The end of copyright and patent is where we should be headed

[jaysabi]

I care about property rights. I won't support a system that doesn't allow people to keep the fruits of their labor or won't protect their work as their property. It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to forfeit his property rights, not the rest of society to force him to give his work away because you don't want to pay for his book. If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

[CIYAM]

If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

I think you need to "reverse" your statement. If someone doesn't want anyone to copy their work then simply don't publish it.

No two countries are ever going to have the "same laws" in regards to any "intellectual property" therefore it simply doesn't work in the modern world (for example the US seems to now extend copyright *forever* whereas most other countries limit it).

[Beliathon]

About entertainers, how could they live without income, and thus produce the entertainment I like?

Entertainers survived and thrived for thousands of years before the word "copyright" was ever uttered.

I care about property rights. I won't support a system that doesn't allow people to keep the fruits of their labor

So you don't support capitalism, I take it? After all, it's a fact that the overwhelming majority of workers are not allowed to keep the fruits of their labor. They are expected to accept a tiny fraction of the profits generated by that labor, or fuck off and starve.

It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to forfeit his property rights

Reality check, it's up to whomever commands the monopoly on coercive force and violence. In this case, the nation state. You have no rights, you have privileges granted to you by your masters. These can be revoked at any time. If you don't believe me, google internment camps WW2.

[jaysabi]

If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

I think you need to "reverse" your statement. If someone doesn't want anyone to copy their work then simply don't publish it.

What does "reverse your statement" mean?

The point of working in a field is to make a living, and publication is necessary to monetize your work if you make "artistic" products. Publication does not forfeit your property rights.

Either you own the fruit of your labor or you don't. Your copyright-less system does not recognize the product of your work as your property. That's not a just system.

[CIYAM]

Either you own the fruit of your labor or you don't. Your copyright-less system does not recognize the product of your work as your property. That's not a just system.

But this "non-system" has been working in countries such as China for many, many years.

Maybe time to "re-think" your idea of the system?

[Wilikon]

Can someone open source her wife or his husband and children? Put them on kickstarter for crowd sourcing.

Copyright was not a big deal before because taking a real concept from somebody was physically hard. You could not simply google image photos and then claim as yours like those people

But keeping something secret for fear of being stolen or copied is older the concept of copyrighting. Way older.

We should find a way to make copyright laws evolve with our times, maybe what maidsafe is doing,  instead of destroying everything because of abuse of the law.

Most people who call for the demise of any form of property law are not creative minds or artists, so they don't really care one way or the other.

[jaysabi]

I care about property rights. I won't support a system that doesn't allow people to keep the fruits of their labor

So you don't support capitalism, I take it? After all, it's a fact that the overwhelming majority of workers are not allowed to keep the fruits of their labor. They are expected to accept a tiny fraction of the profits generated by that labor, or fuck off and starve.

It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to forfeit his property rights

Reality check, it's up to whomever commands the monopoly on coercive force and violence. In this case, the nation state. You have no rights, you have privileges granted to you by your masters. These can be revoked at any time. If you don't believe me, google internment camps WW2.

I support capitalism, but it seems you don't. It seems to me you're conflating voluntary employment with forced employment. If you want to keep the fruits of your entire labor, go into business for yourself. What you do by agreeing to take a job is sell your labor to someone who pays you for it, so you have already entered an agreement not to own the product of your labor. Ostensibly, whoever is paying you for it can make more off your labor than you could if you were to try to sell whatever it is you were making yourself. That's how you both benefit from an employment arrangement. There's nothing forced about that, and these voluntary employment arrangements have nothing to do with the state's monopoly on force.

[Wilikon]

If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

I think you need to "reverse" your statement. If someone doesn't want anyone to copy their work then simply don't publish it.

No two countries are ever going to have the "same laws" in regards to any "intellectual property" therefore it simply doesn't work in the modern world (for example the US seems to now extend copyright *forever* whereas most other countries limit it).

