You wouldn't steal a car...

[Koroviev]

I was just thinking about how funny it was that pirating, or "sharing," music/media is considered evil and immoral. Whereas socialism and taxation are considered the epitome of morality.

 

One person buying something and voluntarily sharing it with others = immoral and evil

One person working hard and having their money involuntarily taken from them = moral and good

[dsayers]

When I read the title, I thought you were going to be linking this

 

[Ace]

Well, I don't think there's anyone left that considers it evil or immoral other than people who work for record labels or the motion picture association.

[Koroviev]

Well, I don't think there's anyone left that considers it evil or immoral other than people who work for record labels or the motion picture association.

 

True, them and the government. Unfortunately, they're the ones that make it an issue.

[RCali]

Wasn't it "download a car"? I've seen this so much being advertised in cinemas, and I would always think... Yes... Yes I would download a car! In fact, I would download lots of them! And I would download the most beautiful there are!

[AncapFTW]

I was just thinking about how funny it was that pirating, or "sharing," music/media is considered evil and immoral. Whereas socialism and taxation are considered the epitome of morality.

 

One person buying something and voluntarily sharing it with others = immoral and evil

One person working hard and having their money involuntarily taken from them = moral and good

So, it's ok to use the fruits of other people's labor without their permission if you want to?  After all, they only put their time and labor into creating it out of nothing/unowned property/their property, so it's basically homesteading.  That doesn't mean they have any right to control to their own property!

 

Neither of them are moral.  The difference is that in one case private citizens are taking other people's property and spreading it around, the other is "the government" taking  people's property and spreading it around.  One is simple theft, the other is armed robbery.

[thebeardslastcall]

So, it's ok to use the fruits of other people's labor without their permission if you want to? 

 

It's impossible not to.

[WorBlux]

Let's be honest, yes I would steal a car albeit only under extreme or unusual circumstance.  I however wouldn't think twice about copying a Car.

[Koroviev]

So, it's ok to use the fruits of other people's labor without their permission if you want to?  After all, they only put their time and labor into creating it out of nothing/unowned property/their property, so it's basically homesteading.  That doesn't mean they have any right to control to their own property!

 

Neither of them are moral.  The difference is that in one case private citizens are taking other people's property and spreading it around, the other is "the government" taking  people's property and spreading it around.  One is simple theft, the other is armed robbery.

 

Side note: this wasn't arguing that pirating media was moral, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of how the exact same thing is considered both moral and immoral by the same people. If I was to make that argument it would be more along the lines of: If I purchase something don't I own it and therefore have the right to use it how I please. If people really had any understanding of value for value anymore then producers of media would be encouraging people to "pirate" their media since in the end it's gaining them a wider audience an therefor they have a larger pool of people who would be willing to return the value they provided. It is easier to make sharing your media illegal/immoral than it is to produce content from which people get a lot of value.

 

 

Wasn't it "download a car"? I've seen this so much being advertised in cinemas, and I would always think... Yes... Yes I would download a car! In fact, I would download lots of them! And I would download the most beautiful there are!

 

I think they went back and forth on this but I'd thought they settled on "steal a car" since as WorBlux said if it was as easy as a download everyone would do it 

[AncapFTW]

It's impossible not to.

care to explain?

[ribuck]

So, it's ok to use the fruits of other people's labor without their permission if you want to?

 

Did you get permission from the people who invented the alphabet, before you copied "their" letters into your post?

[AncapFTW]

Did you get permission from the people who invented the alphabet, before you copied "their" letters into your post?

You mean those people who basically created something, made it public domain, and have been dead for thousands of years, therefore nullifying any claim that they had to it?  No, I didn't.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure that the alphabet and language in general was created by large numbers of people working in concert and is only useful because it's an agreed upon standard.  That's like saying "did you get permission to create a car?"  The car, it's use, an some aspects of its design are based on societal norms, not one person or a group of people's work, just like language.

 

Comparing using language to giving your buddy a ripped copy of Star Wars is worse of a comparison than comparing eating Beef to the cannibalizing of slaves.

[asreon]

So, it's ok to use the fruits of other people's labor without their permission if you want to?  After all, they only put their time and labor into creating it out of nothing/unowned property/their property, so it's basically homesteading. 

