Sharing Intellectual Property is amoral

[Wesley]

I am getting irritated with the lack of applying consistent principles even when holes are pointed out. 

 

You shouldn't be coming up with "solutions" to defend your answer when I would consider these solutions to be terrible. I would openly boycott any DRO that attempted to enforce intellectual property by demanding payment. 

 

Reputation is whatever. You can do that and let people decide for themselves what they want to do, but assuming it is property and justifying theft of actual property in the name of intellectual property is rather despicable.

 

It is not sketchy to get a similar product for cheaper.

 

It is sketchy to use violence against persons or real property to enforce a violent monopoly on providing a given product or service through the statist idea of IP.

[Kawlinz]

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.

 

"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?"

 

Didn't take anything. You still have it.

 

"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. "

 

So?

 

"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."

 

Yeah, but you didn't answer the question. You've stated some of the effects, but would I be committing fraud to the carpenter if I printed a chair that he designed? And how? where does the fraud occur?

 

I also want people who have great ideas to be wealthy. You think no one will pay a guy or gal who made a cure for cancer? I personally think whoever does will never have to lift a finger again in their life, even under a "No IP" system. Writing some good songs doesn't compare. I don't expect to be paid much when I'm comfortable enough releasing a project or two, and I've spent almost 20 years in my craft. I didn't do it "to get paid".

 

You know that people pay Stef, right? he's not going after anyone who copies or gives his stuff away, but people pay him, some 50 bucks a month! Why? 

 

Some people do want to get paid, but what's that got to do with anything? If I'm a horse trainer, I want to get paid for training horses. if suddenly someone comes up with something called a car, and horses are in much lower demand. If we find a way to simply copy a car, the demand for car factories will go down, but cars wont. Then teleportation is mastered and suddenly no one wants cars anymore. Do we even care that the horse trainer finds it very difficult to make a living training horses? I don't. Serve the market.

 

"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."

 

Write a great song that touch people at their core, and you'll get paid. if it's just another pretty good song, well, we've got millions of those, so you might make bit of dough.

[LifeIsBrief]

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

[Kawlinz]

Lots of people do things to attempt and make a living and they don't pan out. That's the "so" part. You didn't present a rebuttal, you just said a bunch of stuff you don't like. I took 20 years to perfect being a rapper. If you want to get a copy of my music for free of charge, that's cool. If I want people to pay for it AND have people who don't pay for it not hear it, I've got to come up with a model to do that. You know what the worst model is for doing that? making decent music, putting it in a form that can be easily and anonymously copyied by anyone - that's a recipe for failure, yeah?

 

So who will take 20 years to perfect something that can easily be COPIED (not stolen) by anyone? me. I did. And I don't work on a farm. Yeah I work a day job but that's on me if i want to make a living from music. 

 

I'm not demanding anyone do anything. I'm a fucking anarchist. you wanna charge people for your songs, be my guest. Shit, I've bought music that was made available for free by the artists themselves, I must be crazy?

 

So where does the fraud occur in the chair example? Fraud is intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. So, do you have a different definition of fraud? I don't see the deception when you copy a chair, regardless of the state of permission from the original creator. maybe I'm missing something but I honestly don't think I am.

 

The only reason i bring up the teleportation ideas taking over old technology, is that your rebuttal consists of "well, they guy want to make money from what he's put his life into learning, and denying him that opportunity is wrong / immoral" We'll make it simpler then, without the new technology.

 

A guy owns a horse ranch. It's actually the first horse ranch ever. is it fraud for me to also open a horse ranch without his permission?

 

Do you think the people who pay for stef's premium content would just stop because some guy posts it on some torrent site? maybe a few but i doubt it would be many... why? again, stef's work is valuable and they wanna pay the guy responsible for the concepts - even if they're freely copyable.

 

 

 

All it comes down to - I think - is pointing out where the initiation of force or fraud (deception) occurs in copying something. If you can't do that, then you don't have a leg to stand on. I'll even define what I mean by the terms...

 

Force is intentional violence threatened or committed against a person.

Fraud is intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual.

Copy is to arrange property in a similar or identical fashion to another arrangement of property.

 

Do those definitions work for you?

[TheRobin]

have you had a look at anything I linked btw, you seem to ignore that whole argument (and reasearch, which is quite in favour against any IP as it seems)?

[LifeIsBrief]

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.

