my view is that non-commercial sharing like p2p should be legal even if intellectual property owners do not always wish so. Only gaining monetary profits is evil on someone's else's work. Copyright laws are too draconian anyway. 70 years after death is just riddiculous. Should be 5 years after publication and then public domain. Also there should be far more reaching far use allowed for example when people share things on youtube and other video portals.
I'd venture that those are all the same thing... but still, it's good to see a thoughtful viewpoint that doesn't boil it down to "stealing is bad" and "don't tell me what to do with my interwebs".
How do you (the author of this video) feel about the letters exchanged between Madison and Jefferson on exclusivity regarding the profit of intellectual works?
So far as economism goes, monopolies are inherently dysfunctional and harming, embarrassing even, to society. Why should society put up with a private claim to a publicly made idea anymore than a private claim to a publicly made fire? That is to say, if I make a public campfire, do I have the right to sue those who would "steal" my fire?
Monopoly is the logical extension of property, you can make just as good an argument about how private or personal property are dysfunctional, harming and embarassing, but you won't, because it hurts you to give up what you value.
Are you against counterfeit? If so, why, do you not respect a person's right to call a fake dollar bill real?
@spiritualbully You're conflating imagined "positive" rights with the doctrine of natural "negative" rights.
Representing a counterfeit dollar bill as "real" is fraudulent -- it would be representing that the dollar bill is something that it is not. There is no Treasury Bill backing a counterfeit dollar sitting in the Fed's coffers, nor gold, silver, or any other asset real or imagined. This misrepresentation causes a perceived increase in the supply of currency and devalues all other dollars.
@paradigmentropy "This misrepresentation causes a perceived increase in the supply of currency and devalues all other dollars." You mean to tell me you're against devaluing all other dollars?
Don't you respect a person's freedom to use his copy machine as he pleases and call the counterfeit notes whatever he wants? Is devaluing all other dollars "depriving real property"?
@spiritualbully Therefor, counterfeiting a dollar would be similar to printing up ten car titles, each to the same car, and selling each title for the full market price of that particular vehicle. This is not equivalent to making a copy of an intellectual work; the copier has not deprived the author or inventor of any real property.
There are cases in which property confers privilege of monopoly, such as land ownership; this does not hold true for all property.
@paradigmentropy what's wrong with printing up 10 car titles? Who is wronged by more copies of the same title? How did printing up extra car titles deprive the car owner of any real property?
@spiritualbully The original act of printing 10 car titles was not wrong. Selling each car title, making the representation that each was the sole claim to the automobile in question, is what is wrong. By selling this purposefully misrepresented product, the car title copier is depriving some individual of property; this is theft of a physical good.
@paradigmentropy Ok, good, now we have progress. You agree it's not wrong to print 10 car titles, only to sell it and making misrepresentations. So you have no problem printing it and giving it away, and the reciever can do what he pleases?
Why is "misrepresentation" not free speech according to you?
@spiritualbully Ah, there is the dichotomy. I am speaking on the intent to defraud investors of an automobile. You are speaking of making copies of a title and giving them away with no intent to deceive the receiver into thinking that they now own an automobile.
@spiritualbully In the case of land ownership, it, too, is not a natural right. It would do you well to read the letters I referenced earlier between Madison and Jefferson. At the time the U.S. Constitution was written, to include the "Copyright Clause", only England had a copyright system. That is to say, we were only one of two societies in all the world, at the time, conferring the benefits of exclusivity over intellectual works to their respective authors and inventors.
@spiritualbully PS: You can speculate on my motivations all you want (i.e., whether I would "give up what [I] value") as it amounts to nothing more than ad hominem -- it does not lend favorability to your arguments over mine.
The problem is that there's a significant group who has had a taste of a world that recognizes no intellectual property rights. And they loved it. Now they seek to implement a future full of that unabated openness. A wish for a world without money, within a capitalist society, is a head on collision. This is a destabilizing force. The old structure seeks to prevent it, well the new one seeks only to destabilize more.
When you tare down a tower, your left only with a pile of rubble.
@shmore In all of human history, however long you believe it to have existed, we have only experimented with copyrights and intellectual property for several hundred. For you to imply that a lack of "intellectual property rights", a misnomer in its own right, is a new phenomenon is incredibly disingenuous and short sighted.
Tell me, were we left with rubble when we revolted against the British and established a new nation? Did we not "tare" down a tower"? Empty rhetoric, all of it.
if any resource can be reproduced infinitely, like all digital media, I will never support rationing and charging of that resource, and I work in the film industry.
@spiritualbully Money currently can be printed infinitely, and is. Those with the power to print money can influence laws, and thus define social morality. Ownership is often confused with access, but ownership is merely the power (granted by the state) to refuse or limit access to others.
Copyright laws are a mechanism to ensure businesses profit from their intellectual product, but laws which perpetuate wealth only serve purpose so long as they can be enforced.
@MyOnlyFarph no, money isn't printed infinitely, or else nobody would use it. it's printed more than it should, but according to you, why should it ever be limited?
I agree ownership is merely power to control.
And anti-counterfeit laws for both money and ID are to ensure the owner's safety, what's your point?
Who disagrees that these laws are only useful if enforced?
Question is "who are the thieves". Lot's of copyright companies claim copyright of what's not theirs by the lack of youtube to make them prove their claim.
@spiritualbully That's a sadly distorted view. Our forefathers recognized that what we now call "intellectual property rights", which are NOT natural rights if you read any of their writings on the subject, are in fact monopolies just like any other. Just as our forefathers were idiotic enough to condone, or at least be bystanders to, slavery, they were equally ignorant when it came to the relatively new phenomenon of "copyright". The question is, "copyright: should it be?" Not, "PIRATES?!!11!1"
@paradigmentropy copyright arose out of efficient printing and copying technology, nobody had to use DRM protection against DVDs, until we had DVD burners in every home. The same is true that books did not need protection, until copy machines were cheap enough that everybody could access one.
@spiritualbully Why is there a "Copyright Clause" in the Constitution if there was no need for protection of intellectual works until the technology to copy works at a marginal cost of nearly zero became so ubiquitous? Why does this clause protect the exclusivity of inventors (in addition to authors) if the means of copying were the only real concern? Why do we give out patents for antiretrovirals? Surely, the means to copy that particular work is not ubiquitous.
@spiritualbully (I know this one is delayed but I missed this particular comment to respond to in my previous round of responses) This is true. The marginal costs of reproduction are approaching zero. However, that does not change the morality of the issue. Either a person has the right to regulate his intellectual works after they've been made public or they don't. To be a bit more specific, I do not believe that "copyright arose out of efficient..." -- there was a morality behind it.
@paradigmentropy I disagree, I believe morality and legality have EVERYTHING to do with how easy it is to violate a person's alleged rights or to enforce against it. (cont)
@paradigmentropy perhaps you should consider trespass, if it's easy to accidentally trespass and hard to prevent, it's generally not considered a crime or cause of action
@spiritualbully What you are saying then, I believe, is that in general we should give someone the benefit of the doubt when it is reasonable to assume that no harm has been caused by an accidental violation of another's rights. This still recognizes the right of the land owner to refuse passage upon their land, it is theirs to do with as they please.
Once a filmmaker sells me a DVD it is mine to do with as I please, just as any other property, so long as I do not coerce another individual.
@spiritualbully PS: What I meant by "even if unknowing on their part", is that I would have intended to take some property under false pretenses, knowing that I am personally responsible for those false pretenses. In the case of "oops" and "accident!", that is not the same... I cannot claim that my (hypothetical) birdhouses will never cause cancer, if it will not be found out for another 50 years that pine wood causes cancer. Just the same, tripping on your foot is not kicking you.
@spiritualbully Furthermore, I'd argue that you've completely ignored the last statement of one of my previous comments:
The question is, "copyright: should it be?" Not, "PIRATES?!!11!1"
The issue is whether or not intellectual property rights are moral or justifiable at all in the first place, not to what degree we should stifle free speech and interfere with the private lives of individuals to enforce them.
@paradigmentropy did you consider I didn't know how to respond because I didn't know what you meant by "The question is, "copyright: should it be?" Not, "PIRATES?!!11!1""
Of course the issue is about whether X is moral or justifiable at all in the first place, replace X with intellectual property, private property, land ownership, slavery, parental rights, state rights...and the question never changes.
@spiritualbully You make a fair point in both paragraphs. In retrospect, I will concede that the quotation of me in your first paragraph was ambiguous, I apologize. As far as the second paragraph goes, I think we are coming from two very different philosophical perspectives here.