So does this mean that taxation is basically homesteading as well? We put time and effort and labour into "creating" our income from our skills only to have it taken away. There is an unspoken "consent" for this to happen, but we are not given the choice as to whether or not we want to let them use the fruits of our labour, so technically, we haven't given them permission. 

Based on what you have said, taxation would also be called homesteading. 

[regevdl]

I was just thinking about how funny it was that pirating, or "sharing," music/media is considered evil and immoral. Whereas socialism and taxation are considered the epitome of morality.

 

One person buying something and voluntarily sharing it with others = immoral and evil

One person working hard and having their money involuntarily taken from them = moral and good

 

it's a symptom of cognitive dissonance.  People know they are enslaved to taxation and aren't willful enough to fight against it in any useful way (and I'm not suggesting risking jail in the quest to end taxation..that's counterproductive and makes the rest of us schmucks pay for that person to sit in jail) but I digress.  lol

 

It's just more social justice warrior.  They have to choose the 'battles' and 'causes' that they can actually or potentially change or at least make a lot of noise without much backlash or risk to them or their character while ignoring the overall principle (otherwise it will reveal their own hypocrisy and lack of consistency).  Plus, I am sure the leftist would argue back with, "well you are stealing a movie for your own pleasure...I am stealing your money for the greater good...starving kids and single moms and dying grandmas' and what-not". 

 

I agree it is a hypocrisy.  I don't believe pirating is moral or beneficial in the long run.  It's a short term gain for a long term loss...especially when gvt is out there regulating and itching to come in and 'save the day' of the next 'victim', even if it's Hollywood.  

 

It's tempting but I'm quite startled at people's responses regarding the morality (I know that wasn't your initial question).  Should it matter how easy it is to steal something? I guess some people feel that if it's easy...then the person deserves to be stolen from. Yikes  :-/

 

  That's very revealing of people's ethics when they use that argument AND unfortunately they are just validating those who say we need a state to protect us from people such as themselves.  So again...self defeating.  

 

Take what you want and pay for it.

[dsayers]

they only put their time and labor into creating it out of nothing/unowned property/their property, so it's basically homesteading.

If I strum a guitar, I haven't created anything. If you strum a guitar in the same way I did once, your behavior isn't binding upon me. Furthermore, if I strum a guitar, that doesn't mean other people MUST value it.

[AncapFTW]

If I strum a guitar, I haven't created anything. If you strum a guitar in the same way I did once, your behavior isn't binding upon me. Furthermore, if I strum a guitar, that doesn't mean other people MUST value it.

So you think a single note (like writing a single word) is the same as an entire song (or a poem/novel)?  One is a single action that everyone takes while playing the instrument/writing a story, and is practically public domain.  The other is a unique combination of those things which takes time, effort, and creativity to do and to make something of value.

 

And we already know it has value, otherwise no one would be interested in stealing it.

[AncapFTW]

So does this mean that taxation is basically homesteading as well? We put time and effort and labour into "creating" our income from our skills only to have it taken away. There is an unspoken "consent" for this to happen, but we are not given the choice as to whether or not we want to let them use the fruits of our labour, so technically, we haven't given them permission. 

Based on what you have said, taxation would also be called homesteading. 

This doesn't even warrant response, as it wasn't even a response to what I wrote, much less an intelligent one.

[mlsv2f]

Saw an interesting one the other day.

 

"A store being open on the biggest shopping day of the year (black friday) is immoral

 

But stealing 30-40-90% of a persons income is moral!"

[dsayers]

And we already know it has value, otherwise no one would be interested in stealing it.

This is begging the question. It also ignores what I said since I pretty much proved it's NOT stealing.

[AncapFTW]

This is begging the question. It also ignores what I said since I pretty much proved it's NOT stealing.

1) It's not begging the question, though I guess I should have said "otherwise no one would want to USE it".  If it wasn't at least more valuable than anything else they could get easily (including the large amounts of legitimately free music out there) then it wouldn't be used.

2) No, you didn't "prove" anything.  You made a statement, which I showed to be poorly reasoned.  Read the rest of what I wrote in response to your statement, as that's where I showed it to be poorly reasoned.

