LifeIsBrief

I just want to point out again, that I'm not a fan of legal monopolies... I merely think copying something, should reflect in your reputation. I think it's a business destroyer, if it does not, and it will take the incentive out of creativity. I don't think anyone wants to do anything for free, or just to have their needs met. People want to believe that if they have a great idea, and produce a product that everyone loves, they will be rewarded. I know on this board, we tend to theorize about stateless societies, and I'm for em'. I do think it's important to note however, that we don't live in one. While it's easy to see that in most modern societies, the invention and patent system is being abused by government sponsored corporations, I find that argument much more difficult to make in regards to art. If someone makes a good living, and has a thousand songs on their Ipod that they refuse to pay money for... I think that's a cruel and immoral person. It seems to me, like in our current society, the argument that "copyright laws are nonsense"... can be, and is being used as an argument to steal artwork from the poor. It's an excuse for even wealthy elites, to say "give me your artwork for free", and experience no consequences in reputation, or social status, and I find that reprehensible. It's an excuse for the wealthy to say "I don't have to pay for the artwork of common peasants". Should more artists choose the Radiohead, Louis CK, and Stefan model of distributing content, so that more people have access to it, especially those who are not wealthy. Yes... It's a better model, and most people are good, and will pay what they can afford to support great work. That said, it should be a choice the artist is allowed to make. It should not be forced on them by abandoning even reputational consequences for people who refuse to trade value for value. That's just my take on the issue however, maybe I'm missing something.

I've been trying to avoid this topic a bit, because as myself, and a few others mentioned in response... It's pub talk. I've had a few interesting conversations about this subject while sharing a beer with someone who has a stronger background in physics than myself, so I thought it would make a good first post here. Unfortunately my sarcastic, snarky writing style, made it seem like I think I'm some sort of brilliant genius who's overthrowing Einstein. I assure you nothing could be further from the truth, I'm a goofball laborer, who occasionally says something interesting or funny. I don't have the new formula to win a Nobel prize with, this theory just always irritated me, and reeked of trying to prove moral relativism, so I like to rant about it. I think JeremySC has asked the questions that I'm most interesting in theorizing about from a bar stool though, so I'm gonna take one more crack at it. "If matter is expanding, what is it expanding relative to?"... Well... either, nothing/everything... or space. Again, I'm armchair quarterbacking this, not looking for a Nobel. If everything is expanding, it would look like nothing was expanding. However, it is theoretically possible, that while the original expectations of "the ether" have been mathematically proven false... space exists, and it's not empty. Matter is energy, and energy moves in the form of a wave. Waves move faster, when they move through dense materials. Sound travels faster in water than air, so it is theoretically possible that we move through the vacuum of space, faster than we move through air, not because it's empty, but because it is more dense. This was Tesla's theory, not my own, I just think we might have discarded it too quickly, but again armchair quarterbacking the infinite nature of reality, is not perfectly consistent with the scientific method. I just like Tesla more than I like Einstein, and something about relativity emotionally irritates me, in a way no other science manages to. "If we could thought-experiment our way to a hypothetical measurement, what would it look like?" I thought, that because the moon has less matter than we do, and it's very close, we should see changes in its size. If space was a material that we pushed away like a bubble, it would begin to look smaller. If not it would look larger. I placed my bet on smaller, but before generating any math on the subject, we discovered that the moon was getting smaller. I got a bit narcissistic and said "Hey maybe I'm onto something here", but simultaneously lost the ability to prove it by working out the math of how much smaller it was going to get, which I was probably never going to do anyway. In this thread, the idea of gravitational crunch was brought up, and this provided me with an alternative experiment which could theoretically be conducted. In my theory, there would be no gravitational crunch, so if you sent a large object, towards the sun horizontal to its center, the structure would not experience stress fractures on either side, in any greater number than are experienced in the objects center. If the sun is expanding to meet the object, rather than pulling the object towards the sun, there would be no reason for the object to compress, or "crunch". This is insanely cost prohibitive, for proving the rants of someone engaged in pub talk, but since there are some theoretical physicists who agree with me, there may be another way to do this some time in the future. Sensors could be attached to a large asteroid on a collision course with the sun, if we could find one. "We can define mass as that which exists in the presence of matter, but this is wholly unsatisfying" That's really the core of my mild irritation with modern physics. We're using math to describe phenomena, with incredible accuracy... but, as a consequence, we let people who write the math, describe the phenomena. I'm not sure that mathematicians make good physicists. The explanations, just feel wrong... total emotional bs though. I'm not saying that means they are wrong. It's far more likely that physicists, are correct, than my friends at the pub. "At what speed does information travel" This is where we get into my strange, "Did Einstein prove that perception is reality?" issue. Is the speed at which information moves, relevant to the speed at which things happen? We seem to have mathematically proven that time is a dimension, because it effects the movement of light and radiation... I've always viewed time as a conscious entities perception of movement. This leads to the only other experiment I can think of which might show evidence of my theory. Rather than using a light clock, or mechanical device created by conscious entities... could we use a fast reproducing bacteria, or virus, as a clock? If the ten or 15 minutes of time "lost", by moving quickly, would be equivalent to a generation or two of exponential growth... it might be possible to measure, if the time was lost, or we're just misperceiving something. You could conduct this experiment on a rover heading towards mars in theory. Again, this could be a complete waste of time however, and I could just be a Tesla fanboy, and pub conversationalist who's completely missing obvious information. In my mind however, the speed of light, is the speed of perception, not the speed of reality, if that makes any sense at all. Edit: I almost forgot to mention... The idea that black holes are big bangs, is actually becoming very acceptable in theoretical physics circles. Michio Kaku for example has written about it. Einstein talked about "white holes". I don't think there are white holes, I think there is one white hole in our universe, still eating stars from the previous one and spitting them out into ours. Our black holes are creating new, likely smaller universes... but if mass is a constantly expanding, or reproducing form of energy, they'll get bigger. If we find one "white hole", likely at the "center" of our universe, I will experience a feeling very similar to when we found out that the moon was getting smaller here. I'll still just be a purveyor of interesting bar room rants, but I will once again think "Hey, maybe I was on to something there".