[TheRobin]

I think in the second one, about halfway through he brings up all the empirical evidence that has to do with IP. I think you would find that intersting, since you argue that it is actually beneficial (to which there seem to be no evidence for but a lot against it).

[LifeIsBrief]

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.

[TheRobin]

well call it what you want, as he said, no study ever found IP to be beneficial, if you're so certain, then what's the evidence?

 

Also I don't know what you mean when you say he refuses to deal with the moral implications of it, as the whole anti IP comes out of the moral implications (which is clarified in the beginning of the first video and also in the article I linked)America also was the only one that lacked a lot of statist interference in the economy for the most part, if you just ignore that and claim a lot of good stuff comes simply from IP law then I think you're just picking the facts to suit your conclusion instead of the other way around.

[LifeIsBrief]

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.

[TheRobin]

it also means that you're asserions are backed by even less then, as there's not even a bad positive study, where we'd need to find arguments for it maybe being invalid cause the state messes things up (no doubt there ofc).And the ethical case is pretty straight forward. it being, that you can't control other people's property against their will, just cause you had an idea of how people can arrange materials in a certain fashion. So I fail to see, where your arguments still hold.

[WorBlux]

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.

 

1. From Human Action p. 128 "A thing rendering such unlimited services is, for instance, the knowledge of the causal relation implied. The formula, the recipe that teaches us how to prepare coffee, provided it is known, renders unlimited services. It does not lose anything from its capacity to produce however often it is used; its productive power is inexhaustible; it is therefore not an economic good. Acting man is never faced with a situation in which he must choose between the use?-value of a known formula and any other useful thing."

 

Someone might pay me to teach them how to make coffee, but once they know, they never have to account for the use of that knowledge for fear of using it up. I might prefer access to a good album over an hour's pay, but strictly speaking I'm not consuming the music but rather the tangible form in which it is expressed.

 

2. Sorry I wasn't clear here. I absolutely believe it's possible to artists to make a profession of their art without copyright, it was just laid out as a worst-case scenario.

See "Against Intellectual Monopoly" http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm for some possible models.

 

"Why would anyone want there to be less high quality works of art available?"  -- because the alternative is worse. To take a phrase from the objectivist's phrasebook; Compared to What?

 

And yes a very similar argument was used by communists when communism was criticized for a lack of industrial innovation, and they weren't entirely wrong.

 

There were Russian scientists that added some very useful things to humanities body of knowledge. 

 

The problem with communism isn't so much a lack of innovation per se, it's that without a price system nobody knows whether any new methods of manufacture makes a better trade off between the factors of production to satisfy the desires of people.  Say a communist vodka bottle plant is playing around on his 20% time and discovers an additive that increases the strength of glass by 200%.  They want to change their process to use the additive, but have no idea weather the added material  to the glass is worth more or less than the difference in vodka lost due to bottle breakage.

 

 

3. You didn't answer my question regarding the dispute resolution manual.

 

Even though a thing can be argued doesn't make it correct.

 

Your starting the argument in the middle. I admit that if property in intellectual matters (copyright and patent) turned out to be necessary and good, then the homesteading principle would be at least as fine as any other principle to settle ownership, however it's precisely that matter that you must prove before  appealing to the homesteading principle. And it's a pretty tough sell, as the worst case scenario I mentioned is fairly mild compared to the worst case scenario of not apportioning physical stuff. Physical stuff is inherently rivalrous between uses, while idea are inherently compatible between uses.

 

Second as far as homesteading goes, the type of labor matters, and labor alone is insufficient. A claim or intent to exclusive use of the land is necessary. A such labor which expresses that intent more obviously is superior in establishing property to labor which expresses it subtlety or not at all .  Publishing or publicly marketing embodying and idea is opposed to the desire of exclusivity.

[LifeIsBrief]

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.

[RestoringGuy]

If one word is quoted from a book, and credit (not monetary, but verbal) is given, it would seem morally OK and not rude.  So what about one sentence, or one paragraph or chapter?  It's all just arbitrary limits about how many bits of data constitutes a product.  If you copy a product and pretend you invented it, that seems like fraud or counterfeiting, just as lying about commodity weight or volume.  But if you copy a product and admit it's "a copy of so-and-so's work", there is no lie being told.  This IP violation without misrepresenting the source seems morally at the level of rudeness.

