Oh, so a music artist, who derives SOLE income from sales (I'm NOT referring to our current music-industry corporatism but a different free-market-esque hypothetical scenario) is supposed to just take it and "suck it up" when fans upload music to sharing sites like youmusicdotcom?
Distribution of music like that (continuing example) implies that the songs don't belong to the artist; that the property aren't his/hers but "public." What kind of property rights do you support?
@fountainherz You seem to not get it, you cannot own an idea; period and end of story. It's not logically possible or even physically possible. Just because people will be shitheads and copy CDs and not pay you doesn't mean you have a right to a guaranteed revenue stream. So long as these people are not directly conflicting with your right to sell your labor (as music, swag, whatever), then you have no right to interfere with them (beyond calling them shitheads). ...cont...
@ladyattis To ask for more than the right to shame such people is to ask for property rights over others labor and goods. That's the problem with your assertion so far. It requires POSITIVE force to be applied for it to be possible. There no such thing as free market IP law, it's logically contradictory. Trade secrets aren't a form of IP. Nor are NDAs. Nor are venue specific performances and so on. IP law is very specific and very much a politically motivated idea.
Why are you getting mad? You're categorizing music as "intellectual" property whereas my example is one of physical (an analogy is obviously a songwriter can't do anything to protect what's merely in his/her head, I'm referring to -finished product- of physical medium distribution via computer files, CDs, etc.). Under my example that (downloading a CD and uploading it without consent) constitutes theft (free downloaders taking property).
@fountainherz I'm not getting mad. If you download a CD or uploading the CD is not theft since I already bought the CD on the upload side, and there's no contract that can be transferred by mere downloading. BTW, on the downloading side of your argument is the one Monsanto uses to force farmers who have had their crops polluted by cross pollination to pay up in the US (not so in Canada, the farmers took it to court and won).
@ladyattis So, where do you have the right to have a contract with an implicit/undefined third party which gains all the obligations, but none of the benefits? Contracts by definition require exchanges which are agreeable to both parties. With IP, there's no such exchange between parties (when I buy a CD, I'm not buying your music, when I download the same CD on BT I'm not stealing it since the CD is still there in its original format). So, again, where do tangible property rights come into IP?
@eagleeye1975 Also, your ideas may be unique, but the expressions are not. In fact, case law reflects this fact on the matter of fictional works. Someone may write a coming of age scifi novel in a similar style to Robert Heinlein's (Citizen of the Galaxy), but one cannot literally copy characters, dialog, and the like. Thus, two authors can express 'unique' ideas in a way that has some non-unique characteristics.
@eagleeye1975 You have a right to your labor, but not to the expression of ideas. If my expression of a cup of coffee competes with yours (we're both selling coffee to the public), that's fair because we're both equally likely to fail. But with IP there's only one winner, the person who gets to the patent office first. It has nothing to do with demand for the product or the reputation of the producers (related to economic and non-economic matters), thus it's driven by fiat (law).
Nonsense! Where would the state of technology have been today if Hans Lippershey hadn't gotten a patent for the telescope, or if Johannes Gutenberg hadn't got a patent on the printing press, or if Alexander Fleming hadn't got a patent for penicillin?
(cont) The problem is of course not just referentiality. If someone can literally print copies of a novel that took years to write. If someone took a leaked source of a game and simply sold it. This is precisely why law already differentiates between referencing, satire and other forms of derivation and verbatim copying or copies that are very close. The problem is of course how to determine that line, and that's why suing is what happens.
You are right that IP is a monopoly, but all property has that monopolizing nature when commodified. One person owns it and one person has the rights to trade that ownership. It's not unique to IP. I would agree that the patent system is pretty much by design broken, as are many other actual implementations of IP. BTW what provision allows sueing production for private use? As best I know there is no way to be sued for reproducing patented work for private use. (cont)
@socrates856 This is why I think property in the context of one's labor is the only acceptable form of property even if it has a monopolistic nature to it. The reason being is the fact that all human actions with respect to labor is an attempt to reduce scarcity in our lives (food, shelter, fun, friends, etc). Anything beyond this veers into the area where such monopolistic actions deprive others of an equal opportunity to reduce their own scarcities.
@ladyattis The problem it seems to me is that commodification of pure labor is hard in many cases. An author may send years on a book, and unless a publisher is willing to salary the labor, it is the outcome that has to be commodified, when then leads to questions about IP.
