Read this before having an opinion on economics

[NghtRppr]

What do you mean by condone?

Accept and allow. I quoted a previous comment of yours so you would know exactly what I meant by condone.

I own paper. I own a printer. I should be able to do whatever I want with them, including printing out copies of the latest bestseller and hocking them on the street.

You condone copying intangible property.

I think it should be legal, yes, if that's all you mean by condoning. Nobody should use force or coercion to stop me. You're still free to socially stigmatize me. I think cheating on your spouse shouldn't be criminal but it's still immoral and unethical. I hope you understand now.

If you were under any other impression, it was a mistake on your part, one that I've corrected for you.

[1713582770]

1713582770

[1713582770]

1713582770

[rezin777]

Yes, it's theft.  But only because 1) the data is his and he made no attempt to publish it, so by default he intended to keep it; and 2) the wallet.dat file has only one function, and therefore copying it without the owner's consent can have only one motive.  I.E. to spend another person's funds.

I don't think that this is comparable to "intellectual property" because the core point of copyrights and such is to maintain a market advantage over other publishers, not to protect secrets.

So using a telescopic lens to photograph blueprints that I've created, then producing and selling the item for yourself, would be theft as well?

But reverse engineering a product that I've sold and selling the exact same item for less (because you didn't have to invest in the creation), is OK?

Forget the current government / corporation collusion. What if the core point of copyrights was exactly what it implied?  Right to copy.

[BitterTea]

So using a telescopic lens to photograph blueprints that I've created, then producing and selling the item for yourself, would be theft as well?

But reverse engineering a product that I've sold and selling the exact same item for less (because you didn't have to invest in the creation), is OK?

Neither is theft, as neither denies you the use of your property OR idea. It may deny you the ability to profit (as much) from the idea, but that is not the point of property rights.

Forget the current government / corporation collusion. What if the core point of copyrights was exactly what it implied?  Right to copy.

The original idea behind copyright about in the late 1600s as a form of royal censorship. The Stationer's Guild was given exclusive rights to make copies, in exchange for only making copies of approved works. Eventually, their monopoly was revoked and anyone could make copies without penalty. Then, presumably under influence by the guild, the Statute of Anne was passed, giving the exclusive right to copy to the original creator of the work. Luckily for the guild, they still essentially had a de facto monopoly on copying, so most creators transferred ownership as part of their contract.

[MoonShadow]

Yes, it's theft.  But only because 1) the data is his and he made no attempt to publish it, so by default he intended to keep it; and 2) the wallet.dat file has only one function, and therefore copying it without the owner's consent can have only one motive.  I.E. to spend another person's funds.

I don't think that this is comparable to "intellectual property" because the core point of copyrights and such is to maintain a market advantage over other publishers, not to protect secrets.

So using a telescopic lens to photograph blueprints that I've created, then producing and selling the item for yourself, would be theft as well?

Yes.

But reverse engineering a product that I've sold and selling the exact same item for less (because you didn't have to invest in the creation), is OK?

Okay?  I don't know if it's okay.  As a generality, it might be immoral and an unethical business practice; but what if that product was a cure for AIDS but the same company that sold it at an inflated price did so while selling a much cheaper maintaince drug?  I could think of any number of strawmen to burn here, but the point is not whether it's okay to intentionally compete with an inventor by reverse engineering their work.  The point is that it's not ethical to advocate for the use of force to punish said unethical behaviour.  You can take steps to prevent your trade secrets from being stolen, including using force against anyone who tresspasses to that end, but once the cat is out of the bag, use or advocacy of force to punish said person is easily as wrong as the original "crime".  I wouldn't do it, nor would I support anyone that I knew did it, but nor would I support the original inventor if he decided to hire a group of thugs to tear down his competitors' factories.

Forget the current government / corporation collusion. What if the core point of copyrights was exactly what it implied?  Right to copy.

