Yes, it is property. Now you can safely run and hide.
When the level of double talk, insincerity and stupidity becomes so gross, I can no longer justify investing my time in a discussion, I walk away.
Your only victories come when people tire of your routine. So kudos to you. After making a fool of yourself for several pages in this thread, your limitless ignorance has outlasted me.
If you guys were really serious about intellectual property, you wouldn’t be using the quoting system.
So you would be fine with patents and copyrights being permanent, with no expiration then?
How is the intangible–property?
Ugh, what? Quoting is just for clarity.
Hey Jon, You are more knowing than I about Austrian econ, I think that coming up with an idea and getting a patent for it is ok until it’s first sale and then after that it should be open for competition. What is wrong with that? I mean until it is on the market shouldn’t it be the persons property who invents it?
What if they never make a sale? What if they don’t have the capital to produce it, or if they are too incompetent to bring it to market? What if they bring it to market, but it is so expensive, no one will buy it?
How about firms simply figure out new ways to restrict copying their products? You know, put their hired brains to work for once…
Oh come on! We still havn’t got past whether intellectual property is actual property or not? I thought that question is already settled.
Those who finally got beyond(by asserting that IP is NOT property) has shown some pretty solutions for inventors not being paid for inventing such and such. Though it seem to me that coming up with various protection scheme are doomed to failure.
Is replaying copyrighted music not for clarity? Maybe I didn’t feel like I was done a service the first time I heard it for pay or on the radio?
No, the quoting system is very clearly reproducing a copyrighted work. I don’t have to put a little © next to my comments for it to be copyrighted.
Starting to realize the absurdity of copyright yet?
Technically, this is not correct. Mises.org is the publisher, so by virtue of your text appearing multiple times on this site, it’s done under the umbrella of Mises.org.
Just because you have a used account here, doesn’t mean you own it. You can’t demand Mises remove your account and all of your posts. By posting, you relinquish control of your statements.
So, you’re on the right path, but this current example doesn’t fit.
One could argue that they have come up with a way, through using the government to bully competitors and others making use of their intellectual property. They’ve certainly convinced many libertarians that without these protectionist safeguards, innovation will come to a grinding halt. That couldn’t be further from the truth, and likely the opposite is true when you get down to just how many research methods being patented could cause problems (case in point: the human genome and DNA is currently being copyrighted specifically to prevent other firms from doing research in these areas)
Why did the first cave painter paint? He or she was given no such protection, yet still did it. Why?
Whatever benefits come from protectionism are short-term research gains at the loss of long-term innovation. It only makes sense that companies like Disney and others want to increase copyright indefinitely. For a good story on how copyrighted works often lose out in the long run, look no further than “It’s a Wonderful Life”. Ever wonder why you don’t see that on TV anymore, ever wonder why you used to see it all the time? Did you know it was a box-office flop?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_a_Wonderful_Life#Ownership_and_copyright_issues
Sorry, I should’ve qualified that. Find a way that does not involve coercing others for property rights that pertain to things (ideas) that cannot be subject to them.
I have not suggested anything close. All Peter and I have argued is that if there is value to protecting IP then the free market will find a way to do that and one way could be contracts.
The opposition has said that any contract that restricts the use of any IP is purchased is not valid. I think that is the point of contention.
Ah. Well regardless, the market cannot find a way to protect IP, since IP’s are simply government granted monopolies.
If you write a song how is that a government granted monopoly? When you decide to sell that song and someone decides to buy it why is it a government granted monopoly for you to place conditions on the sale of the song?
Again, it comes back to if you believe contracts can be enforced. What the opposition is saying is that it is prohibited for me to make a contract that limits in any way my ability to use IP that I have purchased. I say nonsense, I should be allowed to make the contract and be bound by the terms and penalties that I have agreed too.