[thebeardslastcall]

It's tempting but I'm quite startled at people's responses regarding the morality (I know that wasn't your initial question).  Should it matter how easy it is to steal something? I guess some people feel that if it's easy...then the person deserves to be stolen from. Yikes  :-/

 

  That's very revealing of people's ethics when they use that argument AND unfortunately they are just validating those who say we need a state to protect us from people such as themselves.  So again...self defeating.  

 

Take what you want and pay for it.

 

I don't think that's what people are saying. They aren't saying they'd steal simply if it's easy. They're saying it's not stealing and it happens to be very easy to do. If I hear you play a song and can then easily play it on my own guitar it doesn't steal the song from you, you can still play it all the same. If I sucked at playing guitar and had no skills I wouldn't be able to do that and it would be a non-issue. Now that computers are ubiquitous everyone has lots of replication skills basically, which suddenly shifted the bar and people's expectations with a sudden reduction in difficulty it now has people trying to force difficulty back in with a legal system. Now some type of copy protections would work if everyone in a group agreed to the system that was going to be used so that they could all play by the same rules. With everything being forced based on an illegitimate government and the copying being so simple and easy and  profitable people are highly incentivized to take advantage of their new 'copying powers'. People have been replicating others for all of humanity and longer, it's the essence of life and intelligence in many ways. Computers popped us forward at an unusual rate in those regards, which disrupts the social norms that held up before that learning progress was made. I'm sure early apes were disrupted by advances in intelligence when they suddenly found other apes able to learn from them and out compete them.

 

I'm not saying you should never pay for things you can get for free as there is a value in paying for things even when you didn't 'have to', but under the current system it's a sketchy situation. A sensible and functional copyright system can only emerge from a free market and society and not one where there's a forced government and social contract and criminality is rampant by design. If you value what you got and want to support the person or people you view as the creator(s) then pay them, but don't be under some illusion that people aren't 'copying' bits and pieces of other things and people all the time as a natural process of living.

 

 

So you think a single note (like writing a single word) is the same as an entire song (or a poem/novel)?  One is a single action that everyone takes while playing the instrument/writing a story, and is practically public domain.  The other is a unique combination of those things which takes time, effort, and creativity to do and to make something of value.

 

Who gets to decide where the line is drawn and who are you to say that person isn't also in many ways copying others in writing those words and notes? What is this public domain you speak of and who gets to decide on its bounds? How exactly are you deciding where to draw these lines? How does the evolution of copying skills advancing through time play into your calculations? Animals can copy each other, humans more so than others and now even more so with computers and that's going to change the value and expectation equations.

 

If I see you look to the sky and then look up for myself did I steal your view or do I owe you for showing me there's a beautiful moon above to see? If someone plays a song I overhear and it doesn't add value to me, but jars me and sounds awful do they owe me? What about people who spread lies, or negative value information, that gets copied, do they owe people for their harm?

 

Insanity of an unfree society under a government is we're trying to interpret and hold each other to the rules of the game without an agreed upon or steady or comprehensible rule book.

[AncapFTW]

Who gets to decide where the line is drawn and who are you to say that person isn't also in many ways copying others in writing those words and notes? What is this public domain you speak of and who gets to decide on its bounds? How exactly are you deciding where to draw these lines? How does the evolution of copying skills advancing through time play into your calculations? Animals can copy each other, humans more so than others and now even more so with computers and that's going to change the value and expectation equations.

 

If I see you look to the sky and then look up for myself did I steal your view or do I owe you for showing me there's a beautiful moon above to see? If someone plays a song I overhear and it doesn't add value to me, but jars me and sounds awful do they owe me? What about people who spread lies, or negative value information, that gets copied, do they owe people for their harm?

 

Insanity of an unfree society under a government is we're trying to interpret and hold each other to the rules of the game without an agreed upon or steady or comprehensible rule book.

Who decides what the bound are for anything that is subjective?  How about if two people disagree on something?  What if one person sees it as a violation of their rights and the other doesn't?  That's what arbiters are for.  Eventually you'll reach a point where a limit is understood.

 

Every society has agreed upon bounds that aren't codified or forced on people.  That's why I don't understand it when anarchists ask questions like this.  You may as well ask "why can't I have a drunken orgy in public?"  After all, you aren't technically harming anyone.

