If intellectual property was done away with completely...

[kiba]

@Stranger

@Zach_the_Lizard

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.

The entire body of Austrian economics, and economics in the larger sense, is founded upon utilitarianism.

Where are you people coming from?

This is an Austro-libertarian forum, not a forum for discussing purely economics using Austrian methodologies.

Most people also found your utilitarianism case rather unconvincing. Most thinks that a world without IP will have the desired effects that you are arguing for.

[Zach_the_Lizard]

@Stranger

The entire body of Austrian economics, and economics in the larger sense, is founded upon utilitarianism

Where are you people coming from?

What, pray tell, does the law of supply and demand have to do with what property rights are? (overlooking the foundation of AE)

[Stranger]

@Giant_Joe

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.

No there isn’t, unless trespassing has a net negative consequence on the perpetrator. If he can take information and sell it for 10x the fine he received, he will trespass at his leisure. Everyone will.

Information cannot be secured unless distributing copies is absolutely outlawed.

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.

What the hell? If you think the legal system is too costly, why not abolish law and justice entirely?

@Giant_Joe

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.

And that’s precisely why copyrights must exist.

[Stranger]

@Zach_the_Lizard

@Stranger

The entire body of Austrian economics, and economics in the larger sense, is founded upon utilitarianism

Where are you people coming from?

What, pray tell, does the law of supply and demand have to do with what property rights are? (overlooking the foundation of AE)

WHERE ARE YOU PEOPLE COMING FROM?

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Stranger

No there isn’t, unless trespassing has a net negative consequence on the perpetrator. If he can take information and sell it for 10x the fine he received, he will trespass at his leisure. Everyone will.

Information cannot be secured unless distributing copies is absolutely outlawed.

Nonsense.

@Giant_Joe

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.

@Stranger

And that’s precisely why copyrights must exist.

So that some people can tell others what they can and cannot do with their own property?

[kiba]

@Stranger

And that’s precisely why copyrights must exist.

Why not go with a simple contract stipulating that you should not copy? We have NDA and other type of contracts, why not use them?

[Stranger]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

So that some people can tell others what they can and cannot do with their own property?

Once they agree to a copyright agreement, it becomes a shared property.

[Stranger]

@kiba

@Stranger

And that’s precisely why copyrights must exist.

Why not go with a simple contract stipulating that you should not copy? We have NDA and other type of contracts, why not use them?

Those are different forms of IP that are also available. Remember though that this thread’s topic is to do away with IP completely.

[Zach_the_Lizard]

@Stranger

WHERE ARE YOU PEOPLE COMING FROM?

I come from the planet Earth and the birth canal of a woman. Is that unusual?

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

So that some people can tell others what they can and cannot do with their own property?

@Stranger

Once they agree to a copyright agreement, it becomes a shared property.

No, it doesn’t. And even if it does, how then does that mean that they control my property, e.g. pens and paper that I own that have nothing to do with a book I bought.

[kiba]

@Stranger

@kiba

@Stranger

And that’s precisely why copyrights must exist.

Why not go with a simple contract stipulating that you should not copy? We have NDA and other type of contracts, why not use them?

Those are different forms of IP that are also available. Remember though that this thread’s topic is to do away with IP completely.

They are not property. They are agreement on not to use property certain ways.

[scineram]

I already picked out this one for when I will have enough space.

[z1235]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

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.

BOTH plagiarism AND copying are IP concepts and they’re BOTH about honesty. They’re BOTH enforced by IP laws. So will you, as usual, avoid the question or answer it? Would you support IP laws that would restrict stealing someone else’s novel/code and selling it as your own?

Z.

[Giant_Joe]

@Stranger

@Giant_Joe

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.

No there isn’t, unless trespassing has a net negative consequence on the perpetrator. If he can take information and sell it for 10x the fine he received, he will trespass at his leisure. Everyone will.

Trespassing laws can be changed to be more strict. Other than that, too bad. The guy gets the information and can do what he pleases with it. This is something people would keep in mind if there were no IP laws.

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.

What the hell? If you think the legal system is too costly, why not abolish law and justice entirely?

I didn’t say it was “too costly”. Why do you make these leaps? Why don’t you argue in good faith?

@Giant_Joe

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.

And that’s precisely why copyrights must exist.

Copyrights exist for the enforcement of IP, not for the freedom of the person to do what they please with their own property.

[kiba]

@z1235

@Knight_of_BAAWA

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.

BOTH plagiarism AND copying are IP concepts and they’re BOTH about honesty. They’re BOTH enforced by IP laws. So will you, as usual, avoid the question or answer it? Would you support IP laws that would restrict stealing someone else’s novel/code and selling it as your own?

Z.

They called copying “copyright infringement”, not “plagiarism”. Copying was never about honesty, but permission.

[Stranger]

@kiba

@Stranger

@kiba

@Stranger

And that’s precisely why copyrights must exist.

Why not go with a simple contract stipulating that you should not copy? We have NDA and other type of contracts, why not use them?

Those are different forms of IP that are also available. Remember though that this thread’s topic is to do away with IP completely.

They are not property. They are agreement on not to use property certain ways.

Semantics.

[Zach_the_Lizard]

@Giant_Joe

Copyrights exist for the enforcement of IP, not for the freedom of the person to do what they please with their own property.

They must therefore violate all the other property rights we have, and one must hold IP to be superior to those rights in order to be for it.

[Giant_Joe]

@z1235

Would you support IP laws that would restrict stealing someone else’s novel/code and selling it as your own?

Selling it as your own… does that mean you are 1) selling the code, 2) the media that the code is on, or 3) are claiming complete authorship?

1. that’s possible with IP laws. Without IP laws, it’s still possible if the other person wants the code and is willing to pay to get it.

2. No problem with that without IP laws. Completely fine.

3. That is fraud. To claim something to be true which is not true, and knowingly not true is a lie.

[z1235]

@Giant_Joe

@z1235

Would you support IP laws that would restrict stealing someone else’s novel/code and selling it as your own?

Selling it as your own… does that mean you are 1) selling the code, 2) the media that the code is on, or 3) are claiming complete authorship?

1. that’s possible with IP laws. Without IP laws, it’s still possible if the other person wants the code and is willing to pay to get it.

2. No problem with that without IP laws. Completely fine.

3. That is fraud. To claim something to be true which is not true, and knowingly not true is a lie.

All three. Answer the question.

Z.

[kiba]

@z1235

@Giant_Joe

@z1235

Would you support IP laws that would restrict stealing someone else’s novel/code and selling it as your own?

Selling it as your own… does that mean you are 1) selling the code, 2) the media that the code is on, or 3) are claiming complete authorship?

1. that’s possible with IP laws. Without IP laws, it’s still possible if the other person wants the code and is willing to pay to get it.

2. No problem with that without IP laws. Completely fine.

3. That is fraud. To claim something to be true which is not true, and knowingly not true is a lie.

All three. Answer the question.

Z.

No, no, and no.

And the last one is a case of defrauding the consumers, anyway. The consumers would have the right to sue.