Stefan – are you losing patience? FDR2340

[JohnDJasper]

 

I've just finished listening to FDR2340
for the 3^rd time and it was more painful than the first
two times because I knew ever better what was coming. Every time
that the caller started to make a point, you (Stefan) shut him down
with an objection, a request for clarification or a sideways
diversion most of which IMO could have been noted down and dealt with
once the point had been made. The overall effect was to confuse the
caller, derail the discussion, head off on a tangent and leave the
listener (me) cursing at my mp3 player. I'm moved to write about
this because I sense that this behaviour is becoming increasingly
prevalent.

 

So, are you becoming jaded having
argued these points from first principles for so long that you're no
longer able to go through the process one step at a time?

 

Please bear with me while I provide
some examples. Unfortunately, the podcast misses out the callers
introduction so I'll just have to refer to him as the caller. At
approx 16:00 of the recording, said caller was, at your behest,
trying to compare the process of creating a music file to that of
creating a bicycle. He started this because you shut down his point
of how a music file can be used as either a consumer good or an item
of capital. He was almost getting somewhere on this point when you
shut it down because (loosely quoted) “we have to stay within the
realms of possibility” and “no-one would build a factory to copy
a bicycle.” Nevermind that earlier in the discussion, you yourself
inserted the idea of car duplicating ray gun! and nevermind that at
no time was the discussion limited to making just one copy. It's
perfectly reasonable that someone might build a factory to make
multiple copies of a bicycle to sell on to consumers just as it's
perfectly reasonable that someone might make multiple copies of a
music file to sell on to others . At least one person thought of
doing that to copy Rolex watches.

 

Later on, the caller was trying to make
a point about copyright which you interrupted on some point of order
and by the time you finished, it was clear that the caller was lost
in space and so the discussion veered off on another tangent. His
very valid points about homesteading complications and “who do you
buy the land from” got dismissed due to the relative rarity
compared to music copying AND with the hand wave that it had all been
dealt with in common-law homesteading rules ages back despite the
fact that it is all backed by state force.

 

I wasn't necessarily agreeing with any
of the callers points but then how could I as he was never able to
complete any of them and if he got close, any real discussion of the
points was shutdown.

 

I suspect that 15 minutes after the
caller hung up, he realized that he had wasted his time because the
points that he (allegedly) genuinely wanted to hash out with you were
never actually dealt with. That was also my firm conviction after
3 listenings. It was a clear example of the host 1) moving the goal
posts (going from bicycle copying to getting sued for breathing
private air) which is something that you often criticise callers for,
2) applying different rules for the host and the guest (staying
reality-based!) and 3) persistently derailing the callers arguments.

 

The latter is a tactic regularly used
by politicians and government spokespeople. The rule is “I'll have
my say but I won't let you finish a sentence.” UK politicians
apparently get special training in this skill because they're all
experts at it. It makes for extremely frustrating discussion
programs but serves their purpose to a T.  I don't for a minute think that you intend to derail arguments but you're doing it all the same.  This is lowering the quality of your work and is fair to neither the caller nor the listener.  If you haven't got the patience to deal with these matters effectively then please take a break. It cannot be easy juggling the show, the documentary and the family life but you mustn't endanger your reputation with output such as described above.

 

This rant provided in the spirit of
constructive criticism and posted openly so that other views can
enrich the discussion.

 

Kind regards,

John

[Rick Horton]

 

The latter is a tactic regularly used by politicians and government spokespeople. The rule is “I'll have my say but I won't let you finish a sentence.” UK politicians apparently get special training in this skill because they're all experts at it. It makes for extremely frustrating discussion programs but serves their purpose to a T. 

 

Well put, and I notice it too.

[Drew.]

 

 

I've just finished listening to FDR2340
for the 3^rd time and it was more painful than the first
two times because I knew ever better what was coming. Every time
that the caller started to make a point, you (Stefan) shut him down
with an objection, a request for clarification or a sideways
diversion most of which IMO could have been noted down and dealt with
once the point had been made. The overall effect was to confuse the
caller, derail the discussion, head off on a tangent and leave the
listener (me) cursing at my mp3 player. I'm moved to write about
this because I sense that this behaviour is becoming increasingly
prevalent.

 

So, are you becoming jaded having
argued these points from first principles for so long that you're no
longer able to go through the process one step at a time?

 

Please bear with me while I provide
some examples. Unfortunately, the podcast misses out the callers
introduction so I'll just have to refer to him as the caller. At
approx 16:00 of the recording, said caller was, at your behest,
trying to compare the process of creating a music file to that of
creating a bicycle. He started this because you shut down his point
of how a music file can be used as either a consumer good or an item
of capital. He was almost getting somewhere on this point when you
shut it down because (loosely quoted) “we have to stay within the
realms of possibility” and “no-one would build a factory to copy
a bicycle.” Nevermind that earlier in the discussion, you yourself
inserted the idea of car duplicating ray gun! and nevermind that at
no time was the discussion limited to making just one copy. It's
perfectly reasonable that someone might build a factory to make
multiple copies of a bicycle to sell on to consumers just as it's
perfectly reasonable that someone might make multiple copies of a
music file to sell on to others . At least one person thought of
doing that to copy Rolex watches.