 

The reason that probably wouldn't happen in a public place in a free society is that most people don't want it to happen.  There would be people who refuse to deal with you based on such behavior, and eventually people will place restrictions on themselves performing the activity in order to avoid the consequences of it.  In this case, its doing such things in a private area.  In the case of something like IP limits will eventually arise out of the various opinions on it and such opinions may vary by area, in the same way one area may develop as a clothing-optional community, while others won't.

 

Now I'm curious as to if the people on this forum have ever thought about how rules that aren't strictly derived from NAP will arise in a free society.  If you are interested, the easiest to understand idea of a free society I've seen is in a web-comic called "Escape From Terra" and the characters actually talk about it in the comic.

I would like to list my logic on this topic so that we can all at least understand each other's positions.

 

1) People own themselves and their labor.

2) That which does not exist cannot be owned until it exists.

3) If a person only uses that which they own, they have the permission of the owner to use, or that which is unowned to create something, they own it.  The one who gave them permission to use their equipment may require payment, including part of what they created, but that is a transfer of ownership.

4)  Ownership allows a person to decide how, when, why, and by whom property is used.

5) Ideas are created when someone uses their brain and knowledge to create new knowledge that didn't exist before.

6) Because all that went into the creation of the idea was either owned by them or unowned they own the new knowledge they created.

[thebeardslastcall]

Who decides what the bound are for anything that is subjective?  How about if two people disagree on something?  What if one person sees it as a violation of their rights and the other doesn't?  That's what arbiters are for.  Eventually you'll reach a point where a limit is understood.

 

Every society has agreed upon bounds that aren't codified or forced on people.  That's why I don't understand it when anarchists ask questions like this.  You may as well ask "why can't I have a drunken orgy in public?"  After all, you aren't technically harming anyone.

 

The reason that probably wouldn't happen in a public place in a free society is that most people don't want it to happen.  

 

There are no public places in a free society and when you trade with people and cross property lines you agree to a rule set, a process which is currently absent due to people just falling back on the government's processes since the government interferes with their ability to setup their own rules and enforce them in an agree upon way. Some areas can do this to various degrees, but the government is always want to step in and screw up the freedom and to inhibit people making their own rules. So most simply don't since they're not accustomed to the process and it's inhibited by government.

 

In a free society it's "This is my land, you can come onto these parts under X terms, which includes not having sex here". Problem solved. In a free society people can organize themselves much better as well and won't be as mixed in regards their standards, like where they choose to do explicit things.

 

5) Ideas are created when someone uses their brain and knowledge to create new knowledge that didn't exist before.

6) Because all that went into the creation of the idea was either owned by them or unowned they own the new knowledge they created.

You own your brain which stores the idea in your head. You don't own the replicated idea in my head (or my computer's). Intellectual property is a bit of a misnomer and has people extending their ownership onto others. My property did the labor to replicate the idea based on input broadcast by you. If you don't want your idea copied don't broadcast it. If you broadcast it to places that haven't agreed to terms then they can copy it without owing you anything. This doesn't mean it isn't in their interest to support you, but that they are under no obligation to do so. Ideas are broadcast and copied constantly and all the time and we label some based on our ideas of labor and creativity as being a grade up and deserving of copy protection, but that doesn't create ownership over the idea once it has been 'broadcast'. Assurance contracts and new IP standards in a free society would help resolve some of these issues, but without the rules agreed to then you can't make claims to ownership over me and what I do with my body, even if that includes mimicing something you just did, regardless of how much or little effort and creativity you put into that action. The implication is of course that you can attack me for hearing and repeating your idea.

 

People, in the precarious government situation, feel forced to piggyback and make use of the system to protect their ideas since without a free society other means of protection are harder to acquire. Government makes it an ugly situation. In a free society some people would also be disappointed that their creativity and ideas don't have the value they wish upon them because they have no just means to monetize those ideas without attacking other people. That's just the tricky situation we live in in the digital age of a sudden burst in ability to copy ideas while at the same time needing work and creativity to create the ideas that are difficult to guard without injustice. What some people don't want to accept is a trade that was profitable in another age is no longer profitable now with different abilities in play and they need to do something else to make money in the market. History has shown us that people hate being out-competed and having to adapt to a new trade, especially when they're able and willing to use force to keep their positions and prevent the market from moving away from their business trade.

