If invention is just the combination of previous information, then everything is a new combination making everything and therefore nothing unique. If a previous person invents but doesn't document, and a latter person does document a claim...the later person has "stolen" the idea yet benefits from the theft. Simultaneous conception of thought...who is first becomes a matter of relational space. Then there is physics: matter cannot be created or destroyed, same could be said of thought.
How do you know he didn't create it, just what do you really know about reality?Who has stolen what from whom?Land, ideas, murchandise etc. If Humanity is one and for an interesting perception lets say GOD views Humanity as one, so anything that belongs to one belongs to all therefore resources that arent replaceable shouldn't be consumed la di da because Humanity which doesnt consider the reality of one feels entirely free to waste resources. I dont know but it seems that Humanity is nuts
I also think that intellectual property stifles a free market and establishes a monopoly on an idea. It seems wrong to me that people with the means to create the same product with more efficiency or value should be dissallowed to compete against the inventor. In fact, I think that if people had to be more weary about revealing their ideas, that very revelation would raise in market value and allow the making of money just as well. For a good film on this topic watch RiP! A Remix Manifesto.
Its seriously delicious to hear a mind who have understood simple things in life; how could it be? How could Ayn Rand claim the ownership of your own memory and the brain to process the idea that've implanted in your head? How could someone claim to deny your access to the -real- world? What if someone made a copyright no how someone walked? Or, I bet those neanderthals would be rich if they've made copyright/patent on how making' a fire! Its ridicoulously fallacy. Thx !
Claiming that copy "A" to an "A"² is stealing, is claiming that the first "A" is gone. But it isn't! Everyone know this, but still, they are claiming it - its the same argument of the collective, it's, at its best, a fallacy from objectivists, and so called 'capitalists'; at worse - God damn lie! And why don't we own our own copy of the original source?
You address some really great points, good message to. In the end it's a money thing, it takes 1/3rd the price to develop CD's, and even cheaper via internet, than it did with tapes, and yet album prices have gone UP!
If you open the door to "right-seeking" people will seek rights (advantages - guarantees) in all areas -- just as in a free-market entrepreneurs will fill in all market entries until profit is soaked up in that particular industry or innovation.
This is why you have "zero barriers" to entry.
The same thing is true -- If you allow for one single "right" then "welfarists" will fill in every possible right-hole there is -- Since rights can be split and redefined it's impossible to fill all.
I hope the future of "intellectual property" is open-source ... you can charge for the service of manipulating/filtering information, but the information itself is free.
Having said that, I think there are cases where IP might be vital - tying ownership to responsibility. Debugging software, and more importantly SAFETY of designs like cars, drugs
The thing with songs is that the producer of the sound file worked to produce it, and therefore dictate how the file is used. If they want people to pay before being allowed a copy of the sound file, that means they don't want you to have the benefits of a copy of the file they produced without paying.
They way I see IP in general is that one wouldn't want others taking credit for one's personal achievements, meaning benefiting from your hard work without your consent.
This is from Barlow's "Economy of Ideas"... (see google)
"....Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson
At the moment copyrights last for the life of the author + 70 years (or 95+ years for corporate ownership) Many works that have been made since 1923 and won't expire until 2019 - unless there is another retroactive copyright extension which is HIGHLY likely...
Everything you said is perfect. All information is discovered. It can't be created, only found.
There is a way to promote sharing of ideas without claiming ownership of the ideas. Its based on identity which is a valid form of intellectual property.
The system literally pays people to share their discoveries. This encourages discovery and sharing.
The hard work of commercializing is rewarded by customers paying for products and services that apply the ideas.
@MarkProffitt what you mean, by saying all information is dicovered? I think it's pretty easy to create new information. DNA creates it. Human can create it too, like in music, for example. Don't think I am for IP (I am against it), I just want to clarify what you meant ;)
"Infinite Supply, the Problem with Copyrights & Patents" on my blog MarkProffitt . com provided some more detail.
The concept of Zero 0 existed before people recognized it the first time.
DNA does not create information it only physically represents the code that has always existed.
How much does a blank flash drive weigh? Same as a full drive. Information has no mass. So it exists outside of time-space. Information can't be created or destroyed only known or forgotten.
People have sequenced DNA and stored the code in computers as streams of the letters ATCG. They have been able to use those code to recreate physical DNA. So did the information existed separate from the DNA physical representation.
People have also looked at those code sequences and figured out how to make it do something else. The information for what the code would do always existed even though it had never be put into physical form.
As I said in "Infinite Supply, the Problem with Copyrights & Patents" any information can be digitized. So all information is just a number.
When you tell a friend about a movie you are transmitting the same information but with very lossy compression. If the friend saw the same movie on TV but you saw it at the theater the bit stream would be different but both of you would say you saw the same movie. The Shannon information can be transmitted at much lower bitrate.
Intellectual property (IP) is a system based on the present economic system. Ass umping this system is valid, IP - while not perfect - is an acceptable means of regulation and control.
However, and this is the crux of the matter, the logical fallacy of IP is the same as found in all forms of private property (pp).
If one supports pp, one would logically support IP rights.
If not, one has a reason to question the validity of IP rights.
PP is capital earned through labour and society benefits when this is protected as there is an incentive to produce and distribute capital goods and services when stealing PP is illegal.
However, the method (IP) by which I produced those capital goods or services should not be my property as society benefits from information sharing. This is how evolution works best and society prospers ideally from competition - resulting in lower prices and innovation.
Therefore I should not be punished for either keeping information to myself in order to benefit (capitalize on a discovery) nor should I be protected by law from others using the same method to compete with similar products or services.
You have an advantage when ´creating´ something as you´re the first to capitalize on it anyway.
Governments should simply stop limiting information sharing and focus on what they´re supposed to do: protecting individuals private property.
youre speaking in singular persons and not corporations who have placed a value on not only the product but the equity of being able to trade that product(s) which in turn liquidates their business model. Intellectual property is just another appendage to the mass myth of capitalism. The idea of trading for profit is based on a set of slightly spurious rules regarding value.IP law is just the governance in the commoditising of tradable ideas,products, designs.. blah
Some folks say not having patents destroys the incentive to create because of the possibility of what you just described....but turns out there's very little evidence of it actually being that way.
So, while I used to believe in patents for pragmatic reasons....I no longer do because that pragmatic reason was basically just propaganda with not much evidence backing it up. It doesn't make sense from a market perspective and it doesn't make practical sense
Yeah I know that. And using someone's idea isn't "stealing." If that were the case then only one company would be able to make a computer.
And yeah you can make an improved version of something...like if it costs less to make, that's improved as well, as far as I'm concerned, yet it's still protected by patent.
And a corporation doesn't "steal" your work, they can simply put the same concept to use, which is great because consumers benefit.
Yeah....so it's as justifiable as having a 17-year dictatorship ( some countries used to have dictatorships during times of war).
Point is that the government should never be granting any company a monopoly. If a monopoly naturally arises, then that's fine(though it's unlikely to be sustained very long due to monopoly profits luring in competition) because it means that business rose to the top by satisfying the consumers in a sustainable way.
As someone who's main job is making movies and writing movie scripts as well as novels, I don't like the idea of people making copies of my work and distributing them for free when I put forth such effort to bring everything to fruition.
How will I make a living writing full time if most people copy rather than buy my work?
A patent (or copyright) is a monopoly established by the state on behalf of an individual or company. It is enforced by violence in order to prevent competition from other individuals or companies, so when viewed correctly, patents and copyrights are forms of slavery, just like rape and chattel slavery.
No the difference is that the fact about reality would exist whether a person knowa about it or not, but an engine only exists because a person created it. It does not exist in nature.
The physical embodiment of the engine does not exist in nature. If someone stole the physical engine they would be denying you of the use of your property.
The informational idea of an engine exists regardless if it is ever physically represented in a device or on paper. Forcing someone to not use their time and materials to make an engine is stealing.
@MarkProffitt The informational idea of an engine only exists because someone invested time, effort and education in creating this idea. The difference between an invention and a discovery is that a discovery has always existed whereas an invention is a human creation. you argument does not hold. The idea of stealing my neighbour's property might always have been in mind but that does not make it right or socially acceptable. If creations can be stolen that would mean people would not bother
@xkeltoix This is not an intellecutal question although there are intellectual aspects to it. It's a social question. As a society do we want inventions to be freely open to copying or "theft" (depending on how it's viewed). i.e Is that the best thing for society as a whole? In a capitalist society people expect returns on investment of time an effort, so I think that's why it has been decided that there should be exclusive "ownership" of inventions and creations.
@MarkProffitt Some things don't need to be proved. They are common sense e.g if someone creates a cure for something that has not been curable before - of course there will be a market and profit from it. it's not important to calculate how much.
oke i will bite first of lets split between copyright and patenting, copyright is the idea you can not take a computer program i spend months coding on and sell it, the patenting allows you to cover a design of a program and there for block its change, now copyright is what allows me to release the code and demand of other people to do the same.
i technically enforce copyleft on my spare time projects, but still its depended on copyright.
You are probably correct. Now that computers can chug through combinations of data to find the useful ones the price of that information drops to zero. However the value, what the information allows you to do, remains the same. And that value is relative. The bald man doesn't care about how to change the color of his hair.
alternatives alternatives alternatives. Most people believe in IP because they don't know the alternatives. The same thing is for governments. The majority of people are statists, because they are ignorant.
