Read this before having an opinion on economics

[da2ce7]

That "debunk" is redundant. You assume intellect cannot be a property so that to copy without consent does not consist in theft. To debunk it, you need to start from the assumption that it consist in property and prove that at some point it contradicts itself or makes no sense. In this case your attempt fails, since you have to assume it stands as a property, in which case the copy is theft, which is aggression.

There is no 'aggression' in copying, as it is independent of the primary party (the author).  No interaction between the 'author' and the 'copier' needs to occur.  If no interaction, no violence can have taken place.

[goatpig]

Yes. Why not? If you steal my bicycle, I can't use it anymore. If I steal your idea, you can still use the idea. Only one of us can use the same oven to bake a cake but an infinite number of people can use the same cake recipe.

If i write a book, I spend time, effort and resources on this process. I need to recoup those expenses + profit. If you copy the book, I get no return on investment. If you copy the book and sell it for profit, I can't compete against your price, because you didn't participate in the original expenses so you can reduce your margins. Think about it with a movie. Lots of money spent on it, jobs to pay, places to book, stories to write, film to edit and god knows what else. If you take it for free, I am losing money in the process, and I certainly didn't make that movie to lose money. If you steal my movie, I can't pay for food or rent anymore, how's that?

There is no 'aggression' in copying, as it is independent of the primary party (the author).  No interaction between the 'author' and the 'copier' needs to occur.  If no interaction, no violence can have taken place.

A good thief usually makes sure no interactions will ever occur between you and him. He's only after your property after all. You are confusing physical violence with the concept of violence, which is to take actions with consequences to external parties with no care for such parties' stance on the matter. And once again, you take the point of view of the aggressor. You are taking something from me while you refuse to aknowledge it as something that can be taken. You need to look at it from the author's stand point. If you think you aren't taking something from me you are profoundly wrong.

But let's discuss the fundamentals: do you think intellect can consist in property?

[Grinder]

Maybe I am delusional, brainwashed or simply mistaken but asserting that it is the case won't convince me of it. You'll have to dig deeper.

Unfortunately that would most likely be as useless as trying to change the mind of a communist or a deeply religious person.

[Gluskab]

Property requires exclusion.

[Gluskab]

Economics is 99% common sense applied rigorously.

However, just because it is not complicated, does not mean it cannot be hard.

[malditonuke]

Economics is 99% common sense applied rigorously.

However, just because it is not complicated, does not mean it cannot be hard.

Economics is no more common sense than math is, and probably even less so.

[Gluskab]

Economics is 99% common sense applied rigorously.

However, just because it is not complicated, does not mean it cannot be hard.

Economics is no more common sense than math is, and probably even less so.

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.

Just because it is not complicated, does not mean it is not hard.  However, most of the 'hardness' comes from having to undo all the mental gymnastics that you're put through to explain why, all of a sudden, the opposite of core economic principles apply in this special case.

[Grinder]

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)

Higher production volume often results in lower price (as you mention in your next argument...)

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).

Unless for instance the higher production volume creates a strain on neccessary resources.

[NghtRppr]

Unfortunately that would most likely be as useless as trying to change the mind of a communist or a deeply religious person.

Yawn. So be it but don't blame me for your intellectual laziness. You aren't even trying to make an argument. You're just presenting your conclusions as fact and hurling thinly veiled insults.

If i write a book, I spend time, effort and resources on this process. I need to recoup those expenses + profit.

That's not my problem any more than if you were to invest in a business based on a dying market. So you started a buggy whip company and now you need to recoup those expenses plus make some profit. Good luck with that. I guess you want to enforce that with guns too?

[Gluskab]

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)

Higher production volume often results in lower price (as you mention in your next argument...)

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).

Unless for instance the higher production volume creates a strain on neccessary resources.

When I said 'relative,' I meant to imply all other things being equal as opposed to implying an 'absolute' outcome if that happens.  If the word 'relative' did not suffice for that, I apologize.

[rezin777]

That's not my problem any more than if you were to invest in a business based on a dying market. So you started a buggy whip company and now you need to recoup those expenses plus make some profit. Good luck with that. I guess you want to enforce that with guns too?

I don't see anywhere that he mentioned using force to recoup his expenses and profit. His point was that he can't profit from his creation if you steal it and give it away. Amazing how you turn that around to him using force. 