@socrates856 That's the issue of all goods in the market. The price can't be dictated, nor propped up in the name of 'fairness' as it often is unfair to buyers (usually folks like you and me). IP is just one method to make something more expensive than it would have otherwise been.
@ladyattis No that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that spending long time without income doesn't work if there is no way to protect the investment. Sure it would be dirt cheap if someone spend years writing a novel and after that everybody can just copy at minimal cost not bearing any of the year-long effort.
@socrates856 I understand that's a problem, but there's little to stop that sort of thing from happening now. If you have no income and some major publisher (copyright) or investor (patent) decides to rip you off the legal recourse can be possibly more expensive. So, I don't see how IP laws protect anyone but those with the money and know how to exploit them. Everyone else are the outsiders looking in.
Also, copying isn't cost free or even significantly lower as you may think.
@ladyattis The last statement is proven true within the context of history. First, inventions themselves are very hard to replicate without the know how. Reverse engineering is one of those practices that is at best an art and at worse a joke. Second, written works get 'copied' all the time legally in terms of derivative works as pointed out in other comments by me. Third, rarely does one copy to sell today or in the past, so the actual cost to copy seems enough of a barrier for most... cont.
@ladyattis It's so much of a barrier, that IP piracy GLOBALLY accounts for a mere 10% loss in revenues. I can tell you that 'shrink' in the grocery business accounts for a larger loss in revenues. So, I don't think any argument can be made airtight that's pro-IP, be it moral or utilitarian.
@ladyattis Have we had that experiment? Where IP was completely removed and we observed what happened to IP-centric industries, such as writing, artistic production etc? We did have systems like that, but it was under rich monarchs, where the monarchs would pay artist's salaries. But of course the effect there is that invention then has to please those with money rather than try to find a good idea that monitizes.
@socrates856 Experiment or no, the reality is that the statistics don't show piracy being a problem. Also, inventions have come about without the Royal We making them so. I suggest you read up on the history of the matter, it's pretty clear that private interest in science and invention has long been a private good. Also, artists today enjoy a relatively new concept of their work as a primary income stream (19th century artists weren't so lucky). ..cont..
@ladyattis Let's take a real example. Skyrim costs $50. But I would place the mass production cost of the mere DVD at a small fraction of that. For simplicity let's assume it's $5 which likely is too high. Let's assume there is absolutely no redress for the game company against people selling the game in copy for that amount. That is the real comparison. Not what current piracy levels are given that IP exists.
@ladyattis (cont) see if the only competition is cost of copying it is a level playing field with respect to copying but not with respect to startup cost. The game company carries full cost while those who just copy carry none. I am not saying IP as we have it now is the solution, but I am saying that you cannot just wave your hands and say there isn't a real monetization problem here.
@ladyattis My point here is that I am trying to indicate that if you remove IP-type protection you have to worry about monetizations in other ways. If you oppose IP I think you do have to give some argument at least how inventors are going to monetize their time and resource investment.
@ladyattis But yes, money is always a biasing factor on any economy. Sure does the party with money have a better position than one without. I'm not convinced that this point is critically linked to IP per se.
Copying a book isn't significantly lower than spending years writing it? I'm not sure what point you trying to make there but clearly that cannot and is not correct.
@ladyattis I don't see how it is in principle unfair to buyers that they have to see the cost of invention and if the cost of invention was substantial it indeed should be reflected somehow in the market or else we get a system that strongly discourages inventions as unproductive charity that cannot cost amounts that are threatening to ones economic soundness.
Agreed. Modification is the key to progress. Could you imagine what shape science would be in today if all scientific theories were copyrighted and patented, and you had to seek approval from the originator of a scientific theory or their estate inorder to modify an existing scientific theory?
@MISTERWONKA7 I think software (programs) are not real property for two reasons. First, they're more or less non-unique expressions of mathematical/algorithmic procedures. You'd be surprise how many FFT patents there are even though the equations for FFT comes from the 19th century. Second, since software are mere symbols, which the meaning can be changed in meaningful ways (happens more often than you think in the real world), then it follows it's not something patentable or copy-right-able imo
@ladyattis As for other kinds of real property. Land is one that I think one cannot own legitimately, even if its a form of capital (ASE). The reason is the fact that much like our atmosphere, it's not something that be perfectly taken from someone. You always have to occupy some space somewhere to exist. So, you may possess the right to use land to make property (that which derives from albor), but you cannot deprive others of the use of the land if say you abandon it.