Yes. I would define information the same as Claude Shannon.
But this does get fuzzy since information is just data without interpretation. Sender, encoding, Receiver, decoding. The ideas don't have any meaning by themselves.
Have you listened to a data CD? Its just noise. But the CD player doesn't care about the information it read the bits and converts them into sound the same as it would music. So is the data CD spreadsheets or is it experimental industrial music, or is it both?
If you were to spend 10 years of your life writing a book, this book was the best thing since sliced bread and will be an outright best seller, it gets published, but the day after that some other company copies and pastes the whole damn thing, makes a mint because they are the top dogs of publishing and sells their copy for less than you can. In the end you get near enough nothing, where as these thieves make millions. How is that right?
They didn't steal anything. Once they buy it, all the information is theirs to do what they want. That's like saying you can never use the same words as someone else....yet, of course, we all use the same words to communicate with each other. Just like if you tell someone that a movie theater is showing a certain movie, that info is now yours to do what you want with. You can tell others, you can decide to go to the movies, etc.
No actually that's not how it works. If it did work that way, then everyone would understand that when they buy it and we wouldn't need laws specifically for copyright and stuff like that because the people selling it would make an outright claim to sell the "right to read" or "right to view" like on a piece of paper along with your VHS or DVD or whatever....but they don't do that.
No, You can't patent a base principle like gravity, but you should be able to patent a specific engine which is developed through extensive research and application of that principle which does not occur without a designer.
In the context of copying music, yes you could never prove that someone would have bought the album if they had not got it for free, but you can be pretty damn sure that there is no chance that they will buy it after they have already got it for free! This is wooly thinking
I can't believe you would with one video speak against the ideals of the venus project in regards resource sharing w/o use of a monetary system, then in this video support such an ideal when it comes to illegally downloading copyrighted content. You can't have the cake and eat it too bro, be consistant in heart and mind if you ever hope for people to understand or agree with you. You seem to favor anything that fits into your little world with no insight to the big picture.
i think intellectual property rights is capitalist bullshit. i think it is ridiculous that you can read, look and listen to some thing that belongs to others but if you copy it, the person who owns the material you copied will sue you. this is some irrational bullshit
I'm looking forward to the day when people like you pay your way through college, then invest 10 years and your life savings working on a project which you then give away for free. Then maybe I'll take your position seriously. Is it just coincidence that most anarchists seem to be 20 year old jobless kids who have never created anything of any value?
>> I'm looking forward to the day when people like you pay your way through college, then invest 10 years and your life savings working on a project which you then give away for free.
If you have a legitimate business, then you don't need the state to grant you a monopoly. If you need a patent, you aren't running a business. You're running a extortion racket.
Real business men hate patents because the patent holders monopoly prevents them from entering the market place.
Intellectual property is important if we want to live in a world where people can make a living from being creative.
If you haven't heard of the game Limbo of the Lost, check it out. Without intellectual property rights, 99% of games and movies would look like that shit. Imagine if Uwe Boll directed every movie - you'll see what I mean.
Most people who hate IP, just want stuff for free, or they're talentless hacks.
That said, IP shouldn't extend to medicines or things vital to life.
I think the argument for #3 is that most advances in medicine are not truly 'creative' but are discoveries. For example, if I map the human genome and work out how to turn off serveral cancer causing genes, I haven't really been creative, but through the scientific method, discovered a way in which I can benefit humanity. We could argue that eventually, someone else would have made that discovery and that it is not the right of an individual to control the rights to that knowledge.
Or, at the least, it is not their right to control the rights to that particular method of switching off genes. So if someone makes the same discovery 2 months later through their own independant research, and chooses to give that knowledge freely, then a patent on that method would stand invalid. The knowledge itself though, could be considered proprietary. This would actually encourgage researchers to publish their works ASAP to ensure other discoverers can't easily argue indepence of research
@EvilMuppet1979 "Intellectual property is important if we want to live in a world where people can make a living from being creative." and yet NO ONE so far gave any evidence for this assertion.
@MaikUniversum The only Rights we have are our “unalienable Rights.” A deeper understanding of these Rights materializes through the prism of science (see my channel video). Protection of intellectual property is defined by manmade law. Laws are a function of government and are not equal; also man does not equally follow manmade laws. Hence, intellectual property is not a right. It is one’s responsibility to protect a good idea. If your property is musical software, good luck.
@Mike10four I don't believe in IP, why are you saying me that? Iwas only quoting one person. Anyway, I am skeptical about natural rights either, though, I do not oppose them completely. I hold IP as state made privilege.
@MaikUniversum I may have misinterpreted your comment however, our unalienable Rights are part of the Laws of Nature, they apply to all life and you should not be “skeptical” of them.
@MaikUniversum Well, that is something you have to deal with. But if you are ever skeptical of our unalienable Rights perhaps, my channel video may help.
@Mike10four That's a fallacious argument to make - our rights our not given to us from nature. Our rights are pretty much what society allows us to do and get away with.
I found a really good video on the subject once, I'll see if you can find it again. You're pretty much just declaring something as truth without any evidence or reasoning behind it, you should be very skeptical of ideas like that!
The implied contractual obligations media providers attach to said media is an abuse of power and fundamentally flawed. The issue becomes further ridiculous as our justice system has only the method of prison as a deterrent. Clearly a punishment which so greatly outweighs the proposed "crime" that enforcing intellectual property laws is impossible without infringing upon basic human right of life. As mentioned in this video, strictly for the purpose of protecting potential profits!
discovering a law of nature or mathematical formula which always existed and the application of such to create inventions, music, or art. While the discovery itself may involve creativity and critical thinking, it is whether anything is produced. One involves discovery and another involves creation. If a doctor "discovers" a virus, does he own it? No. If a doctor creates a cure for a virus, does he own it? Yes. One is the product of nature, the other is the product of the mind.
if you steal my things that i produce i will sue you. it was MINE and i only gave you permission to use it when you give me money. what part of that don't you understand? artists need to make a living they cant when their is piracy so it is depriving them of something. I think your argument is stupid and you obviously have NO clue what its like to be an artist our a performer in the commercial world. Its commercial property and it entails commercial rights.
having a song stuck in your head is different then exploiting someone else's work for a profit. what determines the lines you ask? well if you steal form me the lines will be drawn in court because I WILL sue you and have already sued in the past.
Regarding the existence of the intellectual property right itself, that would depend on your perception of a "right." Do you believe it to exist naturally or something created by society? This was discussed a couple hundred years ago by a couple of guys named Rousseau and Voltaire. Regardless, I believe the right is grounded in such as that as personal property and the fact that it is intangible is immaterial. Ayn Rand had it right. There is a fundamental difference between (cont'd)
would be decided at trial. From a logical standpoint, I'm not sure how the congruency of legal remedies for property infringement either add or take away from your argument regarding the existence of intellectual property rights.
Your video is divided into two discussions: 1) intellectual property - existence of a right and 2) legal consequences of unauthorized infringement or reproduction. Rothbard's restitution theory would only apply if someone profited from an unlicensed use of the IP. The typical remedy for illegal reproduction or broadcasting is an injunction. Additionally, what you call "derivative works" are protected as well, and what is created by another that too closely resembles the original (cont'd)
Lets get real here, intellectual property right, for example an artist.. its all good, and they should get recognition for good work.. however, the day they refuse to share their work and start makin u pay for it, thats the day when heads who aint got money need to steal it. This patenting shit is a capitalist idea, and it actually prevents advancement of better ideas from others.. But hey, in this system of keepin people down, makin enormous profits from patents seems like it fits in the glove.
Nonsense. Intellectual property protection actually fosters intellectualism, because it encourages people to develop their ideas into a material form which when proven fruitful ensures that they will be the only ones entitled to the profits. If you eliminate the incentive by simply looting the person of their idea for some Marxist collective good, then there is no sense in putting forth the effort and drive to think and create something that will inevitably just be taken from you.
JewMMA you know theres people who put there own music/art online for free all the time and dont see these people bitching. Plus some still make money off it. Copyright was there to protect the distributors, not the artist. And frankly with the internet, distributing cost is practically free.
You're looking at the issue through too narrow a lense. Whether someone chooses to share something they have created freely is by their own right - the same right they should have to protect it. The purpose of intellectual property was designed originally to protect ideas and creations of inventors and artists. See U.S. Constituion, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. The fact that the rights to their creations are sold freely and without compulsion to distributors does not further your argument.
Fuck the constitution. I reject any document that talks about freedom and rights on the same document as the many restrictive laws and punishments associated with them. Declaration of independence would have been good if it applied to slaves and women. People have the right to create shit, if they want to protect it, then they could leave their ideas at home where they belong. If they want to contribute it to society, then they grant the world the right to use it at their will.
Do you also reject laws prohibiting murder, rape, and theft? Do you also reject the right to personal property? Note: The founders knew the document was imperfect that is why they created a mechanism to AMEND it. However, I don't see how this is even relevant considering you're obfuscating the issue.
Universal laws are implied and followed throughout all non-government societies since the beginning of human civilization. If someone kills someone, they will suffer.. if they rape someone, they get their genitals ripped off and their arms cut off, and a short prison term depending on the victims' wishes. I reject personal property rights, simply because its universally protected.. Read Hegel, he explains this idea best. State authority isn't necessary, although they make you think it is.
