Opposition to Copyright Law

[Zachary Young]

Actually I'm not entirely sure about copying someone's name, because I do oppose fraud.

[jdobbin]

Actually I'm not entirely sure about copying someone's name, because I do oppose fraud.

Why not? It isn't violent. If your name is property, why can't someone copy it?

[Zachary Young]

Why not? It isn't violent. If your name is property, why can't someone copy it?

Because you are violating the property rights of the owner of the school by using their property without their permission...

[jdobbin]

If I download a movie off the interwebz, who has less of something when I do so? Who's property is no longer there? What act of aggression have I committed?

I regard it as theft and an aggressive act. It is why nearly every government in the world believes it is important to recognize intellectual property.

False. Indeed the patent process in many ways inhibits development, as the process itself is very expensive and can only be utilized by powerful special interests.

I think patent law needs to be reformed because but I support it in principle because it doesn't just protect powerful interests. If that was the case, the inventor of intermittent wipers would never have won his case.

Non profit organizations, for one. You suffer from a common fallacy regarding science. Science is not like building boats, where you can hire more people and train them to be boat builders and you will get more boats. You cannot just throw money at science, training 'scientists', giving them government grants and expecting to get a bunch more science. It doesn't work that way. The truth is, for every 100 "scientists" there are 99 frauds and 1 real scientist - because it's a very easy living to get a degree, call yourself a "scientist" and live off the taxpayer for 50 years pushing paper. The real scientists can as much NOT do science as the faux scientists CAN - that is to say it's impossible, as they are absorbed by their work, as unable to put it down as a true writer is able to stop writing. See 'The Nature of Scientific Revolutions' for a more detailed explanation of this.

I thought you said the free market would jump into fray. Non-profit organizations are usually tax exempt. If you are a free market person, you should be against this. This is a government subsidy.

Indeed if we eliminated all government subsidies for research and left it all to the free market we would see these frauds exposed for what they are, and the actual scientists would probably receive much greater funding as the market is great for determining what works and what doesn't - unlike the government (case in point, ethanol).

Yet you support non-government organizations, one of the biggest recipient of government aid in the form of exemptions in taxation.

Furthermore there are still large profits to be reaped simply from keeping your techniques a secret, the initial sales you get from a new product and support services from having all the extra knowledge that comes from creating a new product.

The lasts a week or so in the case of the iPhone.

And what is the point of a secret if someone can call themselves Apple and market the iPhone. You said this was okay.

Furthermore patents decrease innovation as well! A patent allows a company to 'rest on their laurels' where open competition could force them to develop newer and better products. By forbidding competition in a given product for ten or twenty years, other companies are ten or twenty years of experience less able to develop newer and better versions of it or other products that are developed building upon the new technology. And there is all the money wasted on the patent process and the lawsuits as well...

Patent has been exchanged in many cases for the time it is takes to get regulatory approval. Eliminate approval for new drugs by the FDA if you really believe in the free market.

Companies can profit off of things without patents - just as companies can profit off of things which are not patented. If you needed a patent to profit, the market in public domain books would not exist.

Sure companies can profit copying things. Why create them in the first place if someone can market it the same day without compensation?

Adam Smith also was a proponent of the ridiculous 'labour theory of value', which is so absurd even a small child should be able to disprove it. He is no God...

And your solutions to issues of copyright, patent and trademark would likely result in a grinding halt to invention and creativity. Your non-profit solution to research sounds like a leftist notion of supporting invention.

[jdobbin]

Because you are violating the property rights of the owner of the school by using their property without their permission...

I was talking about your name.

Edited April 20, 2008 by jdobbin

[Zachary Young]

I was talking about your name.

Oh my bad! Because, like I said, I am against fraud. I confess I have never been asked this specific question before (about copying mcdonalds name) and I will have to think about it. My gut says it's ok - because it does not violate the non aggression principle, but since it seems like fraud I'm not comfortable saying I think it's okay yet.

[jdobbin]

Oh my bad! Because, like I said, I am against fraud. I confess I have never been asked this specific question before (about copying mcdonalds name) and I will have to think about it. My gut says it's ok - because it does not violate the non aggression principle, but since it seems like fraud I'm not comfortable saying I think it's okay yet.

Why fraud? If you are against trademark, you should be able to use anyone's name, any time, any place. Sounds like you are recognizing that someone's name or symbol is property. If I want to call myself McDonald's and use the golden aches as my symbol, it should be okay...according to what you said about doing no harm.