I had a bit of trouble with this argument myself, and discussed it a bit in my post "Is "The initiation of a cause of harm is immoral" more comprehensive?". For myself however, I resolved the problem relatively simply. The initiation of force, in this case, is forcing a parents adult religious beliefs, on a child. You're not born a Jehovah's witness who thinks blood transfusions are immoral. So, the initiation of force, is not the refusal to treat the child, but forcing it to believe in your religion. The refusing of a blood transfusion, is simply a symptom of that initiation. I don't know if that helps, because it still puts the incident in a weird sort of gray area... but it was good enough for me. I think it's logically consistent.

"And an individual can give life unto another individual, thus initiating inevitable harm. Which is my original argument" The problem with that argument, is that the singular act of creating life, which does lead to inevitable harm, also leads to inevitable joy. So, to call the creation of life, which creates inevitable joy, an initiation of harm, is quite a stretch. An individual creating life, in and of itself is not an initiation of harm, because it is simultaneously, and in the same act, an initiation of joy, love, experience, etc. To call the creation of life, an initiation of harm, is to look at the inevitable harm that everyone experiences, in a vacuum. The act of creation, is an initiation of life. Other individuals, and parents, may cause harm, but that harm is not the moral responsibility of the creators, unless they cause it personally.

Those aren't arguments. I'm taking this very seriously. It is entirely realistic for 99% of the people, to spend time getting to know people they plan to invest money in, because they don't have much to invest. Even if what you are saying is true, it would not be more passive, and you have to be an even greater professional. Being able to decide which investment firm, is the better professional, requires much more expertise, than investing in people you know. Large investment firms don't decrease complexity, or making investing more passive, they actually make it more complex and challenging. Instead of being a "professional" investor, you need to be an expert in comparing and contrasting different professional investors, if you want to have success. Finally, "I want passive income", can easily be rephrased "Give me free money, because... Magic!". It's not an investment strategy, it's a strategy for self destruction.