 

Later on, the caller was trying to make
a point about copyright which you interrupted on some point of order
and by the time you finished, it was clear that the caller was lost
in space and so the discussion veered off on another tangent. His
very valid points about homesteading complications and “who do you
buy the land from” got dismissed due to the relative rarity
compared to music copying AND with the hand wave that it had all been
dealt with in common-law homesteading rules ages back despite the
fact that it is all backed by state force.

 

I wasn't necessarily agreeing with any
of the callers points but then how could I as he was never able to
complete any of them and if he got close, any real discussion of the
points was shutdown.

 

I suspect that 15 minutes after the
caller hung up, he realized that he had wasted his time because the
points that he (allegedly) genuinely wanted to hash out with you were
never actually dealt with. That was also my firm conviction after
3 listenings. It was a clear example of the host 1) moving the goal
posts (going from bicycle copying to getting sued for breathing
private air) which is something that you often criticise callers for,
2) applying different rules for the host and the guest (staying
reality-based!) and 3) persistently derailing the callers arguments.

 

The latter is a tactic regularly used
by politicians and government spokespeople. The rule is “I'll have
my say but I won't let you finish a sentence.” UK politicians
apparently get special training in this skill because they're all
experts at it. It makes for extremely frustrating discussion
programs but serves their purpose to a T.  I don't for a minute think that you intend to derail arguments but you're doing it all the same.  This is lowering the quality of your work and is fair to neither the caller nor the listener.  If you haven't got the patience to deal with these matters effectively then please take a break. It cannot be easy juggling the show, the documentary and the family life but you mustn't endanger your reputation with output such as described above.

 

This rant provided in the spirit of
constructive criticism and posted openly so that other views can
enrich the discussion.

 

Kind regards,

John

 

 

I just want to point out that if he is becoming jaded and impatient, it's after 2339 podcasts. I myself get bored whenever I hear someone on the Sunday show trying to talk about economics or anarchism. I can't imagine how Stef might feel hearing the same arguments as often as he does.

[Ruppert9]

I didn't think Stef did a great job arguing the case against IP in this podcast generally.

The replicator raygun point was not dealt with.This is in the realm of possibility with 3D scanners and 3D printers. So why not deal with it? Instead focussing on the point about building a bike factory. Other products don't need a massive factory to build. IMHO Stef arguments were from effect and not from principal.

I'd need to relisten to the podcast to detail this more.

Couldn't Stef just argue that property rights only apply to physical matter? An idea/concept/story/melody is not physical matter until it stored in a physical form (paper, computer data, object) where property rights would then apply. But if I legitimately hear/see a song/idea/story and replicate it on my own physical support, then I am not trespassing nor stealing the physical form of the idea/song/story as it remains intact. IP is assigning property rights to an immaterial concept which grants it ownership rights on any of its physical reproductions. Homesteading of concepts shoud not apply as there is no matter to be homestead, only a concept.

Another argument is to accept the premise that concepts can be owned, as IP states. We then universalize it and apply IP to every concept: words, letters, language, movement, running, breathing, life etc.. everything would then be owned by someone and nobody would be implicitly authorized to do anything. Even the concept of IP would be owned by someone.

At least, that's my stab at it.

[JohnDJasper]

 

...Couldn't Stef just argue that property rights only apply to physical matter?...

 

Ruppert9,

I felt that the topic, though complicated, was well worth discussing as I've not heard any quality dissenting opinions since FDR introduced me to these concepts.  Physical property is a no-brainer IMO except when it comes to real estate but intellectual property is complicated enough to be hard work to understand.  The state currently sets the parameters for when words and music become property but should we ever realise a state-less existence, it will be important to have a clear understanding of these principles.

 

An idea/concept/story/melody is not physical matter until it stored in a physical form (paper, computer data, object) where property rights would then apply. But if I legitimately hear/see a song/idea/story and replicate it on my own physical support, then I am not trespassing nor stealing the physical form of the idea/song/story as it remains intact. IP is assigning property rights to an immaterial concept which grants it ownership rights on any of its physical reproductions. Homesteading of concepts shoud not apply as there is no matter to be homestead, only a concept.

Another argument is to accept the premise that concepts can be owned, as IP states. We then universalize it and apply IP to every concept: words, letters, language, movement, running, breathing, life etc.. everything would then be owned by someone and nobody would be implicitly authorized to do anything. Even the concept of IP would be owned by someone.

At least, that's my stab at it.

 

Well put!  The danger is that someone who doesn't understand this might try to make a point with a fully-automatic, full metal jacket type of argument.  It's so worthwhile helping others get educated.  "Education instead of medication!"

[Formelyknown]

IP tell me not to use my own physical body and propreties to do stuffs. Using others people factory is  using other peoples propreties without permission. Just that destroy the guest's case for IP. But noo, he has to keep rambling like  it was the same. If I were stef I would tell him to F**ck off already.

I know how to grows tomatoes maybe I should IP how to grows tomatoes so that no one else sales tomatoes.