Obviously. It is your fault if you expose your art to talentless thugs.

 

[jaysabi]

Either you own the fruit of your labor or you don't. Your copyright-less system does not recognize the product of your work as your property. That's not a just system.

But this "non-system" has been working in countries such as China for many, many years.

Maybe time to "re-think" your idea of the system?

China, a bastion of freedom and liberty... and home to the largest black market on the planet. That's right, people claiming ownership of stolen copyrighted work for the purpose of selling that work. Not to mention a horrendous track record on tangible and real property rights. Somehow, I don't think it works nearly as well as you believe it does. I'll stick with my predictable ability to enforce my property rights, thanks.

[Wilikon]

If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

I think you need to "reverse" your statement. If someone doesn't want anyone to copy their work then simply don't publish it.

No two countries are ever going to have the "same laws" in regards to any "intellectual property" therefore it simply doesn't work in the modern world (for example the US seems to now extend copyright *forever* whereas most other countries limit it).

http://creativecommons.org/


What is your take on it?

[BitMos]

I care about property rights. I won't support a system that doesn't allow people to keep the fruits of their labor or won't protect their work as their property. It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to forfeit his property rights, not the rest of society to force him to give his work away because you don't want to pay for his book. If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

a big up to all the forums leeches.

[jaysabi]

I care about property rights. I won't support a system that doesn't allow people to keep the fruits of their labor or won't protect their work as their property. It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to forfeit his property rights, not the rest of society to force him to give his work away because you don't want to pay for his book. If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

a big up to all the forums leeches.

I don't understand what you mean, can you explain what that means in relation to what you quoted?

[BitMos]

I care about property rights. I won't support a system that doesn't allow people to keep the fruits of their labor or won't protect their work as their property. It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to forfeit his property rights, not the rest of society to force him to give his work away because you don't want to pay for his book. If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

a big up to all the forums leeches.

I don't understand what you mean, can you explain what that means in relation to what you quoted?

all of it. example: did you ever see a studies from a "reputable" academic institution quote the forums where they found the core of their theory. me never, they called that trash talk, why? they can't control it, so it must be downplayed.

[Beliathon]

I support capitalism, but it seems you don't.

Of course I don't, I loathe violence and capitalism could not exist without systemic violence, not even for a single day.

It seems to me you're conflating voluntary employment with forced employment.

There is nothing voluntary about employment so long as non-employment means starvation and homelessness for the vast majority of workers.

If everyone started out on equal financial footing at birth, you might have an argument. Since we don't, and since only the privileged few can afford to start their own business (repeatedly as needed since 8 out of 10 fail), your argument has no merit.

[BitMos]

as long as the ctrl+p rules the day, there is no fair competition in financial endeavors. Fair competition is better, fair by natural, meaning the best to fit reality wins it (like in real warfare). if love and financial warfare are impossible waht's left? remember kids, it's only other kid that can tolerate a cheating banker at monopoly... try to cheat a game of monopoly before Julius gaius ceasar.... goodddd llluuuckkk with the lions/crocodiles/what ever... you deserve it... like cheating in poker in the old whole wild west... feather and glue, and ride my donkey.

[jaysabi]

I support capitalism, but it seems you don't.

Of course I don't, I loathe violence and capitalism could not exist without systemic violence.

It seems to me you're conflating voluntary employment with forced employment.

There is nothing voluntary about employment so long as non-employment means starvation and homelessness for the vast majority of workers.

If everyone started out on equal financial footing at birth, you might have an argument. Since we don't, and since only the privileged few can afford to start their own business (repeatedly as needed since 8 out of 10 fail), your argument has no merit.

I don't buy either of your premises. Capitalism at its core is voluntary exchange; an entirely voluntary system in which the initiation of violence harms all. Crony capitalism, in which special interests pay for the use of force by the government to enact their will, is neither voluntary nor capitalism. The fact that you see so much crony capitalism is not proof of failure of a voluntary system, it's evidence the government shouldn't be granted the power to interject in the market place to create winners and losers.