 

There is a sense that, when a contract is broken, you are free to collect damages without escalating the wrong that was being done.  For example, if a store lied to about what electronics are in a sealed box, and the store will not remedy after you discover a brick in the box, you can withhold credit card payment or seek other remedy.  I think the same applies to IP.  Once we are lied to by a company or author about the quality of their product, having a fine-print EULA, or the same product or brand name applied to inferior sequels, there is a strong sense IP becomes intentionally deceptive.

[cynicist]

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?

 

How about the level of innovation in steam engine technology both during and after patents? It's a very well written article with quite a lot of supporting documentation.

 

 

I was talking with a friend about intellectual property, one thing lead to another and i did not know how whether IP is moral or immoral, i thought if it is amoral even though i don't feel that it is in the realm of aesthetics.

 

i don't feel there is a distinction between Music albums, Movies & TV series, Books, when it comes to inherent moral reasoning.

 

 

So what would be strong arguments and counter arguments if you happen to think intellectual property is amoral?

 

If you look at the most common form of intellectual property violation, namely downloading media content through p2p, you see that on a technical level it is merely a replication of bits from one machine to another. So to rephrase the question, is it immoral to make copies of another person's work? Since innovation in general relies on taking existing works and making changes to them, under this principle innovation itself would be immoral. It's a ludicrous proposition, but that's why you end up with court cases where Apple can sue Samsung around things like rounded corners and certain gestures when there are only a limited number of ways to do things. (Would many people buy a triangular tablet for example? How do you determine when an innovation is original? Would you require each manufacturer to use a unique shape for their tablets?)

[Kawlinz]

I don't think any muscian has paid for the right to use a major scale, minor scale, or any of the other scales that sound pleasing to the ear. They don't pay to use a certain rhythm, a certain tempo, specific instruments. I don't see the need to protect specific notes under "IP" or what would even qualify.

[s.petry]

Intellectual property is immoral, because it is ownership of a thought and not a physical good.  At a certain point, ownership of even physical goods can be immoral.

 

Why do we have "ownership" of "things"?  While there is certainly an amount of "things" we need to live, raise a family, and be secure ownership of "things" always leaves that boundary and become a tool used for control.

 

We are not talking about copyright or trademarks when discussing "IP" in the business sense, you are discussing owning the idea itself.

 

Go back in history and look at one of the first cases of IP law in a civil court.  A company applied for and received an IP Patent for a shopping cart icon displayed on a web page which linked to their point of sale.  For doing nothing more than translating something we use every time we visit a store to a graphical representation, this company was allowed to force people to pay them to use the icon, if they allowed it at all.  They further used the patent to extort more money so that people could not have any icon that immediately linked them to the point of sale.

 

That last statement is exactly what the concept of IP is about, which is legal extortion.  It does not benefit consumers or average members of society at all, it benefits the select few who can get approval by the Government for their "idea".  Even if I can make a better icon, or come up with a way of producing widgets faster and cheaper, or simply make much better widgets, IP and patent law prevent me from doing so.

 

 

 

 

[RestoringGuy]

I hope there is a third paradigm.  The dominant idea is the author of work retains control after selling to the public.  So you have EULAs and licences and usage restrictions.  The second idea is that the enforcement of this first idea is based on violence, the state, etc., so IP works should instead be morally copyable without permission because violence was first initiated by the author by leveraging the state to apply restraints.  Copying only responds as correction of the initial wrong.

 

What I envision as a third way is to treat copying the same as rudeness.  There is no pure foundational way to prove copyrights, trademarks are universally legit, just as you cannot objectively prove somebody is being rude.  So if you are dealing with IP between author and customer, taken in isolation there is no ethical answer who is right.  But in the broader context of systems and social responses, there can be non-violent reactions to IP violation.  Although it seems stupid to say somebody can patent the alphabet, everybody seems to know that, and anybody that tries to enforce such a thing would lose credibility very fast, just a somebody who swears at everyone all the time is socially avoided.

