Vegetarian Discussion: Some Thought Experiments Expressly For DopeyDonnie Kresch

Some Thought Experiments Expressly For DopeyDonnie Kresch
Posts: 29

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2010-11-17 00:34:56 EST
The issue of copyright really involves the ability and the right of a
property owner to exclude others from using the property unless they pay
for it. The /right/ of the property owner isn't really in question.
Suppose I am a famous composer and musician, and I invite you into my
home or perhaps a hall for a concert. Assume that many people like my
music, and are willing to pay to hear it. When you arrive, you want to
bring with you and set up sophisticated recording equipment so you can
record the concert and later sell copies of your recording. I don't let
you bring that equipment into the venue, so you can't record the
concert. Have your rights been violated? Absolutely not.

For the purpose of this kind of thought experiment, we can imagine any
kind of technology or even FM (fucking magic) we like. The fact the
technology or magic don't yet (or ever) exist is irrelevant. Suppose I
am performing music in a public park, and I have invented some means of
encrypting the output from my instrument such that people can't hear it
unless I do something - tap them on the shoulder with a magic wand, put
a drop of magic fluid on their hand, etc. - and I alone have the ability
to unlock the music for them. Naturally, I only do it for those who pay
up. DopeyDonnie would love to be able to unlock the music for them as
well and capture some of the commercial value, but he doesn't have the
right stuff to do it, and I won't give it to him. Have his rights been
violated? Absolutely not.

DopeyDonnie comically asserts there is "no such thing" as intellectual
property; DopeyDonnie wants to pretend that people are willing to pay
$16 for about 3.5 ounces of plastic and that, oh by the way, it "just
happens to contain" musical recordings from a band or singer. So, why
aren't people willing to pay $16 for the same 3.5 ounces of plastic with
recordings of, say, traffic noise on a freeway, or sounds of forklifts
moving pallets of stuff around a warehouse, or maybe kindergartners
yelling and screaming on a playground? It wouldn't occur to DopeyDonnie
that the value is entirely in the *content*, would it, and that without
an assurance that he can control and capture all of the commercial value
of the content, the creator simply won't bother to create and record?

DopeyDonnie keeps trying to pretend that it's the copying that "ought"
to be legal, but of course it isn't the copying that is the problem -
the problem is in misappropriation - the *THEFT* - of commercial value
that DopeyDonnie thinks he has a "right" to do.

DopieDonnie does *NOT*, of course, have any such right to misappropriate
commercial value that rightfully belongs to someone else. In granting
DopeyDonnie a limited license to use some content contained on some
medium, the creator of the content did *NOT* authorize DopeyDonnie to
resell the content. DopeyDonnie *agreed* to the terms of the limited
license, too, no matter what bullshit rationale he later offers to
defend his theft.

Sorry, DopeyDonnie: the medium is *not* the message, contrary to what
that fuckwit McLuhan wrote. The medium is virtually worthless; all the
value is in the message, and you do *NOT* acquire a commercial right to
the message simply because you buy a copy of the medium that has the
message on it.