 

One of the biggest points of anarchists is that governments inhibit and prevent justice as opposed to delivering it. This includes the process of turning creativity and work and ideas, which have no inherent market value, into profit in a society. I can work hard and creatively and come up with ideas all day long,but that doesn't mean anyone owes me for them or that I can attack them to get the value I place on them. Profiting from creativity and ideas requires a system by which to do so and the government IP and Copyright systems are currently pretending to be those solutions.

[AncapFTW]

There are no public places in a free society and when you trade with people and cross property lines you agree to a rule set, a process which is currently absent due to people just falling back on the government's processes since the government interferes with their ability to setup their own rules and enforce them in an agree upon way. Some areas can do this to various degrees, but the government is always want to step in and screw up the freedom and to inhibit people making their own rules. So most simply don't since they're not accustomed to the process and it's inhibited by government.

 

In a free society it's "This is my land, you can come onto these parts under X terms, which includes not having sex here". Problem solved. In a free society people can organize themselves much better as well and won't be as mixed in regards their standards, like where they choose to do explicit things.

 

You own your brain which stores the idea in your head. You don't own the replicated idea in my head (or my computer's). Intellectual property is a bit of a misnomer and has people extending their ownership onto others. My property did the labor to replicate the idea based on input broadcast by you. If you don't want your idea copied don't broadcast it. If you broadcast it to places that haven't agreed to terms then they can copy it without owing you anything. This doesn't mean it isn't in their interest to support you, but that they are under no obligation to do so. Ideas are broadcast and copied constantly and all the time and we label some based on our ideas of labor and creativity as being a grade up and deserving of copy protection, but that doesn't create ownership over the idea once it has been 'broadcast'. Assurance contracts and new IP standards in a free society would help resolve some of these issues, but without the rules agreed to then you can't make claims to ownership over me and what I do with my body, even if that includes mimicing something you just did, regardless of how much or little effort and creativity you put into that action. The implication is of course that you can attack me for hearing and repeating your idea.

 

People, in the precarious government situation, feel forced to piggyback and make use of the system to protect their ideas since without a free society other means of protection are harder to acquire. Government makes it an ugly situation. In a free society some people would also be disappointed that their creativity and ideas don't have the value they wish upon them because they have no just means to monetize those ideas without attacking other people. That's just the tricky situation we live in in the digital age of a sudden burst in ability to copy ideas while at the same time needing work and creativity to create the ideas that are difficult to guard without injustice. What some people don't want to accept is a trade that was profitable in another age is no longer profitable now with different abilities in play and they need to do something else to make money in the market. History has shown us that people hate being out-competed and having to adapt to a new trade, especially when they're able and willing to use force to keep their positions and prevent the market from moving away from their business trade.

 

One of the biggest points of anarchists is that governments inhibit and prevent justice as opposed to delivering it. This includes the process of turning creativity and work and ideas, which have no inherent market value, into profit in a society. I can work hard and creatively and come up with ideas all day long,but that doesn't mean anyone owes me for them or that I can attack them to get the value I place on them. Profiting from creativity and ideas requires a system by which to do so and the government IP and Copyright systems are currently pretending to be those solutions.

Special pleading.  I own the idea.  Just because it is now on your property doesn't make it yours.  If you don't want it on your property, forget it or delete it or don't let it on your property in the first place.  Using my idea without my permission is still a violation of my property rights.  By using it, you impede my ability to use it in the same way that poaching impedes my ability to hunt on my land.  Your ability to copy it has no bearing on ownership of it.

 

You label it "violence" to protect that which you own, but there is little difference between you driving my car without permission and you playing my song for profit without my permission.

[dsayers]

Using my idea without my permission is still a violation of my property rights.  By using it, you impede my ability to use it

You have yet to offer a philosophical proof that an idea is property. Also, in what way is using an idea binding upon others? Until you address these issues, it's irresponsible to make these claims as if they're factual when in fact they don't describe the real world at all.

[AncapFTW]

You have yet to offer a philosophical proof that an idea is property. Also, in what way is using an idea binding upon others? Until you address these issues, it's irresponsible to make these claims as if they're factual when in fact they don't describe the real world at all.