 

The difficult thing is how to quantify this concept.  We have currency to define economic value.  What I would like to encounter is some kind of social-currency, orthogonal to economic-currency, which holds up a framework of IP and builds it into voluntary pricing.  As an author releases works, or inventor sells a product, some quantified basis of IP would be attached as a metric.  To make this work, all of the economic things would be linked algorithmically.   Maybe the sales systems (web sites, mobile commerce devices, etc.) would possess their own linear relationship between social and economic currency.  For example, if you copy an author's book, or sell a competing product that uses ideas taken from another inventor, these relationships would be manifested as less profits for you because your core systems would run slower, reach fewer customers, all your prices of living go up as a response, etc. being detected by all of the other vendors you must deal with.  This would happen all in small increments and only to the degree the various participants have opted-in using their particular linear formula.  So there are no discontinuous thresholds ("less than N words is fair use") and other subjective tricks.  At the same time, you could totally ignore IP but there would just be emergent economic impact.

[s.petry]

I don't agree that there can be a third paradigm, because you are dealing with a very two sided issue.  Do we allow monopolization of something, or not?

 

I also don't agree that Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents can be treated as rudeness like you suggest.  Each of these mechanisms is designed for a society allowed monopolization.

• Copyrights are designed for the protection of the author, ensuring compensation for their work
• Patentes are designed to compensate inventors for inventions that benefit society
• Trademarks are designed to ensure that society can recognize an entity by a logo.

The system in the US needed reform long before the first patent laws allowing monopolization of ideas.  There is a constant battle by people trying to extend the duration of copyrights, patents, and trademarks.  I have read court proceedings from the 1600s which deal with copyrights that are exactly the same as we have today.  Rich guy or Corporation buys Copyrights from an Author and tries to extend them to increase their profits.

 

Prior to telecommunications and computerization, it took a very long time to publish a book.  If the book ran out of stock, it took a very long time and considerable expense to produce more books.  With advances in technology, the duration of a copyright and invention should have gone down and not up. 

 

Having instant access to an authors thoughts today is quite different from even fifty years ago where a book may take a year to reach you, or wait for a speech giver to visit your town, or wait weeks for mail to arrive from overseas.

 

Instead of these things moving down in duration because the time it takes to make something has gone down, protections have moved in the other direction.  This does not benefit society, but benefits owners of the protection.  In almost all cases, the owners of this protection today are corporations and not people.

[Wesley]

 

• Copyrights are designed for the protection of the author, ensuring compensation for their work
• Patentes are designed to compensate inventors for inventions that benefit society
• Trademarks are designed to ensure that society can recognize an entity by a logo.

I am pretty sure that none of these statements are true.

 

IP was designed to do what it does. Provide monopoly privilege to the wealthy so that they cannot be out-competed by the young and the poor.

 

I would send you Stephan Kinsella's way for some of the evidence and history around IP.

 

It is possible that the idea of a logo or trademark existed in a free society (I am having trouble remembering) but the other two, certainly they were not designed for anything but monopoly protection of the rich.

[dsayers]

I say look at the propaganda. When something is named by coercive people as "the affordable health care act," we can derive four things from the title alone:

 

1) It will not be affordable.

2) It will not promote health.

3) There will be no caring.

4) There will be no action (except against those that aren't complicit in being stolen from).

 

I think the reason this is such a point of contention is because the name "intellectual property" frames the conversation as if property is being discussed.

[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.

[cynicist]

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's not a moral argument though. In order for it to be so you would need to accept the premise that copying a digital file is depriving someone of property, which is just not factual. In reality it's making a copy. Whether or not that ruins an artist's livelihood is a separate argument entirely, and I don't think there is a good argument there either. Piracy has been going on for years and the entertainment industry is making more money than ever. I think the only thing we know for certain is that it is immoral to throw someone in prison for copyright infringement. 

 

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.

 

You are saying artists should not be forced to change their business model, but wouldn't horse buggy manufacturers have said the same when people stopped paying for their product? I agree that people should respect each other's property and if compensation is owed it should be paid, but neither of those apply to this situation. How do you know someone who has downloaded music would have purchased it if he couldn't get it for free? What if it was only worth it when it was free? If someone produced good music and you wanted them to produce more, wouldn't it make sense to pay them for their work? I'm just not sure that this is as big of an issue as you are making it out to be.

 

The popular bands like Nine Inch Nails have no problem giving music away for free because they know their fans will support them. There are even youtube channels where gamers get donations for streaming live content and can make a comfortable living doing so, but obviously only the most popular ones can do that. If they can do that without state enforcement of their 'intellectual property' then I'm not sure what makes music artists any different. In fact there are youtube channels dedicated solely to promoting music artists in genres like dubstep where music is streamed for free and links are provided to buying the tracks or donating to support the artists. 

