Oks…
Now, if I can abuse of your patience :P, can you please explain to me (or direct me to some concentrated writings) the NAT?
I read some posts here and I do have some questions about it.
Thank you.
Again, thats not a copyright issue. That is also a trade secret issue.
How can the person be protected? By contract. He can choose to show or to not show his invention. If a company won’t sign a contract that prevents them from producing his design without his premission, he won’t show him the invention.
You are approaching this all wrong. Even if you could prove one situation where a copyright enforcement might grant some small benefit does not legitimize the entire scope of IP. Your defense of IP will only float if you can create a consistent rights based theory of ownership.
Counter-history. That is not why the patent office exists. Not even close.
The patent office exists because someone thought more inventions would be made if the government stepped in to the increase the value of inventions. Price fixing, plain and simple.
Care to explain?
Very interesting, I will have to think about this a while…
You have yet to propose how all ideas can be owned.
If you thought of it, you own it…
You have paid for it with the time and effort of thinking, outlay for education, etc.
That is what my opinion is on the matter of owning ideas, now my question is why is this not applicable?
I glean from the conversation that it is like monopoly issues, but the same can be said if you purchase a car, you have a monopoly on the benefit derived from said car, you pay for a car with your time and effort (wages), and as property you own it…
I am really trying to wrap my mind around your way of looking at it… Jon actually said the one thing that I would admit is the most concerning point of the argument against IP…
only tangible physical things can be candidates for property, intangibles like concepts and patterns can not be. they are not rival.
You are trying to force the burden of proof on others. Thats not where it lies.
You have claimed the right to initiate violence, the burden of proof falls on you.
If you see no problem with treating a person as a criminal because they have photocopied a page, please explain to us why.
I, of course, am against the initiation of violence. I do not see defending an intellectual monopoly to be equivalent to defending material property, and why should I?
I am just delving into the “IP is bad” train of thought, I am not trying to convince you otherwise, just trying to throw as many questions out there to get all of the logical arguments presented to me…
No, I claimed the right to have legal indemnification, I was thinking financial restitution…
Because it is not their to copy
You can profit off of intellectual property, and that is why…
If I may, you have made the most compelling argument for the case that I have yet to see, price-fixing, and I am still thinking about that…
Can you give me a source for this?
To enforce any legal restitution it is done at the point of the gun, just so you know cause I’m sure Jon will see that too.
Are you suggesting legal restitution cannot occur without violent interaction?
IP AND PROPERTY RIGHTS
Property and Scarcity
Let us take a step back and look afresh at the idea of
property rights. Libertarians believe in property rights in
tangible goods (resources). Why? What is it about tangible…
etc.
Most here reject the state as a legitimate means to achieve any ends. Murder is wrong, but enslaving and robbing innocents in order to pursue the murderer is also wrong.
There are many here that feel that a polycentric(that is, an anarchist) legal system could, and should, enforce copyrights in the absence of a state, but I am not among them.
I am against state murder, but I am also against private murder, I see attempts to enforce copyright to be illegal initiations of coercion, regardless of who does it.
That’s circular logic. You have yet to show why its not theirs to copy. There is no conflict in rights here, one person photo copying a page does not prevent any other person from doing the same to their own copy of book.
If the holder of IP is victimized because the market value of his product is reduced, then any action that causes a reduction in the market value of someone’s product must also be criminal.
The usual position, but just because something has value does not mean it is ownable.
A good reputation is very valuable, but do I own my reputation? A reputation is nothing more than what others think of me. In order to own my reputation, I’d have to own other people’s thoughts. An absurdity.
You can profit from trade monopolies as well, but that is not a defense of them.
You have presented a faulty theory of property. Property is based on first usership over scarce resources.
Exactly, so long as it is based on a credible threat of violence, even if no actual violence occurs.
If someone say’s, “Give me your wallet or I’ll shoot” is that not a violent interaction?
If someone says give me back my wallet or I will shoot, is that initiating violence?
No its not. The mugger has initiated the violence.
But my point all along has been that photocopying does not initiate violence. So should someone say, “Give me that photocopy or I’ll shoot” that is an initiation.
So you are saying that the act of materrializing a thought on paper makes it public access?
I’m saying the act of selling a book makes it the property of the buyer.
Once you put a thought on paper and send it out into the world, it becomes common knowledge. The point of IP is force people to act as though the idea is scarce, even though it is not.
If an idea where truly scarce, a secret for example, no IP laws are required, it is actually the property of the owner by default, because no one else knows it. This is why blackmail has a market value, while IP does not.