended use was to profit out of it, how am I gonna do that hmm?

Whether or not you can successfully make use of your idea isn't my concern, you're still free to try which is what matters.

That's part of property rights, you are starting to deny the whole thing now.

No, it's not.

[Gluskab]

I imagine a lot of people losing motivation to create new products if they can't copyright and patent them.
Obviously it hasn't happen so we can't be for sure.

What inspires people to create new products in this world where they can't hold on to their IP?
I'm talking about business and profit minded individuals not products that are designed to make the world a better place / non profit art etc.
I'm saying would we have a "microsoft windows" etc, (maybe we'd be better without in this case).

You're right.  There's never been a successful operating system created without a profit motive or copyright.  There's also never been anyone who has tried to make a profit with anything in the public domain or with any ideas they couldn't use the gov't to force others not to copy.

[malditonuke]

Just because it is not complicated, does not mean it is not hard.

Common sense means that such knowledge is held in common.  Are you suggesting that most people understand economics?

1. If lots of people want something, the price goes up relative to what it would be if fewer people wanted said product (and vice-versa)

2. If lots of people have and/or produce something, the price goes down relative to what it would be if fewer people supplied said product (and vice-versa).

3. Incentives matter.

Most everything follows from there (if applied rigorously), and point 3 is the most important point in most cases.

Those three ideas are useful, but I would not say that they equate to an understanding of economics.  What about the subjectivity of value?  The value scale?  Why people save?  The effects of capital accumulation and distribution?   Time preference?  Etc. etc.

[BitterTea]

goatpig:

I recommend reading Stephen Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property, though it will definitely be more persuasive if you are already a libertarian and/or agree with the non-aggression principle.

[goatpig]

If you let photons bounce off your object and those photons leave your property and strike my retinas, again, all bets are off. Keep your photons to yourself if you don't want me making use of the information they carry.

As I thought, you couldn't care less about what I think, as long as you can get your hands on it. I guess since you don't recognize private property you won't either recognize the fundamental concept of violence, only it's tangible consequence.

Whether or not you can successfully make use of your idea isn't my concern, you're still free to try which is what matters.

No, it's not.

Property rights include: the right of exclusion, the right of destruction, the right to transfer ownership and the right to use said property as I see fit, which consist, literally, in profiting from it. You're like telling me "hey see that car? it's yours, but you can't drive it". And anyways, what is this setup? You don't acknowledge my right to profit from my creation because I made it, but you acknowledge yourself the right to profit from it precisely because you had nothing to do with my work to begin with?

though it will definitely be more persuasive if you are already a libertarian and/or agree with the non-aggression principle.

I agree with non aggression. The fact that people think they have a right to strip me of my production because they can't physically touch it and can't recognize aggression when it's in their face is beyond me though.

[NghtRppr]

I guess since you don't recognize private property

I recognize tangible property. I don't recognize imaginary property.

the right to use said property as I see fit

The fallacy is assuming that you are required to be successful in your attempts to use said property. You might have x-ray goggles but if I have lead-lined walls, you will fail in your usage.

[JA37]

Tell me before you abandon IP-law so that I can withdraw all money from medical research. Copying a drug is dead simple but finding a drug that is actually effective takes years of research by highly skilled professionals, not to mention expensive testing and clinical trials.

[MoonShadow]

Tell me before you abandon IP-law so that I can withdraw all money from medical research. Copying a drug is dead simple but finding a drug that is actually effective takes years of research by highly skilled professionals, not to mention expensive testing and clinical trials.

You should probably go ahead and withdraw your investements then, since generics are a well established industry.  And since the only thing that prevents this 'pirate' industry from undercutting the market price of any drug in existance is an international network of government enforced monopolies; should any of these major governments fail and be replaced with anything else, none are likely to be too concerned with enforcement of patent laws for a number of years.