Much of what you have written seems logically inconsistent. "Universal law?" No such thing exists as matter of reality. You reject personal property rights? So, if I choose to chop off your limbs and take your house, you are not entitled to any restitution? Sounds like a formula for chaos. Could you send me a link detailing the theory. My google search shows that there is academic debate in of itself regarding his [Hegel's] concept of a law of peoples.
Thats exactly the kind of bullshit a corporate man would bring to the table. Incentive still remains, acknowledgment is the key to the original idea.. and they should be acknowledged for good work. Your thick head can only see the dollar signs as the product of good work..If i was the original designer of something, and someone used my design to make it better, i'd be flattered for the fact that other people found my ideas important enough to copy. I'd also feel humbled to assist in it.
Mere "acknowledgement" would be dandy in the fairy tale world of idealism. However, in the REAL world you're ignoring the basic human element of self-interest. What your "thick head" can't see is that it is immaterial what YOU would do, but rather the right is grounded in the right to personal property. It is nice to be naturally altruistic, however, altruism doesn't put food on tables and roofs over heads. Money does and to loot someone of their creation out of idealism is irrational&illogical.
what's this? you're one of them anarchists, aren't you??! i see you cut your hair short, but that won't help you to hide amongst the sheep. we can still spot a wolf, hairy or no.
seriously, though, very interesting video. and i mean -very- interesting. so interesting that I may have to report it... to the FBI!! nah, i'm just kidding again... or am i? yeah i probably am.
First let's remember there are no such thing as rights in reality - rights are an idea and bestowed to a person by a state. So the question is *should* there be intellectual property rights. Well, do you want to live in a society where access to information and knowledge is free for all people? There is your answer.
Do you want to live in a society where you work for free or are under paid? If there are no rights, do you also suggest you do not have the right to dictate your own destiny?
"Remember there are no such thing as rights in reality." If something is intangible does that mean it doesn't exist by virute of it not being endowed with physical form? I would call that a weak argument against a right. However, there is a moral fundamental question: do rights flow naturally always exist or do they exist only because we as a society give them force and weight? Some would argue rights exists independently regardless of state status (i.e. right to dictate your own destiny)
I think you're on the right track. We just need to go a little deeper into what the rewards will be for IP (as you point out, almost everything is IP). People will produce inventive works of art. And a truly free market will on some way reward them. What we need to do though is to see the vision of HOW the market will reward them. We need to envision the result of rewards more clearly to smooth the fears of those who don't yet see it.
this is all eliminated with compromise and agreement. if we took our time dealing with each problem individually, with a meager system at best, as long as we come to many essential agreements on the structures of our social arrangement we should have no trouble coexisting.
I think Rand's point was creation. As she believed creation was the highest virtue of mankind, finding a law of nature is simply pulling the veil off the secret. To actually create an idea or design makes it your invention and therefore property. Look at Rand's view on material reality and you will see she distiguishes between material and thought. Please reply to this XOmniverse, I would love to start a discussion thread.
as a musician, your argument resonates. i think you are right, but, it does not point to libertarian values, but socialist ones.
because music(recording/sheet-not memory)is easy to "steal", does it give the right to do so? it is my product, so, why, like any product, should all society be allowed to have it for free?
(can't get that car i saw out of my head...)
although have much respect for the anarchist, i lean to socialism. the liberty of intellectual property fits my values, not yours.
Does the formula of the cure for cancer have value?
To me, the only possible answer is yes. In order to secure that value for the person who has created an obviously useful thing(the cure for cancer) we must have intellectual property laws.
Intellectual property laws encourage investment in pursuits protected by the law.
Let's say that developing that cure for cancer cost the pharmaceutical company 5 billion. If patent law didn't exist, there is no way for them to recoup those costs.
I don't have a problem with intellectual property laws as long as their sole purpose is to prevent someone from making money off of someone else's labor. In this country however, IP laws have gotten way out of hand.
Though brief, I would have thought the reply sufficient, but apparently it got past you. You are the single best argument against the very anarchy you peddle. You are who laws of civil society protect citizens against.
Moral relativism and greed move you to rationalize the theft of another persons property, who has been sharp enough to invest their time, labor and money to create the property that you would steal.
What do you suppose your view might be if you were invested in the same yourself?
I am? I thought violent criminals were who the laws of civil society are supposedly supposed to protect people from. I am against the idea of violently assaulting innocent people or seizing their property without valid justification.
I'm not a moral relativist, nor do I advocate theft of property.
Obviously you disagree with me on this video. How about providing reasons for disagreement so we can discuss rather than attacking me personally? What does either of us have to gain from the latter?
Thanks, I watched Kinsella's speech. He gives many examples of frivolous patents, which is irrelevant. I own a small software company and I enjoy having the options to patent an invention, or keep a trade secret, to sell a product or just license the rights. I understand there are erudite intellectuals who believe my inventions should belong to society. Fortunately, in America, their opinions don't matter much.
The fact that you refer to it as "belonging to society" tells me you don't really grasp the true problem.
Does it make sense, for example, if I blow a horn to call the noise my property? Not the series of notes or future use of the horn, but the actual noise itself?
This doesn't mean the noise "belongs to society." It means belonging isn't a trait which even makes sense when discussing a noise.
The same exact argument is true for ideas, and for the same reasons.
I believe he was referring to it like in a mass market type of way, arguing belong to society is semantic I think on your part, you wouldn't want to deride peoples meaning while at the same time wanting to support them would you?
It came across like he was claiming that I was an intellectual property socialist or something. I was trying to make it clear that my justifications for my position were not socialist in nature.
Contract and end user licensing agreements are the reason "for profit" publishing of intellectual property falls within the responsibility of the content creator or the designated producer who is paid to deliver a certain quality of product for a particular audience. If the right to control how that product is disseminated is removed by non-content providers who assures the content efficacy for the particular audience? You?
With open source and creative commons being so populist now, IP rights are taking a beating. But why is a software invention not an invention in the same sense as a new engine design? In terms of business incentive and the right to profit, why not afford the same protection of business rights and incentive to publish?
What would Rand think about the notion of collective action as the imperative in the OSS movement? What whould Hoffer think of open source as a political mass movement?
I don't know if you've already read it, but Stephan Kinsella over at mises. org has a pdf file called Against Intellectual Property, that to me goes to the heart of the issue.
It basically show that IP rights are not compatible with natural rights, as understood by him, Hoppe and to a large degree Rothbard
hello :) Thanks for posting this as a video reply to mine. I feel honored, since you are the prime cause (or the final cause, depending on how you look at it hehe) of me becoming an anarchist. I owe you that. Props as usual. This IP thing (and probably the abortion thing) are probably 95% of what sets me apart from agorists. Want you know I knew your video already, and find it the best I could find on Youtube. I had it under consideration before making mine.Glad it's not 100% sure :P
"But isn't contract violation, where both parties have prior agreed to certain terms a separate issue from I.P"
The problem with the theory that IP's can be contractual is that a contractual IP DOES NOT PROTECT YOU FROM THIRD PARTIES. The person who entered into the contract may be not be allowed copy but a third party can since they were never entered into the contract.
Intellectual Property is not property because IT IS ITSELF AN INFRINGMENT UPON PROPERTY.
The only way you can tell people what they can and cannot do with their Cd burners, Disk drives, guitars, voice, etc is by coercion. You have to steal rights they allready had to their physical property.
You seem to miss the point both of my video and XOmniverse's video. People can definitely tell you what you cannot do, just as long as it violates people's rights. To give you na example, you can't use your CD Burner to throw it as a weapon into someone's head. Theft for instance, can be broadly defined as unacceptable appropriation of someone's property. If you see theft as aggression ( I sure will) and recognize IP as a valid reality, then your claim loses ground.
Also you're confusing ownership of the medium with ownership of the information. The idea is of the engine is information, when you apply information to the medium (the universe) the configuration of that portion of the medium is yours (as is the pattern of neurons in your head). As far as self ownership, you don't own the information in your head, it's an entity unto itself. The inventor doesn't own the information, but he was the original vector of that information.
From a causal standpoint, the inventor was a crucial step in the process of applying the information to the medium. I don't think it's a question of proving potential profits, I STRONGLY believe that further permutation of the information onto the medium is intrinsically tied to the intent of profit, or if they aren't in need of profit: credit and a chance at further unhindered tinkering/expansion of that idea/information.
The barbarian came in and said he knew/saw/touched/played everything first, so he should keep everything. Everyone respects it till now. We argue you don't have the language we use to describe it, we have the language, everything are ours and we are the barbarians who own everything at least for couple thousand years. This is just a fantasy not the process. So process should take everything. I am a prophecy and I lied.
Human nature is prone to fall into industrious practices. The only way that I foresee your point of view being seriously practical, is if all profits from innovation went right back into the tailoring of new ideas. As long as there's a surrogate form of value (money), there will always be profits (nonproductive resources) in a capitalist nation. The rights to an idea are important, they insure history, practicality and prevent malicious use to a certain through regulation.
IP, I believe, is one of the few near-unanimous corrupt principles in libertarian and classical-liberal literature. One must never forget that many of these authors themselves made a living off Intellectual Property, and thus cannot be said to be a neutral party in the debate on IP.
We of course forgive them for this, but there remains no satisfying moral or rational justification for IP.
