Send her literature about the subjective theory of value.
From Casey Research:
“Copyright” here is used very passively. They are not saying, “We will sure you if you violate our copyright.” Instead, they are saying, “We might sue you if you violate this agreement. Btw, we also have copyright, and our lawyers told us to mention it, just in case.”
Here’s the rest of the replies:
ALF:
I do not care to argue the issue. You have your opinion; I have mine. When you write a book and publish it, come back and we’ll talk about it.
Me:
If I did publish a book I’d hope everyone would pass it along and spread whatever message they enjoyed of mine. I have no intention to tie down my ideas to some physical form limited by laws that can only be enforced by the state. The Mis…es Institute has a large anti-IP stance when it comes to their books, and they have everything they can in PDF format to download for free. This only spreads the message of liberty instead of confining it. When it comes to the book I’d like to sell all that was printed to make back enough to cover costs, but the book is just the carrier of the message and ideas, it’s not the idea itself. The message is beyond the book. An idea cannot be constrained, patented, or controlled, because the idea itself lives beyond space and time in our physical world. To actually patent an idea or invention is just someone trying to claim ownership to something that doesn’t actually exist in physical format, it’s not property, it’s simply an idea. If someone writes a book, they essentially wrote one book, but duplicated that book thousands of times and sold it, but it was one book. This is no different if someone produces and album and sells it, but essentially the labor was only done once for that album, and then duplicated thousands of times.
Ask her what she would think if, eventually, her works stopped being spread because of copyright problems. (It’s not as if this has not happened to other people.)
If she continues to reply I will, but she’s probably done with responding.
This would be fun. Send her links to free books and a list of authors who have published under a CC license. Send her this video. Tell her when she starts selling more books than that guy with her IP enforcement, she should come back and talk to you. Watching someone try to pull rank when they have none is quite amusing.
"When I said “ideas are copyrighted automatically..”, I meant: “There are ideas that are copyrighted automatically,”
But there aren’t. One of the most fundamental features of copyright law is that it covers expression, not idea. Patent law arguably protects ideas, although it’s put in terms of “inventions,” but patents are not automatic, they require an application and approval by the PTO.
“Send her literature about the subjective theory of value.”
One of the things that strikes me about the Mises forums when, for one reason or another, I read part of them is the level of arrogance displayed by quite a lot of posters. The people associated with ALF have been active libertarians for–I’m guessing–longer than a majority of the posters here have been alive. Their views may or may not be correct, but the fact that they disagree with yours doesn’t mean they have never heard the arguments on the other side.
IP is an old controversy in libertarian circles, there are arguments on both sides, and conclusions range from what seems to be currently orthodox here–that creators of IP have no right to control its use–to the opposite extreme, that IP is the most defensible of all forms of property, since creating it does not use up any of the uncreated property–land, natural resources, …–whose existence is one of the problems that theories of property rights face. If you can’t reproduce the arguments on the other side, you are poorly qualified to have an opinion as to what conclusion is correct.
The same point struck me some time back, when posters here were arguing, in effect, that the fact that someone criticized Austrian economics proved he didn’t understand it, hence his criticisms weren’t worth reading–the someone being a professional economist and libertarian teaching at a university with a strong Austrian element.
It’s true that this approach–all beliefs are obviously true or obviously false, and mine are the obviously true ones–accurately reflects Mises’ approach to the world, at least as I’ve heard it reported; I didn’t know him. But it wasn’t one of his more attractive characteristics. And one effect is to provide evidence for critics of libertarianism to claim that it’s the secular equivalent of religious fundamentalism.
Forgive me for being one of these “arrogant Mises forum posters”, but so what? What does that have to do with competency, logical consistency, and reason? Does time spent associating yourself with a certain ideology translate into some sort of required reverence? Does it not matter how ridiculous your notions are, so long as you’be been around long enough? As in, the older you get the less sense you have to make for people to take you seriously?
A lot of times, it does. And I don’t really see what any of the rest of your post has to do with some (allegedly) old feminist thinking the “hard work” she puts into something gives it value.
“Forgive me for being one of these “arrogant Mises forum posters”, but so what?”
Forgiven. It’s always helpful when someone provides evidence in favor of what I’ve written.
“What does that have to do with competency, logical consistency, and reason? Does time spent associating yourself with a certain ideology translate into some sort of required reverence?”