That's where community banks can come in, or community investing. Why will a bank invest your money, more prudently than you will? Doesn't your self interest, trump theirs? Maybe bankers are just smarter than everyone else?... I don't think so. I'm not saying that investment and loans should cease to exist, I'm saying that people should have a personal stake in them, and only make them after actually getting to know someone. Giving strangers money, didn't build society. As to "no, not everything can start small"... prove that. A large portion of the worlds largest businesses turned a small profit, then looked for venture capital, also known as personal loans, because the banks didn't want to fund anything "risky".

You seem to be arguing that debt is good and acceptable. What I would argue, though I may not be a traditional ancap, is that only trusted friends and associates should lend anyone money. The entire concept of banking is suspect, and to call banks "victims" as you do, is a bit insane. Not lending money to people unworthy of credit is part of your responsibility as a lender. "Debtors prison", is about using tax dollars to bail out banks that make bad choices. People should lend money to friends and family, or invest in organizations (currently called banks) if and only if, they do incredibly exhaustive background checks. "Banks" designed specifically to cater to "low reputation" debtors, will offer insane interest rates, constantly be ripped off, and most will go out of business. They will be a bad investment. In our current statist society, however, they are a great investment, because the government and taxpayer will bail them out. If people "desperate for a second chance" find it difficult to get loans, that is a good thing. Will that extremely small number of people turn to crime? Probably... that's why a well armed populace that respects self defense is important. Those people will get killed for trying to force people to give them money. That's life... Am I missing something? Are you really saying "Those poor criminals who refuse to work for a living will get shot trying to steal money"? There aren't many people who will take up that lifestyle, and they're not "poor", in the sense of "you should feel sorry for them". They're cruel.

Again, we appear to simply disagree in entirety, and on definitions... I don't want to ignore your questions however, so I can only hope that I do not sound too terse, or harsh in my response. First... Spelling, I know it's lame to critique, but still "inevitable", not "envitable" and it's driving me nuts Inevitable harm, is a consequence of being alive. Direct harm, is harm caused by the individual. Morality, exists in the realm of the individual. If an individual believes that life is inherently good, and meaningful, they can choose to create life, without causing direct harm. If they create a depressed human being, who is constantly miserable (ie genetic depression), could it be argued that they are the direct cause of harm? Yes. I, on the other hand, am of the opinion, that genetic depression, is nonsense word salad created by people who want to sell children drugs. There is an objective reality in which I am either correct, or incorrect. However, for the individual choosing to have children, their opinion matters, in terms of morality. Morality is about choices. If it is absolutely, beyond any reasonable doubt proven that depression is genetic, rather than that miserable people raise miserable children by being cruel... you would be able to make a coherent argument that giving birth is an initiation of harm, if the parents are unhappy. However, if this is true, than it is also true that happy people, have happy children, and thus, despite the inevitable harm that will come to the child, it will, on the whole have a good life, and thus the creation of that life, can not be seen as the initiation of harm.

1. To me, this is the core of our disagreement. It's easy to make my argument seem absurd, when reduced to simplistic inventions before modern technology arrived on the scene, but even in those instances... Was the first person to imagine running hot water through beans, for a fantastic taste which produced energy, worth money? Was their first recipe, of economic value? Did they deserve to be rewarded for their innovation? To me, this is as much a core argument of capitalism as the idea that skilled labor is of value. If the first person to run hot water through beans did so in America in the 1960's, they would have gotten rich... and, shouldn't they have? 2. Compared to what? Tribalism, and communism which existed before capitalism... Societies where everyone's ideas were treated as communal property, and there was no reverence for creativity. This is one of my most obscure, easy to disagree with, and inflammatory positions in the modern world, but in my opinion, it's also my trump card, so I might as well suggest it honestly. Capitalism was designed to give creative and productive individuals a reproductive advantage. It was designed to make wealth, human plumage. At the time, it was designed in a particularly sexist way, without respect for the fact that women were capable of being productive and creative as well, and since then, this has led to the illusion that the idea was inherently sexist (or racist, for similar reasons). That said, a gender, and race neutral capitalism, in which... for lack of better words, nerds of all kinds get laid... Is better than any alternative, I have yet heard. 3. Tesla versus Edison... Who was really of more value? The company man, or the idea man? This is where my philosophy, in my opinion shines through. Society, and capitalism as it existed, valued Edison... Reality, and a society where value was traded for value, would have rewarded Tesla for his work. The goal of capitalism, was to make Tesla wealthy for having brilliant ideas. I also didn't suggest, that "It could be argued that Louis CK mixed his labor with equipment to produce value"... I suggested that it was impossible to argue anything other than that, suggesting that the value he created was "self evident". I would argue the same thing for AC power created by Tesla. Real value is self evident, and should be rewarded, whether entertaining or inventive. Edit: I should replace "was designed to make wealth human plumage" with "was designed to make wealth created by adding value to human society human plumage"... Also known as merit. Capitalism was designed to make merit, and value, human plumage, and if you read my blog thatfooldavesavestheworld.wordpress.com you'll know that I think it failed miserably. Instead, it became a male dominated and inherited wealth based society in most of the world... however, the idea, in my humble opinion, still has value. Set up a system in which people who produce value pass on their genes more often than symmetric people with aesthetically desirable proportions... and you have set up a society which, objectively, will surpass all competitors... and for good reason.