"in electronic music you remix quite a bit" - you would be surprised how remixing and re-sampling is common in this genre. I even would argue, that it is more common than in hip-hop.
@MaikUniversum It is very common in House music. Daft Punk had to get many licenses for some of their albums because they love to take some rare background track from an old song just to loop a small segment of it (like a few seconds) to then combine with their own tracks.
Intellectual property is a pretty tortuous concept and it is difficult to measure the advantages/disadvantages, but on the surface, it seems very unfair when you see the West come up with many great inventions and then Asia just copies them and makes profit.
Glad you made this video. I was wondering what your ideas where about intellectual property. :)
have you seen this one? Adam from AdamVsTheMan gives a good speil that I agree with. He is a voluntarist, so idk why he would say we should amend the constitution but w.e. I don't know how much he understands about a social contract. ....He was in the army and swore an oath so I doubt he has heard many arguments against it.
Oh, so a music artist, who derives SOLE income from sales (I'm NOT referring to our current music-industry corporatism but a different free-market-esque hypothetical scenario) is supposed to just take it and "suck it up" when fans upload music to sharing sites like youmusicdotcom?
fountainherz 3 weeks ago in playlist Economics
@fountainherz You can do something about it by finding a business model that works. You're not guaranteed an income for your labors.
ladyattis 2 weeks ago
@ladyattis
Distribution of music like that (continuing example) implies that the songs don't belong to the artist; that the property aren't his/hers but "public." What kind of property rights do you support?
fountainherz 2 weeks ago
@fountainherz You seem to not get it, you cannot own an idea; period and end of story. It's not logically possible or even physically possible. Just because people will be shitheads and copy CDs and not pay you doesn't mean you have a right to a guaranteed revenue stream. So long as these people are not directly conflicting with your right to sell your labor (as music, swag, whatever), then you have no right to interfere with them (beyond calling them shitheads). ...cont...
ladyattis 2 weeks ago
@ladyattis To ask for more than the right to shame such people is to ask for property rights over others labor and goods. That's the problem with your assertion so far. It requires POSITIVE force to be applied for it to be possible. There no such thing as free market IP law, it's logically contradictory. Trade secrets aren't a form of IP. Nor are NDAs. Nor are venue specific performances and so on. IP law is very specific and very much a politically motivated idea.
ladyattis 2 weeks ago
@ladyattis
Why are you getting mad? You're categorizing music as "intellectual" property whereas my example is one of physical (an analogy is obviously a songwriter can't do anything to protect what's merely in his/her head, I'm referring to -finished product- of physical medium distribution via computer files, CDs, etc.). Under my example that (downloading a CD and uploading it without consent) constitutes theft (free downloaders taking property).
fountainherz 2 weeks ago
@fountainherz I'm not getting mad. If you download a CD or uploading the CD is not theft since I already bought the CD on the upload side, and there's no contract that can be transferred by mere downloading. BTW, on the downloading side of your argument is the one Monsanto uses to force farmers who have had their crops polluted by cross pollination to pay up in the US (not so in Canada, the farmers took it to court and won).
ladyattis 2 weeks ago
@ladyattis So, where do you have the right to have a contract with an implicit/undefined third party which gains all the obligations, but none of the benefits? Contracts by definition require exchanges which are agreeable to both parties. With IP, there's no such exchange between parties (when I buy a CD, I'm not buying your music, when I download the same CD on BT I'm not stealing it since the CD is still there in its original format). So, again, where do tangible property rights come into IP?
ladyattis 2 weeks ago
If you think about an idea for a horror novel... Stephen King already wrote it.
