Where IP law is actually a good thing

[DBratton]

@Tobbog

So, tell me, why should that not happen?

Maybe it should happen. You argument is basically that there something you like which can only be produced if my liberties are suspended, so my liberties should be suspended. Where is it written that we must have big budget movies?

[Giant_Joe]

@Maxliberty

@Giant_Joe

@Maxliberty

So we should be forced to share because you think it is more efficient?

It has been pointed out to you many times before that this is not true and that it’s a strawman. Why do you concede on a point one week, and then the next week forget that you did?

You’re missing the fact that the greater information is shared, the more efficient an economy becomes…that was LS’s quote…his belief that creating what he views as an efficient market is sufficient reason for people to steal information without consequence.

He didn’t say we should be forced to share information. No one is claiming that, other than you.

[Maxliberty]

@Stranger

@nirgrahamUK

how are you understanding ‘scarcity’ ? and how do you understand ‘rival’?

Scarcity - physically limited in supply.

How do you understand it? My interpretation of intellectual communists is that they think information is just a bunch of ideas floating around in the aether, and all you have to do is reach out and catch it, much like the land communists believe. If that were true, however, they wouldn’t have to invade other people’s property to obtain information, they could just catch it from the same original source.

Ding Ding Ding…we have a winner. Your killing em Stranger don’t let em sweat you. Their argument is so convoluted because it lacks the simplicity of the truth.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Maxliberty

@Stranger

@nirgrahamUK

how are you understanding ‘scarcity’ ? and how do you understand ‘rival’?

Scarcity - physically limited in supply.

How do you understand it? My interpretation of intellectual communists is that they think information is just a bunch of ideas floating around in the aether, and all you have to do is reach out and catch it, much like the land communists believe. If that were true, however, they wouldn’t have to invade other people’s property to obtain information, they could just catch it from the same original source.

Ding Ding Ding…we have a winner. Your killing em Stranger don’t let em sweat you. Their argument is so convoluted because it lacks the simplicity of the truth.

[musical] He’s killing us slowlyyyyy with straw mans. With straw maaaaans.

[Maxliberty]

@nirgrahamUK

@Stranger

Call it whatever you want, the outcome is the same. You are not allowed to make copies.

you are not allowed to make copies from the physical property of another when you are denied access to someone else physical property and the access you require crosses material boundaries and is defacto aggression. you can copy another persons physical property if you are non-invasive. like if i see you reading a page, and then i start to copy down the contents of the page. i have not interfered with your physical page property. my eyes did not send out beams that scarred your paper.

things get interesting when you aren’t denied access to someone elses physical property. like when you have access to a ‘pirates’ physical property.

Great, you have now come full circle to see the flaw in your argument. If the only get around of property rights is to have one party steal the information and give it to a third party who can release it without problem then you create incentives to steal since the first person according to you can’t really be punished anyway. This is the equivalent of stealing anything and allowing the fencer of stolen property to maintain the property and profit from the theft.

[Maxliberty]

@Giant_Joe

@Maxliberty

@Giant_Joe

@Maxliberty

So we should be forced to share because you think it is more efficient?

It has been pointed out to you many times before that this is not true and that it’s a strawman. Why do you concede on a point one week, and then the next week forget that you did?

You’re missing the fact that the greater information is shared, the more efficient an economy becomes…that was LS’s quote…his belief that creating what he views as an efficient market is sufficient reason for people to steal information without consequence.

He didn’t say we should be forced to share information. No one is claiming that, other than you.

His argument like yours allows for the taking/copying of information by force to have no consequence because in his mind this aggression is for the greater good of economic efficiency. I understand why you don’t want to admit it and why none of you will specifically address the punishment to the hacker…because to answer that scenario will destroy your argument just like it did with nighram.

[DanielMuffinburg]

What’s with trollish behavior over IP, MaxLiberty and Stranger? When will you two quit the straw mans and non sequiturs?

[Maxliberty]

@Daniel Muffinburg

@Maxliberty

@Stranger

@nirgrahamUK

how are you understanding ‘scarcity’ ? and how do you understand ‘rival’?

Scarcity - physically limited in supply.

How do you understand it? My interpretation of intellectual communists is that they think information is just a bunch of ideas floating around in the aether, and all you have to do is reach out and catch it, much like the land communists believe. If that were true, however, they wouldn’t have to invade other people’s property to obtain information, they could just catch it from the same original source.