IP violates the self-ownership principle. The neural connections that form the physical form of the ideas, conceptions and memory in your brain are totally your own property. Further, ideas are imprinted in the mind automatically and involuntarily, and cannot be removed voluntarily. Thus an attempt to justify intellectual property rights is little more than an attempt to justify ownership of other people via exploitation of their involuntary response to information.
totally agree. the first barbarian actually believed he/she own the world until God is found and be asserted in war. The winners own everything with everyone's GOD's name.
In Rothbards cantractarian notion of IP, I think that the one who is to suffer legal penalty is the one who sold the property in a manner that was in breech of the contract.
I can see how such a contract would entail explicit penalties for breech of it but in its absence there does seem to be a great deal of speculation as you point out. However I think that would most ANY restitution involves a deal of speculation upon what restitution agreed upon achieves your subjective wholeness
But isn't contract violation, where both parties have prior agreed to certain terms a separate issue from I.P? I can copy/overhear/see something without contract being involved or violating property rights; I haven't stolen anything, a copy has simply been made, or information escaped via light/sound waves etc. If no contract has been agreed, how can one then claim ownership to said information, if it is inside my head as my own brain functions (doesn't that violate MY 'property' rights?).
Theft implies that you're taking someone else's rightful property, which implies that rightful property exists, which means that the act of owning property in and of itself cannot be wrong.
In other words, the notion that "property = theft" is incoherent.
Did you know courts have said that legally, a corporation can patent life?? Living organisms like microbes have actually been patented by corporations, even though they were here long before humanity's existence.
Microbes should be put to jail by policemen. They constantly copy themself without permission from their creator and thus infringe his copyright! This is not their only crime. Because they use inventor´s gene modifications in their scientific work in which they create new mutant microbes. The pay no royalties to patent owner, thus infringe his patent! Goverment should do something to stop this massive criminality!!!
I'm sick of hearing about Viacom tell Youtube to take down someone's video simply b/c it had "copyrighted material" in it. Big whoop! You're not making money off that material anymore anyhow. So why do you give a shit? It's stupid as hell. Let the market work things out, and fuck "intellectual property rights." If you don't want someone else to use it, don't give it to them and certainly don't put it out there in the marketplace! Simple as that. And we call this a "free" market.
Copyright laws have gone too damn far in this country. Just like so many other sectors of our society, the douchebags in Congress and the various departments have regulated it SOO much that just about anything can be defined as "intellectual property", or if you happen to use someone's clip in a video that is YOUR idea and comes from YOUR creativity, you're "stealing" if you didn't get permission. I say, fuck that! If someone put it out there in the market, everyone should be able to use it.
intellectual property is really something for the courts to decide
But in all fairness, copying someones CD after they tell you that your not allowed to is a violation of the contract. But the only thing you could really do is make them destroy the copy and for a record company to track down every single person and make them destroy their copies simply would not be economically feasible, it would be way to expensive, so it would only be worthwhile to go after major counterfeiting operations.
but it would be pretty hard to convince the court that what they did was really a crime.
The only sort of IP violation i can think of as wrong would be to copy someones product and sell it under the same brand name in an attempt pass it off as genuine.
Trademarks are the only IP i can see as being valid. Without them the marketplace would become very confusing and it would be damn hard to find a consistent supply of Coca-Cola.
The only valid contracts are those which involve title transfers of legitimately owned and actually transferable items. One's will is not transferable, it is unalienable, hence "promise" contracts are bogus. They didn't even originate until the 16th century. Prior to that, the solution to get something similar in effect was penalty bonds; so and so says they'll either do something, or they owe you X. Also, in either case, a contract would not be binding on third parties receiving copies.
IP is definitely a bogus concept. It is purely a monopoly, Gov't granted and only enforceable by a Gov't body, and I don't see how it can be rationally otherwise. I'll be doing a response to qtronman's response. I watched his first, then your video. It's amazing how much he ignored in order to the toe the Randian line on this one. But - that's most Objectivists, in my experience.
IP supports the first person to register their idea with the Government who is granted all future rights not only to their idea but all others ideas similar to his yet to be made or registered. Inventions are able to be discovered by more than one person independently and often are. That the 1st persons ideas are worth more than the 2nds appears less than justifiable when independently deduced. The proof of depndendence should fall on the 1st discoverer not the 2nd which is impractical.
This is why I'm taking my ideas to grave with me. =)
TheCrazyFinn 3 months ago in playlist Lisää videoita käyttäjältä XOmniverse
good vid
blastfamy915 7 months ago
everones mind belongs to me and im allowed to kill who I want
klaykid117 10 months ago
If invention is just the combination of previous information, then everything is a new combination making everything and therefore nothing unique. If a previous person invents but doesn't document, and a latter person does document a claim...the later person has "stolen" the idea yet benefits from the theft. Simultaneous conception of thought...who is first becomes a matter of relational space. Then there is physics: matter cannot be created or destroyed, same could be said of thought.
basedrop 1 year ago
How do you know he didn't create it, just what do you really know about reality?Who has stolen what from whom?Land, ideas, murchandise etc. If Humanity is one and for an interesting perception lets say GOD views Humanity as one, so anything that belongs to one belongs to all therefore resources that arent replaceable shouldn't be consumed la di da because Humanity which doesnt consider the reality of one feels entirely free to waste resources. I dont know but it seems that Humanity is nuts
SuperChristopherZ 1 year ago
Intellectual Property is bullshit and secrets are real xD
MirageScience 1 year ago
I also think that intellectual property stifles a free market and establishes a monopoly on an idea. It seems wrong to me that people with the means to create the same product with more efficiency or value should be dissallowed to compete against the inventor. In fact, I think that if people had to be more weary about revealing their ideas, that very revelation would raise in market value and allow the making of money just as well. For a good film on this topic watch RiP! A Remix Manifesto.
osceolaasian 1 year ago
Its seriously delicious to hear a mind who have understood simple things in life; how could it be? How could Ayn Rand claim the ownership of your own memory and the brain to process the idea that've implanted in your head? How could someone claim to deny your access to the -real- world? What if someone made a copyright no how someone walked? Or, I bet those neanderthals would be rich if they've made copyright/patent on how making' a fire! Its ridicoulously fallacy. Thx !
larsiemannen 1 year ago
Claiming that copy "A" to an "A"² is stealing, is claiming that the first "A" is gone. But it isn't! Everyone know this, but still, they are claiming it - its the same argument of the collective, it's, at its best, a fallacy from objectivists, and so called 'capitalists'; at worse - God damn lie! And why don't we own our own copy of the original source?
larsiemannen 1 year ago
Well said. Thanks.
ParrhesiaJoe 1 year ago
You address some really great points, good message to. In the end it's a money thing, it takes 1/3rd the price to develop CD's, and even cheaper via internet, than it did with tapes, and yet album prices have gone UP!
SopLusus 1 year ago
If you open the door to "right-seeking" people will seek rights (advantages - guarantees) in all areas -- just as in a free-market entrepreneurs will fill in all market entries until profit is soaked up in that particular industry or innovation.
This is why you have "zero barriers" to entry.
The same thing is true -- If you allow for one single "right" then "welfarists" will fill in every possible right-hole there is -- Since rights can be split and redefined it's impossible to fill all.
OctoBox 2 years ago
Therefore you have "perpetual war"
Now -- how do you obtain a "right?"
You must either be a very powerful individual (or a monopoly) or you must unionize (the most common way).
The union-block then "votes / lobbies" (hires - buys) the decision makers (authorities).
Therefore a free-society is one where there are ZERO Rights and ZERO Voting-Lobbying.
OctoBox 2 years ago
I hope the future of "intellectual property" is open-source ... you can charge for the service of manipulating/filtering information, but the information itself is free.
Having said that, I think there are cases where IP might be vital - tying ownership to responsibility. Debugging software, and more importantly SAFETY of designs like cars, drugs
walter0bz 2 years ago
The thing with songs is that the producer of the sound file worked to produce it, and therefore dictate how the file is used. If they want people to pay before being allowed a copy of the sound file, that means they don't want you to have the benefits of a copy of the file they produced without paying.
They way I see IP in general is that one wouldn't want others taking credit for one's personal achievements, meaning benefiting from your hard work without your consent.
Kikarok 2 years ago
@Kikarok and it says nothing about IP, only what one wants. Are IP rights flawed or not?
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
This is from Barlow's "Economy of Ideas"... (see google)
"....Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson
At the moment copyrights last for the life of the author + 70 years (or 95+ years for corporate ownership) Many works that have been made since 1923 and won't expire until 2019 - unless there is another retroactive copyright extension which is HIGHLY likely...
legowolf3d 2 years ago
XOmniverse: I think IP also creates inflation bubbles & weakens the dollar.And I'd argue the same for profit & ownership,interest & service.
thegreatcrates 2 years ago
geinus!
I completely agree.
dudemanamedud 2 years ago 2
Excellent analysis!!!
Everything you said is perfect. All information is discovered. It can't be created, only found.
There is a way to promote sharing of ideas without claiming ownership of the ideas. Its based on identity which is a valid form of intellectual property.
The system literally pays people to share their discoveries. This encourages discovery and sharing.
The hard work of commercializing is rewarded by customers paying for products and services that apply the ideas.