Non-employment doesn't mean starvation and homelessness. Non-productivity, on the other hand, does. You can be unemployed and productive, in which you create things the market desires, and are compensated accordingly (keeping the whole fruits of your labor). But your inability to make a living on your own is evidence of you not producing anything the market desires. That's no one else's fault or burden, best to sell your labor at that point to someone who can produce something of value with it where you can't. I don't know what your particular problem is, but I can start a business with ease, it's neither expensive or difficult. I just have nothing to create the market would desire, so I'm better off selling my labor to someone who can use it to create something of value. No one forces you to work, but no one owes you anything either when you don't.

[BitMos]

I support capitalism, but it seems you don't.

Of course I don't, I loathe violence and capitalism could not exist without systemic violence.

It seems to me you're conflating voluntary employment with forced employment.

There is nothing voluntary about employment so long as non-employment means starvation and homelessness for the vast majority of workers.

If everyone started out on equal financial footing at birth, you might have an argument. Since we don't, and since only the privileged few can afford to start their own business (repeatedly as needed since 8 out of 10 fail), your argument has no merit.

I don't buy either of your premises. Capitalism at its core is voluntary exchange; an entirely voluntary system in which the initiation of violence harms all. Crony capitalism, in which special interests pay for the use of force by the government to enact their will, is neither voluntary nor capitalism. The fact that you see so much crony capitalism is not proof of failure of a voluntary system, it's evidence the government shouldn't be granted the power to interject in the market place to create winners and losers.

Non-employment doesn't mean starvation and homelessness. Non-productivity, on the other hand, does. You can be unemployed and productive, in which you create things the market desires, and are compensated accordingly (keeping the whole fruits of your labor). But your inability to make a living on your own is evidence of you not producing anything the market desires. That's no one else's fault or burden, best to sell your labor at that point to someone who can produce something of value with it where you can't. I don't know what your particular problem is, but I can start a business with ease, it's neither expensive or difficult. I just have nothing to create the market would desire, so I'm better off selling my labor to someone who can use it to create something of value. No one forces you to work, but no one owes you anything either when you don't.

if you play monopoly with friends and some of your friends get money from the bank (FOR FREE, LIKE IN CHEATING), do you continue to play? if yes you are an idiot. accept it, it doesn't mean you can't love right. hf.

[Beliathon]

I don't buy either of your premises. Capitalism at its core is voluntary exchange; an entirely voluntary system in which the initiation of violence harms all.

I see you are a true believer in the mythical sort of capitalism that has only ever existed in your imagination. The violence-free capitalist utopia. I read a lot about this capitalism on internet forums, yet strangely I have never read an account of it existing in history.

Remember that capitalism was born around four hundred years ago, a time when violence was much more normal and acceptable than it is today. Capitalism makes much more sense in 1700 than it does in 2015, because violence is becoming less and less legitimate.

[Wilikon]

If you take without permission, you initiate force against that person, and the initiation of force is morally wrong. A system to prevent or allow for punishment of people who would take through force is appropriate.

I think you need to "reverse" your statement. If someone doesn't want anyone to copy their work then simply don't publish it.

No two countries are ever going to have the "same laws" in regards to any "intellectual property" therefore it simply doesn't work in the modern world (for example the US seems to now extend copyright *forever* whereas most other countries limit it).

http://creativecommons.org/


What is your take on it?

I guess no one here has ever heard of creative commons?

[BitMos]

yes I love it, bitcoin, tor, Linux, p2p, games, music, images, knowledge... all good... only fucking masson would dream to create corporation that would make knowledge a privilege and not a gift, to exploit those unknowing (and if it ain't the "neo masson" who cares, those privatizing knowledge and science are doomed, because of the law of war, long life bf).