I just want to point out... In the second video, he talks about five studies. Four prove inconclusive, and suggest that economists have no idea what the effect of patents and copyright are on innovation. In other words, they specifically tell Stephan that empirically he can't prove his assertions. The one that outright states that "on average, the patent system discourages innovation", specifically studies publicly traded Patent Assertion Entities... it studies only ten, specifically in the realm of patent law enforcement. Thus, even if this last study were true, it would have nothing to do with a reputation, or even insurance based system. The current legal system is terrible, that's not proof that we should dismantle all IP and copyright rules, and socially accept the behavior of copying without permission.

America is the richest, most prosperous nation in human history, capable of feeding the entire world, and we have had IP law, since very shortly after our inception... What evidence out performs that? PS. I'll finish it now, since you find it so compelling. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems like hippy commune stuff to me. He seems to suggest that a lack of IP, makes competition easier, but he refuses to deal with the moral implication of... It makes competition easier, by allowing companies to sell products they didn't have to pay someone to invent. No one takes a percent off the top for that pesky, annoyance, of... innovating a new product everyone loves. Final Edit: Finished it... and I wouldn't change a word of my response. "Economically and ethically... I can't say. My view is that... Just as a business matter, it's impractical"... "Copying is just one type of using". "The ideal market... The long run is, there's no profit" + the internet (aka long term is very short term) = hippy commune doublespeak/nonsense... Again, we just fundamentally disagree on this point.

Yes, TheRobin... I watched the first film, and made it through half the second, before responding with what I thought to be a coherent libertarian solution relying on reputation. I did that specifically in response to the first video, in which Stephan calls out libertarians, for not having a solution. People don't agree with me on this... I find that tragic, but that's life. Kawlinz, "Fraud is intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual". Someone starts a business selling a product, you copy it and give it away for free... You have intentionally deceived someone to think it is morally acceptable to download this product, for the specific purpose of damaging another persons business. We see these things differently. You give away your material for free... Great! You work a day job... That's why. People buy less CD's at your show, than they would if they couldn't get it free online. Yay! I don't want to just rant at people though... I wish you the best of luck. PS... Link to your music... I'm interested, anarchist hip hop is right up my alley. I have a free poem/song on my website, linked to on my profile.