MarkProffitt 2 years ago
@MarkProffitt what you mean, by saying all information is dicovered? I think it's pretty easy to create new information. DNA creates it. Human can create it too, like in music, for example. Don't think I am for IP (I am against it), I just want to clarify what you meant ;)
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
"Infinite Supply, the Problem with Copyrights & Patents" on my blog MarkProffitt . com provided some more detail.
The concept of Zero 0 existed before people recognized it the first time.
DNA does not create information it only physically represents the code that has always existed.
How much does a blank flash drive weigh? Same as a full drive. Information has no mass. So it exists outside of time-space. Information can't be created or destroyed only known or forgotten.
MarkProffitt 2 years ago
@MarkProffitt DNA "code" always existed? gimme a break :D
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
People have sequenced DNA and stored the code in computers as streams of the letters ATCG. They have been able to use those code to recreate physical DNA. So did the information existed separate from the DNA physical representation.
People have also looked at those code sequences and figured out how to make it do something else. The information for what the code would do always existed even though it had never be put into physical form.
MarkProffitt 2 years ago
@MarkProffitt then we are talking about different kinds of information, I suppose.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
As I said in "Infinite Supply, the Problem with Copyrights & Patents" any information can be digitized. So all information is just a number.
When you tell a friend about a movie you are transmitting the same information but with very lossy compression. If the friend saw the same movie on TV but you saw it at the theater the bit stream would be different but both of you would say you saw the same movie. The Shannon information can be transmitted at much lower bitrate.
MarkProffitt 2 years ago
@MarkProffitt well, in that sense, maybe you are right.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
Intellectual property (IP) is a system based on the present economic system. Ass umping this system is valid, IP - while not perfect - is an acceptable means of regulation and control.
However, and this is the crux of the matter, the logical fallacy of IP is the same as found in all forms of private property (pp).
If one supports pp, one would logically support IP rights.
If not, one has a reason to question the validity of IP rights.
I suggest you start here with your argument.
fletchdaf 2 years ago
Comment removed
ufster81 2 years ago
Well, I support PP but not IP.
PP is capital earned through labour and society benefits when this is protected as there is an incentive to produce and distribute capital goods and services when stealing PP is illegal.
However, the method (IP) by which I produced those capital goods or services should not be my property as society benefits from information sharing. This is how evolution works best and society prospers ideally from competition - resulting in lower prices and innovation.
bobbyb1978 2 years ago
Therefore I should not be punished for either keeping information to myself in order to benefit (capitalize on a discovery) nor should I be protected by law from others using the same method to compete with similar products or services.
You have an advantage when ´creating´ something as you´re the first to capitalize on it anyway.
Governments should simply stop limiting information sharing and focus on what they´re supposed to do: protecting individuals private property.
bobbyb1978 2 years ago
@fletchdaf lol I think you are conflating MATERIAL property (and scarcity) with digital information (knowledge, for example).
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
On pinkyshow, I heard that some organizatoins patented 2 human genes that they discovered had a connection to cancer.
juliecranford 2 years ago
youre speaking in singular persons and not corporations who have placed a value on not only the product but the equity of being able to trade that product(s) which in turn liquidates their business model. Intellectual property is just another appendage to the mass myth of capitalism. The idea of trading for profit is based on a set of slightly spurious rules regarding value.IP law is just the governance in the commoditising of tradable ideas,products, designs.. blah
Nunchuck 2 years ago
(continuation to previous response)
Some folks say not having patents destroys the incentive to create because of the possibility of what you just described....but turns out there's very little evidence of it actually being that way.
So, while I used to believe in patents for pragmatic reasons....I no longer do because that pragmatic reason was basically just propaganda with not much evidence backing it up. It doesn't make sense from a market perspective and it doesn't make practical sense
stealthswimmer 2 years ago 2
Yeah I know that. And using someone's idea isn't "stealing." If that were the case then only one company would be able to make a computer.
And yeah you can make an improved version of something...like if it costs less to make, that's improved as well, as far as I'm concerned, yet it's still protected by patent.
And a corporation doesn't "steal" your work, they can simply put the same concept to use, which is great because consumers benefit.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago 7
Yeah....so it's as justifiable as having a 17-year dictatorship ( some countries used to have dictatorships during times of war).
Point is that the government should never be granting any company a monopoly. If a monopoly naturally arises, then that's fine(though it's unlikely to be sustained very long due to monopoly profits luring in competition) because it means that business rose to the top by satisfying the consumers in a sustainable way.
:-)
stealthswimmer 2 years ago 5
As someone who's main job is making movies and writing movie scripts as well as novels, I don't like the idea of people making copies of my work and distributing them for free when I put forth such effort to bring everything to fruition.
How will I make a living writing full time if most people copy rather than buy my work?
VideogameAnswerMan 2 years ago
Read my article "BBC moves to file-sharing sites" on my blog MarkProffitt com to see business models that work with sharing.
MarkProffitt 2 years ago
The reality here is simple:
A patent (or copyright) is a monopoly established by the state on behalf of an individual or company. It is enforced by violence in order to prevent competition from other individuals or companies, so when viewed correctly, patents and copyrights are forms of slavery, just like rape and chattel slavery.
icfnord 2 years ago 3
No the difference is that the fact about reality would exist whether a person knowa about it or not, but an engine only exists because a person created it. It does not exist in nature.
heliotropezzz333 2 years ago
The physical embodiment of the engine does not exist in nature. If someone stole the physical engine they would be denying you of the use of your property.
The informational idea of an engine exists regardless if it is ever physically represented in a device or on paper. Forcing someone to not use their time and materials to make an engine is stealing.
MarkProffitt 2 years ago
@MarkProffitt The informational idea of an engine only exists because someone invested time, effort and education in creating this idea. The difference between an invention and a discovery is that a discovery has always existed whereas an invention is a human creation. you argument does not hold. The idea of stealing my neighbour's property might always have been in mind but that does not make it right or socially acceptable. If creations can be stolen that would mean people would not bother
heliotropezzz333 2 years ago
@heliotropezzz333 of course it holds. if you assemble something in a certain way and it acts a certain way, its a fact about reality.
creations can be "stolen" all they want, im still a motivated person who would like to make things.
xkeltoix 2 years ago
@xkeltoix This is not an intellecutal question although there are intellectual aspects to it. It's a social question. As a society do we want inventions to be freely open to copying or "theft" (depending on how it's viewed). i.e Is that the best thing for society as a whole? In a capitalist society people expect returns on investment of time an effort, so I think that's why it has been decided that there should be exclusive "ownership" of inventions and creations.
heliotropezzz333 2 years ago
@MarkProffitt Some things don't need to be proved. They are common sense e.g if someone creates a cure for something that has not been curable before - of course there will be a market and profit from it. it's not important to calculate how much.
heliotropezzz333 2 years ago
oke i will bite first of lets split between copyright and patenting, copyright is the idea you can not take a computer program i spend months coding on and sell it, the patenting allows you to cover a design of a program and there for block its change, now copyright is what allows me to release the code and demand of other people to do the same.
i technically enforce copyleft on my spare time projects, but still its depended on copyright.
pagangeek 2 years ago
Intellectual property is tied directly to the labor theory of value. W/o LTV, IP collapses.
My two cents.
lnd3005 2 years ago
You are probably correct. Now that computers can chug through combinations of data to find the useful ones the price of that information drops to zero. However the value, what the information allows you to do, remains the same. And that value is relative. The bald man doesn't care about how to change the color of his hair.
MarkProffitt 2 years ago
But people fail to understand, that IP is simply... a bussines :) it is not a right or law, it is BUSSINES. That's why other people defend it. :)
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
actually, it's a monopoly, granted by government, over the right to stop other people from utilizing an idea.
The Mises Institute at mises (d0t) org has a good vid by the name of "rethinking IP completely"
stealthswimmer 2 years ago 2
alternatives alternatives alternatives. Most people believe in IP because they don't know the alternatives. The same thing is for governments. The majority of people are statists, because they are ignorant.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
Totally agree. The twisted thing is there are always at least 15 alternatives to anything.
MarkProffitt 2 years ago
@MarkProffitt to be clear, knowledge is not the same as information. Do you agree?
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
Yes. I would define information the same as Claude Shannon.
But this does get fuzzy since information is just data without interpretation. Sender, encoding, Receiver, decoding. The ideas don't have any meaning by themselves.
Have you listened to a data CD? Its just noise. But the CD player doesn't care about the information it read the bits and converts them into sound the same as it would music. So is the data CD spreadsheets or is it experimental industrial music, or is it both?
MarkProffitt 2 years ago
If you were to spend 10 years of your life writing a book, this book was the best thing since sliced bread and will be an outright best seller, it gets published, but the day after that some other company copies and pastes the whole damn thing, makes a mint because they are the top dogs of publishing and sells their copy for less than you can. In the end you get near enough nothing, where as these thieves make millions. How is that right?
ransomdave 2 years ago 2
They didn't steal anything. Once they buy it, all the information is theirs to do what they want. That's like saying you can never use the same words as someone else....yet, of course, we all use the same words to communicate with each other. Just like if you tell someone that a movie theater is showing a certain movie, that info is now yours to do what you want with. You can tell others, you can decide to go to the movies, etc.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
"Once they buy it, all the information is theirs to do what they want."
They didn't buy it. They bought the right to read it. The material in the book is still the property of the copyright holder.
