you are saying that someone that crossed your lawn with a smile on his face deserves a harsher penalty that someone who is scowling since the assumption is the first had higher psychic profit than the latter…
the limits to criminal trespass are not ENTIRELY set by legal codes and punishment scales… private security limits criminal trespass, that is why private security exists.
you don’t have to write every stupid thing that comes to mind.
One can be rewarded from trespass with information. Should trespass be rewarding?
I’m talking about the information and it IS stealing. By fraudulently using your own ink and paper to print MY NOVEL and sell it as yours you are STEALING the same way by which you just accused me of fraudulently using my own ink and paper to counterfeit bank notes which I just exchanged for your car. It’s stealing in BOTH cases.
Z.
I’ve already said that non-enforcement of property does not mean the right should not exist, just that use is being tolerated. Just because I give away food to the needy does not mean you are entitled to eat all my food.
I agree with you, but this aside does not have bearing on the discussion.
The example was illustrative. I was using the reasoning you provided to show that the slave would be contradicting himself. I didn’t say that only tangible products are worth my time. I enjoy all sorts of things. I reject the notion that the enforcement of IP laws are necessary for these things to come into existence.
Yet you had the authority to use the exact same reasoning to show that I was being contradictory by enjoying things that were protected by IP enforcement.
Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
No property was taken, therefore nothing was stolen. If there was property taken, it would be obvious that there was stealing. Intellectual property only exists in law. Just because the law calls certain things property, that doesn’t make it property from a philosophical standpoint.
I would not claim to be the original author since I don’t consider myself dishonest .however if there is a victim, it is the purchaser of the novel who is told that I originally authored that book (each word in order) whereas in fact you organised the information into that pattern ahead of me. it would not be you i have stolen from but him/her. it may be i stole the money from the purchaser by selling ‘bread’ that is not bread. but the victim is not the ‘original author’ it is the consumer(assuming he cares about authorship and that registers for him as an issue of value~)
does your complaint fade away if i print the book, and say you authored it and i am just selling copies? if yes, you are close to an epiphany, if no then i recommend you argue that point instead of the one you just tried.
I didn’t steal anything. I have neither met you nor have I touched anything you own. I was using MY paper and MY ink on MY property. You and your monopoly enforced rules are s**t out of luck.
Z.
look, if you do nothing with your pretty paper note, then of course i could not object. if you pass it off on others, then you understand that there is theft of my physical property, and that you are using the note as a tool to achieve it.
I have not read all of this trainwreck of a thread, but it appears that the pro-IP side is saying, in essence, that government monopolies are OK so long as it can be proven that they result in an increase of production. Part of the way in which their claims are bolstered is by saying that any use of an idea by anyone but the originator is theft; there are grand appeals to emotion, talking about starving artists and developers.
It must be said that to copy the text in a book does not deprive the author of the use of those words, nor does a copied song take anything from the musician. All that it does is take away their monopoly on their production. It recognizes that there is no scarcity in the arrangement of matter; that particular arrangement can be done over and over again.
But what of the free rider? There are always those who, for sentimental reasons, for example, will pay the creator for the works no matter how easy it is to get a free copy. I regularly do this myself for some indie games that I like; I want to vote for their survival, in essence. I could easily download their entire collection for free, but there are benefits to buying the game and registering: access to tech support (they will not help without a key), beta patches, etc. Other games are moving into paying for playing online, such as the many MMORPGs. There are rumors that Diablo 3 will be pay to play online, and it is not an MMO. Other games can be pirated, but need a proof of purchase to play online.
General software will move to being pay for service; that is how many of the Linux companies stay alive. Want tech support? Cough up the cash. OSes are moving more towards the open source realm, and the incentive there is to share costs. Many of the Linux developers are paid to do so by large companies. The phone realm is moving that way, with Symbian set to be opensourced and the rise of various Linux derivatives, such as Android. Other software is paid for by advertising; this is how the Mozilla people make their money, and Opera too, IIRC. Firefox is the biggest opensource success story, though there are others. such as the Apache web server and the GNU compiler collection. The Webkit rendering engine has been succesful, too, being used in everything from Chrome to Safari to the Qt toolkit.
What about art and music? I say, what about it? Some artists are moving into letting users name their own prices (even free) for a download of the song, yet people still pay for the music. Even if they didn’t, the artist can make money on concerts; that is the only thing an artist has that is scarce. A notable example of this is Radiohead’s In Rainbows. Even now, artists still tour. Smaller ones use the tours to make their cash (think indie bands). Let us not forget those souls who wish to make music, the rest of the world be damned. Those people had no profit motive before, and they still have none.
Art in general can, as before, be paid for on commission. TV shows and radio shows make their money by advertising, and they already commission shows. I think YouTube, for very popular videos, had plans to share ad revenues with producers to incentivize them to make more content. I do not know if that plan made it through or not.
Actually, it is you that is coming close to an epiphany after just realizing the unfairness of the anti-IP claim. Whether you claim to be the author or not, either way, the anti-IP argument is that you can copy, print, and sell whatever content you want, as long as you use your own MEDIA, period. You also conveniently skipped the counterfeiting bank notes analogy which is actually yet another example where the INFORMATION (the content and context) is what carries the VALUE and not the media (the ink and paper).
Z.
I wonder if you are capable of stating what unfairness i tipped my hat to? (in contrast with your position?)
lol, you took my explanation for a skip? too funny
Btw, what physical property did I steal from YOU by counterfeiting bank notes? How did you establish that it’s YOUR gold from the vault that I’m stealing?
Z.
What is the unfairness?
Correct.
Sorry, I haven’t been following the counterfeit example. What I can say though, is that the fact that information has value is moot to the argument.
To quote from earlier in this thread:
You can counterfeit as many bank notes as you want. What you can’t do is legitimately cash them…
You present your note as something it is not, the bank’s own note.
No one has dared answer this yet. That’s all that needs to be said.
It already is rewarding, barring that the trespasser doesn’t get caught. They can break into a house and steal jewelery, or even people.
That would mean that people would no longer have the protection of patents and would seek other ways to hide information.