 

I also don't fundamentally see why an artist automatically deserves compensation for music that they produce. If someone wants to compensate them I think that is great, but if I made music and put it on the internet I suspect no one would appreciate it lol. Do I deserve monetary compensation just because I made music? I think that is up to fans to decide, and I don't think there is any other way to do it fundamentally.

[s.petry]

I am pretty sure that none of these statements are true.

 

IP was designed to do what it does. Provide monopoly privilege to the wealthy so that they cannot be out-competed by the young and the poor.

 

I would send you Stephan Kinsella's way for some of the evidence and history around IP.

 

It is possible that the idea of a logo or trademark existed in a free society (I am having trouble remembering) but the other two, certainly they were not designed for anything but monopoly protection of the rich.

I did not mention IP except that it was wrong, I mentioned very specific concepts that we had before IP.  If you disagree with the concept of a Copyright and Patent that I gave I think you should read a bit of history on them. Read for example the Wiki.org information for patent law.

 

The oldest[dubious – discuss] form of a patent was seen in Medieval times. Medieval rulers would grant an exclusive right to a "monopoly." This was sometimes an attempt to raise funds without taxing, although taxes were still imposed.[1] In England such grants took the form of “letters patent”, issued by the sovereign to inventors who petitioned and were approved: a grant of 1331 to John Kempe and his Company is the earliest authenticated instance of a royal grant made with the avowed purpose of instructing the English in a new industry.[2][3]

 

What I stated was that "IP" is immoral and does not fit in with these concepts. Whether it was allowed to happen legally or not is not at question and does not make them moral or correct.

There are plenty of arguments and debates which match my opinion. My point is not abstract or arbitrary. Read Groklaw.net and the whole of the SCO vs. IBM trial for commentary from Lawyers, Judges, and of course Philosophers on the subject.

The thought that someone can own an Idea is simply preposterous, and detrimental to a functioning society. It serves only those that can afford to buy into the system.

The same can be said for allowing corporations to own patents and copyrights as opposed to individuals, but that was not the question originally proposed.

[MiyuBaby]

I'm a musician, composer, producer, so I'm technically the type of person who should favour government forced copyrights / intellectual property. But I don't at all and I'll tell you why. Because I can see past my nose. And becasue of that I realise that there is no way you can say it's worth it in the long run just to protect some audio rights (that are not enforceable anyway = internet, hello... come on), to have this disgusting blight on the planet called "the state".

 

If are you short sighted, sure you will bitch and moan about your income and rights, but it's not a right.

 

Once you play your song, be it a whistled melody, or a production that took you a full year to create, one you release it on the internet, it's out there. And once someone hears it or receives it freely onto their machine - their property - the song / track / movie whatever is now in their possesion either in their mind or on their property and you can't stop them from reproducing it using their own property, and you can't stop them from playing it in the street, or hearing it in their heads.

 

I have no idea how the free market would support art, well I have some notions and thoughts but I can't say I KNOW. What I do know is that a free society is a prosperous one, and a prosperous society is a peaceful one, and peaceful prosperous societies turn their attention to art - plays, movies, music, concerts, paintings. etc.

 

The whole dilemma has nothing to do with "how will I make a living / please guarantee it for me before I side with freedom" it's about putting your faith in freedom FIRST and then reaping the rewards. Not the other way around. The moral position is to put your faith in freedom / liberty. Morality breeds propserity in ways we can't imagine. What prosperity the west has left, and what prosperity the rest of the world has now, is due only to the degree of faith people have generally placed in freedom. What slavery, taxation, violence, oppression they face is the degree to which they have turned away from freedom to embrace the false promise of state security for some evil oppression for others. And that's not what music is about. If you believe it is, your music must be pretty s**t...

 

Writing and playing music is a very fundamental freedom. If you take away the freedom, you take away the music, and the prosperity.

 

Would you pay to see a Roger Waters lookalike / soundalike? Maybe, but how much? $10 a ticket cause Roger wasn't in town? If Roger is in town are you going to pay $80 for the original, or the clone. There are lots of ways to make money, YES, it's harder right now because at best we could say our situation is that we are under state "rulers" but is that the fault of freedom that you can't do as well making a moral living, or is it the lack of freedom?

[WorBlux]

...

1. You haven't rebutted any of the facts I've presented regarding this topic. You're just appealing to a principle which is the very thing in question.

