The Ethical Case Against Intellectual Property (by David Koepsell)

[ThisMachineKillsReds]

Think of it this way: is it at all feasible to enforce anti-piracy laws in anarchy?

No.

So, legal and moral arguments aside, fuck IP. If you can't do it without the government it isn't worth doing.

[sniped101]

@ThisMachineKillsReds anarchy isn't practical.

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

@sniped101 Saying "anarchy isn't practical" is a straw man argument against anarchy. See lewrockwell[dot]com/kinsella/k­insella15.html

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

@ThisMachineKillsReds You're right that it would be much harder for people to enforce anti-piracy laws against others without the aid of a government that can offload the large costs of such enforcement. Nevertheless, we can still imagine a case of Person A using violence against Person B to prevent Person B from using their property to copy an idea or pattern that Person A initially thought of, so it is still important for us to understand why this is wrong.

[daPlumber702]

@swu880

There are Fashion based patents/copyrights, please explore what you're saying further before blabbing.

And thievery of an idea only goes to further prove MY point.

You've done a terrible job at this whole arguing a side of an issue thing..

[daPlumber702]

@swu880

"@daPlumber702

Please explain Linux! and also explain how the fuck the fashion industry is thriving even without copyright/patents

Also go look up the story of who invented the cotton gin- hint it aint Eli Whitney"

Open Source is a different story then there being no such thing as intellectual property. Those people that contribute to open source technology do it of free will. They are "giving" their property away for free.

[daPlumber702]

if everything you thought of, by being thought of, somehow belonged to the world.. no one would bother to think.

[briddle2]

One mustn't own the air, radio wave bands, or genes, but must make observations and create ideas based on them for others. Should they be classed by type and valued accordingly? Then would a one time payment release the obligation of society to the observer/creator and would be free to use the ideas?

[briddle2]

The tragedy of the commons of necessity is unjust because there is no meaningful way of possessing or enclosing them.  Another layer of commons is commons by choice

[briddle2]

3. Idea rights (laws) are exclusionary rights (laws) that prevent the (unauthorized) expression of the protected idea types not idea tokens.

4. Idea rights (laws) prevent the free use of ideas which are a commons by necessity. They prevent (people) from using what is a commons by necessity (like the air or radio wave bands or genes). If the positive law (convention) violates something that is grounded (a commons by necessity) then it is unjust.

[briddle2]

1. Rights of ownership stem from brute facts of possession (ie., I have this object thereby excluding anyone else from having it) and laws are just when grounded in these pre-institutional brute facts because they existed pre-legally (convention), and are therefore grounded pre-institutional as well.

2. Certain types of institutions are also pre-institutional such as those grounded in actual agreements between people out of which something new arises known as an obligation and a duty.

[briddle2]

Ontological argument against intellectual property rights. Types of thought are uncontainable as a common. It is unjust to proclaim a thought contained when it is free.

Social Construction of Reality by John Searl "there is this world of brute facts which exists, that are pre-institutional, free of social or legal conventions. We use our current social and legal conventions to understand our world but there were these brute facts that came before that.

[Hashishin13]

Watson and Crick also owe some of their prestige to LSD, thats right THE LSD.

Look it up.

[hxa7241]

There is a transcription available for this: just do a web-search for: "The ethical case against IP" transcription

[Nielsio]

@hxa7241 Thanks! I've added it to the info-box.

[richardcorsale]

+1 Great lecture.

[paulvahur]

Thanks for posting.

Now you need to follow up with the Kinsella speech: mises/media/4362

[Nielsio]

@paulvahur That's already posted on the misesmedia youtube channel.

[paulvahur]

@Nielsio You are right, it is here: watch?v=GZgLJkj6m0A

[steshaw71]

Very thought provoking. I did find though that the frequent use of the term "Commons by necessity" towards the end and with respect to IP put up a barrier to my understanding. I've watched the tail part twice but think I'll need to watch the whole thing again.

Thanks for posting this!

[Nielsio]

@steshaw71 What he means with 'by necessity' is 'by necessary implication'. In other words: as a fact of nature.

[Sinisterene]

@Nielsio emergent necessity?