What philosophical doctrine, would you argue, gives a man the right to regulate all physical manifestations of his intellectual work once they have been made public?
@paradigmentropy What gives a man the right to regulation manifestations of his intellectual work? Aside from the fact we recognize his ownership and believe he is detrimented by violation of his rights, not much. We can deny physical property and ask the same question. Why does a person have a right to stop a person from walking where he wants and speaking freely of what he believes?
@spiritualbully Who recognizes that right? In what society are intellectual property rights indefinitely recognized? If intellectual property rights are indeed the same as physical property rights, why has no society ever treated them as one and the same? Even in America, you may pass down a family heirloom from generation to generation, UNLESS it is the right to an intellectual work. A gold chain? That's cool. The patent to the automobile? Not a chance.
@paradigmentropy in what society is physical property indefinitely and absolutely recognized? No civilized one I'm aware of. There are always exceptions when it comes to fairness, equity, justice, practicality...etc.
@paradigmentropy A better explanation would be, I don't believe in natural rights, I believe rights are just privileges the government and society has chosen to afford and take upon themselves to enforce. Societies vary on what they value and what they are willing to enforce, this is why some societies are less preferable to live in.
@spiritualbully Are societies not composed of individuals? Do you mean to say that individuals should only be afforded whatever rights that the potential tyranny of the majority might afford them? Even if that were the case, why would President Obama be signing ACTA, and why would Congress be trying to pass SOPA and PIPA despite the violent objections of their constituents?
@paradigmentropy yes, individuals should only be afforded the rights the powerful allow them to have. Even if they were not, what good is complaining?
@spiritualbully I, personally, believe in a libertarian doctrine of natural rights. From what I have read of the founding fathers of America and the framers of the U.S. Constitution, my views are probably most consistent with Thomas Jefferson's (but not identical; e.g., I find slavery too abhorrent to be condoned at any level in a society that considers itself free, among other discrepancies). What philosophy would you say best represents your views? (I ask so that I can better understand.)
@spiritualbully Capitalism does not necessarily incorporate intellectual property rights, I would even go so far as to say that a more pure form of capitalism than what America currently practices would reject all monopolies outright. I would agree that you do match my conceptions of what a pragmatist and/or utilitarian is.
@spiritualbully PS: That's not to say you're wrong! That's also not to say that I intended to condescend to you in any way. Just saying, your opinions, perceived through my personal filter, match more closely to utilitarianism and 'pragmatism' than they do capitalism; just my opinion.
@paradigmentropy You act as though no other form of property protection "stifles free speech and interferes with the private lives of violators when enforced". But since you say it's not the issue or point, I'll let that go.
@spiritualbully I should have been more clear. I, personally, side with Jefferson when he stated that intellectual property rights are only useful insofar as they stimulate innovation to the effect of providing society with a net surplus in utility. This recognizes that monopolies, be they on intellectual works or physical products, can only exist via the force of government. That is to say, no monopoly can exist without the protection of government.
@paradigmentropy So what do you call a company or entity which manages to reach near 100% of the market share by purely voluntary ,free market means, without any protection other than property protection, and got where they are by providing better service, lower cost? Is that a natural monopoly, or is there a better phrase for it?
@spiritualbully I'm not aware of any cases of "natural monopoly" but if you have some you'd like to share with me so that I may study them, I'd be glad. Even if it were the case that one particular entity, be they a private business owner or corporate, had near 100% market share, had near 100% market share, the threat of competition would still play a large role in driving productivity.
@spiritualbully Supposing that there was a "benevolent dictatorship" situation, in which one actor controlled an entire market and driving out all competitors, that market would still be influenced by the threat of competition. Assuming no unnatural advantages provided by government interventionism, that market supplier would be forced to continue to supply he demands of 100% of the demanders, lest a competitor enter the market.
@spiritualbully However, in some limited circumstances, such as providing an incentive to innovate, monopolies can benefit society. It's clearly evident in Article I section VIII of the U.S. Constitution that the original intent of the "Copyright Clause" was to provide society with the benefits of ever greater inventions by incentivizing innovation and authorship through government protection of these intellectual monopolies. If not, why would "Science and Arts" be mentioned at all?
@paradigmentropy glad we agree that monopolies can sometimes be beneficial, I understand you are not advocating for it, but just admitting they are not always bad. I don't know what the intention of it was, but it sounds about right.
@spiritualbully If you're saying that I have admitted that there are cases in which monopolies can be beneficial, you are correct. I do see that it is possible for intellectual monopolies, extended for only limited periods, to provide a net benefit to society. However, it I also see the great historical trend for governments to consolidate power, for democracies to represent special interests, and for wealth to control politics.
@spiritualbully If all men are created equal, we must chain the government down so that there is not temptation for it to indulge in its individually oppressive tendencies. Tyranny seeks whatever foothold it might find, digging deeper and creating new ones as it goes until all too often, for the citizen's liking, the foot holds are throats and the citizen grows weary of his slavery to the state.
@spiritualbully I know some things are hard to do without trusting others. For example we trust police on the streets to make good judgements. But the more we eliminate the need for trust, the more free we are. In the online world we can easily get by without "trust". We don't need police in the online world. We just need them in public places where we physically interact, or to protect our physical homes.
@spiritualbully I guess it comes down to trust. I don't want to put my trust in others to control what can be said and what cannot. If someone believes something shouldn't be said, let them prove it to me and then I may accept.
@onelineproof I'm sure a child molestor would say the same thing, he just changes the word "said" to "molest". Nobody has ever convinced a child molestor that he shouldn't do what he does.
@spiritualbully OK not every law has to be based on absolute proof that it will benefit you, but the problem is (as mentioned before), copyright laws are ambiguous. The concept of fair use is based on a judgement rather than a predefined restriction. Sometimes a certain combination of 1's and 0's is judged unfair (by a law enforcer), sometimes it's judged fair. I don't trust the law enforcers to judge for me. If you can make the laws completely unambiguous then maybe I would accept
@spiritualbully but I don't think it's possible, because for whatever combination of 1's and 0's and for every person, I think there exists a situation where it is fair for me to send that combination to that person.
@spiritualbully Here's another way of looking at it. I want to send a certain combination of 1's and 0's to someone. If in it I include a combination that breaks a copyright law then I can't send it. But there's no proof that sending that combination will harm me (or if others send it), so why should I allow such a law?
@onelineproof because copyright is was designed to protect the copyright holder, which IS harmed when you send a copyrighted message. Certain things are not worthy of protection, but that's another story.
So as long as I can show ONE person claiming he is harmed by sending a copyrighted message, your argument falls apart.
@spiritualbully I'm not opposed to having courts and judges, but the accused should have the right to allow the court process to be transparent to the public, so that the public can judge as well.
@spiritualbully Ya I don't know so much about the court process, but they always seem to forbid cameras and stuff, so you just rely on a select few of reporters, but not sure.
@spiritualbully What I'm getting at is that IP laws are basically saying, let us control what you and others can say, because we know what's better for you and others. That's all. No proof or anything. Screw that.
@spiritualbully Why is privacy good? It allows people to communicate without fear of loss of reputation which leads to more honest opinions. It is a key ingredient in exposing corruption. Why is free speech good? It is based on the assumption of innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise we can have people silenced just because of a judgement by someone rather than proof that a crime was committed.
Also, suppose I developed a computer program. I can demonstrate to a company how the computer program works by showing the inputs and the outputs of the program without showing the source code. I can offer to sell the source code to them under certain conditions (they pay a certain downpayment, a certain percentage of profits, no sharing the code with others, whatever...) You can think of any product as a computer program, since you can demonstrate how it works without showing the inner details.
@onelineproof Computer programs do present a certain gray area. Such as, a person can create an exact same functioning program using his own coding, but YOUR idea. This is how facebook was allegedly created (inspired by MySpace + HarvardConnection). The IDEA of what your program does can often be unique enough to be worth protecting.
It's important to note a clear difference between the IDEA of the program (to do what it does) and the CODE (how to get it done) both are protectable
Also, as I mentioned you are free to get into confidentiality agreements or copy-restriction agreements with certain companies. The agreement could say something like "I give you this blueprint for my product and you promise not to leak it into the public". In some cases, it may be hard to prove that the company leaked something, but it will definitely look bad on the company's reputation if there are many complaints about the company not respecting its copy-restriction contracts.
If not then even if I don't get immediate recognition, later on when a company takes that idea and makes something significant out of it, I can be rewarded. Also, popularity itself is a good reward. When you are popular, people listen to you. This can even be used to make money from things like endorsing a company or a product. Also, your achievements will be recogized by potential employers, so it will be easier to find a well paying job.