I don't see the holes you're talking about Wesley... This sounds like hippy commune stuff to me. Someone starts a business selling something, you copy their idea, without permission, and refuse to pay them, that's the initiation from my perspective. This act basically denies any business ever existing in the future. I don't see how selling a song is a violent monopoly. Kawlinz, that "So?"... is depressing beyond belief for me. Who will take 20 years honing an artful craft, so they can have that work stolen by whoever wants it, and they can go back to working on the farm? It sounds like you're demanding creative people be altruistic and die broke, so I feel I'm missing something, or my emotions are running too hot. Stef has free content, and premium content... Why? I imagine it's to give people an incentive for donating to him, and that's his right as the creator of content, in my opinion. If I just started posting the premium content for free, I think it's immoral, at best it's sketchy, shameful behavior that should reflect in my reputation... The idea it's fine, is completely beyond me. Where does the chair fraud occur, when you copy the chair, without the permission of the person trying to sell the chair. Again, maybe I'm just off the rails here, but it sounds like "give me free stuff, screw capitalism". We're not talking about a new invention making an old one obsolete... We're talking about whether or not creativity should be rewarded. Someone invents teleportation, now it's on the internet. Everyone has it... Inventor begs for change on a street corner while crying into his beer "I invented teleportation". Write a great song, and you'll get paid? Sounds an awful lot like faith to me. Maybe after a few centuries of peaceful parenting that faith will be rewarded, but I'd prefer to have theft reflected in peoples personal reputation in a meaningful way. Serve the market... What market? The market for free stuff? We already have that market, it's called government, and it's horrible. Honestly, if this is the Mises and anarcho capitalist model, I feel like I've been taken in by another rendition of group think and collectivism. Very disappointing. At least it's peaceful though, a hippy commune would be a huge improvement over our current violent corporate fascism. I actually want to live in an intentional community now. I just don't think it will invent anything. People will sit around waiting for someone else to invent stuff they can download, and probably drink a lot. I don't see moral, ethical, or productive behavior emerging from this model... but hey, it's not emerging from the current model either. You take what you can get, I guess. Louis CK on O and A (explicit) on why capitalism is failing... People... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKzrXDVRI24

These were all interesting arguments... however, the root problem here seems to be "Well, how do libertarians deal with intellectual property if you're opposed to abuse x, y, and z?", and "Whenever I ask those questions people just say they don't know". So... Quickly and without much rigor, I'll propose two free state solutions to this problem, one in which I maintain what I actually believe, that intellectual property is a perfectly valid property right which should be enforced, the second imagining that I accept these arguments that it is only an aesthetically negative action. Keep in mind, I'm still very new to the insurance company DRO model of interaction, so I'm certain I will make some errors. 1. Someone who invents, designs, writes, or composes a new piece of intellectual property, buys insurance for that property. When someone violates that persons copyright, the insurance company tracks down the violator, and demands restitution. The violators insurance company then encourages them to pay, if the client refuses, they must defend them to a DRO. If defending the violator is too expensive, or they lose, the defending insurance company pays the fee, and then jack up their clients insurance costs, or drops them as a client, while at the same time recording a permanent record of their infraction diminishing their reputation. This reputation, may then cause the violator social consequences, like losing their job. 2. Someone who invents, designs, writes, or composes a new piece of intellectual property buys insurance to protect their reputation as a creator. When someone steals the property, that insurance company goes to their employer, and says "Your employee copied work, without permission, and their reputation is being called into question... We just thought we'd let you know. If the employee does not pay for the work he copied, we will advertise this infraction against their reputation, and through that, the reputation of this company. The more employees violate these standard codes of conduct, the poorer you will look as an organization". Despite believing that the theft of intellectual property is an immoral crime, I think the second situation would work out better in a free state. Some companies, especially start ups, would "go rogue", and hire people with terrible reputations, reverse engineer products and steal ideas, but they would never become "respectable businesses" in the mind of consumers. People would know that many of their products are cheap knockoffs created by employees with questionable ethical codes of behavior. Some consumers would choose the cheap product from the sketchy company, but more would choose to buy the product from a company that actually innovated.

You seem to be making a strange distinction here, that I simply don't understand. "I'm not arguing for pretending I'm you and uploading your music to a website to collect fees". Okay... but here's the thing, as a musician, you are a small businessman selling your music. So, as a businessman, why does it matter if the person who takes your entire business, and gives it away to everyone for free on the internet admits they didn't write it? All the potential value you could gain from selling that music, is now gone. If they sell it it's both fraud and theft. If they give it away, it's fraud and destruction of property, even if they admit it's yours. They don't own your business, and have no right to give away something you're selling for free. I'm not Louis CK, so if I start giving away his albums for free, that's fraud. I have no right to decide what to do with his works of art. You seem to be suggesting, "Well, he'll still have a copy though, so it's not theft". He didn't spend decades honing his craft, so that he could have a copy of his voice on cd. He did it to make a living. If there are no intellectual property rules, or enforcement it becomes incredibly difficult for him to make that living. To destroy intellectual property rules, would do to art, what communism does to labor. It will make people give up. If you can copy and print custom chairs, on your 3 d printer, people will stop designing chairs for a living, because there will be no living to be had. I want people who have great ideas to become wealthy, that's a fundament of capitalism. The guy who comes up with a cure for cancer, shouldn't have to beg for donations afterwards. In essence what you are saying is that labor belongs to the individual, ideas and concepts belong to the collective. I could not disagree more. Why pay people for arranging ohs and ones? Because, it's boring, thankless work, that most people don't want to do. The people who design an app that lets your phone screen for cancer, will waste years staring at a computer screen arranging ohs and ones... Pay them! Trade value for value. I'm actually really shocked that Stef, and many anarcho capitalists disagree with this sentiment. It seems completely contrary to the basic fundament of capitalism, that great works are rare, and they should be rewarded. Of course, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong.