 

"Was their first recipe, of economic value?  Did they deserve to be rewarded for their innovation?" We don't disagree on facts here. He could very likely command a price for transferring his knowledge of the process, and he has no general obligation to disclose his process. . Being the first to market is a huge advantage, that is the reward.

 

The simplest case is the clearest, and most innovations that we use and cherish are simple or stepwise improvements from the existing body of knowledge.

 

"To me, this is as much a core argument of capitalism as the idea that skilled labor is of value."

First capitalism is an imprecise word, that means many different things. Secondly that's going at it backwards. You must pay wages for labor because of the disutility of labor. Skilled labor commands higher wages because it is more rare, or requires specialized skills and training that not everyone possesses, such that at the end of the day skilled labor is merely highly productive labor. And a person's labor can only do one job at a time. To produce something they must refrain from producing all other good and services that they are capable of. An idea or process can be put to all of it's potential uses at once.  

 

2. Take it from first principles please.

 

Your evidence that capitalism (in this case taken to mean the market system) was designed rather something emergent from the category of action?

 

Two issues that I take with that option. 1. Everybody knows that all nerds are sexy; period, no qualifications    2. Capitalism improves the reproductive fitness of almost any person living under it and the traits it favors isn't so much creativity per se as EQ (people skills) and foresight.

 

3. Tesla's autobiography mentions money 6 times, and dollars twice. It doesn't really paint the picture of a man who desired money. He filed many patents and they really didn't help him much.  Look at the patent application for his turbine. It was invented to reach the maximum theoretical efficiently rather than practical use. He was obsessed with proving the science more so than making thing people might find useful. While the theoretical approach may be more useful in the long run , people of the time supported the guy in it for the practicality.  There's nothing wrong with this, it's just a different preference.

 

"The goal of capitalism ..." Capitalism wasn't a thing with thought, goals, or desires last time I checked. 

[LifeIsBrief]

1.  My problem with avoiding any reputational consequences for copying is simple, "first to market", means nothing in the internet age.  Should there be a state enforcing copyright law, hell no, but interpersonally, people should still discourage those who refuse to trade value for value. The fact is, that new ideas are rare, and they are valuable.  There are almost no innovations in this society.  Cures in medicine, aren't stepwise.  Innovating, is a type of skilled labor... again, see Tesla.  The years spent crafting theory, before you come up with a unique innovation, are labor.  This is how I see things, apparently most people disagree with me nowadays.  I think that's why we lack innovation, but it's just a theory.

 

2.  Capitalism is a theory crafted by men, very shortly after evolution was discovered, with a purpose.  In order to put it into practice, they needed to convince people that it functionally worked better than other theories... like "god does everything", "long live the king", or "we need the aristocracy to protect the poor from themselves".  I don't think I'm a social Darwinist, nor was capitalism designed in that way, because that would suggest creativity, productivity, and skill are genetic... I think they're choices.  Steel sharpens steel, but if you're made of iron, then chopping wood is more fun, you have to choose to sharpen your skills, and mind, it doesn't come naturally.

 

I wish nerds were sexy... They're not.  Period.  No one's drooling after the chess or math clubs.  EQ, doesn't build new things, math, science, philosophy, and experimentation build new things.  Politicians have high EQ, it's called sociopathy, but they have a lot more sex then the science nerds.  If people who could build, reason, innovate, or fix things were sexy, the world would already be stateless.  There's a lot of opinion in this writing, but I think it's really weird, that this forum talks about "mens issues", and "capitalism" a lot, but rarely connects the two.  If we didn't subsidize Biff's charismatic sexuality, people would stop having sex with him.  It was designed to aid the reproductive fitness of Leonard, not sociopaths, I mean "people with high EQ"... Hopefully the names in that analogy were self explanatory.

 

All this said, it was designed by men, without thought of women who were innovative, productive, and skilled.  Men have failed to find women good at math, science, and philosophy sexy, as much as women have failed to do the same.  Personally, I think striving for gender neutral single parent incomes, could fix this problem slowly over time (freely, not through  state minimum wage, or any of that nonsense).  If people don't value innovation, productivity, math, science, and philosophy sexually... those traits will cease to exist.

