The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation

[filc]

@Stranger

Actually what you did was provide a response to a refutation of fallacy with a different fallacy that is refuted further down the page. Since I’ve pre-emptively refuted this other fallacy, there is no need for me to repeat myself.

Asserting something as a fallacy doesn;t make it so. The sky is blue is a fallacy. That doesn’t mean its true. You have to actually explain why. Something you have yet to do.

@Stranger

Oxygen is superabundant. No conflicts have ever arisen over oxygen.

There would be conflicts if positive law stipulated so.

@Stranger

P.S. This is the first thread about IP that I write.

Do you really want me to go back and start linking all of the threads you’ve responded to that spiraled out of control into IP. Based on the trollish nonesense your performing right now?

I even have one thrad where you state specifically “This thread was always about IP”. YOu may not have started it but you most definitely participated and contributed to the nonesense. If anyone here has been responsible at instigating non-productive IP arguments here it has most certainly been you.

[filc]

@Stranger

Fallacy 2. Oxygen, like ideas, has no value.

Fallacy A: Strangers fallacies are debunked.

@Filc

But if there was positive law protection oxygen there would be.

You have yet to prove that IP is scarce. What you have provided is the production of so me IP can be scarce, but not that IP is scarce in general. Likewise the production of some oxygen can be scarce. All it means is the inefficient producers are doing it wrong.

Hmm read harder. I didn’t say Idea. Here we go again, employing your same old tactics. Try again.

[Hard_Rain]

Don’t do it, filc!!

[Stranger]

@filc

Asserting something as a fallacy doesn;t make it so. The sky is blue is a fallacy. That doesn’t mean its true. You have to actually explain why. Something you have yet to do.

A is not A

[Amanojack]

@Stranger

@AJ

Photographing over someone’s shoulder as they’re reading in the park is fine then?

@AJ

3. Record the data when (if) it arrives on your recording device.

Fallacy 7.

Here is your Fallacy 7 (Counterfeiting):

“One obviously does not need a contractual relation with a property owner in order to be a violator of his property. A thief is not bound by contract to respect the property of the owner of the automobile he is driving away in. He is bound by the law to do so, and will be punished for his violation. The role of the contract in intellectual property is precisely the reverse, it grants the right to the consumer to access the property of the producer, and thus makes their limited use of the information lawful.”

Nothing more than handwaving. Calling copying counterfeiting doesn’t magically make it a crime. Don’t assert, demonstrate.

@Stranger

@AJ

First of all, fallacy of composition: the information is not the delivery vehicle for that information.

This is a crime against the English language.

Others can be the judge of that. It’s fully transparent that you say that merely because you have a vested interest in the idea that information is more than patterns.

@Stranger

@AJ

Ever heard of radio?

Fallacy 2. Radio is scarce.

The spectrum may be, but the waves are not.

[Sage]

Stranger:

Good post, but you don’t seem to address the most fundamental argument against IP: that IP is slavery. See here, here, and here.

[scineram]

@Stranger

Because they operate in a black market, pirate copies of information are generally of lower quality and carry a higher risk than authentic copies.

aXXo and eztv never disappoint.

[Stranger]

@Sage

Stranger:

Good post, but you don’t seem to address the most fundamental argument against IP: that IP is slavery. See here, here, and here.

I’ve yet to see anyone make such an absurd claim.

Scanned through the last one quickly and spotted fallacy 1, fallacy 4 and fallacy 6. e: Also fallacy 3.

[Stranger]

@scineram

@Stranger

Because they operate in a black market, pirate copies of information are generally of lower quality and carry a higher risk than authentic copies.

aXXo and eztv never disappoint.

To the ordinary consumer of IP, these terms are meaningless. That is testament to their clandestinity.

[DBratton]

@AJ

The spectrum may be, but the waves are not.

Actually the spectrum is not scarce. Refer to the Archimedes Principle: For any two real numbers there are infinitely many real numbers between them.

Now substitute frequency for real number and you can see that it is only the capabilities of technological mechanisms for exploiting the spectrum which are limited.

[z1235]

@Stranger

Author’s note: I am compiling in this thread a list of all the fallacies invoked against intellectual property rights.

Stranger, great work!

Z.