Ding Ding Ding…we have a winner. Your killing em Stranger don’t let em sweat you. Their argument is so convoluted because it lacks the simplicity of the truth.

[musical] He’s killing us slowlyyyyy with straw mans. With straw maaaaans.

Why don’t you try addressing the hacker scenario and tell us what the punishment will be. You have been ducking it for about 5 pages now. When you actually press the Austrian cultists for the specific details all they can do is repeat the mantra…no independent critical thinking at all.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Maxliberty

This is the equivalent of stealing anything and allowing the fencer of stolen property to maintain the property and profit from the theft.

no. it is not the equivalent. it is something quite different.

one obvious difference. is that someone who comes to ‘physically posses’ material property that was once stolen, by his possesion deprives the original and true owner of his right to ‘physical possesion’ justice is served when the physical goods are returned to the rightful owner. because of material reality such a transfer will necessitate the ‘3rd party’ relinquishing the property.

omeone who comes to '‘physically posses’ information encoded onto his own material property that was once information that another had pirated and then invited the copying of, by his possesion does not deprive the original and true owner of his right to ‘physical possesion’. justice is served when the physical goods are returned to the rightful owner. well, the owner has them, so tick that box. because of material reality no transfer of material from the ‘3rd party’ to the original ‘knower’ is necessary.

i hope you followed that.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Maxliberty

His argument like yours allows for the taking/copying of information by force to have no consequence because in his mind this aggression is for the greater good of economic efficiency.

Straw man. Hombre de estraw. Le straw le man. Il manno di strawti.

@Maxliberty

I understand why you don’t want to admit it and why none of you will specifically address the punishment to the hacker…because to answer that scenario will destroy your argument just like it did with nighram.

I addressed hacking in another thread.

[Giant_Joe]

@Maxliberty

His argument like yours allows for the taking/copying of information by force

He didn’t argue that taking information by force would help the economy. He may have implied that the removal of IP law may help, but he did not imply that forceful taking of information would be helpful. When are you going to stop accusing people of things that are not true?

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Maxliberty

@Daniel Muffinburg

@Maxliberty

@Stranger

@nirgrahamUK

how are you understanding ‘scarcity’ ? and how do you understand ‘rival’?

Scarcity - physically limited in supply.

How do you understand it? My interpretation of intellectual communists is that they think information is just a bunch of ideas floating around in the aether, and all you have to do is reach out and catch it, much like the land communists believe. If that were true, however, they wouldn’t have to invade other people’s property to obtain information, they could just catch it from the same original source.

Ding Ding Ding…we have a winner. Your killing em Stranger don’t let em sweat you. Their argument is so convoluted because it lacks the simplicity of the truth.

[musical] He’s killing us slowlyyyyy with straw mans. With straw maaaaans.

Why don’t you try addressing the hacker scenario and tell us what the punishment will be. You have been ducking it for about 5 pages now.

There is a thread about hacking where I address this issue. Go find it if you are interested.

@Maxliberty

When you actually press the Austrian cultists for the specific details all they can do is repeat the mantra…no independent critical thinking at all.

Prove this or will consider it trollish behavior.

[Maxliberty]

@nirgrahamUK

@Maxliberty

This is the equivalent of stealing anything and allowing the fencer of stolen property to maintain the property and profit from the theft.

no. it is not the equivalent. it is something quite different.

one obvious difference. is that someone who comes to ‘physically posses’ material property that was once stolen, by his possesion deprives the original and true owner of his right to ‘physical possesion’ justice is served when the physical goods are returned to the rightful owner. because of material reality such a transfer will necessitate the ‘3rd party’ relinquishing the property.

omeone who comes to '‘physically posses’ information encoded onto his own material property that was once information that another had pirated and then invited the copying of, by his possesion does not deprive the original and true owner of his right to ‘physical possesion’. justice is served when the physical goods are returned to the rightful owner. well, the owner has them, so tick that box. because of material reality no transfer of material from the ‘3rd party’ to the original ‘knower’ is necessary.

i hope you followed that.