John.whine
2010-11-17 00:59:15 EST
On Nov 16, 11:34 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> The issue of copyright really involves the ability and the right of a
> property owner to exclude others from using the property unless they pay
> for it.  The /right/ of the property owner isn't really in question.
> Suppose I am a famous composer and musician, and I invite you into my
> home or perhaps a hall for a concert.  Assume that many people like my
> music, and are willing to pay to hear it.  When you arrive, you want to
> bring with you and set up sophisticated recording equipment so you can
> record the concert and later sell copies of your recording.  I don't let
> you bring that equipment into the venue, so you can't record the
> concert.  Have your rights been violated?  Absolutely not.
>
> For the purpose of this kind of thought experiment, we can imagine any
> kind of technology or even FM (fucking magic) we like.  The fact the
> technology or magic don't yet (or ever) exist is irrelevant.  Suppose I
> am performing music in a public park, and I have invented some means of
> encrypting the output from my instrument such that people can't hear it
> unless I do something - tap them on the shoulder with a magic wand, put
> a drop of magic fluid on their hand, etc. - and I alone have the ability
> to unlock the music for them.  Naturally, I only do it for those who pay
> up.  DopeyDonnie would love to be able to unlock the music for them as
> well and capture some of the commercial value, but he doesn't have the
> right stuff to do it, and I won't give it to him.  Have his rights been
> violated?  Absolutely not.
>
> DopeyDonnie comically asserts there is "no such thing" as intellectual
> property; DopeyDonnie wants to pretend that people are willing to pay
> $16 for about 3.5 ounces of plastic and that, oh by the way, it "just
> happens to contain" musical recordings from a band or singer.  So, why
> aren't people willing to pay $16 for the same 3.5 ounces of plastic with
> recordings of, say, traffic noise on a freeway, or sounds of forklifts
> moving pallets of stuff around a warehouse, or maybe kindergartners
> yelling and screaming on a playground?  It wouldn't occur to DopeyDonnie
> that the value is entirely in the *content*, would it, and that without
> an assurance that he can control and capture all of the commercial value
> of the content, the creator simply won't bother to create and record?
>
> DopeyDonnie keeps trying to pretend that it's the copying that "ought"
> to be legal, but of course it isn't the copying that is the problem -
> the problem is in misappropriation - the *THEFT* - of commercial value
> that DopeyDonnie thinks he has a "right" to do.
>
> DopieDonnie does *NOT*, of course, have any such right to misappropriate
> commercial value that rightfully belongs to someone else.  In granting
> DopeyDonnie a limited license to use some content contained on some
> medium, the creator of the content did *NOT* authorize DopeyDonnie to
> resell the content.  DopeyDonnie *agreed* to the terms of the limited
> license, too, no matter what bullshit rationale he later offers to
> defend his theft.
>
> Sorry, DopeyDonnie:  the medium is *not* the message, contrary to what
> that fuckwit McLuhan wrote.  The medium is virtually worthless; all the
> value is in the message, and you do *NOT* acquire a commercial right to
> the message simply because you buy a copy of the medium that has the
> message on it.

just for the sake of clarification, and i don't recall anyone ever
addressing this, if i bought a cassette of an album i particularly
liked and wore the tape out after awhile (the tapes have a life
expectancy of a couple of years, i think...), am i still in posession
of the rights of non-commercial access to the faded music? and if so,
can i demand to be furnished with another copy of the recording on
perhaps some other media?
at the cost of the replacement hardware alone?
of course, most artists don't get jack-sh*t out of the recording
purchase price...
a few cents.

