I think I am going to go sue the water company Monday for unjust appropriation of body property. Maybe there is some fraud going on here that calls for a little pre-emptive force. Hell, if I can’t profit from my own piss then I’ll be damned if someone else is going to profit from it. I demand property equality!
After all, my pee is recycled into water without compensation… do I not own my own pee?
A more appropriate example would be someone obtaining your DNA (readily available in many variants), producing a clone of yours and getting you fired from your job in absentia for the lulz. Would that be ok with you?
As for your fence request, we both know that fencing alone is not a sufficient criterion for establishing property. The intersubjective factor in determining property applies to physical as well as intellectual property.
VaLVE makes computer games and sells games through their cloud service Steam
Valve has created a product infrastructure that nudges consumers into their shop. Obtaining Valve products outside Steam is (comparably) difficult and requires cracking. Running certain Valve product features (multiplayer modes) on non-Valve servers is illegal for copyright reasons.
Your example confirms what I said about the existing consumer infrastructure. And no, the existing consumer infrastructure is not in conflict with the theories cited in my first post. The existing consumer infrastructure can only be enforced by upholding intellectual property rights.
In the absence of intellectual property rights, somebody would imitate the Steam system for a fraction of the cost and bankrupt the original producer by omitting the cost of original creation in their pricing policies. This is not possible today because Valve can litigate against anyone doing it.
If yes, then my question becomes, what exactly is your suggestion? People be forced to help her against their will? Is that the same old socialist “benevolence”?
In the very least, she should be able to issue a bond on behalf of her property that would reward successful helpers upon expulsion of the marauders. But given that you don’t accept the premise of IP, you most certainly won’t allow content creators to employ such recourse.
“A more appropriate example would be someone obtaining your DNA (readily available in many variants), producing a clone of yours and getting you fired from your job in absentia for the lulz. Would that be ok with you?”
I JUST LOVE the insane analogies by pro-IP lunatics. Keep doing the fun work.
P.S. damn the more I read it the more funnier it gets. I am sure Kinsella would love this 
He probably haven’t heard this one (and I am sure he heard thousands of ridiculous analogies over the years he was/is an IP attorney)
What if they invent a time machine ray-gun that will trap me in my days off (like “Groundhog Day”) and then I can never earn money again! I know - Time Vector Property! The government needs to create a system that protects my ownership of the path I take through the space-time continuum! Look at what could happen without it!
From my perspective they are freeloading in my urine. 
If you throw something away, you make it ownerless. E.g., garbage or your urine. You’re certainly free to collect it and attempt to sell it.
Also, if you plant a tree in the middle of a field and make no indication (or, in fact, make an indication to the opposite) that you’re placing a property claim on it, others are free to go and pick fruits from it.
Anyway, I want to ask few more questions re: IP, but since they are not directly related to the quesiton that I asked in the thread, I will start a new thread, I think.
Most of the revenue generated from data products seems to be the result of doctrines fed to consumers. Why would you purchase when you can download for free? Artists have cultured a charitable attitude in the masses. I’m assembling a group to create a franchise in TV/Gaming. My business model is not based on the expectation of charity, nor on the mostly fictitious enforcement of copyright. It’s based on (A) explicit agreements in the distribution and (B) packeting every network sharing the content, following from A. Or something thereabouts.
New from the C4SIF:
Writing Without Copyright
by christophergronland on April 3, 2012
In the 22 years I’ve been writing seriously, I’ve never registered a copyright with the US Copyright Office. In the beginning, I thought it was wonderful that once I wrote something, it was protected. Somewhere in that first year of writing, though, I learned that I didn’t stand much of a chance in winning a copyright case in court without registering a copyright with the US Copyright Office.
In my first year of serious writing, I […]
The consequentialist arguments for IP law rely on the false assumption that consumers view value exclusively in terms of immediate self-interest, and are invalid. Of course, convincing someone of this is another story. Referring to things like crowd sourcing, donations, willingness of pirates to support creators they value, etc help; but probably require personally experiencing them to accept that they challenge their assumption. The moral arguments for IP law reduce to the common sense idea that being afforded monopoly privileges by the state will allow one to generate more revenue than without them, combined with an empathy for those being afforded the monopoly privileges. I would guess that the best way to challenge this would be to get the IP proponent to empathize with those harmed most by IP, namely the poor and producers of derivative works.
I think that the writing and publishing business will move further toward digital publishing and that there may a resurgence of periodicals and more crowd sourced funding with greater consumer input. In a world without IP this trend would simply accelerate.
I consider using ostracism and forming consumer unions to threaten boycotts as a way to encourage people to support creators of an original work to be an excellent way of expressing and attempting to satisfy one’s preferences without the state. All this approach suggests is that people are trying to satisfy the preferences of people whose works they value so that they may continue to benefit as consumers.
One can look at two companies to get an idea of how to hoard your oh so precious creative output. These are blizzard entertainment & cardrunners (a poker video training site). The way cardrunners does it is you can download the videos, but they stop working after like a week or something and it needs to verify that you are a member again (by going online). I’m not sure what blizzard does with starcraft 2, I guess it checks with the server to see you have a legit copy and then it lets you play. So e-books could have an activation code that is required, you’d have to have internet access to use it, it would verify with a main server that you paid for the book. Of course people can and would get around this (people take physical books and put them online, by scanning or whatever and making that a pdf file somehow) but there’s significant effort and technological know how, if you want a specific book it might not be available pirated.
So there are things companies can do to hoard their product, if they so please. Likewise there are alternative business models. Musicians should love when people pirate their music because it’s free advertising. If they grow famous online their shows & merchandise sales will prosper (and they will get to sleep with more hotties).
Anyway, the purpose of law is not to make some people rich. The best writers write because they need to write, because they have important ideas that people need to know about, stories they need to tell. They’re not going to stop, and if all the authors who wrote simply for a paycheque stopped, well then i wouldn’t have to spend so much time seperating the wheat from the other thing that isn’t as good (chaff?) while perusing the selection @ used book stores.
Just noticed this one too:
Conversation with an author about copyright and publishing in a free society
by Stephan Kinsella on January 23, 2012
Nina Paley sent me this from “a friend who publishes eBooks,” and asked for my take on how to reply. Here is the question and my response (edited):
Author:
Here is a scenario I have a hard time getting past. Suppose there were no legal protection against anyone copying anything, and suppose there were a bunch of people trying to sell ebooks or apps or whatever in a nice convenient store. Within weeks of any ebook/app being released for sale, a company set up for the purpose of doing exactly this would have released a copy of it for free, framed with a small ad at the bottom. A few people would think this is despicable and always seek out and buy the one put up by the creator, but most people most of the time would go for the free one. Maybe not the people you hang out with in New York, but the people I hang out with in Longview would consider it laughably stupid to pay when they can get it for free with just a little ad at the bottom. They would not care one iota about who made it, they simply do not think that way.
Shouldn’t there be some way […]
Really popular lately. Seems like a real way to fund non-ip literature, art, games, whatever.