@onelineproof if popularity itself is a good enough reward, that is your price, you cannot force others to accept it. Just like I cannot burn your house down even if I want the same done to me.
Suppose I invent something. Then there should be some place where I can register my invention, so that people know I was first. If it's something judged to be significant, I can be awarded a prize by a government institution or some other institution. The money doesn't necessarily have to come involuntarily from the pockets of taxpayers. It could come from donations such as people donating money towards a cure for some disease.
@onelineproof yes, it CAN come from elsewhere, but that's like saying I prefer not to be murdered, but that doesn't mean my security services have to come involuntarily from taxpayers. No matter how much I benefit from it, you can always say "yeah , but there's other places this service can be paid for"
@spiritualbully With different laws the business model will be different, but is it clear which model is better for creating innovation and new products? Not really. But what is clear is that without copyrights we can at least have much more freedom of expression and privacy, a clear benefit.
@spiritualbully Also, have you noticed that in most countries it is illegal to spy on messages sent by traditional postal service. Why doesn't this extend to electronic messages?
"Aren't all prosecuted piracy cases for UPLOADERS, rather than DOWNLOADERS?"
I want so that uploaders are also not penalized, unless they are under some kind of contract. For example, when government documents get leaked on the internet, the general public (not working for government) should be able to re-share this info, which includes downloading and uploading/mirroring. "Copyrighted" material shouldn't be any different.
@spiritualbully yes some uploaders may have agreements with the company, but it was their choice to sign that agreement. Other uploaders who just found the content on the internet and didn't sign a contract with the company shouldn't be penalized.
@onelineproof yes, and if they chose to agree, they can be held accountable. If the copy can be traced back to the original holder/agreed buyer, he'll be held accountable, the others usually are not, depending on complicity.
But sounds like you are not familiar with the "first sale doctrine" especially after the AutoCAD ruling. The AutoDesk ruling states, that the software always was, and still is copyrighted, and never sold to the "buyer".
@onelineproof Autodesk decision says, that unless the originator agreed you have bought and owned a copy, you do not, and nobody, no matter how he found it, can resell or use it without explicitly acquiring a license to use the software.
It doesn't matter if somebody lost it, gave it away at a yard sale, it's still the originator's property and only to be used for those who have agreed to the terms (that's right, they can legally ask for it back at any time).
@spiritualbully I'm familiar with the current laws. I'm just telling you what I would like to see as the laws. So back to my other example, do you believe people should be penalized for sharing government documents (like Wikileaks) online, even if they don't work with the government and never signed a contract with the government?
@spiritualbully Alright so I guess you do agree that it's fine to share classified government documents. But, I'm not sure because your answer was a little unclear. And I guess classified documents of private companies is fine too. What if those classified documents also had a "copyright" on them?
@onelineproof copyright, just like trademark, has some reasonable limitations. In spirit of copyright was to prevent competition and preserve profits of the originator. This is not to be confused as to protect secrets, which is a matter of privacy. some people have proposed to "copyright" "trademark" their personal information as a way to prevent the government from spying on them, it's retarded. This is why we have fair use.
@onelineproof if you leak and publish classified information, or private information , it's a matter of violating privacy, or property. If you leak and publish information which leads to a person being hurt, harassed, it's a matter of safety. Netiher of these have much to do with copyright , profit, or intellectual property.
@spiritualbully Ya I know the intentions are a bit different. Anyways I don't want to go off topic, but I don't like the idea of government being able to censor the internet and decide for me what's harmful and what's not. It can lead to abuse of power. The only speech that may need to be censored is speech that causes immediate danger, but there shouldn't be anything connected to the internet that causes immediate danger in the first place.
@spiritualbully Back to copyrights, what I want is a system that rewards creators once they create something significant, but doesn't continue to reward them unless they continue to create new things. In the meantime others are free to copy their work and create things out of it as well. The reward could be just a recognition or a payment of money. I can give you examples of how this can be done in practice. Like this you can solve the problem of incentive and still have free flow of information
also forgot to mention: Movie companies can make money by playing movies in cinemas, and they can get into agreements with the cinemas to not share copies with others. But once its out on DVD, they can't expect that it won't get copied. Technically, I guess they could get into a copy restriction contract with each consumer who buys it, but once it reaches a public place like the internet, the people who find it on the internet shouldn't be under any contract.
@onelineproof "But once its out on DVD, they can't expect that it won't get copied." are you talking about, in your ideal world that's how you'd like it? Or are you saying, even in today's world, the existing laws are unjust and illegitimate because you don't like it?
Aren't all prosecuted piracy cases for UPLOADERS, rather than DOWNLOADERS?
"are you talking about, in your ideal world that's how you'd like it?"
Sure they can make the contract more strict such as mandatory prison sentence for breaching it, or they can say in the contract that they have the right to install cameras in your house to watch and make sure you're not breaching it, but then will people buy a DVD that requires such a contract?
@onelineproof Watch the latest South Park episode, it's about Terms of Agreement, you think people actually read and care what the agreements say?
You're basically saying now, that because you didn't agree not to copy, you shouldn't be punished for it. So why should we punish child molestors? they never agreed not to molest children either.
@spiritualbully I view the agreement to not molest children as a public contract (with government). I want copyrights to only be enforced in private contracts (a voluntary agreement between a set of parties, not including everyone like it does now)
I know that copyrights and patents help to create a motivation for creating something that wouldn't be created in a free market. So essentially a copyright is a government funded monopoly. But if the government is going to fund a company, it should fund the most efficient company rather than just the "first" company.
@onelineproof why wouldn't it be created in a free market? Why do you insist on automatically assuming copyright and patents can't exist voluntarily or without government? I know your opinion on why you believe in property and not IP, but why do you think everybody else buys your argument?
No, copyright is NOT a government funded monopoly, or at least it doesn't have to be. Where do you keep getting the idea that copyright wouldn't exist without government? (but other property would)
@spiritualbully Why can't copyrights/patents exists without government? I thought this was obvious - they are laws made by the government. Unless you wanna include private bylaws and contracts, which I have no problem with, since it is voluntary to get into such a contract, but a national law such as copyright is not voluntary.
Sorry I phrased that badly. My point is that in a democratic voting system, majority decides, so it wouldn't make sense to have a law that doesn't benefit the majority,
I think I answered most of your questions. So can you tell me why most people would be better off with IP laws than without?
@onelineproof do you believe a democratic system can vote away the rights of blacks to be equal, gays to be citizens and women to vote ? How about the rich to keep their money?
Ok, the best answer I can give for IP laws benefiting most people, is the same argument you give for property, the more certainty, the more profit can be assessed, the more stable a society is. When there is profit, there is motivation for innovation. Why is profit and motivation good? I don't know.
People give rights to other people because in some (indirect) way, they will help them. Diversity can be good, other people can bring unique skills to the workforce, you can learn from others, etc...
I don't think we should just get rid of copyrights and leave nothing. I think we should replace copyright laws with alternative laws that still provide similar benefits but without the bad effects. I can explain this.
@onelineproof agreed, which is why IP can benefit you in that way as well.
Ok, good. as long as you're not an idiot who thinks copyright should be completely abolished and without government there would be zero voluntary copyright enforcement, I'm with you. I'm all for reforming copyright.
@spiritualbully Ya I think initially they should just be loosened a bit and changed, so as to not create an instant shock in the economy, but in the end what I want to see is something totally different than copyright laws, so I wouldn't call it "reformed copyright", but rather "alternative to copyright".
@onelineproof ok, can you explain to be in a comment length what is "alternative to copyright"? Does a person who composes music or produce a movie have an exclusive right to copy and sell his work? Or is it free for all to give away as they please? Are all copyable works "free until otherwise stated" or "not free until otherwise stated"(as we are today)?
@spiritualbully no i don't think there should be a copy restriction. If it's really important that a movie be produced, the production costs can be funded by the government or whatever entity wants the movie produced. Some movies are also funded by donation, for example, check out "Pioneer One". Ya things may be different, but that's not necessarily bad. Are you worried that there will be a lack of entertainment because of this?
@onelineproof no, not quite. I am not worried there will be lack of entertainment, as the past 50 years has produced more than what most can digest in a lifetime. What if the market demands there be copy restriction? Would you respect the wishes of a market? Or do you believe you idea of "freedom from restriction" supercedes them?
why is it OK that we are by default bound to laws against rape and kidnapping? Why don't you respect a person's freedom to choose what he wants to do with his time and resources?
In simple terms: We should give people as much freedom as possible unless that freedom interferes with others' freedom. Of course, it's more complicated because you have to set rules on which freedom trumps another freedom, but you get the point.