Again... I make no distinction between physical property, and intellectual property. As a hobby, I have been learning various instruments for the last ten years. I don't expect I'll ever be good enough to get rich from this endeavor, but... if I continue it for another decade, I may become good enough for my skill to be of economic value. A competent musician, like any other craftsman, has the potential to create a piece of work that is of value to a large enough number of people, that they are capable of making a living. If after a quarter century of learning this craft, I try to sell my music, that is my right in a free market economy. If that leads to me making two or three cds that a few thousand people enjoy, I now have a small business. If someone puts those works of art, on the internet for free, as their own creation... they have not just committed fraud against me, they have stolen my business, and threatened my ability to survive on a niche market. Back to the factory. The same is true if I write a good book, paint a beautiful picture, or design a popular t-shirt. So, I don't see these things as aesthetically negative, they are immoral, and threaten creativity, and innovation as a whole.

They are both, concepts and things. When someone copies your song from a cd, to the computer and gives it away for free, suddenly it is only a concept again? Suddenly, they own your business of selling songs, and they set the price at 0? I would suggest, no. When someone buys your CD, they don't suddenly own your business of selling songs. To pretend to, would be both fraud, and theft.

1. Rephrasing, to be precise... Intellectual property has economic value. If we take the economic value of intellectual property away, less people will be interested in creating it. What you choose to do with your time, is your choice, however, it is a property that you own, and can sell. Choosing to spend it sleeping in, or in sunshine, is an economic choice. 2. This is, unfortunately empirically false. There is more artwork being created today than at any time in human history. Whether or not it is high quality, is up for debate, but actually irrelevant. The only way you could make the claim that more high quality art is being produced today, would be to make a judgment that classical music is objectively better than modern music, something that can not be objectively proven. I like classic rock and jazz, both created under stringent copyright laws. Copying the product of another persons time, and labor, then re distributing it as your own, for free or profit, is fraud, and a theft of time and labor. Perhaps more precisely a destruction of property, or the value of property. 3. In this case I would suggest, as many artists have, that your art is like your child. Does it magically become an adult you no longer have responsibility for at 18? Of course not, but we must draw a distinction somewhere so we choose one. People may choose different DRO's with different chosen dates at which the art matures, but it is still theft until you have the permission of the artist. There is a reason "tribute bands" don't make as much money, or provide as much economic value as musicians creating new art. We all instinctively realize that they aren't producing new intellectual property, and value derivative work less. Creating intellectual property, is a form of mixing your labor, with a recording device to improve its value. You own that creation, and can sell it. I think I can put all of this in much clearer terms now. If I make a chair, do I get to decide how much to sell it for? Or, does someone else? Why would a song I write be any different?