[tsmereka]

One does not need to reflect for long to realize the fallacy in this argument. We have known since Rothbard’s Man, Economy and State the difference between patents and copyrights. Simply put, copyrights originate with a producer, while patents originate with the state. One must “apply for” patent protection in order to be granted it, but one does not need to apply for copyright protection to receive it, one only needs to seek protection with the state when a copyright is violated, much as is the case when any other form of market-created property is violated. This makes a copyrighted intellectual property a product of the free market, as it is created by a producer of information for the benefit of consumers.

Am I violating your rights right now in some way by block quoting you without asking?

What I am understanding in section 1 is that everyone has a right for a copyright on their work as soon as it is created. What happens when two people independently create similar ideas?

deas can be communicated orally following their formulation in the mind, but useful information can only be produced while working with media, can only be inscribed and communicated through media, and can only be enjoyed and consumed through a media. Often they must be recorded from the physical world using sophisticated instruments to transform physical patterns from one aspect to another, recordable one. This physicality makes information essentially indistinguishable from media. Information can only exist if media takes a specific physical shape. For example, if one wants a recording of actors riding along a mountain range, one must send physical actors to this mountain range and record their physical presence with cameras writing on film or on digital memory, a process that requires a substantial capital investment. The uniqueness of such an event is self-evident, and even if another producer of information were to hire the same actors to ride along the same mountain range and film them with the same equipment, the resulting stream of information would still be completely different in physical structure. This makes information a good that is inevitably bound to a physical structure, which are scarce, therefore a tangible good. Any existence of an identical copy of this information stream is physically connected to this original recording through acts of communication with the producer’s property, and it is impossible for it to be a result of an independent act of creation.

In fact, one can determine whether or not an intellectual property is legitimate based on the nature of the information; when the information is unique and will never re-occur in the lifetime of the universe, then it is scarce and comes only from one original source. If the information is not unique and can re-occur again and again, then it is not scarce and can be considered super-abundant, as it would be in the Garden of Eden. For super-abundant information, no conflict can possibly arise, as no labor is ever spent in its production. For information that is unique and specific, the scarcity of this information will grant the one who possesses it a productive advantage, and many others will attempt to obtain this information. Because it is unique, the only way to obtain it is by either contracting with the original producer, or by violating this producer’s physical property. This is why there is a market for information in the first place, and this is why counterfeiters seek to obtain this information in order to produce copies. Were the information not scarce, there would be no need at all to engage in copying! (In comparison with patents for ideas, one never sees internet pirates redistributing patented ideas, as these have no scarcity and no value.)

I really don’t need physical media to have valuable intellectual nonproperty. If I make up a song and sing it do I have a right to coerce anyone who sings a similar song, is influenced by it in some way, or builds on it?

How do you tell if information meets the criteria you made up to be scarce?

What it means, in essence, is that all open source software is produced to suit the needs of the producers, not the consumers. Those who do not have the skill of software production do not enjoy the benefits of this software. It is an explicit rejection of the division of labor and capitalism.

Yes the beneficiaries are often the producers themselves. You are trying to tell me it is bad because they are not selling it and they are their own primary customers?

Fallacy 7: A counterfeiter is not breaking a contract and is not bound by copyright limitations

One obviously does not need a contractual relation with a property owner in order to be a violator of his property. A thief is not bound by contract to respect the property of the owner of the automobile he is driving away in. He is bound by the law to do so, and will be punished for his violation. The role of the contract in intellectual property is precisely the reverse, it grants the right to the consumer to access the property of the producer, and thus makes their limited use of the information lawful.

How exactly is someone who violates a copy right a “counterfeiter”? If one rock band uses a riff from another band’s song in their song have they counterfeited? If I block quote mises am I counterfeiting? If I run my own world of warcraft servers possibly with some minor changes am I counterfeiting? Does it matter if I credit Blizzard for originally creating the program? Does it matter if warcraft is a complete ripoff of Dungons and Dragons which is a complete ripoff of Lord of the Rings.

Supposing that it were impossible for the information producer to control the supply of information, then the value of any capitalist investment in information would be zero, and no such production would ever be risked, to the detriment of information consumers.

No one is saying you should not be able to control your information. You just don’t have a right for people to go to you when they have cheaper alternatives.

This is an argument from miracle, and obviously does not enter a rational discourse on the legality of intellectual property, as a counterfeiter would have to provide evidence of a miracle in order to escape an accusation of counterfeiting unique information, just as a thief who uses the excuse of a miraculous possession of a car identical to the one coincidentally robbed from a property owner would have to prove the miracle to get away.