@onelineproof "We should give people as much freedom as possible unless that freedom interferes with others' freedom"
I couldn't agree more. So the problem here is, you don't recognize that copyright infringement, or patent violation is an interference on another's property and freedom.
What's wrong with approving of one thing and denying another thing? (if they are not exactly the same thing?) Again, I'm opposed to land ownership, so don't pick on this.
@spiritualbully actually with land I'm not totally sure still, because if you pay property taxes then you don't totally own it, but Ill get back to you tomorrow
@onelineproof agreed, you don't own it freely without any cost. That is not to say you don't have enough control over it that you can shoot people who step on it.
If I'm uncertain of having my car the next day, I have less control over my life than if I was certain.
The person has a right to ask money (or something in return), because otherwise he wouldn't want to give the car to you. Why would you give something for nothing?
Each person wants to maximize their own efficiency, not the efficieny of their country. However, I want the companies in my country to be efficient so that I can get low prices.
@onelineproof "If I'm uncertain of having my car the next day, I have less control over my life than if I was certain." the same can be said about land, and copyright monopoly, the hypocrisy is you don't find one of them worthy of protecting and defending.
What if you can get lower prices even if it doesn't come by efficiency?
@spiritualbully So why do we have free markets for so many things? Why is there so many different grocery stores? Maybe we would have better prices if there was only one government controlled one? Isn't our main belief that free markets generally lead to lower prices and no shortages as opposed to a communist style one? I agree there are many uncertainties involved, but I don't see how having IP helps to lower prices. Where's the incentive to lower prices when no-one else can sell your product?
@onelineproof we have free markets in places where we either think its OK or necessary. No, I didn't say we SHOULD have one entity controlling a market, but I don't find it to be absolutely bad.
Having IP DOESN'T lower prices, nor does having any property. If we abolished property, there would be no need to pay, that's the ultimate "low price".
@spiritualbully By price I mean the more abstract "trading value" - In effect how much work you have to do to obtain something. By property I guess you mean something that is protected by government/police. This can be good for prices, since otherwise you would have to hire private security to protect your property, which can be inefficient. So if you abolish government protection, this doesn't mean you can get things for free. People used to work hard to trade animal fur for wood for example.
@onelineproof no, by property I mean anything that is protected by anybody.
So then you agree IP is not some government invention, but the logical result of people who want their IP, copyright protected, and efficiently uses government in necessary ways.
@spiritualbully Ya I'm sure there are people who want to protect their "IP" (like the media companies, some creators) so that they can make money off it. I'm saying that it doesn't benefit the majority of people, thus it doesn't make sense for the government to protect it.
@onelineproof I noticed your argument has boiled down to, you believe IP hurts more people, and physical property, capitalism does not. So if I can convince you that either IP helps more than hurts, or that what is right shouldn't be decided by how many people like it, I bet you'd agree and approve of IP, copyright, patent.
"If there was no restriction on who can say what, it'll allow anybody to say anything, including calling for flash mobs to use force against people they don't like, thus making them unable to freely speak or defend themselves from smear, lies, libel."
If someone is found in court to be guilty of causing violence by speech, then they can be put away for this, but get a court warrant first. In the meantime it is the role of the police to fight off the flash mobs.
"say WHO you have a right to be protected from flash mobs?" not sure what you're saying there. Anyways, I gotta do some work now :) So maybe I won't reply right away.
Copyrights give a company the right to be a monopoly for a certain product. This raises the price for the product, and the company can basically sit back, relax and make money without doing any work. This is not a fair or efficient system.
@onelineproof and property rights gives a person monopoly of ownership over his product, allowing him to charge any price for selling, renting, or looking at his property, that's not a fair or efficient system.
Why have ANY property? Wouldn't we be more efficient if nobody had ANY rights, ANY protection and ANY obligation to pay ANYTHING?
@spiritualbully I believe in the right to own property like a car, computer, etc. Land, I'm not so sure...but that's another issue, so I'll assume people have the right to own land. But the right should be to own it, to protect it from being stolen, to sell it, but NOT to disallow copying. There's nothing wrong with copying IMO, unless you agree in some form of contract that you will not copy something, but this contract shouldn't be forced upon everyone in the public
@onelineproof why do you believe in a right to own a car, computer? Why should ANYBODY be forced to recognize your ownership of it? How is that effecient of convenient or fair?
You don't get to assume people have a right to own land, since you didn't let me assume people have right to own intellectual property.
Why is there anything wrong with stealing or killing unless I agreed in advance I wouldn't do it? Shouldnt' I get to chose what laws I want to obey? You damn freedom hater!
@spiritualbully You can have the right to own a car because otherwise it would be very uncertain if you have the car the next day, and the reason you paid for it is so that it would be certain that you can continue to have it. I'm not stopping anyone from making copies though.
Owning land and having no IP rights is still consistent, since you can't copy land anyways.
Im just saying to change the laws so that you are not by default bound to not copy something that you see in public.
@onelineproof what's wrong with being uncertain of having your car the next day? and what gives the person who sold you the car a right to ask for money from you? I know you're not stopping anybody from making copies, but you are stopping me from using and owning your car even when you're not using it, what a waste! I thought you believed in EFFICIENCY.
No, owning land is NOT consistent with not having IP, it's merely approving of one property, and denying the other.
@onelineproof why is it OK that we are by default bound to laws against rape and kidnapping? Why don't you respect a person's freedom to choose what he wants to do with his time and resources?
@spiritualbully Why do I believe so? Because then we wouldn't have true freedom of speech and privacy. Everytime we post a video on Youtube, we would have to worry about whether it contains some copyrighted content in it, thus not allowing us to fully express our ideas. Also, privacy would have to most likely be violated in order to check who is breaking copyright laws. The laws are very ambiguous so almost anything can be lawfully judged to be taken down by those in power.-
@onelineproof Ok, now you need to answer what is so good and right about free speech or privacy? I thought you wanted EFFICIENCY AND CONVENIENCE. I can make an even better argument about how lack of copyright, IP violates free speech and privacy if I wanted to.
Even the current copyright laws allow fair use. So the stupid concern about "everytime I upload a video" is baseless. The fact many people can be falsely DMCA flagged is an abuse of youtube policy, and not a problem with copytight.
my view is that non-commercial sharing like p2p should be legal even if intellectual property owners do not always wish so. Only gaining monetary profits is evil on someone's else's work. Copyright laws are too draconian anyway. 70 years after death is just riddiculous. Should be 5 years after publication and then public domain. Also there should be far more reaching far use allowed for example when people share things on youtube and other video portals.
doxent 1 day ago
@doxent that's nice, and it's only your opinion.
spiritualbully 1 day ago
I'd venture that those are all the same thing... but still, it's good to see a thoughtful viewpoint that doesn't boil it down to "stealing is bad" and "don't tell me what to do with my interwebs".
SkormFlinxingGlock 3 days ago
@SkormFlinxingGlock thanks for the encouragement, please let me know what else needs to be addressed on this topic :)
spiritualbully 3 days ago
This is the first video on Youtube I've seen that is discussing these issues seriously, and from a pro-IP perspective. Bravo!
SkormFlinxingGlock 4 days ago
@SkormFlinxingGlock I'm not pro-IP, I'm just anti-stupidity, and pro-honesty
spiritualbully 4 days ago
Comment removed
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
How do you (the author of this video) feel about the letters exchanged between Madison and Jefferson on exclusivity regarding the profit of intellectual works?
So far as economism goes, monopolies are inherently dysfunctional and harming, embarrassing even, to society. Why should society put up with a private claim to a publicly made idea anymore than a private claim to a publicly made fire? That is to say, if I make a public campfire, do I have the right to sue those who would "steal" my fire?
paradigmentropy 2 weeks ago
@paradigmentropy I havent read those letters, so don't know.
Monopoly is the logical extension of property, you can make just as good an argument about how private or personal property are dysfunctional, harming and embarassing, but you won't, because it hurts you to give up what you value.
Are you against counterfeit? If so, why, do you not respect a person's right to call a fake dollar bill real?
spiritualbully 2 weeks ago
@spiritualbully You're conflating imagined "positive" rights with the doctrine of natural "negative" rights.
Representing a counterfeit dollar bill as "real" is fraudulent -- it would be representing that the dollar bill is something that it is not. There is no Treasury Bill backing a counterfeit dollar sitting in the Fed's coffers, nor gold, silver, or any other asset real or imagined. This misrepresentation causes a perceived increase in the supply of currency and devalues all other dollars.
paradigmentropy 2 weeks ago
@paradigmentropy "This misrepresentation causes a perceived increase in the supply of currency and devalues all other dollars." You mean to tell me you're against devaluing all other dollars?