First, Worblux... You and I seem to disagree completely, on this particular issue, so I would love to hear more information, from you and any board members with the time to weigh in on the subject. My argument can be stated relatively simply and quickly. 1. Intellectual property, is an economic good, because it has value. 2. "Yes, you will see fewer high-quality works available, but they won't disappear"... Sounds like communism/socialism/social control, and I'm not saying that to be obtuse... but, this is exactly what happens to general labor under those systems. Why would anyone want there to be less high quality works of art available? Is intellectual labor, not as valuable, as physical? By what standard? 3. Homesteading... Can it be argued, that Louis CK, to go back to my previous example, did not create value by mixing his labor, with the video camera and the computer? I don't think it can. It seems as though, once a persons labor can be translated into ones and zero's it stops becoming property in many peoples mind... I don't understand this distinction, at all. Wesley... So, I finished UPB, and I agree with 99% of it. In fact, as I suspected unfortunately, it was pretty much preaching to the choir. As someone who has been an atheist since the age of 12, I had simply come to most of its conclusions on my own... Stefan, as always, put things more eloquently, and rationally than I ever could have, but as a huge fan of his work, there were no big surprises, and he didn't get into copyright. The 1%, or really one thing I disagree with however will come into play in my response to this question. Your "copy ray" example, is a bit interesting... Did the person you're copying the shirt from create it, and design the artwork? Did you have permission to use a copy ray, from that person, or the creator? I think you have to think of these things in economic terms. If I wanted to design and sell clothes for a living, and the second I sold five shirts, they would be endlessly copied, and recopied, until everyone who could possibly enjoy my shirt design, had one, and I only made one hundred dollars for the five I personally sold, I would stop making shirts. This is an enormous loss. I would suggest you committed fraud, an ANA, and thus damage my ability to make a living by refusing to trade value for value. If this was morally acceptable, worldwide, no one could make a living selling shirts. This is where my one disagreement with UPB comes into play. I make no distinction between fraud and theft. Your "copy ray", is a perfect example of why. Having fraud committed against me, as the initial creator of a t shirt company, was unavoidable, provided the "copy ray" exists. Thus, it is not an ANA, it is a UPB violation, immoral, and a DRO, should be able to demand restitution. This is identical to my example, of the Louis CK album. Louis CK is selling the digital equivalent of a CD, for five dollars. If you buy this CD, and record it to an MP3 player, or physical CD, you have done nothing wrong, as you traded value for value. If you put that digital copy on bit torrent, you are creating fraudulent products, and giving them away for free. I would suggest this is immoral, UPB suggests it is ANA. If a third party, aware that Louis CK is selling the CD for five dollars, decides to download it for free, from a fraud... That is petty theft. Instead of buying a product, they are stealing it. The fact the product has been digitized, has no bearing on whether or not it is a physical, crafted product, that labor has been mixed with, and is now being stolen. To bring this argument home, I would like to offer up a more extreme example. Stefan wrote a book, that I very much agree with, except for the one example of fraud. So, I download it, change that distinction, print out copies, and go sell them on Venice Beach, UPB by Dave. That is an immoral act. I didn't write the book, I changed a few sentences in one chapter, and then fraudulently claimed to have written it. It is also theft, because a certain percent of the people I sell the book to, would have found it eventually, and paid for it, or donated money to Stefan for having written it. I stole that money, through my fraud. Now, if I had Stefan's permission before hand, and he might offer such a thing because the philosophy is more important than credit, and wealth... this would be an entirely different story. Even in a stateless society however, if I did not get permission, he would be perfectly within his rights, to use a DRO, to demand restitution from me. Force would be justified, because I would be committing a crime against property rights. Putting the word intellectual in front of property, does not stop it from being property. Are current copyright laws insane? Yes. The founding of America created intellectual property rights, that were 7 years long, and renewable, only once. As information, and products are distributed faster, and faster in the modern world, this length should have been decreased dramatically, non increased to infinity. Maybe 2 years renewable once would be more fair for a free state DRO. After that time, in the past, and in my hopes, the future, the intellectual property should become public domain, allowing for derivative works to be crafted. Also, an artist could choose to give up all intellectual property rights, and instantly give his information to the public domain, for the greater good, and simply hope for donations. That choice however, is a right of the creator. It's easy to think of "one hit wonders" in terms of pop garbage, used to make people (mostly distributors) exceedingly wealthy, under a corrupt system. A more complex example, however, might be a band like The Mars Volta, who had only one "hit" song, "The Widow", but used that to sell three of my favorite albums of all time, because of that exposure. I can't imagine that there will cease to be hit songs, in a stateless society. It is very rare to create a piece of artwork that millions of people will love. If someone is lucky enough to do that however, it should be rewarded, and it should be capable of being sold, like any other product, because it is of value. Is selling the product a bad idea? I already agreed, yes, probably... sharing is the new advertising, and it is intelligent to give your work away for free and ask for donations. That decision however is not up to me, or you, it's up to the person who mixed their labor with the piece of work. That's my take on the situation, at least until I am presented with a more compelling argument. I welcome such a challenge.