Also, comparing losses due to theft of a product to an unmarketable product doesn't make any sense.

[Gluskab]

That's not my problem any more than if you were to invest in a business based on a dying market. So you started a buggy whip company and now you need to recoup those expenses plus make some profit. Good luck with that. I guess you want to enforce that with guns too?

I don't see anywhere that he mentioned using force to recoup his expenses and profit. His point was that he can't profit from his creation if you steal it and give it away. Amazing how you turn that around to him using force. 

Also, comparing losses due to theft of a product to an unmarketable product doesn't make any sense.

You cannot steal anything you cannot exclude.

[rezin777]

Intellectual property laws are incompatible with Libertarianism.

But property laws are OK?

I just came up with a design for a machine that can save everyone time and money. I draw up the plans. You take a picture of the plans with a telescopic lens. You build the machine, sell it and profit. This is OK?

I build the machine and as I'm about to sell it at the market, you take it when I turn my back. You sell the machine and profit. This isn't OK?

So... what is the difference? In both cases you are hurting my ability to profit from my creation.

[rezin777]

You cannot steal anything you cannot exclude.

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

[NghtRppr]

I don't see anywhere that he mentioned using force to recoup his expenses and profit.

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

Also, comparing losses due to theft of a product to an unmarketable product doesn't make any sense.

That's begging the question. We haven't established that it is or isn't theft. I claim it isn't. In any case, even the courts don't consider copyright infringement to be theft.

Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.

I just came up with a design for a machine that can save everyone time and money. I draw up the plans. You take a picture of the plans with a telescopic lens. You build the machine, sell it and profit. This is OK?

I build the machine and as I'm about to sell it at the market, you take it when I turn my back. You sell the machine and profit. This isn't OK?

So... what is the difference? In both cases you are hurting my ability to profit from my creation.

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.

If you can't understand the difference between making an exact duplicate of X and stealing X then I really don't know what to say. I think even children understand that.

[rezin777]

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

It's OK to enforce property laws?

Maybe you'd like to outlaw competition? Some people do.

I never said anything of the sort. Is it necessary to put words in my mouth?

If you can't understand the difference between making an exact duplicate of X and stealing X then I really don't know what to say. I think even children understand that.

You would not have been able to "make an exact duplicate" without the original or the plans. Are you against copyright laws as well? Thanks for comparing me to a child though. It's always a nice addition to any discussion.

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

I'm really torn on this. I'm more on the libertarian side but I just don't see the motivation to write a book / make a movie / program if I know that everyone is going to bittorent my file and I'll actually lose money writing it. Not saying that should stop me from making it or the end result would justify IP laws or not. I'm just saying I wouldn't want to go in to a project knowing I'll lose money due to copying.

As it stands now you can still make a movie and profit. If copying / pirating or whatever you want to call it was 100% legal I'd imagine more people would do it.
I can't see people making movies at a loss. The same with programs and books etc.

I live in a country where it's basically legal to buy a copied book.
People pay $4usd for a copied book when it's $4.50 for an original.
It's not even actually legal just not enforced, if it were completely legal it would be more widespread.
We had a libertarian type group publish a book talking about a whole bunch of good stuff publish a small book.
Tons of good stuff and the $1 they charged went to pay for the book / raise funds for the cause.
People found out they could copy it for $.85 and the cause lost money on the books and died  

Eh I guess I just see both sides of it and realize there's no happy medium and that pisses me off.

[kiba]

You would not have been able to "make an exact duplicate" without the original or the plans. Are you against copyright laws as well? Thanks for comparing me to a child though. It's always a nice addition to any discussion.

Hmm? Copyright and patents are unnecessary for making a living. How do I know that? I run bitcoinweekly.com.

[NghtRppr]

It's OK to enforce property laws?

Yes. If you disagree, please tell me where you live and I'll be by with a truck, ASAP.

I never said anything of the sort.

It was a question. That's not putting words in your mouth.

You would not have been able to "make an exact duplicate" without the original or the plans. Are you against copyright laws as well?

I'm against all forms of intellectual property laws.

[Jered Kenna (TradeHill)]

Hmm? Copyright and patents are unnecessary for making a living. How do I know that? I run bitcoinweekly.com.

Unnecessary for making a living in some industries. I'd say almost necessary for others.
Honestly I'd be fine with them all going away, I just don't see how it wouldn't kill certain industries though.
You have to admit neither side is perfect.