Don't you respect a person's freedom to use his copy machine as he pleases and call the counterfeit notes whatever he wants? Is devaluing all other dollars "depriving real property"?
spiritualbully 2 weeks ago
@spiritualbully Therefor, counterfeiting a dollar would be similar to printing up ten car titles, each to the same car, and selling each title for the full market price of that particular vehicle. This is not equivalent to making a copy of an intellectual work; the copier has not deprived the author or inventor of any real property.
There are cases in which property confers privilege of monopoly, such as land ownership; this does not hold true for all property.
paradigmentropy 2 weeks ago
@paradigmentropy what's wrong with printing up 10 car titles? Who is wronged by more copies of the same title? How did printing up extra car titles deprive the car owner of any real property?
spiritualbully 2 weeks ago
@spiritualbully The original act of printing 10 car titles was not wrong. Selling each car title, making the representation that each was the sole claim to the automobile in question, is what is wrong. By selling this purposefully misrepresented product, the car title copier is depriving some individual of property; this is theft of a physical good.
paradigmentropy 2 weeks ago
@paradigmentropy Ok, good, now we have progress. You agree it's not wrong to print 10 car titles, only to sell it and making misrepresentations. So you have no problem printing it and giving it away, and the reciever can do what he pleases?
Why is "misrepresentation" not free speech according to you?
spiritualbully 1 week ago
@spiritualbully Ah, there is the dichotomy. I am speaking on the intent to defraud investors of an automobile. You are speaking of making copies of a title and giving them away with no intent to deceive the receiver into thinking that they now own an automobile.
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@spiritualbully In the case of land ownership, it, too, is not a natural right. It would do you well to read the letters I referenced earlier between Madison and Jefferson. At the time the U.S. Constitution was written, to include the "Copyright Clause", only England had a copyright system. That is to say, we were only one of two societies in all the world, at the time, conferring the benefits of exclusivity over intellectual works to their respective authors and inventors.
paradigmentropy 2 weeks ago
@spiritualbully PS: You can speculate on my motivations all you want (i.e., whether I would "give up what [I] value") as it amounts to nothing more than ad hominem -- it does not lend favorability to your arguments over mine.
paradigmentropy 2 weeks ago
@paradigmentropy I don't need to speculate, I'll see what you have to say, or you can prove me wrong.
spiritualbully 2 weeks ago
The problem is that there's a significant group who has had a taste of a world that recognizes no intellectual property rights. And they loved it. Now they seek to implement a future full of that unabated openness. A wish for a world without money, within a capitalist society, is a head on collision. This is a destabilizing force. The old structure seeks to prevent it, well the new one seeks only to destabilize more.
When you tare down a tower, your left only with a pile of rubble.
shmore 3 weeks ago
@shmore please be more specific, who are these people, when/where do they live, are they creators are leechers?
spiritualbully 3 weeks ago
@spiritualbully I have a feeling shmore is one of those "resource based economists" (a.k.a. technocratic communists).
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@shmore In all of human history, however long you believe it to have existed, we have only experimented with copyrights and intellectual property for several hundred. For you to imply that a lack of "intellectual property rights", a misnomer in its own right, is a new phenomenon is incredibly disingenuous and short sighted.
Tell me, were we left with rubble when we revolted against the British and established a new nation? Did we not "tare" down a tower"? Empty rhetoric, all of it.
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
*dislikes*
Oveneise 1 month ago
if any resource can be reproduced infinitely, like all digital media, I will never support rationing and charging of that resource, and I work in the film industry.
MyOnlyFarph 8 months ago
@MyOnlyFarph that means money can be printed infintely, and IDs can be counterfeited infinitely, we should not regulate or punish for it, correct?
spiritualbully 8 months ago
@spiritualbully Money currently can be printed infinitely, and is. Those with the power to print money can influence laws, and thus define social morality. Ownership is often confused with access, but ownership is merely the power (granted by the state) to refuse or limit access to others.
Copyright laws are a mechanism to ensure businesses profit from their intellectual product, but laws which perpetuate wealth only serve purpose so long as they can be enforced.
MyOnlyFarph 8 months ago
@MyOnlyFarph no, money isn't printed infinitely, or else nobody would use it. it's printed more than it should, but according to you, why should it ever be limited?
I agree ownership is merely power to control.
And anti-counterfeit laws for both money and ID are to ensure the owner's safety, what's your point?
Who disagrees that these laws are only useful if enforced?
spiritualbully 8 months ago
Question is "who are the thieves". Lot's of copyright companies claim copyright of what's not theirs by the lack of youtube to make them prove their claim.
envanje 9 months ago
@envanje youtube is a private company and they can side with whoever they want. Yes, the question IS who are the thieves, or who are the owners.
spiritualbully 9 months ago
@spiritualbully That's a sadly distorted view. Our forefathers recognized that what we now call "intellectual property rights", which are NOT natural rights if you read any of their writings on the subject, are in fact monopolies just like any other. Just as our forefathers were idiotic enough to condone, or at least be bystanders to, slavery, they were equally ignorant when it came to the relatively new phenomenon of "copyright". The question is, "copyright: should it be?" Not, "PIRATES?!!11!1"
paradigmentropy 2 weeks ago
@paradigmentropy copyright arose out of efficient printing and copying technology, nobody had to use DRM protection against DVDs, until we had DVD burners in every home. The same is true that books did not need protection, until copy machines were cheap enough that everybody could access one.
spiritualbully 2 weeks ago
@spiritualbully Why is there a "Copyright Clause" in the Constitution if there was no need for protection of intellectual works until the technology to copy works at a marginal cost of nearly zero became so ubiquitous? Why does this clause protect the exclusivity of inventors (in addition to authors) if the means of copying were the only real concern? Why do we give out patents for antiretrovirals? Surely, the means to copy that particular work is not ubiquitous.
paradigmentropy 2 weeks ago
@paradigmentropy technology to copy, or otherwise reproduce intellectual works was available, just not as convenient as today.
spiritualbully 2 weeks ago
@spiritualbully (I know this one is delayed but I missed this particular comment to respond to in my previous round of responses) This is true. The marginal costs of reproduction are approaching zero. However, that does not change the morality of the issue. Either a person has the right to regulate his intellectual works after they've been made public or they don't. To be a bit more specific, I do not believe that "copyright arose out of efficient..." -- there was a morality behind it.
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@paradigmentropy I disagree, I believe morality and legality have EVERYTHING to do with how easy it is to violate a person's alleged rights or to enforce against it. (cont)
spiritualbully 1 week ago
@paradigmentropy perhaps you should consider trespass, if it's easy to accidentally trespass and hard to prevent, it's generally not considered a crime or cause of action
spiritualbully 1 week ago
@spiritualbully What you are saying then, I believe, is that in general we should give someone the benefit of the doubt when it is reasonable to assume that no harm has been caused by an accidental violation of another's rights. This still recognizes the right of the land owner to refuse passage upon their land, it is theirs to do with as they please.
Once a filmmaker sells me a DVD it is mine to do with as I please, just as any other property, so long as I do not coerce another individual.
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@paradigmentropy Wrong, it's not "yours to do as you please" any more than it is "yours to do as you please with your car or gun"
spiritualbully 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spiritualbully PS: What I meant by "even if unknowing on their part", is that I would have intended to take some property under false pretenses, knowing that I am personally responsible for those false pretenses. In the case of "oops" and "accident!", that is not the same... I cannot claim that my (hypothetical) birdhouses will never cause cancer, if it will not be found out for another 50 years that pine wood causes cancer. Just the same, tripping on your foot is not kicking you.
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@spiritualbully Furthermore, I'd argue that you've completely ignored the last statement of one of my previous comments:
The question is, "copyright: should it be?" Not, "PIRATES?!!11!1"
The issue is whether or not intellectual property rights are moral or justifiable at all in the first place, not to what degree we should stifle free speech and interfere with the private lives of individuals to enforce them.
paradigmentropy 2 weeks ago
@paradigmentropy did you consider I didn't know how to respond because I didn't know what you meant by "The question is, "copyright: should it be?" Not, "PIRATES?!!11!1""
Of course the issue is about whether X is moral or justifiable at all in the first place, replace X with intellectual property, private property, land ownership, slavery, parental rights, state rights...and the question never changes.
spiritualbully 2 weeks ago
@spiritualbully You make a fair point in both paragraphs. In retrospect, I will concede that the quotation of me in your first paragraph was ambiguous, I apologize. As far as the second paragraph goes, I think we are coming from two very different philosophical perspectives here.