George Plimpton
2010-11-17 01:07:08 EST
On 11/16/2010 9:59 PM, john.whine wrote:
> On Nov 16, 11:34 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> The issue of copyright really involves the ability and the right of a
>> property owner to exclude others from using the property unless they pay
>> for it. The /right/ of the property owner isn't really in question.
>> Suppose I am a famous composer and musician, and I invite you into my
>> home or perhaps a hall for a concert. Assume that many people like my
>> music, and are willing to pay to hear it. When you arrive, you want to
>> bring with you and set up sophisticated recording equipment so you can
>> record the concert and later sell copies of your recording. I don't let
>> you bring that equipment into the venue, so you can't record the
>> concert. Have your rights been violated? Absolutely not.
>>
>> For the purpose of this kind of thought experiment, we can imagine any
>> kind of technology or even FM (fucking magic) we like. The fact the
>> technology or magic don't yet (or ever) exist is irrelevant. Suppose I
>> am performing music in a public park, and I have invented some means of
>> encrypting the output from my instrument such that people can't hear it
>> unless I do something - tap them on the shoulder with a magic wand, put
>> a drop of magic fluid on their hand, etc. - and I alone have the ability
>> to unlock the music for them. Naturally, I only do it for those who pay
>> up. DopeyDonnie would love to be able to unlock the music for them as
>> well and capture some of the commercial value, but he doesn't have the
>> right stuff to do it, and I won't give it to him. Have his rights been
>> violated? Absolutely not.
>>
>> DopeyDonnie comically asserts there is "no such thing" as intellectual
>> property; DopeyDonnie wants to pretend that people are willing to pay
>> $16 for about 3.5 ounces of plastic and that, oh by the way, it "just
>> happens to contain" musical recordings from a band or singer. So, why
>> aren't people willing to pay $16 for the same 3.5 ounces of plastic with
>> recordings of, say, traffic noise on a freeway, or sounds of forklifts
>> moving pallets of stuff around a warehouse, or maybe kindergartners
>> yelling and screaming on a playground? It wouldn't occur to DopeyDonnie
>> that the value is entirely in the *content*, would it, and that without
>> an assurance that he can control and capture all of the commercial value
>> of the content, the creator simply won't bother to create and record?
>>
>> DopeyDonnie keeps trying to pretend that it's the copying that "ought"
>> to be legal, but of course it isn't the copying that is the problem -
>> the problem is in misappropriation - the *THEFT* - of commercial value
>> that DopeyDonnie thinks he has a "right" to do.
>>
>> DopieDonnie does *NOT*, of course, have any such right to misappropriate
>> commercial value that rightfully belongs to someone else. In granting
>> DopeyDonnie a limited license to use some content contained on some
>> medium, the creator of the content did *NOT* authorize DopeyDonnie to
>> resell the content. DopeyDonnie *agreed* to the terms of the limited
>> license, too, no matter what bullshit rationale he later offers to
>> defend his theft.
>>
>> Sorry, DopeyDonnie: the medium is *not* the message, contrary to what
>> that fuckwit McLuhan wrote. The medium is virtually worthless; all the
>> value is in the message, and you do *NOT* acquire a commercial right to
>> the message simply because you buy a copy of the medium that has the
>> message on it.
>
> just for the sake of clarification, and i don't recall anyone ever
> addressing this, if i bought a cassette of an album i particularly
> liked and wore the tape out after awhile (the tapes have a life
> expectancy of a couple of years, i think...), am i still in posession
> of the rights of non-commercial access to the faded music?

Yes.


> and if so,
> can i demand to be furnished with another copy of the recording on
> perhaps some other media?

Medium, not media.

And the answer is "no".


--
...and that's just how it is.

John.whine
2010-11-17 08:44:14 EST
...), am i still in posession
> of the rights of non-commercial access to the faded music? - jw

----------------------------------

Yes.
---------------------

> and if so,
> can i demand to be furnished with another copy of the recording on
> perhaps some other media?

----------------
Medium, not media.

And the answer is "no". - gp

-------------------------

you sound like my gym teacher.
and what makes you so sure.
if the media is worn out and my access is denied,
because of this,
then where have my rights to the message gone?

Don Kresch
2010-11-17 09:34:43 EST
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:34:56 -0800, George Plimpton <george@si.not>
scrawled in blood:

>The issue of copyright

is all about communism. It's about fuckwits like
DopeyGeorgiePlimpton thinking they have the right to expropriate MY
property for themselves. It's about fuckwits like DopeyGeorgiePlimpton
thinking that they have the right to some specific value in something,
when value is clearly subjective.

The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide
by Stephan Kinsella

Like many libertarians, I initially assumed intellectual property (IP)
was a legitimate type of property right. But I had misgivings from the
start: there was just something too utilitarian and results oriented
in Rand's purportedly principled case for IP, and something too
artificial about the state's copyright and patent statutory
classifications. I started practicing patent law around 1992, and the
more I learned about IP, the more my doubts grew.

I finally realized that IP is incompatible with genuine property
rights. (This echoed the sloughing off of my initial Randian
minarchism in favor of Rothbardian anarchism, when I realized the
state is aggression incarnate and cannot be justified. See my article,
"What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist.")

