allow me to explain. your professors dont want you to copy another author; this is because they want to see hwat you are capable of (after your exposure to the ideas of other authors!)
however, does this mean that the ‘idea’ that you wrote down is your ‘property’ no?
what if you all did have independantly the same idea. if you truly did, what will your professor say against you all?
it depends what you mean by ‘claim this post as their own;’
if they say," i wrote the post that Benjamin Burkley wrote", then the question rather answers itself.
if they say “heres something i wrote”, and they wrote it, and it has the same words in it as the post that you wrote, thats something else.
by reading this post you have implcitly agreed that i did not implicitly agree to anything when i read your prior post
What you agree to isn’t the question. 54% of voting Americans agreed Obama was a good choice, over 95% believed the Dems or Republicans were a good choice. What people think, and what is, are not always the same thing.
The land is scarce. Ideas are not.
The Austrian school of economics is based on a subjective theory of value, not a labour theory of value. It doesn’t matter how much you work, put in capital, the product only has commercial value when you negotiate a price in market exchange.
What it means, is that people will allocate capital more carefully. Instead of producing products for the IP value, they will produce products which the market demands. If you produce something people want, they will buy it. IP notwithstanding.
If you want to address Jeffrey Tucker, I recommend you comment on one of his blog posts or email him (contact information at the end of the article I linked up thread). I doubt he is reading this discussion, so your comments have a slim chance of reaching him through this medium.
However, I would advise stopping by http://blog.mises.org first. There is a lot of discussion that already addresses your questions and concerns.
Unfortunately, you can’t copyright work if you can’t spell copyright. Just kidding.
Did you read the terms and conditions of your Mises.org membership? I’m fairly certain the entire website is CC 3.0 Attribution licensed. You can’t add a license condition on someone else’s property, and your post here, is the property of Mises.org to delete, promote, edit etc.
The example is wholly relevant. You’re doing exactly what Max does. You’re conflating different arguments.
This discussion is about IP. Not the positive or negative property rights obligations of a pub owner in Sheffield to serve a man of jewish ancestry a stout ale.
Well, do you think I have the right to specify how you may or may not use the property that I am selling you? Because that’s the point I’m arguing, that one may. Once again, IP is wholly irrelevant, IP is a state granted monopoly.
Why is it relevant when the contract hasn’t been broken, the whole point of the discussion is whether or not I may set the terms of you buying a certain good from me. If you do, and don’t break the contractual agreement we have made there’s no issue. Hence, the example is not relevant.
Show me how.
It’s an analogy, in case you didn’t guess already.
no arguments here. im confident i never contradicted this, but i appreciate that in the rough and tumble of this thread you might have misread the odd argument of mine and concluded that somehow i was opposed to that; im not.. peace out.
it was faulty or not depending on your interpretation of the word allow used in the scenario. If A contracts B not to allow others to reproduce the item.
allow could be used inthe dictionary sense of ‘admit’ i make possible, enable. in which case its passable.
on interpreting allow in the sense of ‘refraining from prevension’ (there is probably a better discription of this sense but hey..).
it would be a bankcrupt contract if B was obliged to positively prevent others reproductions, i.e. he sees c has come up with it independantly and he must go forth and stop it. if he doesnt stop it. he has allowed it.
No. The discussion is and was whether or not ownership of a non-good can be contracted. If you agree that I own the sky, and sign a contract to that effect, do I in fact own the sky, and can I enforce that contract against 3rd parties?
And taking it to Max’s next step, once the contract is signed, this is proof that I value the sky, and thus it must be ownable, because things with value must be property.
And the final piece of the argument, that I am able to protect my ownership of the sky by signing a contract with you. That being proof that owning and protecting the sky contractually through the market not only is possible, it is valid and rational.
So after all of this discussion you have conceded. Now if we could just get LS to acknowledge his errors. It is funny that if I say I can sell you a piece of paper that has a song on it then that is not IP. You and LS have some bizarre defintion of IP that I think has nothing to do with what the majority of people are discussing when they discuss IP.
If you just you and LS could develop your alternate reality you would be set.