What philosophical doctrine, would you argue, gives a man the right to regulate all physical manifestations of his intellectual work once they have been made public?
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@paradigmentropy What gives a man the right to regulation manifestations of his intellectual work? Aside from the fact we recognize his ownership and believe he is detrimented by violation of his rights, not much. We can deny physical property and ask the same question. Why does a person have a right to stop a person from walking where he wants and speaking freely of what he believes?
spiritualbully 1 week ago
@spiritualbully Who recognizes that right? In what society are intellectual property rights indefinitely recognized? If intellectual property rights are indeed the same as physical property rights, why has no society ever treated them as one and the same? Even in America, you may pass down a family heirloom from generation to generation, UNLESS it is the right to an intellectual work. A gold chain? That's cool. The patent to the automobile? Not a chance.
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@paradigmentropy in what society is physical property indefinitely and absolutely recognized? No civilized one I'm aware of. There are always exceptions when it comes to fairness, equity, justice, practicality...etc.
spiritualbully 1 week ago
@spiritualbully Hmm.. An interesting point. I'm going to send you a private message. It's getting too hard to keep track of this discussion.
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@paradigmentropy A better explanation would be, I don't believe in natural rights, I believe rights are just privileges the government and society has chosen to afford and take upon themselves to enforce. Societies vary on what they value and what they are willing to enforce, this is why some societies are less preferable to live in.
spiritualbully 1 week ago
@spiritualbully Are societies not composed of individuals? Do you mean to say that individuals should only be afforded whatever rights that the potential tyranny of the majority might afford them? Even if that were the case, why would President Obama be signing ACTA, and why would Congress be trying to pass SOPA and PIPA despite the violent objections of their constituents?
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@paradigmentropy yes, individuals should only be afforded the rights the powerful allow them to have. Even if they were not, what good is complaining?
spiritualbully 1 week ago
@spiritualbully I, personally, believe in a libertarian doctrine of natural rights. From what I have read of the founding fathers of America and the framers of the U.S. Constitution, my views are probably most consistent with Thomas Jefferson's (but not identical; e.g., I find slavery too abhorrent to be condoned at any level in a society that considers itself free, among other discrepancies). What philosophy would you say best represents your views? (I ask so that I can better understand.)
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@paradigmentropy My views are probably best described as capitalist and pragmatist, or utilitarian.
spiritualbully 1 week ago
@spiritualbully Capitalism does not necessarily incorporate intellectual property rights, I would even go so far as to say that a more pure form of capitalism than what America currently practices would reject all monopolies outright. I would agree that you do match my conceptions of what a pragmatist and/or utilitarian is.
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@paradigmentropy you are correct, capitalism can mean literally anything depending how you define property and how property is enforced.
spiritualbully 1 week ago
@spiritualbully PS: That's not to say you're wrong! That's also not to say that I intended to condescend to you in any way. Just saying, your opinions, perceived through my personal filter, match more closely to utilitarianism and 'pragmatism' than they do capitalism; just my opinion.
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@paradigmentropy not a problem.
spiritualbully 1 week ago
@paradigmentropy You act as though no other form of property protection "stifles free speech and interferes with the private lives of violators when enforced". But since you say it's not the issue or point, I'll let that go.
spiritualbully 2 weeks ago
@spiritualbully I should have been more clear. I, personally, side with Jefferson when he stated that intellectual property rights are only useful insofar as they stimulate innovation to the effect of providing society with a net surplus in utility. This recognizes that monopolies, be they on intellectual works or physical products, can only exist via the force of government. That is to say, no monopoly can exist without the protection of government.
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@paradigmentropy So what do you call a company or entity which manages to reach near 100% of the market share by purely voluntary ,free market means, without any protection other than property protection, and got where they are by providing better service, lower cost? Is that a natural monopoly, or is there a better phrase for it?
spiritualbully 1 week ago
@spiritualbully I'm not aware of any cases of "natural monopoly" but if you have some you'd like to share with me so that I may study them, I'd be glad. Even if it were the case that one particular entity, be they a private business owner or corporate, had near 100% market share, had near 100% market share, the threat of competition would still play a large role in driving productivity.
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@spiritualbully Supposing that there was a "benevolent dictatorship" situation, in which one actor controlled an entire market and driving out all competitors, that market would still be influenced by the threat of competition. Assuming no unnatural advantages provided by government interventionism, that market supplier would be forced to continue to supply he demands of 100% of the demanders, lest a competitor enter the market.
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@paradigmentropy what is an "unnatural advantage" is being born on a land or later discovering on your land resources people don't have "unnatural"?
spiritualbully 1 week ago
@spiritualbully However, in some limited circumstances, such as providing an incentive to innovate, monopolies can benefit society. It's clearly evident in Article I section VIII of the U.S. Constitution that the original intent of the "Copyright Clause" was to provide society with the benefits of ever greater inventions by incentivizing innovation and authorship through government protection of these intellectual monopolies. If not, why would "Science and Arts" be mentioned at all?
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@paradigmentropy glad we agree that monopolies can sometimes be beneficial, I understand you are not advocating for it, but just admitting they are not always bad. I don't know what the intention of it was, but it sounds about right.
spiritualbully 1 week ago
@spiritualbully If you're saying that I have admitted that there are cases in which monopolies can be beneficial, you are correct. I do see that it is possible for intellectual monopolies, extended for only limited periods, to provide a net benefit to society. However, it I also see the great historical trend for governments to consolidate power, for democracies to represent special interests, and for wealth to control politics.
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@spiritualbully If all men are created equal, we must chain the government down so that there is not temptation for it to indulge in its individually oppressive tendencies. Tyranny seeks whatever foothold it might find, digging deeper and creating new ones as it goes until all too often, for the citizen's liking, the foot holds are throats and the citizen grows weary of his slavery to the state.
paradigmentropy 1 week ago
@spiritualbully I know some things are hard to do without trusting others. For example we trust police on the streets to make good judgements. But the more we eliminate the need for trust, the more free we are. In the online world we can easily get by without "trust". We don't need police in the online world. We just need them in public places where we physically interact, or to protect our physical homes.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@spiritualbully I guess it comes down to trust. I don't want to put my trust in others to control what can be said and what cannot. If someone believes something shouldn't be said, let them prove it to me and then I may accept.
Sorry I'll try to shutup now :)
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof I'm sure a child molestor would say the same thing, he just changes the word "said" to "molest". Nobody has ever convinced a child molestor that he shouldn't do what he does.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully OK not every law has to be based on absolute proof that it will benefit you, but the problem is (as mentioned before), copyright laws are ambiguous. The concept of fair use is based on a judgement rather than a predefined restriction. Sometimes a certain combination of 1's and 0's is judged unfair (by a law enforcer), sometimes it's judged fair. I don't trust the law enforcers to judge for me. If you can make the laws completely unambiguous then maybe I would accept
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof I agree copyright laws are not always straightforward, that's a good reason to make them better, but not abolish them completely.
I think many people would be in favor of making copyright laws unambiguous, but I can tell you the outcome would not be pleasant.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
Comment removed
onelineproof 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spiritualbully but I don't think it's possible, because for whatever combination of 1's and 0's and for every person, I think there exists a situation where it is fair for me to send that combination to that person.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@spiritualbully and the law is going to encode every possible situation where I can do that?
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof and just because it can't, we should have no such law?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
Comment removed
onelineproof 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Here's another way of looking at it. I want to send a certain combination of 1's and 0's to someone. If in it I include a combination that breaks a copyright law then I can't send it. But there's no proof that sending that combination will harm me (or if others send it), so why should I allow such a law?
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof because copyright is was designed to protect the copyright holder, which IS harmed when you send a copyrighted message. Certain things are not worthy of protection, but that's another story.