And so, in 1995 I started publishing articles pointing out problems
with IP, finally culminating in my lengthy 2001 Journal of Libertarian
Studies article "Against Intellectual Property," which was republished
as a monograph last year by the Mises Institute. A summary of the
argument in this paper was set forth in my article "In Defense of
Napster and Against the Second Homesteading Rule" (LewRockwell.com,
2000), and various of these pieces have been translated into other
languages.

In recent years there has been a good deal of more useful writing on
IP and, as my previous Napster article is somewhat dated now, the time
is ripe to concisely restate the basic libertarian case against IP and
provide links to some of the key anti-IP publications.
The Libertarian Framework

This section provides a brief sketch of the libertarian framework
before applying these principles to IP. As Rothbard explained, all
rights are property rights. But a property right is simply the
exclusive right to control a scarce resource. Property rights just
specify who owns, who has the right to control, scarce resources.

No political system is agnostic on the question of who owns various
resources. To the contrary: any given system of property rights
assigns a particular owner to every scarce resource. None of the
various forms of socialism, for example, deny property rights; each
socialist system will specify an owner for every scarce resource.

If the state nationalizes an industry, it is asserting ownership of
these means of production. If the state taxes you, it is implicitly
asserting ownership of the funds taken. If my land is transferred to a
private developer by eminent domain statutes, the developer is now the
owner. Thus, protection of and respect for property rights is not
unique to libertarianism.

What is distinctive about libertarianism is its particular property
assignment rules — its view as to who is the owner of each contestable
resource, and how to determine this. So the question is: what are the
libertarian property assignment rules that distinguish our philosophy
from others?

-
Property in Bodies
-

There are two types of scarce resources: human bodies, and external
resources found in nature.

Human bodies are of course scarce resources. As Professor Hans-Hermann
Hoppe observes, even in a paradise with a superabundance of goods,

every person's physical body would still be a scarce resource and thus
the need for the establishment of property rules, i.e., rules
regarding people's bodies, would exist. One is not used to thinking of
one's own body in terms of a scarce good, but in imagining the most
ideal situation one could ever hope for, the Garden of Eden, it
becomes possible to realize that one's body is indeed the prototype of
a scarce good for the use of which property rights, i.e., rights of
exclusive ownership, somehow have to be established, in order to avoid
clashes.

Now the distinct libertarian view is that each person completely owns
his own body — at least initially, until something changes this (e.g.,
if a person commits some crime by which he forfeits or loses some of
his rights). Implicit in the idea of self ownership is the belief that
each person has a better claim to the body that he or she directly
controls and inhabits than do others. I have a better claim to the
right to control my body than you do, because it is my body; I have a
unique link and connection to my body that others do not, and that is
prior to the claim of any other person.

Thus we can see that anyone other than the original occupant of a body
is a latecomer with respect to the original occupant. Your claim to my
body is inferior in part because I had it first. The person claiming
your body can hardly object to the significance of what Hoppe calls
the "prior-later" distinction, since he adopts this very rule with
respect to his own body — he has to presuppose ownership of his own
body in order to claim ownership of yours.

The self-ownership rule may seem obvious, but it is held only by
libertarians. Nonlibertarians do not believe in complete self
ownership. Sure, they usually grant that each person has some rights
in his own body, but they believe each person is partially owned by
some other person or entity — usually the state, or society. In other
words, we libertarians are the only ones who really oppose slavery in
a principled way. Nonlibertarians are in favor of at least partial
slavery.

This slavery is implicit in state actions and laws such as taxation,
conscription, and drug prohibitions. The libertarian says that each
person is the full owner of his body: he has the right to control his
body, to decide whether or not he ingests narcotics, works for less
than minimum wage, pays taxes, joins an army, and so on.

But those who believe in such laws believe that the state is at least
a partial owner of the body of those subject to such laws. They don't
like to say they believe in slavery, but they do. The liberal wants
tax evaders put in jail — that is, enslaved. The conservative wants
marijuana users enslaved.

