Where IP law is actually a good thing

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Maxliberty

@Stranger

@Maxliberty

It is the logical conclusion of your position.

Information can not be owned.

A hacker copying data has caused no injury and therefore can not be punished for copying data even if he trespassed to do so.

Any attempt by the trespassed party to recover the data copied would be a violation of the hackers right to copy.

However, the trespassed party can now trespass over the hacker at will, since by trespassing he has voided his claim to be protected from trespass. Hence his property can be occupied by the copyright owner and done whatever they wish to.

They can both resolve this conflict if the hacker returns all the information he took and all the profits earned, as well as compensation for the costs of obtaining justice.

From Daniel’s position this would not be true since the information is not property. Only if you believe that information can be owned can the trespassed party seek recovery of what was taken. In other words, I have no right to recover something that by Daniel’s definition I did not have.

What is my position. Please provide me with this information.

[DanielMuffinburg]

What’s with the delay, Stranger and MaxLiberty? Arn’t either of you able to twist around my last two comments to your liking? I guess that means no more nonsense comments form you two. Woohoo!

[DanielMuffinburg]

Kool & The Gang - Celebration

[Stranger]

@Daniel Muffinburg

Writing a script for Avatar? What prevents you from not trolling?

Under capitalism, you have to produce to consume. I’m sorry that IP prevents you from stealing and that makes you upset, but it doesn’t prevent you from competing, and it doesn’t prevent you from creating, so that’s the end of your argument.

For some reason, there are always shadow currents of communism running around libertarians. This one is no different from those libertarians who believe there can’t be ownership of land because land is given by nature.

[Stranger]

@Maxliberty

@Stranger

However, the trespassed party can now trespass over the hacker at will, since by trespassing he has voided his claim to be protected from trespass. Hence his property can be occupied by the copyright owner and done whatever they wish to.

They can both resolve this conflict if the hacker returns all the information he took and all the profits earned, as well as compensation for the costs of obtaining justice.

From Daniel’s position this would not be true since the information is not property. Only if you believe that information can be owned can the trespassed party seek recovery of what was taken. In other words, I have no right to recover something that by Daniel’s definition I did not have.

In the scenario above the trespassed is not seeking recovery, but simply retaliating against trespass with another trespass (this is allowed of course, since the intellectual communists argue that trespass is not a violation of rights). In order to restore his right to his property, the trespasser must come to an agreement with his victim, which reasonably includes repairing the damages he caused.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Stranger

@Daniel Muffinburg

Writing a script for Avatar? What prevents you from not trolling?

Under capitalism, you have to produce to consume.

I is in agreement with yous.

@Stranger

I’m sorry that IP prevents you from stealing and that makes you upset, but it doesn’t prevent you from competing, and it doesn’t prevent you from creating, so that’s the end of your argument.

I’m not trying to plays a semantics game, but IP hardly prevent “stealing.” It simply deters and legalizes the punishment of the “stealing” of other people ideas.

@Stranger

For some reason, there are always shadow currents of communism running around libertarians. This one is no different from those libertarians who believe there can’t be ownership of land because land is given by nature.

Let’s see… I think that is the 4th time someone on this forum has implied that I am a communist.

Hey, please make your case for IP, so that I can then point out the fallacies. Gazie!

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Stranger

@Maxliberty

@Stranger

However, the trespassed party can now trespass over the hacker at will, since by trespassing he has voided his claim to be protected from trespass. Hence his property can be occupied by the copyright owner and done whatever they wish to.

They can both resolve this conflict if the hacker returns all the information he took and all the profits earned, as well as compensation for the costs of obtaining justice.

From Daniel’s position this would not be true since the information is not property. Only if you believe that information can be owned can the trespassed party seek recovery of what was taken. In other words, I have no right to recover something that by Daniel’s definition I did not have.

In the scenario above the trespassed is not seeking recovery, but simply retaliating against trespass with another trespass (this is allowed of course, since the intellectual communists argue that trespass is not a violation of rights). In order to restore his right to his property, the trespasser must come to an agreement with his victim, which reasonably includes repairing the damages he caused.

Who are the “intellectual communists” is this context, anti-IP libertarians or actual commies?

[LvMIenthusiast]

Remember paraphrasing what Mises said, ‘You shouldn’t only emulate routine/success, you should improve upon it’.

That’s all I will say and I will leave you two to duke the rest out.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@LvMIenthusiast

Remember paraphrasing what Mises said, ‘You shouldn’t only emulate routine/success, you should improve upon it’.

That’s all I will say and I will leave you two to duke the rest out.

I’m still trying to figure out what they claim is my position.

[Tobbog]

@Daniel Muffinburg

@Tobbog

And since, as a cinema, you can’t hide from public like a drug dealer, a cinema that collaborates with pirate copiers would be easily identifiable and hence wouldn’t dare violating IP law.

Why wouldn’t the same be true without IP?

@Daniel Muffinburg

Without IP, any cinema owner, like everyone else, could obtain a copy of the movie without the production company profiting from it. With IP, however, no cinema owner would ever dare to pirate copy any of its movies since it always had to fear prosecution.

@Tobbog

The horse and buggy industry went out of business, because competition delivered a way better product: automobiles. In the case of IP, however, “competition” wouldn’t deliver a better product, just a cheaper one. And the only reason they can have it cheaper is, because they didn’t have any production expenses. Therefore, if pirate copiers were free to go into business with cinemas and consumers, they would, step by step, kill their host, the film industry, like parasites, whereas the car industry can perfectly prosper with or without any buggy factory

Quality is subjective and there is always opportunity costs. There would be a cost for acquiring the pirated movie. Please rewrite your statement fixing the these flaws in your argument.