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago
No actually that's not how it works. If it did work that way, then everyone would understand that when they buy it and we wouldn't need laws specifically for copyright and stuff like that because the people selling it would make an outright claim to sell the "right to read" or "right to view" like on a piece of paper along with your VHS or DVD or whatever....but they don't do that.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
No, You can't patent a base principle like gravity, but you should be able to patent a specific engine which is developed through extensive research and application of that principle which does not occur without a designer.
In the context of copying music, yes you could never prove that someone would have bought the album if they had not got it for free, but you can be pretty damn sure that there is no chance that they will buy it after they have already got it for free! This is wooly thinking
ransomdave 2 years ago 2
I can't believe you would with one video speak against the ideals of the venus project in regards resource sharing w/o use of a monetary system, then in this video support such an ideal when it comes to illegally downloading copyrighted content. You can't have the cake and eat it too bro, be consistant in heart and mind if you ever hope for people to understand or agree with you. You seem to favor anything that fits into your little world with no insight to the big picture.
Truthfromwithin 2 years ago
i think intellectual property rights is capitalist bullshit. i think it is ridiculous that you can read, look and listen to some thing that belongs to others but if you copy it, the person who owns the material you copied will sue you. this is some irrational bullshit
scatcoitus 2 years ago 2
I'm looking forward to the day when people like you pay your way through college, then invest 10 years and your life savings working on a project which you then give away for free. Then maybe I'll take your position seriously. Is it just coincidence that most anarchists seem to be 20 year old jobless kids who have never created anything of any value?
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago
>> I'm looking forward to the day when people like you pay your way through college, then invest 10 years and your life savings working on a project which you then give away for free.
If you have a legitimate business, then you don't need the state to grant you a monopoly. If you need a patent, you aren't running a business. You're running a extortion racket.
Real business men hate patents because the patent holders monopoly prevents them from entering the market place.
icfnord 2 years ago 2
have you heard of the Creative Commons license?
MachoGuy21 2 years ago
Intellectual property is important if we want to live in a world where people can make a living from being creative.
If you haven't heard of the game Limbo of the Lost, check it out. Without intellectual property rights, 99% of games and movies would look like that shit. Imagine if Uwe Boll directed every movie - you'll see what I mean.
Most people who hate IP, just want stuff for free, or they're talentless hacks.
That said, IP shouldn't extend to medicines or things vital to life.
EvilMuppet1979 3 years ago
If we were to assume all of your premises are true:
(1) IP is important for creativity. Without it, creativity would be much more rare.
(2) IP shouldn't extend to medicines or things vital to life.
(3) Therefore, creativity would be much more rare in the field of medicine and things vital to life.
Why would you advocate #3? If you don't, enlighten me on why removing IP laws would severely reduce creativity in movies but not medicine.
XOmniverse 3 years ago 7
I think the argument for #3 is that most advances in medicine are not truly 'creative' but are discoveries. For example, if I map the human genome and work out how to turn off serveral cancer causing genes, I haven't really been creative, but through the scientific method, discovered a way in which I can benefit humanity. We could argue that eventually, someone else would have made that discovery and that it is not the right of an individual to control the rights to that knowledge.
MikeT2005 2 years ago
Or, at the least, it is not their right to control the rights to that particular method of switching off genes. So if someone makes the same discovery 2 months later through their own independant research, and chooses to give that knowledge freely, then a patent on that method would stand invalid. The knowledge itself though, could be considered proprietary. This would actually encourgage researchers to publish their works ASAP to ensure other discoverers can't easily argue indepence of research
MikeT2005 2 years ago
Do you contend that video games and movies ought look the way they do today?
Are you convinced that society as a whole would be worse off w/o $50 million movies and games?
lnd3005 2 years ago
@EvilMuppet1979 "Intellectual property is important if we want to live in a world where people can make a living from being creative." and yet NO ONE so far gave any evidence for this assertion.
MaikUniversum 1 year ago
@MaikUniversum The only Rights we have are our “unalienable Rights.” A deeper understanding of these Rights materializes through the prism of science (see my channel video). Protection of intellectual property is defined by manmade law. Laws are a function of government and are not equal; also man does not equally follow manmade laws. Hence, intellectual property is not a right. It is one’s responsibility to protect a good idea. If your property is musical software, good luck.
Mike10four 11 months ago
@Mike10four I don't believe in IP, why are you saying me that? Iwas only quoting one person. Anyway, I am skeptical about natural rights either, though, I do not oppose them completely. I hold IP as state made privilege.
MaikUniversum 11 months ago
@MaikUniversum I may have misinterpreted your comment however, our unalienable Rights are part of the Laws of Nature, they apply to all life and you should not be “skeptical” of them.
Mike10four 11 months ago
@Mike10four I am also skeptical about my skepticism. That's not an issue to me :)
MaikUniversum 11 months ago
@MaikUniversum Well, that is something you have to deal with. But if you are ever skeptical of our unalienable Rights perhaps, my channel video may help.
Mike10four 11 months ago
@Mike10four That's a fallacious argument to make - our rights our not given to us from nature. Our rights are pretty much what society allows us to do and get away with.
I found a really good video on the subject once, I'll see if you can find it again. You're pretty much just declaring something as truth without any evidence or reasoning behind it, you should be very skeptical of ideas like that!
cincofone 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cincofone Please see my channel video for the proof of our unalienable Rights!
Mike10four 8 months ago
8:35 very good point and of my main arguments why Intelectual Property is bullshit and where it fails.
Thanks for video !!!
MaikUniversum 3 years ago
The implied contractual obligations media providers attach to said media is an abuse of power and fundamentally flawed. The issue becomes further ridiculous as our justice system has only the method of prison as a deterrent. Clearly a punishment which so greatly outweighs the proposed "crime" that enforcing intellectual property laws is impossible without infringing upon basic human right of life. As mentioned in this video, strictly for the purpose of protecting potential profits!
hzane 3 years ago
Which is precisely why I keep all my great inventions that could revolutionize this planet to myself.
MyITRcom 3 years ago
discovering a law of nature or mathematical formula which always existed and the application of such to create inventions, music, or art. While the discovery itself may involve creativity and critical thinking, it is whether anything is produced. One involves discovery and another involves creation. If a doctor "discovers" a virus, does he own it? No. If a doctor creates a cure for a virus, does he own it? Yes. One is the product of nature, the other is the product of the mind.
JewMMA 3 years ago
if you steal my things that i produce i will sue you. it was MINE and i only gave you permission to use it when you give me money. what part of that don't you understand? artists need to make a living they cant when their is piracy so it is depriving them of something. I think your argument is stupid and you obviously have NO clue what its like to be an artist our a performer in the commercial world. Its commercial property and it entails commercial rights.
kroganarmor 3 years ago
having a song stuck in your head is different then exploiting someone else's work for a profit. what determines the lines you ask? well if you steal form me the lines will be drawn in court because I WILL sue you and have already sued in the past.
kroganarmor 3 years ago
I'm not sure if you're responding to the video or I, but yes I completely agree with you.
JewMMA 3 years ago
Regarding the existence of the intellectual property right itself, that would depend on your perception of a "right." Do you believe it to exist naturally or something created by society? This was discussed a couple hundred years ago by a couple of guys named Rousseau and Voltaire. Regardless, I believe the right is grounded in such as that as personal property and the fact that it is intangible is immaterial. Ayn Rand had it right. There is a fundamental difference between (cont'd)
JewMMA 3 years ago
would be decided at trial. From a logical standpoint, I'm not sure how the congruency of legal remedies for property infringement either add or take away from your argument regarding the existence of intellectual property rights.
JewMMA 3 years ago
Your video is divided into two discussions: 1) intellectual property - existence of a right and 2) legal consequences of unauthorized infringement or reproduction. Rothbard's restitution theory would only apply if someone profited from an unlicensed use of the IP. The typical remedy for illegal reproduction or broadcasting is an injunction. Additionally, what you call "derivative works" are protected as well, and what is created by another that too closely resembles the original (cont'd)
JewMMA 3 years ago
fuck all this nonsense go check out the brilliant teaching of dr pastor james david manning, it will change your lives
RickJamesFistbumper 3 years ago
Lets get real here, intellectual property right, for example an artist.. its all good, and they should get recognition for good work.. however, the day they refuse to share their work and start makin u pay for it, thats the day when heads who aint got money need to steal it. This patenting shit is a capitalist idea, and it actually prevents advancement of better ideas from others.. But hey, in this system of keepin people down, makin enormous profits from patents seems like it fits in the glove.
dontdewcriz 3 years ago
Nonsense. Intellectual property protection actually fosters intellectualism, because it encourages people to develop their ideas into a material form which when proven fruitful ensures that they will be the only ones entitled to the profits. If you eliminate the incentive by simply looting the person of their idea for some Marxist collective good, then there is no sense in putting forth the effort and drive to think and create something that will inevitably just be taken from you.
JewMMA 3 years ago
JewMMA you know theres people who put there own music/art online for free all the time and dont see these people bitching. Plus some still make money off it. Copyright was there to protect the distributors, not the artist. And frankly with the internet, distributing cost is practically free.
Tuber77 3 years ago
You're looking at the issue through too narrow a lense. Whether someone chooses to share something they have created freely is by their own right - the same right they should have to protect it. The purpose of intellectual property was designed originally to protect ideas and creations of inventors and artists. See U.S. Constituion, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. The fact that the rights to their creations are sold freely and without compulsion to distributors does not further your argument.