-
Property in External Things
-

In addition to human bodies, scarce resources also include external
objects. Unlike human bodies, however, external things are initially
unowned. The libertarian view with respect to such external resources
is very simple: the owner of a given scarce resource is the person who
first homesteaded it, or someone who can trace his title contractually
back to the homesteader. This person has a better claim than anyone
else who wants the property. Everyone else is a latecomer with respect
to the first possessor.

This latecomer rule is actually implied in the very idea of owning
property. If the earlier possessor of property did not have a better
claim than some second person who wants to take the property from him,
then why does the second person have a better claim than a third
person who comes later still (or than the first owner who tries to
take it back)? In other words, to deny the crucial significance of the
prior-later distinction is to deny property rights altogether.

Every nonlibertarian view is thus incoherent. On the one hand, they
presuppose the prior-later distinction when they assign ownership to a
given person (in that it says that person has a better claim than
latecoming claimants). On the other hand, they act contrary to this
principle whenever they take property from the original homesteader
and assign it to some latecomer.

But what is relevant for our purposes here is the libertarian
position, not the incoherence of competing views. And, in sum, the
libertarian position on property rights in external objects is that,
in any dispute or contest over any particular scarce resource, the
original homesteader — the person who appropriated the resource from
its unowned status, by embordering or transforming it (or his
contractual transferee) — has a better claim than latecomers, those
who did not appropriate the scarce resource.
Libertarianism on IP

Given the libertarian understanding of property rights, as sketched
above, it is clear that the institutions of patent and copyright are
simply indefensible. Patents grant rights in "inventions" — useful
machines, or processes. A patent is a grant by the state that permits
the patentee to use the state's court system to prohibit others from
using their own property in certain ways — from reconfiguring their
property according to a certain pattern or design described in the
patent, or from using their property (including their own bodies) in a
certain sequence of steps described in the patent.

Copyrights pertain to "original works," such as books, articles,
movies, and computer programs. A copyright is a grant by the state
that permits the copyright holder to prevent others from using their
own property — e.g., ink and paper — in certain ways.

In both cases, the state is assigning to A a right to control B's
property — A can tell B not to do certain things with B's property.
Since ownership is the right to control, IP grants to A co-ownership
of B's property. This clearly cannot be justified under libertarian
principles. B already owns his property. With respect to him, A is a
latecomer. B is the one who appropriated the property, not A. It is
too late for A to homestead B's property — B already did that. The
resource is no longer unowned.

Granting A ownership rights in B's property is quite obviously
incompatible with basic libertarian principles. It is nothing more
than redistribution of wealth. IP is thus unlibertarian and
unjustified. (See Against Intellectual Property, pp. 43–45, 55–56.)

Why, then, is this a contested issue? Why do some libertarians still
assert the legitimacy of IP rights?

-
Utilitarianism
-

One reason libertarians support IP is that they approach
libertarianism as a whole from a utilitarian perspective instead of a
principled perspective. They are in favor of laws that increase
overall utility, or wealth. And they believe the state's propaganda
that state-granted IP rights actually do increase overall wealth.

Now, the utilitarian perspective itself is bad enough, because all
sorts of terrible policies could be justified this way: why not take
half of Bill Gates's fortune and give it to the poor? Wouldn't the sum
total of the welfare gains to the thousands of recipients be greater
than Gates's reduced utility? After all, he's still a billionaire
afterwards. And if a man is extremely desperate for sex, couldn't his
gain be greater than the loss suffered by his rape victim, say, if
she's a prostitute?

But even if we ignore the ethical and other problems with the
utilitarian, or wealth-maximization, approach, it is bizarre that
utilitarian libertarians are in favor of IP when they have not
demonstrated that IP does increase overall wealth. (For further
discussion of various problems with utilitarianism, see Against
Intellectual Property, pp. 19–23.) They merely assume it does and then
base their policy views on this assumption. It is beyond dispute that
the IP system imposes significant costs, in money terms alone — not to
mention the cost to liberty.

However, the argument that the incentive provided by IP law stimulates
additional innovation and creativity has not even been proven. It is
entirely possible — even likely, in my view — that the IP system, in
addition to imposing billions of dollars of cost on society, actually
reduces or impedes innovation, adding damage to damage.