MaxStirner4Lyfe 4 weeks ago
@eagleeye1975 Also, your ideas may be unique, but the expressions are not. In fact, case law reflects this fact on the matter of fictional works. Someone may write a coming of age scifi novel in a similar style to Robert Heinlein's (Citizen of the Galaxy), but one cannot literally copy characters, dialog, and the like. Thus, two authors can express 'unique' ideas in a way that has some non-unique characteristics.
ladyattis 4 weeks ago
@eagleeye1975 You have a right to your labor, but not to the expression of ideas. If my expression of a cup of coffee competes with yours (we're both selling coffee to the public), that's fair because we're both equally likely to fail. But with IP there's only one winner, the person who gets to the patent office first. It has nothing to do with demand for the product or the reputation of the producers (related to economic and non-economic matters), thus it's driven by fiat (law).
ladyattis 4 weeks ago
Nonsense! Where would the state of technology have been today if Hans Lippershey hadn't gotten a patent for the telescope, or if Johannes Gutenberg hadn't got a patent on the printing press, or if Alexander Fleming hadn't got a patent for penicillin?
Oh, wait...
shanedk 1 month ago 2
@shanedk just imagine if Nicola Tesla couldnt have improved Edisons d/c by discovering a/c
krillin876 4 weeks ago
(cont) The problem is of course not just referentiality. If someone can literally print copies of a novel that took years to write. If someone took a leaked source of a game and simply sold it. This is precisely why law already differentiates between referencing, satire and other forms of derivation and verbatim copying or copies that are very close. The problem is of course how to determine that line, and that's why suing is what happens.
socrates856 1 month ago
You are right that IP is a monopoly, but all property has that monopolizing nature when commodified. One person owns it and one person has the rights to trade that ownership. It's not unique to IP. I would agree that the patent system is pretty much by design broken, as are many other actual implementations of IP. BTW what provision allows sueing production for private use? As best I know there is no way to be sued for reproducing patented work for private use. (cont)
socrates856 1 month ago
@socrates856 This is why I think property in the context of one's labor is the only acceptable form of property even if it has a monopolistic nature to it. The reason being is the fact that all human actions with respect to labor is an attempt to reduce scarcity in our lives (food, shelter, fun, friends, etc). Anything beyond this veers into the area where such monopolistic actions deprive others of an equal opportunity to reduce their own scarcities.
ladyattis 4 weeks ago
@ladyattis The problem it seems to me is that commodification of pure labor is hard in many cases. An author may send years on a book, and unless a publisher is willing to salary the labor, it is the outcome that has to be commodified, when then leads to questions about IP.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 That's the issue of all goods in the market. The price can't be dictated, nor propped up in the name of 'fairness' as it often is unfair to buyers (usually folks like you and me). IP is just one method to make something more expensive than it would have otherwise been.
ladyattis 4 weeks ago
@ladyattis No that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that spending long time without income doesn't work if there is no way to protect the investment. Sure it would be dirt cheap if someone spend years writing a novel and after that everybody can just copy at minimal cost not bearing any of the year-long effort.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 I understand that's a problem, but there's little to stop that sort of thing from happening now. If you have no income and some major publisher (copyright) or investor (patent) decides to rip you off the legal recourse can be possibly more expensive. So, I don't see how IP laws protect anyone but those with the money and know how to exploit them. Everyone else are the outsiders looking in.
Also, copying isn't cost free or even significantly lower as you may think.
ladyattis 4 weeks ago
@ladyattis The last statement is proven true within the context of history. First, inventions themselves are very hard to replicate without the know how. Reverse engineering is one of those practices that is at best an art and at worse a joke. Second, written works get 'copied' all the time legally in terms of derivative works as pointed out in other comments by me. Third, rarely does one copy to sell today or in the past, so the actual cost to copy seems enough of a barrier for most... cont.
ladyattis 4 weeks ago
@ladyattis It's so much of a barrier, that IP piracy GLOBALLY accounts for a mere 10% loss in revenues. I can tell you that 'shrink' in the grocery business accounts for a larger loss in revenues. So, I don't think any argument can be made airtight that's pro-IP, be it moral or utilitarian.
ladyattis 4 weeks ago
@ladyattis Have we had that experiment? Where IP was completely removed and we observed what happened to IP-centric industries, such as writing, artistic production etc? We did have systems like that, but it was under rich monarchs, where the monarchs would pay artist's salaries. But of course the effect there is that invention then has to please those with money rather than try to find a good idea that monitizes.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 Experiment or no, the reality is that the statistics don't show piracy being a problem. Also, inventions have come about without the Royal We making them so. I suggest you read up on the history of the matter, it's pretty clear that private interest in science and invention has long been a private good. Also, artists today enjoy a relatively new concept of their work as a primary income stream (19th century artists weren't so lucky). ..cont..