I wrote a logical proof for it and posted it here.  Please read my post and discuss it if you want to.  If you don't want to read my post, then at least don't say I didn't write it.

[AccuTron]

 

Comparing using language to giving your buddy a ripped copy of Star Wars is worse of a comparison than comparing eating Beef to the cannibalizing of slaves.

Wait...we can cannibalize our slaves???  When was that made possible, what link is it?  And to think of all that money I've been wasting at Safeway....  

So you think a single note (like writing a single word) is the same as an entire song (or a poem/novel)?  One is a single action that everyone takes while playing the instrument/writing a story, and is practically public domain.  The other is a unique combination of those things which takes time, effort, and creativity to do and to make something of value.

 

And we already know it has value, otherwise no one would be interested in stealing it.

Yeah, I guess it is like comparing a large random rock to a finished stone sculpture.

 

... there is little difference between you driving my car without permission and you playing my song for profit without my permission.

I think apes.  I, ape, figure out a way to use a stick to obtain and eat termites.  You other apes mimic me, and I don't care as long as you stay away from my termites.  You steal my stick, and that's another matter.  The song is the mimic, the car is the stick.  Tho'...I don't want you taking my termites, and that conceptually nudges into royalty-land.  (At first I didn't notice the words "for profit.")

[dsayers]

5) Ideas are created when someone uses their brain and knowledge to create new knowledge that didn't exist before.

6) Because all that went into the creation of the idea was either owned by them or unowned they own the new knowledge they created.

Knowledge is a concept. Meaning it isn't comprised of matter and energy. It describes an acquaintance with other things. It's not something that is created.

 

In a classroom where a teacher discusses something that everybody else in the room has had no exposure to previously, they are all gaining that knowledge simultaneously. In doing so, they are not engaging in behaviors that are binding upon somebody else.

 

When you have an idea, the idea is in your head and nobody else even has the capability of doing anything with it. Once you release it, you release control over it. Kind of like you can own a guitar, but the moment you strum its strings, you are causing vibrations in the air. You have no further control over those vibrations or the copy of it that is created in every person's brain within earshot. Those vibrations are binding upon those within earshot, which is how we know that noise pollution is immoral. But were those people listening to strum a guitar in the exact same way would not be binding upon you, which is how we know that copying something isn't immoral.

 

If you owned a car and I had a wand I could point at your car and have a duplicate of my own, my using this wand to provide myself with a car would not be binding upon you and therefore could not accurately be described as theft. Know that if you choose to reply to this, I will be attentively looking for you to addressed the characteristic of binding upon others as a requisite of theft (immorality in general). I hope telling you this again will encourage you to address this or revise your theory to more accurately describe the real world.

[thebeardslastcall]

Special pleading.  I own the idea.  Just because it is now on your property doesn't make it yours. 

 

I don't know what you're talking about. It's not like the idea is some physical object you possess that waltzed on over into my yard like a lost dog that I'm 'stealing' by keeping. You own your neurons; I own mine. You don't own the idea. An idea is like a word, a pattern that people can mimic, not some possessed physical object. If you don't want others to use your idea keep it to yourself or only use it in the presence of people who have agreed to a certain set of rules of behavior in regards to certain classes of defined patterns. Monkey see, monkey do. Human see, human pay to do or get beat to death?

[AncapFTW]

Knowledge is a concept. Meaning it isn't comprised of matter and energy. It describes an acquaintance with other things. It's not something that is created.

 

In a classroom where a teacher discusses something that everybody else in the room has had no exposure to previously, they are all gaining that knowledge simultaneously. In doing so, they are not engaging in behaviors that are binding upon somebody else.

 

When you have an idea, the idea is in your head and nobody else even has the capability of doing anything with it. Once you release it, you release control over it. Kind of like you can own a guitar, but the moment you strum its strings, you are causing vibrations in the air. You have no further control over those vibrations or the copy of it that is created in every person's brain within earshot. Those vibrations are binding upon those within earshot, which is how we know that noise pollution is immoral. But were those people listening to strum a guitar in the exact same way would not be binding upon you, which is how we know that copying something isn't immoral.