So as long as I can show ONE person claiming he is harmed by sending a copyrighted message, your argument falls apart.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
Comment removed
onelineproof 10 months ago
@spiritualbully I'm not opposed to having courts and judges, but the accused should have the right to allow the court process to be transparent to the public, so that the public can judge as well.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof that's not the case today?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Ya I don't know so much about the court process, but they always seem to forbid cameras and stuff, so you just rely on a select few of reporters, but not sure.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof you are welcome to walk in and witness pretty much any case trial.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spiritualbully What I'm getting at is that IP laws are basically saying, let us control what you and others can say, because we know what's better for you and others. That's all. No proof or anything. Screw that.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Why is privacy good? It allows people to communicate without fear of loss of reputation which leads to more honest opinions. It is a key ingredient in exposing corruption. Why is free speech good? It is based on the assumption of innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise we can have people silenced just because of a judgement by someone rather than proof that a crime was committed.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof corruption is possible BECAUSE of privacy. Why isn't guilty until proven innocent better?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
Comment removed
onelineproof 10 months ago
Also, suppose I developed a computer program. I can demonstrate to a company how the computer program works by showing the inputs and the outputs of the program without showing the source code. I can offer to sell the source code to them under certain conditions (they pay a certain downpayment, a certain percentage of profits, no sharing the code with others, whatever...) You can think of any product as a computer program, since you can demonstrate how it works without showing the inner details.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof Computer programs do present a certain gray area. Such as, a person can create an exact same functioning program using his own coding, but YOUR idea. This is how facebook was allegedly created (inspired by MySpace + HarvardConnection). The IDEA of what your program does can often be unique enough to be worth protecting.
It's important to note a clear difference between the IDEA of the program (to do what it does) and the CODE (how to get it done) both are protectable
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Ya I understand the difference and ya ideas can be harder to protect.
onelineproof 10 months ago
Also, as I mentioned you are free to get into confidentiality agreements or copy-restriction agreements with certain companies. The agreement could say something like "I give you this blueprint for my product and you promise not to leak it into the public". In some cases, it may be hard to prove that the company leaked something, but it will definitely look bad on the company's reputation if there are many complaints about the company not respecting its copy-restriction contracts.
onelineproof 10 months ago
If not then even if I don't get immediate recognition, later on when a company takes that idea and makes something significant out of it, I can be rewarded. Also, popularity itself is a good reward. When you are popular, people listen to you. This can even be used to make money from things like endorsing a company or a product. Also, your achievements will be recogized by potential employers, so it will be easier to find a well paying job.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof if popularity itself is a good enough reward, that is your price, you cannot force others to accept it. Just like I cannot burn your house down even if I want the same done to me.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
Suppose I invent something. Then there should be some place where I can register my invention, so that people know I was first. If it's something judged to be significant, I can be awarded a prize by a government institution or some other institution. The money doesn't necessarily have to come involuntarily from the pockets of taxpayers. It could come from donations such as people donating money towards a cure for some disease.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof yes, it CAN come from elsewhere, but that's like saying I prefer not to be murdered, but that doesn't mean my security services have to come involuntarily from taxpayers. No matter how much I benefit from it, you can always say "yeah , but there's other places this service can be paid for"
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully With different laws the business model will be different, but is it clear which model is better for creating innovation and new products? Not really. But what is clear is that without copyrights we can at least have much more freedom of expression and privacy, a clear benefit.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof no, it's not clear, which is why I prefer to leave it to the innovators or the market not the "have nots".
And no, I do not agree free expression and privacy are clear benefits.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Also, have you noticed that in most countries it is illegal to spy on messages sent by traditional postal service. Why doesn't this extend to electronic messages?
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof I can think of many reasons it doesn't, for better or worse.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully
"Aren't all prosecuted piracy cases for UPLOADERS, rather than DOWNLOADERS?"
I want so that uploaders are also not penalized, unless they are under some kind of contract. For example, when government documents get leaked on the internet, the general public (not working for government) should be able to re-share this info, which includes downloading and uploading/mirroring. "Copyrighted" material shouldn't be any different.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof you can't want that, because even in your world, the uploaders were the ones who agreed not to copy.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
Comment removed
onelineproof 10 months ago
@spiritualbully yes some uploaders may have agreements with the company, but it was their choice to sign that agreement. Other uploaders who just found the content on the internet and didn't sign a contract with the company shouldn't be penalized.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof yes, and if they chose to agree, they can be held accountable. If the copy can be traced back to the original holder/agreed buyer, he'll be held accountable, the others usually are not, depending on complicity.
But sounds like you are not familiar with the "first sale doctrine" especially after the AutoCAD ruling. The AutoDesk ruling states, that the software always was, and still is copyrighted, and never sold to the "buyer".
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@onelineproof Autodesk decision says, that unless the originator agreed you have bought and owned a copy, you do not, and nobody, no matter how he found it, can resell or use it without explicitly acquiring a license to use the software.
It doesn't matter if somebody lost it, gave it away at a yard sale, it's still the originator's property and only to be used for those who have agreed to the terms (that's right, they can legally ask for it back at any time).
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully I'm familiar with the current laws. I'm just telling you what I would like to see as the laws. So back to my other example, do you believe people should be penalized for sharing government documents (like Wikileaks) online, even if they don't work with the government and never signed a contract with the government?
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof there's a lot of things I prefer to be legal and allowed that I guarantee you'd not. So that's a stupid question.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Alright so I guess you do agree that it's fine to share classified government documents. But, I'm not sure because your answer was a little unclear. And I guess classified documents of private companies is fine too. What if those classified documents also had a "copyright" on them?
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof copyright, just like trademark, has some reasonable limitations. In spirit of copyright was to prevent competition and preserve profits of the originator. This is not to be confused as to protect secrets, which is a matter of privacy. some people have proposed to "copyright" "trademark" their personal information as a way to prevent the government from spying on them, it's retarded. This is why we have fair use.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@onelineproof if you leak and publish classified information, or private information , it's a matter of violating privacy, or property. If you leak and publish information which leads to a person being hurt, harassed, it's a matter of safety. Netiher of these have much to do with copyright , profit, or intellectual property.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Ya I know the intentions are a bit different. Anyways I don't want to go off topic, but I don't like the idea of government being able to censor the internet and decide for me what's harmful and what's not. It can lead to abuse of power. The only speech that may need to be censored is speech that causes immediate danger, but there shouldn't be anything connected to the internet that causes immediate danger in the first place.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Back to copyrights, what I want is a system that rewards creators once they create something significant, but doesn't continue to reward them unless they continue to create new things. In the meantime others are free to copy their work and create things out of it as well. The reward could be just a recognition or a payment of money. I can give you examples of how this can be done in practice. Like this you can solve the problem of incentive and still have free flow of information
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof Yes, please give an ACTUAL example and hopefully this applies to all works.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
also forgot to mention: Movie companies can make money by playing movies in cinemas, and they can get into agreements with the cinemas to not share copies with others. But once its out on DVD, they can't expect that it won't get copied. Technically, I guess they could get into a copy restriction contract with each consumer who buys it, but once it reaches a public place like the internet, the people who find it on the internet shouldn't be under any contract.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof "But once its out on DVD, they can't expect that it won't get copied." are you talking about, in your ideal world that's how you'd like it? Or are you saying, even in today's world, the existing laws are unjust and illegitimate because you don't like it?
Aren't all prosecuted piracy cases for UPLOADERS, rather than DOWNLOADERS?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully
"are you talking about, in your ideal world that's how you'd like it?"
Sure they can make the contract more strict such as mandatory prison sentence for breaching it, or they can say in the contract that they have the right to install cameras in your house to watch and make sure you're not breaching it, but then will people buy a DVD that requires such a contract?
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof Watch the latest South Park episode, it's about Terms of Agreement, you think people actually read and care what the agreements say?
You're basically saying now, that because you didn't agree not to copy, you shouldn't be punished for it. So why should we punish child molestors? they never agreed not to molest children either.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully I view the agreement to not molest children as a public contract (with government). I want copyrights to only be enforced in private contracts (a voluntary agreement between a set of parties, not including everyone like it does now)
onelineproof 10 months ago
I know that copyrights and patents help to create a motivation for creating something that wouldn't be created in a free market. So essentially a copyright is a government funded monopoly. But if the government is going to fund a company, it should fund the most efficient company rather than just the "first" company.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof why wouldn't it be created in a free market? Why do you insist on automatically assuming copyright and patents can't exist voluntarily or without government? I know your opinion on why you believe in property and not IP, but why do you think everybody else buys your argument?
No, copyright is NOT a government funded monopoly, or at least it doesn't have to be. Where do you keep getting the idea that copyright wouldn't exist without government? (but other property would)
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Why can't copyrights/patents exists without government? I thought this was obvious - they are laws made by the government. Unless you wanna include private bylaws and contracts, which I have no problem with, since it is voluntary to get into such a contract, but a national law such as copyright is not voluntary.
onelineproof 10 months ago
Sorry I phrased that badly. My point is that in a democratic voting system, majority decides, so it wouldn't make sense to have a law that doesn't benefit the majority,
I think I answered most of your questions. So can you tell me why most people would be better off with IP laws than without?
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof do you believe a democratic system can vote away the rights of blacks to be equal, gays to be citizens and women to vote ? How about the rich to keep their money?