[Zachary Young]

"I regard it as theft and an aggressive act. It is why nearly every government in the world believes it is important to recognize intellectual property."

Well that's like, your opinion man. As for the second sentence, if everyone government in the world told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

"I thought you said the free market would jump into fray. Non-profit organizations are usually tax exempt. If you are a free market person, you should be against this. This is a government subsidy."

This makes no sense - but I think EVERYONE should be tax exempt, and if you were a free market person (no idea if you are or not) you would to. The government NOT stealing from someone is not a subsidy.

"Yet you support non-government organizations, one of the biggest recipient of government aid in the form of exemptions in taxation.

The lasts a week or so in the case of the iPhone."

Exemption from taxation is not government aid - but I certainly oppose government subsidies (actual subsidies, not these phantom subsidies you refer to). If I decide not to steal your car this week, will that be me giving you a car?

"And what is the point of a secret if someone can call themselves Apple and market the iPhone. You said this was okay."

Actually, I initially said this was ok, and then before anyone said anything I clarified saying "I'm not sure if this is ok, because I'm against fraud". This is still my stance.

"Patent has been exchanged in many cases for the time it is takes to get regulatory approval. Eliminate approval for new drugs by the FDA if you really believe in the free market."

I'm more for eliminating the FDA.

"Sure companies can profit copying things. Why create them in the first place if someone can market it the same day without compensation?"

Objection your honour! Question has already been asked and answered.

"And your solutions to issues of copyright, patent and trademark would likely result in a grinding halt to invention and creativity."

Source?

"Your non-profit solution to research sounds like a leftist notion of supporting invention."

Fail... a leftist solution for supporting invention would be 'have the government do it' or 'have the government provide monopolies to companies that do it' - oh hey that's your position!

[Zachary Young]

"Why fraud?"

In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain.

source : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

seems like it fits.

"If you are against trademark, you should be able to use anyone's name, any time, any place."

Which is why I made the caveat that I am not sure if copying someone's name / trademark is ok.

"Sounds like you are recognizing that someone's name or symbol is property. If I want to call myself McDonald's and use the golden aches as my symbol, it should be okay...according to what you said about doing no harm."

You keep going on about this... do you think if you say the same thing five times it will help me resolve the contradiction between the fact that misrepresenting yourself is fraudulent but doesn't violate the non-aggression principle? It won't...

[jdobbin]

You keep going on about this... do you think if you say the same thing five times it will help me resolve the contradiction between the fact that misrepresenting yourself is fraudulent but doesn't violate the non-aggression principle? It won't...

I'm sure it won't.

Edited April 20, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Well that's like, your opinion man. As for the second sentence, if everyone government in the world told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

Actually, it's the law. Jumping off the cliff would your experimental solution of eliminating copyright and patents. It soon became obvious to you what the problem of eliminating trademark would be. It would lead to consumer and identity fraud. I'm sure that if your copyright and patent solution became law, you would see the problems of that too but then it would be too late.

I have no problems of improvements to copyright and patent protection but there isn't anything you've said to convince me that if someone commits to a lifetime of writing that their work should instantly be in the public domain. There is also nothing you've said to indicate to that someone like a writer would benefit from someone else publishing their work and being free to change that work, remove who actually wrote it and to not compensate the the writer in any, way, shape or form.

I can debate this with someone who recognizes that intellectual work is property but not with someone who doesn't. It is like debating someone who believes that September 11 was planned and carried out by Bush. The debate proves ultimately fruitless.

Your ideas might resonate with libertarians in Canada. I don't see them as firing up mainstream politics.

Edited April 20, 2008 by jdobbin

[August1991]

Even Adam Smith knew there was limits in the free market. If there wasn't, we'd still have slavery.

Defining property rights is hardly a limit on free markets. Without property rights, the market mechanism doesn't work at all.

"Why do you support stealing?"

If I download a movie off the interwebz, who has less of something when I do so? Who's property is no longer there? What act of aggression have I committed?

That's silly and naive. If anyone could steal a movie from the Internet, then why would anyone go to the trouble of producing one? And a world without movies would be a poorer place.

Ultimately, we define property rights because they make the world a better place.

[jdobbin]

Defining property rights is hardly a limit on free markets. Without property rights, the market mechanism doesn't work at all.