No. But it translates into an increased probability that you are familiar with arguments made in that ideology, hence a reduced plausibility for the assumption that the reason you disagree with a conclusion is that you haven’t seen the arguments for it.
Which is what the post I was commenting on implied.
I’m wondering at what point do libertarians, who feel they’ve been wronged through the market, stop obtaining their goals through the market (such as boycotting), and look to the courts/State for an answer.
“I put a lot of hard work into them.”
I find this statement itself as arrogant. Who cares how much work you put into your work? The market will decide its value.
I could have equally said, “Send her Stephan Kinsella’s work against IP,” and would that have been arrogant as well? After all, I’m assuming she hasn’t read Kinsella’s work.
EDIT: It’s difficult to judge arrogance on an online forum, but I wasn’t to be arrogant when I made that statement.
No problem. When someone takes the time to investigate every thread that mentions their name, I feel it’s a nice thing to give them something to feel vindicated in some way.
Again, I fail to see how giving someone the benefit of the doubt, and assuming they simply aren’t aware that value is subjective amounts to “providing evidence for critics of libertarianism to claim that it’s the secular equivalent of religious fundamentalism.” To be perfectly honest, if someone has been introduced to subjective value theory and still thinks labor inputs is what gives something its value, I would say it is that person that is engaging in religion. Or do you wish to argue that value is not subjective?
Real-Time Relationships: The Logic of Love, Copyright 2008 by Stefan Molyneux. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics, Copyright 2007 by Stefan Molyneux. All rights reserved. Printed in
the United States of America. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the
case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
On Truth - The Tyranny of Illusion:
Please feel free to distribute this book to whomever you think would benefit from it, as long as you do not modify the contents in any way.
That’s odd. Why would the permission be different? And didn’t you say Molyneux was anti-IP?
The fact is one cant go around assuming everyone has heard the arguments before, especially if they disagree on some basis which one believes has been adressed and debunked. So what if they have been around for long ?
Maybe they have heard the arguments but not grasped them yet ? How many people, especially in libertarian circles has at some point heard the arguments and remained unconvinced until the right formulation of those arguments was presented to them.
Wow, jeez. Yes, all beliefs are EITHER true or false. Noone in Austrian circles, and not Mises either in any of the writings I have read, has claimed that it was OBVIOUS! What would he have thought of his own work if everything was just OBVIOUS and he hadnt really done anything special, he hadnt really need to think things through it was just OBVIOUS. This is seems to me to be some kind of silly attempt at sliding in a horrible version of skepticism, where one is always unaware if what one believes are true or not. For example: “I am really sitting here writing a response to David Friedman ?”, entertain such thoughts if you will but dont expect other people in pursuit of truth and reality to pay any attention.
Secondly this seems like unfair bashing, if you dont know him then maybe you should give an example of it or let the general skeptic approach rule here too.
I hope you are not referring to the silly quote from your father which as been overused endlessly against Austrians, that is on wikipedia. Milton just states it without mentioning the particular arguments that got Mises upset. Additionally, a progressive income tax is a distinctly socialist idea and I would have probably done same, proudly.
Furthermore , most critics of libertarianism never engage in arguments seriously, but simply avoid and denounce us, why should we care if they listen in to our conversation and cut and paste to make it seem like we are “secular fundamentalists”, they have done such smearing for ages.
Additionally, most religious fundamentalists in my experience are a lot more consistent than they moderate counterparts who usually want their God and eat it too.
I thought he had come to that point.
However, he promised to put up a statement about the ‘rights’ of his materials on his website, but he hasn’t done that. A libertarian who’s against IP would make sure to put up some kind of creative commons statement, and certainly make sure that their own material doesn’t include IP threats (like the ones I listed).
So after finding those I think he meant that he intended to put the same “you are free to copy my works in whole but nothing else” statement on his (redesigned) website, and that he isn’t siding against IP.
“Copyright © The Culture of Reason Center 2011 All rights reserved.”
…but then again, it looks like a Randian fan group.
In their defense, I think that, instead of copyright, they would simply have a contract that says, “Me send you PDF, and you no redistribute content without my permission.” (Bad grammar intended.)
Me concur. Avoids alienating Libertarians by adding a simple contract.
I agree with Friedman on this one. This place is becoming way too much like RevLeft for my liking.