 

If you owned a car and I had a wand I could point at your car and have a duplicate of my own, my using this wand to provide myself with a car would not be binding upon you and therefore could not accurately be described as theft. Know that if you choose to reply to this, I will be attentively looking for you to addressed the characteristic of binding upon others as a requisite of theft (immorality in general). I hope telling you this again will encourage you to address this or revise your theory to more accurately describe the real world.

Knowledge does exist, as a particular arrangement of neurons in the brain, just as computer information exists as arrangements of electrons in a circuit.  Just because that form can be easily duplicated doesn't mean that the creator of it relinquishes control over it.    Your use of the idea does affect me because it devalues my work.  Things have value because they have scarcity and demand.  If you copy my idea, you decrease its scarcity and therefore its value.  You also decrease the demand for it, and therefore its value.

 

That's arguing consequences, though, not principles.  The principles involved still stand.  Yes, you "own" a copy of the song, but I own the song.  I can't use that which is in your head because to do so would be to use your labor, but neither can you use that idea as is, as that would be to use my labor.  If I were to demand to be able to use the information I placed in your mind, that's slavery, but if you use that information, it's also slavery, as you are using that which I put effort into against my will. 

 

You are essentially claiming that YouTube owns all of the content uploaded to it, as does Netflix.  They only own that copy of it, though, and therefore have only a very limited number of things that they can do with it.

 

 

I don't know what you're talking about. It's not like the idea is some physical object you possess that waltzed on over into my yard like a lost dog that I'm 'stealing' by keeping. You own your neurons; I own mine. You don't own the idea. An idea is like a word, a pattern that people can mimic, not some possessed physical object. If you don't want others to use your idea keep it to yourself or only use it in the presence of people who have agreed to a certain set of rules of behavior in regards to certain classes of defined patterns. Monkey see, monkey do. Human see, human pay to do or get beat to death?

 

Like I've said before, whether it is made of matter or not is inconsequential, as is the ease with which it is copyable.   I'm not arguing that you can't be in possession of someone else's ideas, or that you can't use them at all, just that you can't use them in their original form as they were not the product of your labor, but someone else's.

 

Let's say you are obsessed with the "Rickrolling" meme, so you remix Rick Astley's song.  You would own the changes you make to it, but not the original song.  In the same way, if Scientist A invents a fusion reactor, he owns his specific version of a fusion reactor, not the Fusion Reactor idea itself.  If Scientists B & C come up with modifications to it, they own the modifications, not the original.  It doesn't use the fruits of his labor to make their improvements and offer them to his customers, but if they were to build his version of the reactor of the parts he designed it would use the fruits of his labor, and therefore is infringing on his property.

 

The last statement in your post is just someone, once again, trying to claim that I want to use violence against them, in this case rather extreme violence.   I don't want to though, as I prefer suing you to using physical violence and the violence you are using doesn't threaten my life significantly.  As you are committing violence against me by using my property without my permission, though, there wouldn't be anything wrong with a proportional response.  You simply don't see what you are doing as theft, and therefore don't see that a punishment is warranted.

 

At this point I feel as though I'm arguing with a religious nut about what is and isn't violence, and therefore is or isn't something which self defense applies to.  "But they are the infidel.  They threaten my way of life, therefore I should be able to kill them."  In this case you are the one who wishes to engage in violent activity against another person but don't see it as violent action because "it's not a physical object" or "I have a copy, therefore it's all mine!"

[thebeardslastcall]

1) People own themselves and their labor.

What do you mean they own their labor? Seems like an imprecise statement that leads to a categorization of ownership that is off. I'm guessing you're going off the standard more precise statement 'products of their labor', but that's referring to physical objects, not ideas. You own your brain regardless of whatever ideas or concepts it has or doesn't have, thus an idea is creating a new arrangement in your head that produces an 'idea' pattern of behavior. You own that which originally produced and contains the pattern, but it's a leap of ownership to then claim possession over everything that has a similar pattern just because you consider yourself to be the original source of the pattern through your creativity or labor.