The "right to copy" is not a right, but a privilage, and as such cannot be seperated from the current government/corporate collusion.

[rezin777]

I think it should be legal, yes, if that's all you mean by condoning. Nobody should use force or coercion to stop me. You're still free to socially stigmatize me. I think cheating on your spouse shouldn't be criminal but it's still immoral and unethical. I hope you understand now.

If you were under any other impression, it was a mistake on your part, one that I've corrected for you.

No, I understood what you meant by incompatible with libertarianism, I enjoy discussion and other peoples' point of view. I once considered myself a libertarian.

Let me say that I consider it initiation of force to take property which belongs to someone else and using force to prevent it would be justified.

I've seen the result of intellectual property theft and I don't like it. The market adjusts and less people spend time creating things that are easy to copy, so the quality of those things are diminished.

[NghtRppr]

I've seen the result of intellectual property theft and I don't like it. The market adjusts and less people spend time creating things that are easy to copy, so the quality of those things are diminished.

Can you demonstrate there would be a net loss for society? The burden of proof is on you.

[rezin777]

Okay?  I don't know if it's okay.  As a generality, it might be immoral and an unethical business practice; but what if that product was a cure for AIDS but the same company that sold it at an inflated price did so while selling a much cheaper maintaince drug?  I could think of any number of strawmen to burn here, but the point is not whether it's okay to intentionally compete with an inventor by reverse engineering their work.  The point is that it's not ethical to advocate for the use of force to punish said unethical behaviour.  You can take steps to prevent your trade secrets from being stolen, including using force against anyone who tresspasses to that end, but once the cat is out of the bag, use or advocacy of force to punish said person is easily as wrong as the original "crime".  I wouldn't do it, nor would I support anyone that I knew did it, but nor would I support the original inventor if he decided to hire a group of thugs to tear down his competitors' factories.

The "right to copy" is not a right, but a privilage, and as such cannot be seperated from the current government/corporate collusion.

I guess I meant to ask "is it theft" by is OK.

I see. So using force in the reverse engineering example would be wrong because anyone is free to copy something that has been publicly released, regardless if it is immoral or unethical business practice.

[MoonShadow]

Let me say that I consider it initiation of force to take property which belongs to someone else and using force to prevent it would be justified.

This is true, but what the disconnect here is what defines property.

I've seen the result of intellectual property theft and I don't like it. The market adjusts and less people spend time creating things that are easy to copy, so the quality of those things are diminished.

This is not an argument in favor of copyrights.  Your opinions on the quality of products are irrelevent.

[goatpig]

I've seen the result of intellectual property theft and I don't like it. The market adjusts and less people spend time creating things that are easy to copy, so the quality of those things are diminished.

Can you demonstrate there would be a net loss for society? The burden of proof is on you.

Who even remotely cares? It is not a matter of net loss for whatever people you are willing to lump in some group and call them representative of society, it is a matter of loss to you, as a consumer, for certain quality products are not profitable enough because they are too easy to copy and as such only low quality of such product is ever only made (read low investment).

This started as a fundamental look at property, let's keep it as such.

Also ethics and morals are not relevant in this discussion, because your morals are yours only and you cannot implement them into anyone. What you can expect though, is consequences for you actions, i.e., you do not respect my property by stealing the design I've come up with, do not expect me to respect your property, however material or immaterial it is.

[goatpig]

This is not an argument in favor of copyrights.  Your opinions on the quality of products are irrelevent.

It establishes a direct link between quality of intellectual products and their perceived value by the market. If the market undervalues such product by copying it, the quality will adjust itself down to that value. And value is relevant to property.

[rezin777]

I've seen the result of intellectual property theft and I don't like it. The market adjusts and less people spend time creating things that are easy to copy, so the quality of those things are diminished.

Can you demonstrate there would be a net loss for society? The burden of proof is on you.

An example that is at the top of my head is hard to call a net loss for society. But I can see how it could easily translate to other fields. And of course something like net loss to society would be extremely subjective, so proof is difficult. And it's probably impossible to measure.