 

3.  Tesla didn't like money, didn't really like women either.  He had lots of social, and sexual issues... but my point remains valid, he shouldn't need to ask for more money... value should be traded for value.  I know "should" is a dangerous word around here, but hey, I'm obviously deep in the realm of opinion and emotion on this topic.  Adam Smith, had very strong goals, and desires, when he wrote "The Wealth of Nations", and "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", both are required reading if you want to understand "capitalism", which I admit is a very nebulous word.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aiyo2K7DvfA

 

Joe Rogan uses dumb people outbreeding smart people, to explain the pyramids.  "If I left you alone in the woods with a hatchet... How long before you could send me an email?" Explicit.

[TheRobin]

To point 1. Taken from the interview (here: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38394-christensen-interview-on-the-capitalists-dillema/) it would appear it's more a problem of investement than incentives. 

[Nerburg]

This is a damn fine thread.

 

My question for the experts: as a potential author-if I write a book and choose to sell it as an eBook, with the condition attached to sale that it is not to be reproduced as a whole without my permission, wouldn't it be immoral for someone to upload it to a p2p torrent network? Isn't the method of distribution the creator's choice and thus IP would apply differently to the different choices creators make in their distribution?

 

Kind of like how Stef prices his novels but not his non-fiction? So wouldn't it be perfectly fine to redistribute UPB- even redo the cover and sell it for profit- but absolutely not fine to p2p share "The God of Atheists"?

[WorBlux]

1.  My problem with avoiding any reputational consequences for copying is simple, "first to market", means nothing in the internet age.  Should there be a state enforcing copyright law, hell no, but interpersonally, people should still discourage those who refuse to trade value for value. The fact is, that new ideas are rare, and they are valuable.  There are almost no innovations in this society.  Cures in medicine, aren't stepwise.  Innovating, is a type of skilled labor... again, see Tesla.  The years spent crafting theory, before you come up with a unique innovation, are labor.  This is how I see things, apparently most people disagree with me nowadays.  I think that's why we lack innovation, but it's just a theory.

 

2.  Capitalism is a theory crafted by men, very shortly after evolution was discovered, with a purpose.  In order to put it into practice, they needed to convince people that it functionally worked better than other theories... like "god does everything", "long live the king", or "we need the aristocracy to protect the poor from themselves".  I don't think I'm a social Darwinist, nor was capitalism designed in that way, because that would suggest creativity, productivity, and skill are genetic... I think they're choices.  Steel sharpens steel, but if you're made of iron, then chopping wood is more fun, you have to choose to sharpen your skills, and mind, it doesn't come naturally.

 

I wish nerds were sexy... They're not.  Period.  No one's drooling after the chess or math clubs.  EQ, doesn't build new things, math, science, philosophy, and experimentation build new things.  Politicians have high EQ, it's called sociopathy, but they have a lot more sex then the science nerds.  If people who could build, reason, innovate, or fix things were sexy, the world would already be stateless.  There's a lot of opinion in this writing, but I think it's really weird, that this forum talks about "mens issues", and "capitalism" a lot, but rarely connects the two.  If we didn't subsidize Biff's charismatic sexuality, people would stop having sex with him.  It was designed to aid the reproductive fitness of Leonard, not sociopaths, I mean "people with high EQ"... Hopefully the names in that analogy were self explanatory.

 

All this said, it was designed by men, without thought of women who were innovative, productive, and skilled.  Men have failed to find women good at math, science, and philosophy sexy, as much as women have failed to do the same.  Personally, I think striving for gender neutral single parent incomes, could fix this problem slowly over time (freely, not through  state minimum wage, or any of that nonsense).  If people don't value innovation, productivity, math, science, and philosophy sexually... those traits will cease to exist.

 

3.  Tesla didn't like money, didn't really like women either.  He had lots of social, and sexual issues... but my point remains valid, he shouldn't need to ask for more money... value should be traded for value.  I know "should" is a dangerous word around here, but hey, I'm obviously deep in the realm of opinion and emotion on this topic.  Adam Smith, had very strong goals, and desires, when he wrote "The Wealth of Nations", and "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", both are required reading if you want to understand "capitalism", which I admit is a very nebulous word.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aiyo2K7DvfA

 

Joe Rogan uses dumb people outbreeding smart people, to explain the pyramids.  "If I left you alone in the woods with a hatchet... How long before you could send me an email?" Explicit.

 

1. You can't just pour coffee out of the Internet. Being first would give you time to set up shops, supply chains, farms, and so one. It would take a competitor at least four years to be ready to compete.