Yeah right, quality is subjective, I know. So … what??? And indeed, there would be a cost for acquiring the pirated movie. Take 50 cent for the copy and $ 2 as profit for the pirate copier. But that would still be a whole lot less than what the production company had to charge in order to compensate for its production costs.

And, in this case, IP doesn’t provide a monopoly for the film producer. There are dozens or hundreds of other movies competing with Avatar. Or books, DVDs, computer games, you name it.

[DanielMuffinburg]

So, anyway. Why do we need IP if the employee is already committing a crime by making a copy of the film and selling it? Why not prosecute him on that basis? Why do we need IP on top of that?

[Aster_Lacnala]

Three points I would like to bring up.

First, in a world of crappy movies, people wouldn’t go to the theatre nearly as often. So if theatres started “pirating” works, making it useless to make big budget movies, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Don’t you think most theatres would be willing to pay a little more to ensure they stayed in business longer than a year?

Second, even if the theatres got stupid, after the first movie was killed like this, every film would be sold to theatres at cost, minimum. The first theatre would have to cover the entire cost of production, then recoup that loss in the secondary copy market. The cool thing about the free market is that it self corrects a lot.

Third, suppose I created a movie called Avatar, with the same plot and characters, same script, everything identical because I’m that good at CGI. IP law would prevent me from selling it. Here, I have made a copy, but I actually have put in the time and money to produce the movie, rather than just copying a film strip or DVD. Isn’t this restricting competition? If I shouldn’t be allowed to sell the fruits of my work, then I’d say it certainly is ideas you are claiming people can own. If I should, however, be allowed to sell it, then what differentiates the copy made the same way as the original, and the copy made by reading a DVD that I never agreed not to copy and burning a new one? The time and cost? The free market isn’t about things being fair, and if I can do something for cheaper then I should be allowed to.

[Stranger]

@Daniel Muffinburg

So, anyway. Why do we need IP if the employee is already committing a crime by making a copy of the film and selling it? Why not prosecute him on that basis? Why do we need IP on top of that?

That is IP.

[Stranger]

@Aster_Lacnala

First, in a world of crappy movies, people wouldn’t go to the theatre nearly as often. So if theatres started “pirating” works, making it useless to make big budget movies, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Don’t you think most theatres would be willing to pay a little more to ensure they stayed in business longer than a year?

Second, even if the theatres got stupid, after the first movie was killed like this, every film would be sold to theatres at cost, minimum. The first theatre would have to cover the entire cost of production, then recoup that loss in the secondary copy market. The cool thing about the free market is that it self corrects a lot.

How is this a better solution than copyright? All that you have proposed is that we would get crappier products and no benefits.

@Aster_Lacnala

Here, I have made a copy, but I actually have put in the time and money to produce the movie, rather than just copying a film strip or DVD.

No difference, if you accessed the media to make your copy, it is theft. If you just make something similar, then that’s a poor clone of the original, or a parody. Those are common but everyone ignores them. They don’t have much value.

[Conza]

@Stranger

@Daniel Muffinburg

So, anyway. Why do we need IP if the employee is already committing a crime by making a copy of the film and selling it? Why not prosecute him on that basis? Why do we need IP on top of that?

That is IP.

No, it can be a contract violation. i.e Breach of non disclosure agreement (NDA).

I’m not seeing any IP.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Stranger

@Daniel Muffinburg

So, anyway. Why do we need IP if the employee is already committing a crime by making a copy of the film and selling it? Why not prosecute him on that basis? Why do we need IP on top of that?

That is IP.

It’s IP when the employee’s contracts says “you are not allowed to 'make copies without our permission”?

[Stranger]

@Daniel Muffinburg

@Stranger

@Daniel Muffinburg

So, anyway. Why do we need IP if the employee is already committing a crime by making a copy of the film and selling it? Why not prosecute him on that basis? Why do we need IP on top of that?

That is IP.

It’s IP when the employee’s contracts says “you are not allowed to 'make copies without our permission”?

It shouldn’t even have to say that. It’s like putting a sticker on your car that says “you are not allowed to steal this car”.

The clause is just a reminder.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Stranger

@Daniel Muffinburg

So, anyway. Why do we need IP if the employee is already committing a crime by making a copy of the film and selling it? Why not prosecute him on that basis? Why do we need IP on top of that?

That is IP.

You can pursue a claim if the employment contract stipulated that certain actions by the employee would have certain results. There is no need for the legal fiction of intellectual property.

[JackCuyler]

@Maxliberty

It is the logical conclusion of your position.

Information can not be owned.

Agreed

@Maxliberty

A hacker copying data has caused no injury and therefore can not be punished for copying data even if he trespassed to do so.

Trespassing is a crime unto itself, and therefore the hackee may seek restitution from the hacker.

@Maxliberty

Any attempt by the trespassed party to recover the data copied would be a violation of the hackers right to copy.

“Recover” in what sense? Did the hacker make a copy and the delete the original? If so, the hackee may certainly attempt to recover the data. If not, what’s to recover? The original is still in place. The only question then is what to do about the crime of trespassing.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@JackCuyler

Trespassing is a crime unto itself, and therefore the hackee may seek restitution from the hacker.

(I wasn’t around for a while sorry.)

I still don’t see how hacking is trespassing unless some physical property is altered. What other action we could call “trespassing” occurs when a person is not physically anywhere near another’s property?