JewMMA 3 years ago
Fuck the constitution. I reject any document that talks about freedom and rights on the same document as the many restrictive laws and punishments associated with them. Declaration of independence would have been good if it applied to slaves and women. People have the right to create shit, if they want to protect it, then they could leave their ideas at home where they belong. If they want to contribute it to society, then they grant the world the right to use it at their will.
dontdewcriz 3 years ago
Do you also reject laws prohibiting murder, rape, and theft? Do you also reject the right to personal property? Note: The founders knew the document was imperfect that is why they created a mechanism to AMEND it. However, I don't see how this is even relevant considering you're obfuscating the issue.
JewMMA 3 years ago
Universal laws are implied and followed throughout all non-government societies since the beginning of human civilization. If someone kills someone, they will suffer.. if they rape someone, they get their genitals ripped off and their arms cut off, and a short prison term depending on the victims' wishes. I reject personal property rights, simply because its universally protected.. Read Hegel, he explains this idea best. State authority isn't necessary, although they make you think it is.
dontdewcriz 3 years ago
Much of what you have written seems logically inconsistent. "Universal law?" No such thing exists as matter of reality. You reject personal property rights? So, if I choose to chop off your limbs and take your house, you are not entitled to any restitution? Sounds like a formula for chaos. Could you send me a link detailing the theory. My google search shows that there is academic debate in of itself regarding his [Hegel's] concept of a law of peoples.
JewMMA 3 years ago 2
Thats exactly the kind of bullshit a corporate man would bring to the table. Incentive still remains, acknowledgment is the key to the original idea.. and they should be acknowledged for good work. Your thick head can only see the dollar signs as the product of good work..If i was the original designer of something, and someone used my design to make it better, i'd be flattered for the fact that other people found my ideas important enough to copy. I'd also feel humbled to assist in it.
dontdewcriz 3 years ago
Mere "acknowledgement" would be dandy in the fairy tale world of idealism. However, in the REAL world you're ignoring the basic human element of self-interest. What your "thick head" can't see is that it is immaterial what YOU would do, but rather the right is grounded in the right to personal property. It is nice to be naturally altruistic, however, altruism doesn't put food on tables and roofs over heads. Money does and to loot someone of their creation out of idealism is irrational&illogical.
JewMMA 3 years ago
what's this? you're one of them anarchists, aren't you??! i see you cut your hair short, but that won't help you to hide amongst the sheep. we can still spot a wolf, hairy or no.
seriously, though, very interesting video. and i mean -very- interesting. so interesting that I may have to report it... to the FBI!! nah, i'm just kidding again... or am i? yeah i probably am.
colorconnection 3 years ago
Report me to who? Disagreeing with a political policy is not a crime.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
HAHA NOT YET!!
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
We need more hair
superdog797 3 years ago
Lol. Ayn Rand.
First let's remember there are no such thing as rights in reality - rights are an idea and bestowed to a person by a state. So the question is *should* there be intellectual property rights. Well, do you want to live in a society where access to information and knowledge is free for all people? There is your answer.
myxomata 3 years ago
Do you want to live in a society where you work for free or are under paid? If there are no rights, do you also suggest you do not have the right to dictate your own destiny?
JewMMA 3 years ago
"Remember there are no such thing as rights in reality." If something is intangible does that mean it doesn't exist by virute of it not being endowed with physical form? I would call that a weak argument against a right. However, there is a moral fundamental question: do rights flow naturally always exist or do they exist only because we as a society give them force and weight? Some would argue rights exists independently regardless of state status (i.e. right to dictate your own destiny)
JewMMA 3 years ago
I think you're on the right track. We just need to go a little deeper into what the rewards will be for IP (as you point out, almost everything is IP). People will produce inventive works of art. And a truly free market will on some way reward them. What we need to do though is to see the vision of HOW the market will reward them. We need to envision the result of rewards more clearly to smooth the fears of those who don't yet see it.
whichuniverse 3 years ago
this is all eliminated with compromise and agreement. if we took our time dealing with each problem individually, with a meager system at best, as long as we come to many essential agreements on the structures of our social arrangement we should have no trouble coexisting.
ultimategoobah 3 years ago
im going to steal all your videos and pictures and put them on an my website without your consent.
ja2007123 3 years ago
You can't rape the willing.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Hey that's so cool. Could you do the same for my videos and pictures too?
If anyone else would like free publicity, contact ja2007123.
Sepero1 3 years ago
I think Rand's point was creation. As she believed creation was the highest virtue of mankind, finding a law of nature is simply pulling the veil off the secret. To actually create an idea or design makes it your invention and therefore property. Look at Rand's view on material reality and you will see she distiguishes between material and thought. Please reply to this XOmniverse, I would love to start a discussion thread.
kyletjackson 3 years ago
as a musician, your argument resonates. i think you are right, but, it does not point to libertarian values, but socialist ones.
because music(recording/sheet-not memory)is easy to "steal", does it give the right to do so? it is my product, so, why, like any product, should all society be allowed to have it for free?
(can't get that car i saw out of my head...)
although have much respect for the anarchist, i lean to socialism. the liberty of intellectual property fits my values, not yours.
knowyourwhites 3 years ago
Does the formula of the cure for cancer have value?
To me, the only possible answer is yes. In order to secure that value for the person who has created an obviously useful thing(the cure for cancer) we must have intellectual property laws.
Intellectual property laws encourage investment in pursuits protected by the law.
Let's say that developing that cure for cancer cost the pharmaceutical company 5 billion. If patent law didn't exist, there is no way for them to recoup those costs.
AngrySkeptic 3 years ago
inredible narrow minded paradigm - open your mind!
mallamoozoo 3 years ago
Narrow minded? It's quite the opposite, it illustrates clearly the stakes of intellectual property and why it must be protected.
In a leecher society where theft is considered a right, there just aren't enough incentives to encourage the development of the cancer cure.
That goes for everything protected by patents and copyright.
AngrySkeptic 3 years ago
patent gravity? diabolical but ingenious
MpowerdAPE 3 years ago
I don't have a problem with intellectual property laws as long as their sole purpose is to prevent someone from making money off of someone else's labor. In this country however, IP laws have gotten way out of hand.
surfingthechaos 3 years ago
Spoken as someone who's never created a nickel's worth of intellectual property!
iamprolifetoo 3 years ago
Nothing like the smell of ad hominem in the morning.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Though brief, I would have thought the reply sufficient, but apparently it got past you. You are the single best argument against the very anarchy you peddle. You are who laws of civil society protect citizens against.
Moral relativism and greed move you to rationalize the theft of another persons property, who has been sharp enough to invest their time, labor and money to create the property that you would steal.
What do you suppose your view might be if you were invested in the same yourself?
iamprolifetoo 3 years ago
I am? I thought violent criminals were who the laws of civil society are supposedly supposed to protect people from. I am against the idea of violently assaulting innocent people or seizing their property without valid justification.
I'm not a moral relativist, nor do I advocate theft of property.
Frankly, you're talking out of your ass.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Sorry but I have to put the buzzer on you.
Blessedly the laws of civil societies strive not only to protect their citizens from violent criminals, but also from thieves.
iamprolifetoo 3 years ago
I'm against theft. I swear, I'd think strawmanning me was your career at this point.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
So you never burned a CD?
iamprolifetoo 3 years ago
So you never burned a CD?
iamprolifetoo 3 years ago
Obviously you disagree with me on this video. How about providing reasons for disagreement so we can discuss rather than attacking me personally? What does either of us have to gain from the latter?
XOmniverse 3 years ago
wow really made me think nice vid
lespaul3030 3 years ago
Thanks, I watched Kinsella's speech. He gives many examples of frivolous patents, which is irrelevant. I own a small software company and I enjoy having the options to patent an invention, or keep a trade secret, to sell a product or just license the rights. I understand there are erudite intellectuals who believe my inventions should belong to society. Fortunately, in America, their opinions don't matter much.
DonPMitchell 3 years ago
The fact that you refer to it as "belonging to society" tells me you don't really grasp the true problem.
Does it make sense, for example, if I blow a horn to call the noise my property? Not the series of notes or future use of the horn, but the actual noise itself?
This doesn't mean the noise "belongs to society." It means belonging isn't a trait which even makes sense when discussing a noise.
The same exact argument is true for ideas, and for the same reasons.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
I believe he was referring to it like in a mass market type of way, arguing belong to society is semantic I think on your part, you wouldn't want to deride peoples meaning while at the same time wanting to support them would you?
I think your confused.
DemonosZXZ 3 years ago
It came across like he was claiming that I was an intellectual property socialist or something. I was trying to make it clear that my justifications for my position were not socialist in nature.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
You should look up Kinsella's arguments on this as well, which are by far one of the strongest refutations of IP out there.
Moragauth 3 years ago 2
Contract and end user licensing agreements are the reason "for profit" publishing of intellectual property falls within the responsibility of the content creator or the designated producer who is paid to deliver a certain quality of product for a particular audience. If the right to control how that product is disseminated is removed by non-content providers who assures the content efficacy for the particular audience? You?
plunk52o 3 years ago
With open source and creative commons being so populist now, IP rights are taking a beating. But why is a software invention not an invention in the same sense as a new engine design? In terms of business incentive and the right to profit, why not afford the same protection of business rights and incentive to publish?