But even if we assume that the IP system does stimulate some
additional, valuable innovation, no one has established yet that the
value of the purported gains is greater than the costs of the system.
If you ask an advocate of IP how it is that they know there is a net
gain, you get silence in response (this is especially true of patent
attorneys). They cannot even point to any study to support their
utilitarian contention; they usually point to Article I, Section 8 of
the Constitution, as if the back-room dealings of politicians two
centuries ago is some sort of evidence.

In fact, as far as I've been able to tell, virtually every study that
attempts to tally the costs and benefits of copyright or patent law
either concludes that these schemes cost more than they are worth,
that they actually reduce innovation, or the study is inconclusive.
There are no studies showing a net gain. There are only repetitions of
state propaganda.

Anyone who accepts utilitarianism should, based on the available
evidence, be opposed to IP.

-
Libertarian Creationism
-

Another reason many libertarians favor IP is confusion about the
origin of property and property rights. They accept the careless
observation that you can come to own things in three ways: through
homesteading an unowned thing, by contractual exchange, and by
creation.

The mistake is the notion that creation is an independent source of
ownership — independent, that is, from homesteading and contracting.
However, it is easy to see that it is not, that "creation" is neither
necessary nor sufficient as a source of ownership.

If you carve a statue using your own hunk of marble, you own the
resulting creation because you already owned the marble. You owned it
before, and you own it now. And if you homestead an unowned resource,
like a field, by using it and thereby establishing publicly visible
borders, you own it because this first use and embordering gives you a
better claim than latecomers. So creation is not necessary.

And suppose you carve a statue in someone else's marble — either
without permission, or with permission, such as when an employee does
this with his employer's marble by contract — then you do not own the
resulting statue, even though you "created" it. If you are using
marble stolen from another, your vandalizing it does not take away the
owner's claims to it. And if you are working on your employer's
marble, he owns the resulting statue. So creation is not sufficient.
(See also Against Intellectual Property, pp. 36–42.)

Or, as Sheldon Richman explains,

A key reason [many libertarians support IP] is the importance attached
to the act of creation. If someone writes or composes an original work
or invents something new, the argument goes, he or she should own it
because it would not have existed without the creator. I submit,
however, that as important as creativity is to human flourishing, it
is not the source of ownership of produced goods. … So what is the
source? Prior ownership of the inputs through purchase, gift, or
original appropriation. This is sufficient to establish ownership of
the output. Ideas contribute no necessary additional factor. If I
build a model airplane out of wood and glue, I own it not because of
any idea in my head, but because I owned the wood, the glue, and
myself.

Of course, this is not to deny the importance of knowledge, or
creation and innovation. All action, including action that employs
owned scarce means, involves the use of technical knowledge —
knowledge of causal laws, for example. To be sure, creation is an
important means of increasing wealth. As Hoppe has observed,

One can acquire and increase wealth either through homesteading,
production and contractual exchange, or by expropriating and
exploiting homesteaders, producers, or contractual exchangers. There
are no other ways.

But while production or creation is a means of gaining "wealth," it is
not an independent source of ownership or rights. Production is not
the creation of new matter; it is the transformation of things from
one form to another — the transformation of things one necessarily
already owns. Using your labor and creativity to transform your
property into more valuable finished products gives you greater
wealth, but not additional property rights.

So the idea that you own anything you create is a confused one that
does not justify IP.

-
The Contractual Approach
-

Some also argue that some form of copyright or possibly patent could
be created by some kind of contractual tricks — for example, by a
seller selling a patterned media (book, CD, etc.) or useful machine to
a buyer on the condition that it not be copied. For example, Brown
sells an innovative mousetrap to Green, on the condition that Green is
not to reproduce it. (This is Rothbard's example, from "Knowledge,
True and False," which is discussed at pp. 51–55 of Against
Intellectual Property.)