I fully understand your position. People have the right to copy information from other people even against their will. Even after this aggression to copy is completed there is no recourse to the party that had the original information. Your position does not recognize my right to decide to whom and when I share information. According to you, my being forced to share information is perfectly acceptable since after I have been forced to share the information I still retain it, so in your mind I have not lost anything.

I hope you followed that.

[Maxliberty]

@Daniel Muffinburg

I addressed hacking in another thread.

Sure you did. It is really a simple yes or no to most of the pertinent questions. If I had your idiotic position I wouldn’t answer either.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Maxliberty

People have the right to copy information from other people even against their will.

it depends.

as i have pointed out on other threads .you have copied the information of my text, you pressed ‘quote’, you have not asked for permission. you did not consider my will. what you did does not constitute aggression against me, or do you think that it did and that you owe me an apology?

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Maxliberty

@nirgrahamUK

@Maxliberty

This is the equivalent of stealing anything and allowing the fencer of stolen property to maintain the property and profit from the theft.

no. it is not the equivalent. it is something quite different.

one obvious difference. is that someone who comes to ‘physically posses’ material property that was once stolen, by his possesion deprives the original and true owner of his right to ‘physical possesion’ justice is served when the physical goods are returned to the rightful owner. because of material reality such a transfer will necessitate the ‘3rd party’ relinquishing the property.

omeone who comes to '‘physically posses’ information encoded onto his own material property that was once information that another had pirated and then invited the copying of, by his possesion does not deprive the original and true owner of his right to ‘physical possesion’. justice is served when the physical goods are returned to the rightful owner. well, the owner has them, so tick that box. because of material reality no transfer of material from the ‘3rd party’ to the original ‘knower’ is necessary.

i hope you followed that.

I fully understand your position. People have the right to copy information from other people even against their will. Even after this aggression to copy is completed there is no recourse to the party that had the original information. Your position does not recognize my right to decide to whom and when I share information. According to you, my being forced to share information is perfectly acceptable since after I have been forced to share the information I still retain it, so in your mind I have not lost anything.

I hope you followed that.

Sorry, it’s not available for the Kindle.

[Maxliberty]

@Giant_Joe

@Maxliberty

His argument like yours allows for the taking/copying of information by force

He didn’t argue that taking information by force would help the economy. He may have implied that the removal of IP law may help, but he did not imply that forceful taking of information would be helpful. When are you going to stop accusing people of things that are not true?

The logical consequence of your argument is that the copying of information by force is without consequence. He then indicates that this will be more economically efficient.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Maxliberty

@Daniel Muffinburg

I addressed hacking in another thread.

Sure you did. It is really a simple yes or no to most of the pertinent questions. If I had your idiotic position I wouldn’t answer either.

What is my position? I don’t remember ever making one on this thread. Oh, dear sir, please bless me with a link to my supposed argument.

[Maxliberty]

@nirgrahamUK

@Maxliberty

People have the right to copy information from other people even against their will.

it depends.

as i have pointed out on other threads .you have copied the information of my text, you pressed ‘quote’, you have not asked for permission. you did not consider my will. what you did does not constitute aggression against me, or do you think that it did and that you owe me an apology?

If it depends, then information at times has the characteristics of property otherwise it does not depends. When information has the characteristics of property then it needs to be treated like property. Glad to see you understand now.

[Giant_Joe]

@Maxliberty

@Giant_Joe

@Maxliberty

His argument like yours allows for the taking/copying of information by force

He didn’t argue that taking information by force would help the economy. He may have implied that the removal of IP law may help, but he did not imply that forceful taking of information would be helpful. When are you going to stop accusing people of things that are not true?

The logical consequence of your argument is that the copying of information by force is without consequence. He then indicates that this will be more economically efficient.

I was being nice, but here’s the piece of conversation.

@liberty student

@Stranger

Like paper money, information only has value if its supply is strictly limited.

You’re missing the fact that the greater information is shared, the more efficient an economy becomes. By your argument, more people learning to read and write devalues reading and writing. You’re basically refuting the possibility for progress by making a claim that every new work is original and not a derivation (if that is what you are saying), and you’re also making a grave error by insisting that more value is created by having less aggregate knowledge.

I believe this is the market as zero sum game stuff which I thought most Austrians understood to be bunk.

LS didn’t say we should force sharing of information. He said:

the greater information is shared, the more efficient an economy becomes.

Where did he make the claim that force should be used to realize this efficiency?