Uh this happens all the time. Newton and some other guy both invented calculus simultaneously. Newton was an IP nazi and went after the other guy (whose calculus was actually better and more streamlined) and ruined his carreer.

[Stranger]

@Taras Smereka

Am I violating your rights right now in some way by block quoting you without asking?

What I am understanding in section 1 is that everyone has a right for a copyright on their work as soon as it is created.

A copyrighted media is created by a producer of information, and is then sold to the market, much like one creates property in concert tickets and sells them to the market. If I don’t explicitly create this copyright, then my creation of information on the servers of the Mises Institute is not restrictive. I am giving away the information, which is also my right.

@Taras Smereka

What happens when two people independently create similar ideas?

@Taras Smereka

I really don’t need physical media to have valuable intellectual nonproperty. If I make up a song and sing it do I have a right to coerce anyone who sings a similar song, is influenced by it in some way, or builds on it?

How do you tell if information meets the criteria you made up to be scarce?

Fallacy 2.

@Taras Smereka

Yes the beneficiaries are often the producers themselves. You are trying to tell me it is bad because they are not selling it and they are their own primary customers?

I am saying that it is inferior economically as it is a rejection of specialization under the division of labor.

@Taras Smereka

How exactly is someone who violates a copy right a “counterfeiter”? If one rock band uses a riff from another band’s song in their song have they counterfeited? If I block quote mises am I counterfeiting? If I run my own world of warcraft servers possibly with some minor changes am I counterfeiting? Does it matter if I credit Blizzard for originally creating the program? Does it matter if warcraft is a complete ripoff of Dungons and Dragons which is a complete ripoff of Lord of the Rings.

Fallacy 1, 4, 9.

@Taras Smereka

No one is saying you should not be able to control your information. You just don’t have a right for people to go to you when they have cheaper alternatives.

Fallacy 2, 3, 4, 9.

@Taras Smereka

Uh this happens all the time. Newton and some other guy both invented calculus simultaneously. Newton was an IP nazi and went after the other guy (whose calculus was actually better and more streamlined) and ruined his carreer.

Fallacy 1.

[Sage]

@Stranger

I’ve yet to see anyone make such an absurd claim.

Scanned through the last one quickly and spotted fallacy 1, fallacy 4 and fallacy 6. e: Also fallacy 3.

Okay, but what about the slavery argument?

[Stranger]

@Sage

@Stranger

I’ve yet to see anyone make such an absurd claim.

Scanned through the last one quickly and spotted fallacy 1, fallacy 4 and fallacy 6. e: Also fallacy 3.

Okay, but what about the slavery argument?

It’s an obfuscation of the meaning of the word slavery itself.

Slavery is exclusive control over another man’s labor on the market.

[Sage]

Well, until you actually address the argument, your compilation here is incomplete.

[Stranger]

@Sage

Well, until you actually address the argument, your compilation here is incomplete.

There is no argument. They are redefining slavery to claim that IP is slavery. A is not A.

[filc]

@Xtranger

Assertion 1. The sky is Red.

@OthergGuy

Actually it’s blue.

@Xtranger

Assertion 1.

@OthergGuy

No the sun rays pass through the atmosphere whcih give it a blue haze, unless your color blind.

@Xtranger

Assertion 1.

@OthergGuy

Um.. you should probably get your eyes checked, thats not reality.

@Xtranger

Assertion 1. The skys is red.

@OthergGuy

No thats whats beign debated, you have to prove it

@Xtranger

Assertion 1.

@OthergGuy

Wtf?

@Xtranger

Assertion 1.

@OtherGuy

Your mom goes the college

@Xtranger

Fallacy A: Makign asserting that the sky is blue.

@OtherGuy

Ok I give, you have yet to prove anything other than that you like repeating yourself.

@Xtranger

Assertion 1.

1. Begging the question.

2. Argumentum ad nauseum

Why are you all wasting your time with a troll?

@Hard Rain

Don’t do it, filc!!

Indeed! i fell right into it. The ole bait n switch.

Adult Stranger posted, than child Stranger followed through. I’m just glad I didn’t waste my time writing a formal response.

[tsmereka]

I was asking for clarification, but this is obviously a troll thread so nevermind.

[Juan]

Did Stranger address the little problem that his fictitious IP conflicts with libertarian property rights ? Not that he would be bothered since he’s a socialist/conservative who believes that we live in a ‘capitalist’ paradise where privilege is free-enterprise and black is white.