However, in order for IP to work, it has to bind not only seller and
buyer, but all third parties. The contract between buyer and seller
cannot do this — it binds only the buyer and seller. In the example
given above, even if Green agrees not to copy Brown's mousetrap, Black
has no agreement with Brown. Brown has no contractual right to prevent
Black from using Black's own property in accordance with whatever
knowledge or information Black has. Thus, the contract approach fails
as well. (See also Against Intellectual Property, pp. 45–55.)
IP and Statism

One final problem with IP can be mentioned. And that is that IP rights
are statutory schemes, schemes that are constructed only by
legislation. A patent or copyright code could no more arise in a
decentralized, case-based legal system in a free society than the
Americans with Disabilities Act could. In other words, IP requires
both a legislature and a state. For libertarians who reject the
legitimacy of the state or legislated law, this is yet another defect
of IP.

-
Anti-IP Resources
-

Various materials are linked at my IP Policy wiki.

Non-normative IP law info can be found at my PatentLawPractice wiki.

My own IP writings, including especially: Against Intellectual
Property (comprehensive libertarian case against IP); "There's No Such
Thing as a Free Patent" (arguing that utilitarian advocates of patents
have not met their burden of proof); "The Intellectual Property
Quagmire, or, The Perils of Libertarian Creationism" (speech, 2008);
"Yet Another Study Finds Patents Do Not Encourage Innovation"
(collection of studies concluding IP does not accomplish its stated
goals); "What are the Costs of the Patent System?" (estimate of the
costs of the patent system); "$30 Billion Taxfunded Innovation
Contracts: The 'Progressive-Libertarian' Solution" (disturbing
arguments to use taxes to reward innovators); "How To Improve the
Patent System" (forthcoming); "Intellectual Property and
Libertarianism," a speech delivered at Mises University 2009, Auburn
AL, July 30, 2009, adapted version forthcoming in Liberty magazine;
"What Libertarianism Is," Mises Daily (August 21, 2009).

Against Intellectual Monopoly, by economists Michele Boldrin and David
Levine (a superb demolition of various utilitarian and practical
arguments for IP).

Jeff Tucker's excellent commentaries on Boldrin and Levine's Against
Intellectual Monopoly.

Against Monopoly blog, run by Boldrin and Levine.

Intellectual Property Page, by Boldrin and Levine (various resources).

Mike Masnick's frequent and excellent anti-IP commentary on Techdirt.
Mike Masnick, "The Case For Patents Harming Innovation" (Techdirt).

"The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights," Roderick
T. Long, Formulations 3, no. 1 (Autumn 1995) — an excellent,
principled libertarian argument against IP.

"Contra Copyright," by Wendy McElroy, The Voluntaryist (June 1985) —
another excellent, principled libertarian attack on copyright.

"Copyright and Patent in Benjamin Tucker's Periodical Liberty," by
Wendy McElroy (from The Debates of Liberty: An Overview of
Individualist Anarchism, 1881–1908 [2003]). "Perhaps the essence of
Tucker's approach to intellectual property was best expressed when he
exclaimed: 'You want your invention to yourself? Then keep it to
yourself.'"

"Intellectual Property: A Non-Posnerian Law and Economics Approach,"
Hamline Law Review 12 (1989) and "Are Patents and Copyrights Morally
Justified? The Philosophy of Property Rights and Ideal Objects,"
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 13, no. 3 (Summer 1990), by Tom
Palmer (an excellent, principled libertarian case against IP; but see
recent comments here and here in which the author seems to be
retreating somewhat from his previously principled opposition to the
wealth-maximization arguments for patents).

"What Is Property," by Boudewijn Bouckaert, Harvard Journal of Law &
Public Policy 13, no. 3 (Summer 1990).

Sheldon Richman on Intellectual Property versus Liberty (2009).

Julio H. Cole's Patents and Copyrights: Do the Benefits Exceed the
Costs?, Journal of Libertarian Studies 15, no. 4 (Fall 2001) and
"Would the Absence of Copyright Laws Significantly Affect the Quality
and Quantity of Literary Output?" The Journal of Markets and Morality
4, no. 1 (Spring 2001).