The example would be PC video games. They were very good for a while and kept getting better. But as the internet grew, it became very easy to copy them and share the copies. Most major games released these days are ports of console games. Why? Producers make more money (if you look at the sales figures it's quite plain) on console games because it is more difficult to copy and share them. Of course it is possible, but much more difficult than a PC version. So we have these custom built PCs that absolutely destroy consoles as far as gaming power is concerned, but the only games that are released for PC are shitty ports of games that can run on the current consoles.

Video games may actually be harmful to society though. Perhaps PC games were better for society than console games because they pushed hardware developers to constantly upgrade their products., although they still do.

[NghtRppr]

But as the internet grew, it became very easy to copy them and share the copies.

A lack of copyright laws would allow for a greater level of piracy (loss) but it would also allow for developers to remake technologically outdated or abandoned games (gain). You're focusing only on the losses while ignoring (or are simply unaware of) the gains. The real question is, which outweighs which? Would it be a net gain or a net loss? If you don't know then it's irresponsible to advocate such laws.

[rezin777]

The "right to copy" is not a right, but a privilage, and as such cannot be seperated from the current government/corporate collusion.

Perhaps not, but it could be derived from the right to property, depending on what defines property.

[rezin777]

The real question is, which outweighs which? Would it be a net gain or a net loss? If you don't know then it's irresponsible to advocate such laws.

I know, for myself, whether it is a gain or loss. It would be irresponsible to force my subjective ideas on you.

And for the record, I don't advocate any laws. I've already said I don't care about that.

[goatpig]

But as the internet grew, it became very easy to copy them and share the copies.

A lack of copyright laws would allow for a greater level of piracy (loss) but it would also allow for developers to remake technologically outdated or abandoned games (gain). You're focusing only on the losses while ignoring (or are simply unaware of) the gains. The real question is, which outweighs which? Would it be a net gain or a net loss? If you don't know then it's irresponsible to advocate such laws.

Devs are already doing that oO. You aren't very familiar with copyright laws are you?

[NghtRppr]

But as the internet grew, it became very easy to copy them and share the copies.

A lack of copyright laws would allow for a greater level of piracy (loss) but it would also allow for developers to remake technologically outdated or abandoned games (gain). You're focusing only on the losses while ignoring (or are simply unaware of) the gains. The real question is, which outweighs which? Would it be a net gain or a net loss? If you don't know then it's irresponsible to advocate such laws.

Devs are already doing that oO. You aren't very familiar with copyright laws aren't you?

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

Here's just one example.

[goatpig]

But as the internet grew, it became very easy to copy them and share the copies.

A lack of copyright laws would allow for a greater level of piracy (loss) but it would also allow for developers to remake technologically outdated or abandoned games (gain). You're focusing only on the losses while ignoring (or are simply unaware of) the gains. The real question is, which outweighs which? Would it be a net gain or a net loss? If you don't know then it's irresponsible to advocate such laws.

Devs are already doing that oO. You aren't very familiar with copyright laws aren't you?

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

Here's just one example.

Those guys gave up because they didn't have the resources to defend themselves, but had they, they would have won.

[NghtRppr]

Those guys gave up because they didn't have to resources to defend themselves, but had they, they would have won.

That's irrelevant. The point is, copyright laws have a chilling effect on the creation of derivative works. That's a loss for society any way you care to slice it. The only question that remains, which outweighs which, the losses or gains?

[rezin777]

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

Here's just one example.

Difficulties were encountered in the game engine development as Lazur was the unique programmer and worked from scratch.

You are against copyright laws because of a misuse of copyright laws?

[rezin777]

That's irrelevant. The point is, copyright laws have a chilling effect on the creation of derivative works. That's a loss for society any way you care to slice it. The only question that remains, which outweighs which, the losses or gains?

You could say the same for any law.