Ok, the best answer I can give for IP laws benefiting most people, is the same argument you give for property, the more certainty, the more profit can be assessed, the more stable a society is. When there is profit, there is motivation for innovation. Why is profit and motivation good? I don't know.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully (sorry my internet went off)
People give rights to other people because in some (indirect) way, they will help them. Diversity can be good, other people can bring unique skills to the workforce, you can learn from others, etc...
I don't think we should just get rid of copyrights and leave nothing. I think we should replace copyright laws with alternative laws that still provide similar benefits but without the bad effects. I can explain this.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof agreed, which is why IP can benefit you in that way as well.
Ok, good. as long as you're not an idiot who thinks copyright should be completely abolished and without government there would be zero voluntary copyright enforcement, I'm with you. I'm all for reforming copyright.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Ya I think initially they should just be loosened a bit and changed, so as to not create an instant shock in the economy, but in the end what I want to see is something totally different than copyright laws, so I wouldn't call it "reformed copyright", but rather "alternative to copyright".
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof ok, can you explain to be in a comment length what is "alternative to copyright"? Does a person who composes music or produce a movie have an exclusive right to copy and sell his work? Or is it free for all to give away as they please? Are all copyable works "free until otherwise stated" or "not free until otherwise stated"(as we are today)?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully no i don't think there should be a copy restriction. If it's really important that a movie be produced, the production costs can be funded by the government or whatever entity wants the movie produced. Some movies are also funded by donation, for example, check out "Pioneer One". Ya things may be different, but that's not necessarily bad. Are you worried that there will be a lack of entertainment because of this?
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof no, not quite. I am not worried there will be lack of entertainment, as the past 50 years has produced more than what most can digest in a lifetime. What if the market demands there be copy restriction? Would you respect the wishes of a market? Or do you believe you idea of "freedom from restriction" supercedes them?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully
why is it OK that we are by default bound to laws against rape and kidnapping? Why don't you respect a person's freedom to choose what he wants to do with his time and resources?
In simple terms: We should give people as much freedom as possible unless that freedom interferes with others' freedom. Of course, it's more complicated because you have to set rules on which freedom trumps another freedom, but you get the point.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof "We should give people as much freedom as possible unless that freedom interferes with others' freedom"
I couldn't agree more. So the problem here is, you don't recognize that copyright infringement, or patent violation is an interference on another's property and freedom.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
What's wrong with approving of one thing and denying another thing? (if they are not exactly the same thing?) Again, I'm opposed to land ownership, so don't pick on this.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof if you're opposed to land ownership, then I'm ok with you.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully actually with land I'm not totally sure still, because if you pay property taxes then you don't totally own it, but Ill get back to you tomorrow
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof agreed, you don't own it freely without any cost. That is not to say you don't have enough control over it that you can shoot people who step on it.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
If I'm uncertain of having my car the next day, I have less control over my life than if I was certain.
The person has a right to ask money (or something in return), because otherwise he wouldn't want to give the car to you. Why would you give something for nothing?
Each person wants to maximize their own efficiency, not the efficieny of their country. However, I want the companies in my country to be efficient so that I can get low prices.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof "If I'm uncertain of having my car the next day, I have less control over my life than if I was certain." the same can be said about land, and copyright monopoly, the hypocrisy is you don't find one of them worthy of protecting and defending.
What if you can get lower prices even if it doesn't come by efficiency?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully So why do we have free markets for so many things? Why is there so many different grocery stores? Maybe we would have better prices if there was only one government controlled one? Isn't our main belief that free markets generally lead to lower prices and no shortages as opposed to a communist style one? I agree there are many uncertainties involved, but I don't see how having IP helps to lower prices. Where's the incentive to lower prices when no-one else can sell your product?
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof we have free markets in places where we either think its OK or necessary. No, I didn't say we SHOULD have one entity controlling a market, but I don't find it to be absolutely bad.
Having IP DOESN'T lower prices, nor does having any property. If we abolished property, there would be no need to pay, that's the ultimate "low price".
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully By price I mean the more abstract "trading value" - In effect how much work you have to do to obtain something. By property I guess you mean something that is protected by government/police. This can be good for prices, since otherwise you would have to hire private security to protect your property, which can be inefficient. So if you abolish government protection, this doesn't mean you can get things for free. People used to work hard to trade animal fur for wood for example.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof no, by property I mean anything that is protected by anybody.
So then you agree IP is not some government invention, but the logical result of people who want their IP, copyright protected, and efficiently uses government in necessary ways.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Ya I'm sure there are people who want to protect their "IP" (like the media companies, some creators) so that they can make money off it. I'm saying that it doesn't benefit the majority of people, thus it doesn't make sense for the government to protect it.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof capitalism and physical property doesnt benefit most people either, especially those who want to be lazy, but who cares about them?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Why would the majority of people want to vote for laws that don't benefit them?
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof why should the majority get to decide what benefits them?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@onelineproof I noticed your argument has boiled down to, you believe IP hurts more people, and physical property, capitalism does not. So if I can convince you that either IP helps more than hurts, or that what is right shouldn't be decided by how many people like it, I bet you'd agree and approve of IP, copyright, patent.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
"If there was no restriction on who can say what, it'll allow anybody to say anything, including calling for flash mobs to use force against people they don't like, thus making them unable to freely speak or defend themselves from smear, lies, libel."
If someone is found in court to be guilty of causing violence by speech, then they can be put away for this, but get a court warrant first. In the meantime it is the role of the police to fight off the flash mobs.
onelineproof 10 months ago
"say WHO you have a right to be protected from flash mobs?" not sure what you're saying there. Anyways, I gotta do some work now :) So maybe I won't reply right away.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof take your time.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
Comment removed
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof i apologize, i replied to that just now. refresh, thanks
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully
Copyrights give a company the right to be a monopoly for a certain product. This raises the price for the product, and the company can basically sit back, relax and make money without doing any work. This is not a fair or efficient system.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof and property rights gives a person monopoly of ownership over his product, allowing him to charge any price for selling, renting, or looking at his property, that's not a fair or efficient system.
Why have ANY property? Wouldn't we be more efficient if nobody had ANY rights, ANY protection and ANY obligation to pay ANYTHING?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully I believe in the right to own property like a car, computer, etc. Land, I'm not so sure...but that's another issue, so I'll assume people have the right to own land. But the right should be to own it, to protect it from being stolen, to sell it, but NOT to disallow copying. There's nothing wrong with copying IMO, unless you agree in some form of contract that you will not copy something, but this contract shouldn't be forced upon everyone in the public
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof why do you believe in a right to own a car, computer? Why should ANYBODY be forced to recognize your ownership of it? How is that effecient of convenient or fair?
You don't get to assume people have a right to own land, since you didn't let me assume people have right to own intellectual property.
Why is there anything wrong with stealing or killing unless I agreed in advance I wouldn't do it? Shouldnt' I get to chose what laws I want to obey? You damn freedom hater!
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully You can have the right to own a car because otherwise it would be very uncertain if you have the car the next day, and the reason you paid for it is so that it would be certain that you can continue to have it. I'm not stopping anyone from making copies though.
Owning land and having no IP rights is still consistent, since you can't copy land anyways.
Im just saying to change the laws so that you are not by default bound to not copy something that you see in public.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof what's wrong with being uncertain of having your car the next day? and what gives the person who sold you the car a right to ask for money from you? I know you're not stopping anybody from making copies, but you are stopping me from using and owning your car even when you're not using it, what a waste! I thought you believed in EFFICIENCY.
No, owning land is NOT consistent with not having IP, it's merely approving of one property, and denying the other.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@onelineproof why is it OK that we are by default bound to laws against rape and kidnapping? Why don't you respect a person's freedom to choose what he wants to do with his time and resources?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Why do I believe so? Because then we wouldn't have true freedom of speech and privacy. Everytime we post a video on Youtube, we would have to worry about whether it contains some copyrighted content in it, thus not allowing us to fully express our ideas. Also, privacy would have to most likely be violated in order to check who is breaking copyright laws. The laws are very ambiguous so almost anything can be lawfully judged to be taken down by those in power.-
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof sorry for the inconvenience, I've made comments auto approval for now.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@onelineproof Ok, now you need to answer what is so good and right about free speech or privacy? I thought you wanted EFFICIENCY AND CONVENIENCE. I can make an even better argument about how lack of copyright, IP violates free speech and privacy if I wanted to.
Even the current copyright laws allow fair use. So the stupid concern about "everytime I upload a video" is baseless. The fact many people can be falsely DMCA flagged is an abuse of youtube policy, and not a problem with copytight.
spiritualbully 10 months ago