Interesting... I'm not suggesting that "Having an idea is immoral" at all. I am saying that stealing the product of a persons ideas, is immoral. I don't understand how, in my example, a comedy album isn't a tangible product being stolen. I would suggest shooting a child for stealing a candy bar, is immoral as well though. To me, copying property, that someone is selling, for free, is stealing, it just falls into the realm of petty theft. Violence seems like an incorrect response. Does this mean I disagree with UPB? I'll listen to it today and find out I guess.

The first line is, "Using violence to enforce IP as law, is immoral"... So I guess the words "as law" make it less precise than I would have liked. Using violence to enforce IP is immoral. Does that make things clearer? I would say using violence to enforce fidelity, would also be immoral, but so is infidelity. I'm pretty new here, so I haven't read UPB yet... and even more embarrassing, I don't know what APA stands for, and can't find it in a quick google or forum search. So I assume this is what caused the confusion, I'm still a layman. When I suggest something is immoral, I just mean that it harms another human being. More precisely in the case of consuming, and enjoying a Louis CK album that cost him tens of thousands of dollars, several hours, and years of honing his craft to produce, for free... I would suggest that it is a refusal to trade value for value. I think refusing to trade value for value is harmful to creators, and society in general. Maybe it would be classified simply as not preferable, or amoral to some, but it seems rather destructive to me. Personal preference shouldn't enter into philosophy though, so I have to ask... Is refusing to trade value for value amoral? Edit: I just want to add... I'm making the assumption that in this example, the viewer, or listener, enjoyed the artwork, so it was of value to them. The reason I think sharing is the new advertising, is so that people aren't forced to pay for things they don't value. If you do value something, and don't contribute to it however, isn't that an immoral act?

I already said that using violence to protect it would be immoral. If someone is in a long term monogamous relationship, cheating on their partner is immoral... but it doesn't give their partner the right to hit or kill them. So, I guess I just disagree with this definition of immoral. White lies are immoral, but they don't justify the use of force. If someone tries to sell a cd, piece of software, film, or book, those are products, and stealing them, or copying them for free use, is immoral. It's just not an excuse to get violent. Louis CK recently self distributed two comedy albums online for 5 dollars each. No evil distributors, corporate owned media, etc. were involved in these productions. He promised never to go after anyone who steals the product, using the law. Still, the man has been working on his craft for 30 years, and these cd's were not six months worth of work, they were the culmination of overwhelming effort for decades. If you downloaded it for free, instead of paying the five dollars, that was an immoral act. It would be more immoral to jail you for it, which is why he is uninterested in doing so... but it's still wrong to steal a crafted product.

Using violence to enforce IP as law, is immoral... That said, let me give you a perfect example of why IP is property, and stealing it is immoral. A brand new band, writes it's first hit song. They're playing it in clubs with one or two hundred people, and just barely starting to scrape out a living for themselves. U2 hears the song, and covers it instantly. The only place the writers of the song are mentioned (if at all), is in the liner notes, or at the bottom of U2's hit music video "information" on youtube. Now... They didn't write a hit song, it will never get on the radio, and people will always assume their band, is the one covering U2. U2 stole their property, and possibly their livelihood, simply by listening to it. "Just write another hit song", may sound good in theory, but how many one hit wonders have there been? Some pretty good artists, only have a couple in them, if they lose the first one, they won't have the money to support themselves writing the second. Software, music, art, and film, are all very easy to copy. It is immoral to do so, without the artists permission.

Intellectual property, is a commodity like any other. If people refuse to value it, it will disappear in a wave of drunken, drug addled laborers. When someone writes a song, piece of software, film, or story you value, it is immoral not to trade value for value. Should creators realize that sharing, is a form of advertising, to encourage that trade? Yes. If they want to sell you their finished craft however, that is their right, and it should be respected.

That's my take as well RestoringGuy. Doing something immoral out of ignorance, may be a more forgivable offense interpersonally, but it's still immoral. Bloodletting, for example was immoral, even though people "didn't know better"... They at least knew it wasn't very effective, and they were still charging money for it.