[AncapFTW]

What do you mean they own their labor? Seems like an imprecise statement that leads to a categorization of ownership that is off. I'm guessing you're going off the standard more precise statement 'products of their labor', but that's referring to physical objects, not ideas. You own your brain regardless of whatever ideas or concepts it has or doesn't have, thus an idea is creating a new arrangement in your head that produces an 'idea' pattern of behavior. You own that which originally produced and contains the pattern, but it's a leap of ownership to then claim possession over everything that has a similar pattern just because you consider yourself to be the original source of the pattern through your creativity or labor.

1) Supposition.  Possibly special pleading.  Why should it only refer to one type of thing you can produce?

2) I didn't claim ownership over things which have a SIMILAR pattern, I claimed ownership over things which have the same pattern, and only so much as they have that same pattern.  I posted a response explaining this, but apparently it hasn't been approved yet.

[dsayers]

Just because that form can be easily duplicated doesn't mean that the creator of it relinquishes control over it.

Ease of duplication was never the issue. You cannot control other people's brains is an accurate description of the real world.

 

Your use of the idea does affect me because it devalues my work.

Assertion and begging the question, as was most of your post. I don't share your pretense that an idea is work. Also, effecting is not the same as binding. If you have a taco stand and I sell tacos too, my actions might effect you, but they're not binding upon you.

 

If you copy my idea, you decrease its scarcity and therefore its value.

If scarcity can be decreased, then it isn't scarcity.

 

You are essentially claiming that YouTube owns all of the content uploaded to it, as does Netflix.

You reveal that you're speaking from bigotry when I say "cannot be owned" and you hear "is owned."

 

They only own that copy of it, though, and therefore have only a very limited number of things that they can do with it.

You cannot derive an ought from an is. The limitations with what they can do with it is the result of coercion and not a description of the real world. You might as well say God exists because people build churches. When in fact that churches serve as evidence that people THINK God exists.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

So, it's ok to use the fruits of other people's labor without their permission if you want to?  After all, they only put their time and labor into creating it out of nothing/unowned property/their property, so it's basically homesteading.  That doesn't mean they have any right to control to their own property!

 

Neither of them are moral.  The difference is that in one case private citizens are taking other people's property and spreading it around, the other is "the government" taking  people's property and spreading it around.  One is simple theft, the other is armed robbery.

 

Not an argument.

[AncapFTW]

Ease of duplication was never the issue. You cannot control other people's brains is an accurate description of the real world.

 

Assertion and begging the question, as was most of your post. I don't share your pretense that an idea is work. Also, effecting is not the same as binding. If you have a taco stand and I sell tacos too, my actions might effect you, but they're not binding upon you.

 

If scarcity can be decreased, then it isn't scarcity.

 

You reveal that you're speaking from bigotry when I say "cannot be owned" and you hear "is owned."

 

You cannot derive an ought from an is. The limitations with what they can do with it is the result of coercion and not a description of the real world. You might as well say God exists because people build churches. When in fact that churches serve as evidence that people THINK God exists.

Actually, you can in various ways, but most of the time it is immoral to do so.  That doesn't have anything to do with the statement, though.

 

No, no it isn't.  The idea is work, because I put effort into creating it, which is the definition of work.  Your inability to accept that something is the way it is doesn't change the facts.  And if you are affecting me by committing violence against me, ie theft, then yes, they are the same thing.

 

Obviously your definition of "scarcity" doesn't fit the standard economic definition of scarcity.  If there isn't a lot of something, then it is scarce.  It doesn't matter if more can be created.  If I have a stockpile of gold that I won't sell, then gold for sell is more scarce than if I am willing to sell it.  the fact that it can be decreased doesn't change whether it's currently scarce or not.

 

You reveal that you can't understand parallels when you state that you control someone else's idea because a copy of someone else's work resides inside the biological harddrive of your brain, but don't see the connection to a video that is uploaded to a digital harddrive of a Netflix server.  Also, not bigotry.

bigotry

[big-uh-tree]

noun, plural bigotries.

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

 

just because I don't accept your premise that theft is ok under certain circumstances.

 

Actually, I'm stating that that's the way it should be because it respects the property rights of all involved.  I don't expect you to understand that, however, because you've already stated that property rights are meaningless to you when your "special pleading" conditions are met.

 

Tell me, do you also accept the "special pleading" conditions that I can't own the means of production, or are you a third kind of anarchist?