No it’s not. I am not claiming I am the author, I am only removing references to the authors.
Right. If I just say “distributed by Kiba”, than I broken copyright law. I am golden.
I didn’t do anything wrong. I just offered an inferior product.
It did.
Wait, you can’t “steal” my safe-lock combination, my social security #, my credit card numbers, my bank account numbers, and “sell” them to the highest bidder in the open (free) market? You would merely “copy” them with your own pen and paper – the ONLY property that matters, right? I mean, I still have them, after all, so who am I to complain? Just like Avatar producers and their piddly (non-scarce, free-floating-in-the universe for anyone to arrange) 10gig long sequence of 0s and 1s, right? Just a bunch of numbers, ideas, patterns, i.e. worthless intangibles. A DVD with 10gig of 0s or with 10gig of randomly (white noise) generated 0s and 1s is indistinguishable from a DVD with 10gig of 0s and 1s representing Avatar, right? To an 18 century tomato grower, perhaps.
For free? Why am I not surprised? Could the dividing line in this particular discussion be as simple as the one between actual IP producers (capitalists, defending IP) and actual free-munchers (communists, attacking IP but mostly because they never have nor they ever intend to exert any effort or risk any capital to create it, YET firmly clasping their “privilege” to enjoy/consume it for free)? “From everyone according to their abilities (Cameron, take notice), and to everyone according to their (Avatar) needs.” Who needs IP capitalism when everyone could (should?) have IP for free? Anti-IP proponents of the world, unite!
Z.
Please don’t pretend to speak for all IP capitalists as though they are of one mind on monopoly or of one model with their businesses. That’s sloppy argumentation.
What is IP capitalism?
Do you actually own any of those things? Maybe your safe lock combination, but can you really claim that every combination (pattern/idea) is unique? Wouldn’t you have a claim against someone else with the same lock combination based on your theory?
No, a defensive copyright is when you copyright a work so that no one can copyright it and impose the copyright onto you. You can’t simply give up a copyright because current laws do no allow you to do so.
Tobbog, how much do you pay in royalties to use that image of Ralph as your avatar?
Busted!
FOX put it online for free, among other pictures of Simpsons characters, to promote the Simpsons-movie. If I copied an advertising spot to show it to my friends, it wouldn’t be theft either, since, first, the owner of the spot gave it to the public for free, and second, the owner will love to see his advertisement be distributed widely.
Back to the original topic: in the no-IP world of Kinsella and others, there would be only extremely low-budget films. Thinking about it, I prefer our present IP world 
I did no such thing. My suggestion (and not a provable argument, btw) was that perhaps the ones who are not themselves involved in the production of IP (information, patterns, i.e. intangibles) are simply unaware of how much work and capital goes into creating it, whereas the ones involved are aware and find it absurd to accept mere thieves as “competitors”.
And please stop using “monopoly” as if that’s somehow going to hurt the feelings of a free market IP supporter. The number of ALL possible 10gig combinations of 0s and 1s is larger than the number of all atoms in the known universe. Most of these combinations are garbage, but SOME – like the pattern of Avatar – are not and customers are willing to pay to experience it. Everyone is absolutely free to invest in their own prospecting tools and dive into this vast digital universe to find the next pattern of 0s and 1s for which customers will pay. There’s no monopoly on 10gig patterns, or any size patterns for that matter.
Nitpickers come in and say, “But what if I took Avatar and changed one bit (out of the billions)? Can I claim THAT pattern as mine, then?” – as if this somehow shows the absurdity of the concept of information as property. Does the vagueness of homesteading (What piece of land did you exactly “mix your labor” with? How about these two square feet? Did you mix your labor there too?), land ownership (How deep underground? How high in the sky?) make the concept of tangible property ridiculous, as well? Just as in the case of tangible property, not all answers are there (nor they need to be). People will know. Arbiters will know. The market will figure it out.
Free markets ALREADY treat information as property. And that’s only going to increase as percentage of global GDP. This argument is already finished.
Z.
Oh please. Lot of people here, including myself, are computer programmers. We know how much work and capital goes into creating software, thank you very much.
Indeed. I only produce specialized digital products and services, probably on a scale that dwarfs nearly everyone here, and I find it very amusing that I am being lectured on how my business and industry runs.
Add one more reason: to destroy their competition. Banning IP is about creating a less competitive marketplace where consumers have fewer choices and must rely on those businesses that only work in secret.
And yet, the copyright on Mises book is still more restrictive than a purely open license to transform the work. Now why would people who are against copyright do that?
It sounds like you are attempting to make a book more difficult to search for - I don’t think the market would consider you’ve “added value,” and they’d likely prefer the original source over your version. also, what kiba said.
Actually I want to publish a print edition of the book, and removing all references to the original authors allows me to save on ink and paper, thus offering a better price to consumers.
Why is the Mises Institute limiting my ability to compete with them?
Well, I prefer high-budget sandwiches, therefore, the state should impose some law that forces all sandwiches to be high-budget. See where I’m going with this? Btw, I prefer Rothbard as my avatar, the state should impose some law that forces everyone to have an avatar of Rothbard. You’re avatar of Ralph is bringing down the quality of avatars worldwide.
Your ignorance of current IP laws is obvious. There is no “purely open” license possible under current laws.
So, kiba. After you’ve spent a year of work and significant capital in creating your pattern of 0s and 1s, I came in, copied it and started selling it right next to you. Would you consider me as a mere competitor in a free market or a thief (or something else?). Do you regularly invest work and capital into creating communal entities available for all to use (or profit from) for free? How long have you lasted in business like this?
LS, it wasn’t my intention to lecture anyone, though I’d feel flattered if someone learned something from me.
I wish I had more time to allocate to this thread but looks like Stranger and Max have already completed the job without me.
Z.