What would Rand think about the notion of collective action as the imperative in the OSS movement? What whould Hoffer think of open source as a political mass movement?
DonPMitchell 3 years ago
I don't know if you've already read it, but Stephan Kinsella over at mises. org has a pdf file called Against Intellectual Property, that to me goes to the heart of the issue.
It basically show that IP rights are not compatible with natural rights, as understood by him, Hoppe and to a large degree Rothbard
jackson32 3 years ago
hello :) Thanks for posting this as a video reply to mine. I feel honored, since you are the prime cause (or the final cause, depending on how you look at it hehe) of me becoming an anarchist. I owe you that. Props as usual. This IP thing (and probably the abortion thing) are probably 95% of what sets me apart from agorists. Want you know I knew your video already, and find it the best I could find on Youtube. I had it under consideration before making mine.Glad it's not 100% sure :P
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
Nice ED page... fucktard.
"12 triskits huh?"
lullzy01 3 years ago
"But isn't contract violation, where both parties have prior agreed to certain terms a separate issue from I.P"
The problem with the theory that IP's can be contractual is that a contractual IP DOES NOT PROTECT YOU FROM THIRD PARTIES. The person who entered into the contract may be not be allowed copy but a third party can since they were never entered into the contract.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
Intellectual Property is not property because IT IS ITSELF AN INFRINGMENT UPON PROPERTY.
The only way you can tell people what they can and cannot do with their Cd burners, Disk drives, guitars, voice, etc is by coercion. You have to steal rights they allready had to their physical property.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
You seem to miss the point both of my video and XOmniverse's video. People can definitely tell you what you cannot do, just as long as it violates people's rights. To give you na example, you can't use your CD Burner to throw it as a weapon into someone's head. Theft for instance, can be broadly defined as unacceptable appropriation of someone's property. If you see theft as aggression ( I sure will) and recognize IP as a valid reality, then your claim loses ground.
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
"Theft for instance, can be broadly defined as unacceptable appropriation of someone's property."
Yeah, see that's the problem. I don't think it is property. IP is implied theft/coercion. IP is a contradiction to the First Homesteading Rule.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
Also you're confusing ownership of the medium with ownership of the information. The idea is of the engine is information, when you apply information to the medium (the universe) the configuration of that portion of the medium is yours (as is the pattern of neurons in your head). As far as self ownership, you don't own the information in your head, it's an entity unto itself. The inventor doesn't own the information, but he was the original vector of that information.
madman0000004 3 years ago
From a causal standpoint, the inventor was a crucial step in the process of applying the information to the medium. I don't think it's a question of proving potential profits, I STRONGLY believe that further permutation of the information onto the medium is intrinsically tied to the intent of profit, or if they aren't in need of profit: credit and a chance at further unhindered tinkering/expansion of that idea/information.
What do you think guys? Am I out of line?
madman0000004 3 years ago
The barbarian came in and said he knew/saw/touched/played everything first, so he should keep everything. Everyone respects it till now. We argue you don't have the language we use to describe it, we have the language, everything are ours and we are the barbarians who own everything at least for couple thousand years. This is just a fantasy not the process. So process should take everything. I am a prophecy and I lied.
beancube2008 3 years ago
Human nature is prone to fall into industrious practices. The only way that I foresee your point of view being seriously practical, is if all profits from innovation went right back into the tailoring of new ideas. As long as there's a surrogate form of value (money), there will always be profits (nonproductive resources) in a capitalist nation. The rights to an idea are important, they insure history, practicality and prevent malicious use to a certain through regulation.
madman0000004 3 years ago
Turn up your fucking mic, oh and peace! :)
madman0000004 3 years ago
Superb video, I am 95% in agreement with your points here. People surely cannot justify compensation for 'potential profit?!
lukeev 3 years ago
IP, I believe, is one of the few near-unanimous corrupt principles in libertarian and classical-liberal literature. One must never forget that many of these authors themselves made a living off Intellectual Property, and thus cannot be said to be a neutral party in the debate on IP.
We of course forgive them for this, but there remains no satisfying moral or rational justification for IP.
Individualism101 3 years ago 3
Valid points, sir.
IP violates the self-ownership principle. The neural connections that form the physical form of the ideas, conceptions and memory in your brain are totally your own property. Further, ideas are imprinted in the mind automatically and involuntarily, and cannot be removed voluntarily. Thus an attempt to justify intellectual property rights is little more than an attempt to justify ownership of other people via exploitation of their involuntary response to information.
Individualism101 3 years ago 2
totally agree. the first barbarian actually believed he/she own the world until God is found and be asserted in war. The winners own everything with everyone's GOD's name.
beancube2008 3 years ago
In Rothbards cantractarian notion of IP, I think that the one who is to suffer legal penalty is the one who sold the property in a manner that was in breech of the contract.
I can see how such a contract would entail explicit penalties for breech of it but in its absence there does seem to be a great deal of speculation as you point out. However I think that would most ANY restitution involves a deal of speculation upon what restitution agreed upon achieves your subjective wholeness
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
wow... typos. :-P
"However I think that would most ANY restitution involves"
should read:
"However I think that most ANY restitution involves"
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
But isn't contract violation, where both parties have prior agreed to certain terms a separate issue from I.P? I can copy/overhear/see something without contract being involved or violating property rights; I haven't stolen anything, a copy has simply been made, or information escaped via light/sound waves etc. If no contract has been agreed, how can one then claim ownership to said information, if it is inside my head as my own brain functions (doesn't that violate MY 'property' rights?).
lukeev 3 years ago
Very well put
bis124 3 years ago
PROPERTY = THEFT
seigneurvoland666 3 years ago
Theft implies that you're taking someone else's rightful property, which implies that rightful property exists, which means that the act of owning property in and of itself cannot be wrong.
In other words, the notion that "property = theft" is incoherent.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Very clear and there are proofs; otherwise, at least there are wars to determine it.
beancube2008 3 years ago
PROPERTY is THEFT, like LIFE is MURDER ... you make no sens at all.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
then please give away all your possessions immediately
worcesterwombat 3 years ago
Did you know courts have said that legally, a corporation can patent life?? Living organisms like microbes have actually been patented by corporations, even though they were here long before humanity's existence.
Whoo69 3 years ago
Microbes should be put to jail by policemen. They constantly copy themself without permission from their creator and thus infringe his copyright! This is not their only crime. Because they use inventor´s gene modifications in their scientific work in which they create new mutant microbes. The pay no royalties to patent owner, thus infringe his patent! Goverment should do something to stop this massive criminality!!!
reddwarf2300282 3 years ago
Haha! That's fucking hilarious. ROFLMAOBBQHELICOPTER.
brokensunlight 3 years ago
I'm sick of hearing about Viacom tell Youtube to take down someone's video simply b/c it had "copyrighted material" in it. Big whoop! You're not making money off that material anymore anyhow. So why do you give a shit? It's stupid as hell. Let the market work things out, and fuck "intellectual property rights." If you don't want someone else to use it, don't give it to them and certainly don't put it out there in the marketplace! Simple as that. And we call this a "free" market.
Whoo69 3 years ago
Copyright laws have gone too damn far in this country. Just like so many other sectors of our society, the douchebags in Congress and the various departments have regulated it SOO much that just about anything can be defined as "intellectual property", or if you happen to use someone's clip in a video that is YOUR idea and comes from YOUR creativity, you're "stealing" if you didn't get permission. I say, fuck that! If someone put it out there in the market, everyone should be able to use it.
Whoo69 3 years ago
intellectual property is really something for the courts to decide
But in all fairness, copying someones CD after they tell you that your not allowed to is a violation of the contract. But the only thing you could really do is make them destroy the copy and for a record company to track down every single person and make them destroy their copies simply would not be economically feasible, it would be way to expensive, so it would only be worthwhile to go after major counterfeiting operations.
Livingfishguy 3 years ago
but it would be pretty hard to convince the court that what they did was really a crime.
The only sort of IP violation i can think of as wrong would be to copy someones product and sell it under the same brand name in an attempt pass it off as genuine.
Trademarks are the only IP i can see as being valid. Without them the marketplace would become very confusing and it would be damn hard to find a consistent supply of Coca-Cola.
Livingfishguy 3 years ago
The only valid contracts are those which involve title transfers of legitimately owned and actually transferable items. One's will is not transferable, it is unalienable, hence "promise" contracts are bogus. They didn't even originate until the 16th century. Prior to that, the solution to get something similar in effect was penalty bonds; so and so says they'll either do something, or they owe you X. Also, in either case, a contract would not be binding on third parties receiving copies.
Libertarian333 3 years ago
IP is definitely a bogus concept. It is purely a monopoly, Gov't granted and only enforceable by a Gov't body, and I don't see how it can be rationally otherwise. I'll be doing a response to qtronman's response. I watched his first, then your video. It's amazing how much he ignored in order to the toe the Randian line on this one. But - that's most Objectivists, in my experience.
burnvictim77 3 years ago
IP supports the first person to register their idea with the Government who is granted all future rights not only to their idea but all others ideas similar to his yet to be made or registered. Inventions are able to be discovered by more than one person independently and often are. That the 1st persons ideas are worth more than the 2nds appears less than justifiable when independently deduced. The proof of depndendence should fall on the 1st discoverer not the 2nd which is impractical.
stratvic 3 years ago