What’s cute is that I’m inadvertently bumping into Kinsella., again. [:)] I’m not doing this on purpose, I swear.
Z.
This is the first attempt by the anti IP crowd to address the issue of hackers or anyone trespassing or violating agreements and copying information. And your response is basically yes there will be no consequence accept simple trespass. So a couple of questions, do you think most people will think that something has been stolen when sensitive information has been copied? How do you intend to prevent the people who believe they have been robbed from taking action to recover what they believe is stolen or to be compensated for it?
why?
how?
Why did you fail to answer my other questions directed at you?
The Anti-IP stance is that if you trespass you are violating property. You are subject to whatever legal recourse transpires.
Why would you think otherwise?
BTW hacking into a network without authorization IS trespassing.
I don’t know what most people think, and I don’t care. Majority opinion is the “might is right” philosophy.
They can sue or go to the police if they think they have been robbed. Just as if something was physically stolen. Whether something was stolen or not is a different matter. Important things to remember here in terms of being compensated are retribution and restitution.
Regardless, no one has a right to profit. They have to create that themselves.
OK, that was easily mis-understood. Of course they are NOT entitled to a guaranteed profit in the same way that a car maker (or any product) maker is NOT entitled to a profit. The author is only entitled to the profit that his creation can get from the market – i.e. whatever the market will pay, including the proceeds that you STEAL from him by selling his product as yours.
It’s HIS creation (as in not yours), the same way it’s YOUR life. IP laws “protect” HIS creation, the same way NAP “protects” your life.
The answers are exactly above your first objection of them not being answered. You must have missed them in the brawl. Check it out, and if you feel anything has been left out, post it again.
Z.
Nobody is entitled to any profit, period. Libertarian ethics is not concerned whether profits or proceeds is stolen.
If I buy a book, read it, then sell it, is the author entitled to the money I get for selling the book?
SHould it be illegal for me to let other people borrow the book I purchased? Should it be illegal for me to read the book to people who did not pay the creator?
I don’t know if hacking is really trespassing in the normal sense, as much as it seems like it.
I think that hackers will often install programs to tunnel into a network or programs like trojans to spy or whatever. However small these programs are, it is modifying the physical structure of the owner’s hard disk/server. If this itty-bitty change in the magnetic surface of a hard drive causes a major website to lose a million dollars by being down, that is the damage done by the hacker’s transgression.
Since the exclusive rights to the information expire on Friday, it is morally wrong to resell the book before Friday, but it is absolutely fine after Friday.
So they are entitled to a profit.
Only parts of it were answered, but not the questions I asked weren’t sufficiently answered.
So you’re not entitled to the proceeds from the sale of your car? If I was quicker than you in grabbing the cash from the hands of the buyer, you’re s**t out of luck? Wow, I learn a new thing every day. The Speed Principle: The quickest guy gets the loot!
Since no one here disputes that the author’s creation is indeed HIS, how can one approve of someone else STEALING the sale proceeds from something that’s not theirs? We all know WHO created “IT” and who owns “IT”. How can you all close your eyes at “IT” being copied, pirated, stolen, and SOLD for profit by someone who had NOTHING whatsoever to do with creating “IT”? Just because Locke and Kinsella say you have to be able to touch “IT”?
Z.
Sadly, I see you are not interested in a discussion. Just in making up stuff to support your position.
- I can almost guarantee that the $2 rolex sales are not stealing any revenue from a genuine rolex.
- Also the $2 fake rolex was not built by rolex, they are not entitled to any profit derived from them.
Your model seeks to remove product from the economy restricting it to one producer. This undermines the point of capitalism and a healthy economy. By removing product from an economy simply because it is a clone you are in effect making everyone else poorer as there is less volume, driving up costs, and less selection, driving down quality. You do this with a crazy concept that vender A has a preemptive right to some random revenue stream derived from his concept. You would rather remove competition, raise costs, and dwindle quality.
That is in effect what you are arguing. There is nothing inherently wrong with the cloned rolex on sale for 2$. If someone wants a genuine rolex, I guarantee you they won’t be buying one of those. Now if the rolex’s were stolen that is a different issue. However we are not talking about theft of property, we are talking about cloning property.
You need to consider that more goods means a lower cost of living. It makes everyone wealthier as there is more to go around. More competition drives up quality. Removing products from a market and eliminating competition doesn’t sound very capitalistic like to me, does it to you?
There is also the issue of where to draw the line on an idea. Deciding what idea’s can be considerd property is ENTIRELY arbitrary. Why doesn’t rolex have a market monopoly on the production of wrist watches as a whole? In essense everyone was copying Rolex for wrist watches. Why we shouldn’t have any other competitors. All other vendors should share their profits and royalties to rolex for the original concept(or whoever it was).
But what about Rolex stealing the idea of the watch? Just because they slapped it on a wrist is no less a stolen idea from the mounted watch on the wall. They should be giving royalties to the various wall mounted clock makers. When you start to consider the concept of owning an idea, you begin to see how ridiculous it is.
But Rolex didn’t make the Rolex clone. They made the Genuine Rolex. Rolex is not entitled to any profits from the clone vendor. That would essentially be Rolex stealing from the cloning vendor. The cloning vendor is really a blessing as well. It gives an opportunity for poorer folk to compromise on quality, it gives the consumer ANOTHER option. Especially the poor who may not be able to afford nice watches but still need something to look nice for certain occasions.
You may want to restate your answers. Many of your previous posts were incoherent rants and re-writes of other people’s posts.
Why don’t you tell me?
Z.
If I have a copy of the author’s creation than indeed I can try to sell it. Or do you like to accuse me of something that I didn’t say?
Why indeed would it matter if it is a car is originally made by someone else? If I own that car, it is none of the creator’s business what I do with it. I can destroy it as I like, reverse engineer as I like, or actually add grasp value to it by modification.
Do you have such a reverence for creators of things to the point that you are willing to violate the property rights of other individuals?
No they shouldn’t be illegal. But according to your reasoning, the creator is entitled to those profits, it is his creation afterall.
Your conflating again. Please stop.
A more accurate analogy would be. You selling your Ford Taurus to an interested buyer before I did. Now can you possibly argue that you stole my right to those proceeds? No, I was lazy and didn’t put my car on the market before you. You earned the right to that proceeds and you sold your car before me.
If the author sells me his book, it’s no longer his. It’s mine.
Yes he created it, I own it.
Z, do us a favor and remove your emotion from this debate.
What about a $1 Avvatar and $1 Windoos 7 DVDs? Same thing?
Am I also “making everyone poorer” by NOT shooting Bill Gates, stealing his $50Bil and giving everyone $10 bills?
How am I driving DOWN quality by protecting the creators/owners of the film Titanic in their RIGHT to earn whatever profits the market will give them for their product/creation? Who would plunge $300million into making a film if they knew that right after the first test screening there’ll be $1 bootleg DVD copies of it at every corner? By what twisted reasoning did you conclude that anti-IP would IMPROVE the quality of intangible creations that you so hypocritically enjoy today?
Z.
No, because the copyright agreement stipulates that the information is bound to the media, hence the author agrees that you can sell or lend the book. He only forbids you to reproduce the information on the media.