ladyattis 4 weeks ago
@ladyattis So, I can't say that historically it's as bad as you think.
ladyattis 4 weeks ago
@ladyattis Let's take a real example. Skyrim costs $50. But I would place the mass production cost of the mere DVD at a small fraction of that. For simplicity let's assume it's $5 which likely is too high. Let's assume there is absolutely no redress for the game company against people selling the game in copy for that amount. That is the real comparison. Not what current piracy levels are given that IP exists.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@socrates856 BTW, I posted another video expanding my thoughts. If you want to continue there, it would be great. :)
ladyattis 4 weeks ago
@ladyattis (cont) see if the only competition is cost of copying it is a level playing field with respect to copying but not with respect to startup cost. The game company carries full cost while those who just copy carry none. I am not saying IP as we have it now is the solution, but I am saying that you cannot just wave your hands and say there isn't a real monetization problem here.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@ladyattis My point here is that I am trying to indicate that if you remove IP-type protection you have to worry about monetizations in other ways. If you oppose IP I think you do have to give some argument at least how inventors are going to monetize their time and resource investment.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@ladyattis But yes, money is always a biasing factor on any economy. Sure does the party with money have a better position than one without. I'm not convinced that this point is critically linked to IP per se.
Copying a book isn't significantly lower than spending years writing it? I'm not sure what point you trying to make there but clearly that cannot and is not correct.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
@ladyattis I don't see how it is in principle unfair to buyers that they have to see the cost of invention and if the cost of invention was substantial it indeed should be reflected somehow in the market or else we get a system that strongly discourages inventions as unproductive charity that cannot cost amounts that are threatening to ones economic soundness.
socrates856 4 weeks ago
Recently discussed on reddit:
r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/ozv74/patents_vs_free_markets_on_innovation/
LatteJonny 1 month ago
Agreed. Modification is the key to progress. Could you imagine what shape science would be in today if all scientific theories were copyrighted and patented, and you had to seek approval from the originator of a scientific theory or their estate inorder to modify an existing scientific theory?
Pentazoid111 1 month ago
What are your thoughts on Real Property?
MISTERWONKA7 1 month ago
@MISTERWONKA7 what's that?
MaikUniversum 1 month ago
@MaikUniversum It's basically stuff that you have the license to use, but don't have a personal charter to. Ie Programs, Electronics and Real estate.
MISTERWONKA7 1 month ago
@MISTERWONKA7 I think software (programs) are not real property for two reasons. First, they're more or less non-unique expressions of mathematical/algorithmic procedures. You'd be surprise how many FFT patents there are even though the equations for FFT comes from the 19th century. Second, since software are mere symbols, which the meaning can be changed in meaningful ways (happens more often than you think in the real world), then it follows it's not something patentable or copy-right-able imo
ladyattis 4 weeks ago
@ladyattis As for other kinds of real property. Land is one that I think one cannot own legitimately, even if its a form of capital (ASE). The reason is the fact that much like our atmosphere, it's not something that be perfectly taken from someone. You always have to occupy some space somewhere to exist. So, you may possess the right to use land to make property (that which derives from albor), but you cannot deprive others of the use of the land if say you abandon it.
ladyattis 4 weeks ago
"in electronic music you remix quite a bit" - you would be surprised how remixing and re-sampling is common in this genre. I even would argue, that it is more common than in hip-hop.
MaikUniversum 1 month ago
@MaikUniversum It is very common in House music. Daft Punk had to get many licenses for some of their albums because they love to take some rare background track from an old song just to loop a small segment of it (like a few seconds) to then combine with their own tracks.
ladyattis 4 weeks ago
Intellectual property is a pretty tortuous concept and it is difficult to measure the advantages/disadvantages, but on the surface, it seems very unfair when you see the West come up with many great inventions and then Asia just copies them and makes profit.
return135 1 month ago
oh did I see that video because you liked it or did you like it after i linked it? xD
MirageScience 1 month ago
Glad you made this video. I was wondering what your ideas where about intellectual property. :)
have you seen this one? Adam from AdamVsTheMan gives a good speil that I agree with. He is a voluntarist, so idk why he would say we should amend the constitution but w.e. I don't know how much he understands about a social contract. ....He was in the army and swore an oath so I doubt he has heard many arguments against it.
/watch?v=D6_ZqPcNemI&feature=related
MirageScience 1 month ago