Intellectual Property — A Libertarian Critique, by Kevin Carson (2009)
(a left-libertarian approach).
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in slacklessness trying not to.

George Plimpton
2010-11-17 09:46:24 EST
On 11/17/2010 5:44 AM, john.whine wrote:
> ...), am i still in posession
>> of the rights of non-commercial access to the faded music? - jw
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> Yes.
> ---------------------
>
>> and if so,
>> can i demand to be furnished with another copy of the recording on
>> perhaps some other media?
>
> ----------------
> Medium, not media.
>
> And the answer is "no". - gp
>
> -------------------------
>
> you sound like my gym teacher.
> and what makes you so sure.
> if the media is worn out and my access is denied,

Not "denied"; denial implies some agent or actor working to effect the
denial. There is no such agent. Your stuff simply wore out.


> because of this,
> then where have my rights to the message gone?

They eroded.

If I buy a wine glass, I have the right to use that glass. If while
trying to wash it, I drop the glass in the sink and it shatters, what
has happened to my right to use the glass? Has the right been "denied"
to me? Does the glass manufacturer or the retail store where I bought
it owe me a new glass?

Shit happens, pal. Sometimes shit happens to you. It doesn't always or
even often mean that there has been a denial of your rights.


--
...and that's just how it is.

George Plimpton
2010-11-17 10:03:45 EST
On 11/17/2010 6:34 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:34:56 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
> scrawled in blood:
>
>> The issue of copyright
>
> is all about communism.

It isn't, of course. *YOU* are all about communism, cocksucker. You
want to assert a right to the property value of others - value you did
nothing to create.

> The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide

There is no case.


--
...and that's just how it is.

George Plimpton
2010-11-17 10:16:11 EST
On 11/17/2010 6:34 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:34:56 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
> scrawled in blood:
>
>> The issue of copyright
>
> is all about communism. It's about

The fact you think /support/ for the idea of IP is "communism" shows
what a hopelessly clueless fuckwit you are. IP is about the
*protection* of a private property right. It is about the *prevention*
of unproductive sloths like you misappropriating the private property of
others. It is fundamentally *anti*-communist.

You are unbelievably fucking stupid.



--
...and that's just how it is.

Mitchell Holman
2010-11-17 13:31:20 EST
George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in
news:JcWdndoxkqVXbH7RnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@earthlink.com:

> On 11/17/2010 6:34 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:34:56 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
>> scrawled in blood:
>>
>>> The issue of copyright
>>
>> is all about communism. It's about
>
> The fact you think /support/ for the idea of IP is "communism" shows
> what a hopelessly clueless fuckwit you are. IP is about the
> *protection* of a private property right. It is about the *prevention*
> of unproductive sloths like you misappropriating the private property of
> others. It is fundamentally *anti*-communist.
>
> You are unbelievably fucking stupid.


Funny how many people come to that conclusion
after dealing with Don Kresch for awhile......





George Plimpton
2010-11-17 13:45:18 EST
Bitch Holman, fucking communist, bullshitted:

> George Plimpton<george@si.not> wrote in
> news:JcWdndoxkqVXbH7RnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>
>> On 11/17/2010 6:34 AM, Don Kresch wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:34:56 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not>
>>> scrawled in blood:
>>>
>>>> The issue of copyright
>>>
>>> is all about communism. It's about
>>
>> The fact you think /support/ for the idea of IP is "communism" shows
>> what a hopelessly clueless fuckwit you are. IP is about the
>> *protection* of a private property right. It is about the *prevention*
>> of unproductive sloths like you misappropriating the private property of
>> others. It is fundamentally *anti*-communist.
>>
>> You are unbelievably fucking stupid.
>
>
> Funny how many people come to that conclusion
> after dealing with Don Kresch for awhile......

They reach the same conclusion about you, Bitch.


--
...and that's just how it is.
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron