If you followed the example you’d see that it’s the INFORMATION (1oz, 5oz, 10oz, Gold Note) that carries the value of the bank note and not the media (ink and paper), in the same way that it’s the INFORMATION in the novel (and not the media) that carries the VALUE of a book. In both cases, people pay and exchange goods for the CONTENT (information, context) and NOT the media.
Z.
Once again showing that you do not know the difference between safety and security.
You’re being a bit ingenuous here. When somebody produce money, he is merely redistributing the wealth.
However, when someone produce books, he is increasing supply and decreasing the cost for consumers to buy a particular book. This is merely the immediate. The longer term effect is that the author become more popular as the consumers have more opportunity to enjoy the book.
Meaning that the next time the author publish an another work, more fans will be around to read the book, which mean more money because fan want to read the book, especially the first copies that came out. If economic history is any indication, the dude that publish first, will get the lionshare of the profits. This usually mean the publisher that have the endorsement of the author and work with the author in question.
After the initial printing run, it become a race to the bottom. Every publishers that got their hand on the book will try to reprint it to seize the audience and whatever associated remaining profit. This in turn increase audience for the next cycle of book printing, expanding the pie for everyone.
Sorry Z I don’t see how your analogy works (it doesn’t actually). You can print/counterfeit/copy as many notes as you want. You can’t legitimately exchange them. The only way for you to get people to accept your notes would be to lie about the nature of the notes…
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
The bank note is a promise to be paid. The story in a novel isn’t.
The first time you said that, the comment wasn’t directed at me, so I suppose this would be the first time that I “don’t know the difference between safety and security”
Would you care to elaborate on the difference between the two and how it applies to this situation?
This is just silly. Seems to me the IP laws specifically express the original author’s/publisher’s preference NOT to avail themselves of such “help”, thank you very much. You can’t possibly be suggesting that the original author/publisher wouldn’t rather print and SELL all the copies that the market would bear on their own – so they may welcome counterfeiters to “ease off the load”?
Z.
And how was it…stolen?
Should one be allowed to blackmail another?
You didn’t read the whole thing. I did say that the publisher that work with the original author will get the lionshare of the profit. Also it is not clear that they actually know how many people really want to buy this book. It may be that they make an entrepeneural mistakes, and thus, allowing copycat publishers into the rein.
Also, they aren’t really counterfeiters. Most people just attribute the true authors rather than lying that they are the author themselves. The only other situation in which that they are counterfeiting is when they disguise themselves as the original publisher.
Not only have you shifted to “IP laws are logically sound if IP is sound” but now you’ve shifted to “IP is sound because IP laws exist”
You’re now arguing for a positive right to profit.
Also, can the author have enough books made to meet demand so that others won’t profit from such a venture as creating copies of the books? Is IP enforcement necessary for that?
I never trespass, because seeding is voluntary.
Alright.
In the simplest terms, security means not worrying about safety because those who violate your property will face the appropriate consequences.
In other words, safety means a good lock or a good password, security means no lock or password.
Intellectual property is a form of security. One pursues violators of copyrights and prevents them from profiting from their trespass, hence creating a disincentive to trespass on one’s media. If intellectual property is fully secured, then things like online registration and authentication are not needed.
What the anti-IP are proposing is that all forms of security of information be abolished, and that instead producers of information should safeguard the information using means such as encryption, authentication, etc, or simply to change their business model entirely, because anyone who can get access to the information will be able to profit from it without limits, and will be secure in doing so (protected from the very people they stole the information from).
No one’s talking about that. Why are you?
Regardless, the content on the note carries valuable INTANGIBLE context (information) in the same way that the content in the book carries valuable INTANGIBLE information. Why can’t your ownership of a book be associated with a promise not to copy it and sell it, when you find it perfectly acceptable to associate similar promise (not to counterfeit) to your ownership of the bank note? Why does the former throw you in a Lockean “tangible property only” tizzy, while the latter does not?
Z.
This is assuming that you could reasonably enforce such contracts without getting broke.
Such contracts is more likely to dissause people from buying your book, probably impacting your bottom lines in ways that you don’t like. It is a poor entrepeneural decision.
So you’d support IP laws that would restrict it?
Z.
Alright.
In the simplest terms, security means not worrying about safety because those who violate your property will face the appropriate consequences.
In other words, safety means a good worker security means no worker.
Slavery is a form of security. One pursues violators of property rights and prevents them from profiting from their trespass, hence creating a disincentive to trespass on one’s slaves. If slavery is fully secured, then things like wages are not needed.
What the anti-slavery are proposing is that all forms of security of workers be abolished, and that instead producers of cotton should safeguard the business using means such as wages, benefits. etc, or simply t, change their business model entirely, because anyone who can get access to the labor will be able to profit from it without limits, and will be secure in doing so.
TL;DR version: to argue on utilitarian grounds is to open the door to all kinds of evil. You have never defended, so far as I can see, IP without an appeal to utilitarianism.
Thanks for clearing that up.
This doesn’t make trespassing legal, it is still illegal. There is already some security there, but the security would be diminished without the enforcement of IP.
This would mean that businesses/people would have to change things around to ensure the safety of their information. Some positives from IP abolishment is less stress on the legal system, less lawyer costs, and less costs to the state/legal system. Seeing these kinds of things requires one to not only see the visible consequences of something, but the unseen consequences as well.
I still fail to see why people should have the authority to decide what other people can or can’t do with their physical property.
The entire body of Austrian economics, and economics in the larger sense, is founded upon utilitarianism.
Where are you people coming from?
That’s not about IP; it’s about honesty. You’re confusing plagiarism with copying. I can copy a book and sell it. You’re confusing that with passing off another’s work as my own. Two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IDEAS.