 

Even with stuff you can pour out of the Internet, being nearly instantaneous, fans can find you and spread the word quickly. And they just won't want the boot they'll want further commentary, sneak previews, merchandise, live performance, appearances and so on.

 

The truth is that we are innovating at rates faster than ever before, Look at the adoption rates (time from introduction to one billion owners)  of Radio Vs. Television Vs. PC Vs. Cell phone. New medicines may have decreased, but there has been a greater upswell in biochem and genomics that promise more target and individualized medicine. (which is very gummed up with patents though)

 

If someone proves to me they can innovate in the area of business I were in, then I'd certainly consider hiring them (companies fight for the privilege of paying Linus Torvalds a salary to keep him working on his hobby project) but haven't paid him for this OS kernel I'm using.  , Wages for labor are only ever due based on a contract, exertion alone commands no reward as a matter of course.

 

Reputation's not going to work as a general solution as copyright because noone really cares, and if they did, people would just adopt methods that were anonymous for sharing content. You might get a publishers guild or craft union to set up guidelines, but it would suffer the same instability as any other cartel, unless there was no demand for infringed material. If there is in fact benefit for creating the restriction as this level you should see it seek it's equilibrium such that you may see fair-go policies which would mean a small time frame compared to current practises though. Reputation might show a bigger splash when protecting trade secrets, but you also have the employment contract to leverage to protect them as well.

 

 

2. The foundation was created before there was really any notion of it as a system. 1. Monastaries in favor of less labor and more prayer developed methods of agricultural improvement. 2. The medival church create renewed interest in Aristotelean enquiry. 3. The black death chips away at the fuedal system by eroding the base. 4. The flight into cities, made possible by #1 and partially #2, 5. New craft and trade association increase trade locally and among nations. Then people started asking "what the heck is all this trade going on all about?". It happened simply because it worked,  The late sixteenth century with the School of Salmenca is where the prototypical formal market theories first arose.

 

3. A lot of opinion indeed. Anarchy will not be a utopia, and people will still be left with the practical problem of how to turn ideas into money. Society might be better off having given Mr. Tesla or resources, or he might have delved to deep into his more esoteric and ceased productive discovery, or perhaps in his zeal for free power for everyone accidentally electrocute everyone instead.

This is a damn fine thread.My question for the experts: as a potential author-if I write a book and choose to sell it as an eBook, with the condition attached to sale that it is not to be reproduced as a whole without my permission, wouldn't it be immoral for someone to upload it to a p2p torrent network? Isn't the method of distribution the creator's choice and thus IP would apply differently to the different choices creators make in their distribution?Kind of like how Stef prices his novels but not his non-fiction? So wouldn't it be perfectly fine to redistribute UPB- even redo the cover and sell it for profit- but absolutely not fine to p2p share "The God of Atheists"?

 

But if I then giver the book to someone else and they reproduce it?

 

If you want to rent a book, you should just figure out how to do that.  Reader that you control, and that you can disable remotely and demand returned to you at any time, use strong asymmetric cryptography to deliver the content and contract a group of authors for exclusive publication....

 

but it's very hard to secure system you don't physically control access too, and you can always take pictures. (the analogue hole)

 

So an author is free to publish in whatever manner they desire, but technological measures or dense legalese may alienate the very people that you want as customers. Personally I am loathe to purchase DRM'd anything unless I know how to circumvent it.

[RestoringGuy]

It seems you have to allow people to opt out of a contract they previously were bound by, and I think the same holds for DRM.  I say this because the conditions that convince a person that the contract is a good idea are superceded whenever hidden consequences are revealed.  There is simply no way to read all the fine print, and grasp all that might result, just as there is no way to guarantee divorce is unwarranted for all possible conditions.  I think there is an onslaught of misrepresentation, as well as introduction of errors and software bugs both deliberate and sloppy.  The retailers have made it clear, no returns on that kind of merchandise, no matter how many lies were told to market it.

 

I do not favor a free-for-all, my third paradigm is a system of "DRM" except by neutral party, that enables the consumer to enforce grievance with an equal morality as the product creator.  If a creator demands non-refundable payment or sneaky EULA, wants to be unaccountable for their lies, and enforce it all with DRM, then I think a consumer should be able to react.  Once the relationship is symmetric, I think inflexible DRM would be seen as bad for both sides.