That wasn't the argument I was making. I was supporting intellectual property rights if you look at the thread.

[Zachary Young]

"If anyone could steal a movie from the Internet, then why would anyone go to the trouble of producing one?"

The ability to pirate movies has been around - and in use - since videos began. Despite this, movies have been made in an increased number practically every year. In reality this is just really, really good marketing. It's incredible advertising that costs them nothing.

[August1991]

The ability to pirate movies has been around - and in use - since videos began. Despite this, movies have been made in an increased number practically every year. In reality this is just really, really good marketing. It's incredible advertising that costs them nothing.

I'm sorry but that post is as stupid as saying "Even though thieves steal cars, GM still makes them and people buy them". Frankly, as a car buyer, I prefer living in a place where car theft is not a problem rather than living in a place where it is. (And believe me, I've lived in both types of places.)

Zachary, if you don't know what a property right is, or how complex its definition can be, then I strongly suggest that you go back to your books or websites and learn a bit more.

That wasn't the argument I was making. I was supporting intellectual property rights if you look at the thread.

Dobbin, I know that. But you somehow implied that property rights were a limit or constraint on free markets when in fact free markets require and give rise to property rights. I'll add for Zachary's benefit that unfortunately, the nature of free markets as we understand them now doesn't make a definition of property rights always clear.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, I know that. But you somehow implied that property rights were a limit or constraint on free markets when in fact free markets require and give rise to property rights.

I was referring to the free market in general which Adam Smith admitted needed rules and limits to serve the interests of the system. I suppose what we are seeing in this debate is a conflict between the libertarian socialism and the system we use now (although even the system Zachary suggests goes beyond that). The rules and limits between those two systems of property rights are like night and day.

For property rights to work properly, common rules and limits must be in place that are accepted by all. If they aren't, the free market fails.

Usufruct is an ancient form of property rights that was related more to land use than on invention and creation. I suppose it makes sense to those who steal satellite signals.

[Zachary Young]

"I'm sorry but that post is as stupid as saying "Even though thieves steal cars, GM still makes them and people buy them". Frankly, as a car buyer, I prefer living in a place where car theft is not a problem rather than living in a place where it is. (And believe me, I've lived in both types of places.)

Zachary, if you don't know what a property right is, or how complex its definition can be, then I strongly suggest that you go back to your books or websites and learn a bit more."

Ad-hom, u gg'd yourself.

[Zachary Young]

"I suppose what we are seeing in this debate is a conflict between the libertarian socialism and the system we use now (although even the system Zachary suggests goes beyond that)."

No, we're seeing the conflict between state capitalism and actual capitalism. Libertarian socialists don't believe in property, I don't believe in state mandated monopolies. That's all the state is itself - a monopoly, which is why it fails, which is why the government is always working against the interest of the people and inefficiently at that.

[jdobbin]

No, we're seeing the conflict between state capitalism and actual capitalism. Libertarian socialists don't believe in property, I don't believe in state mandated monopolies. That's all the state is itself - a monopoly, which is why it fails, which is why the government is always working against the interest of the people and inefficiently at that.

Libertarian socialists do believe in property.

As I said, your philosophy on the matter is a little all over the place. The Nobel Prize winning economist Edmund S. Phelps who is associated with actual capitalism doesn't say intellectual property rights are a monopoly. He called them essential.

In any event, it isn't something I am not going to continue to debate. I'm not likely to convince you on the subject anymore than you will convince me.

It seems to me that you are banging your head against the wall though. Perhaps you should run for office and see if you can can sell your idea to the general public.

[jdobbin]

The latest on the talks on copyright.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.h...4f-47f6fc96ce5e

The federal government is secretly negotiating an agreement to revamp international copyright laws which could make the information on Canadian iPods, laptop computers or other personal electronic devices illegal and greatly increase the difficulty of travelling with such devices.

The deal could also impose strict regulations on Internet service providers, forcing those companies to hand over customer information without a court order.

Without a court order?

[Bryan]

I'm sorry but that post is as stupid as saying "Even though thieves steal cars, GM still makes them and people buy them". Frankly, as a car buyer, I prefer living in a place where car theft is not a problem rather than living in a place where it is.

So how does someone go about "stealing" the car I bought, while still leaving the car in my garage so that we both have it at the same time in two different places?

[Remiel]

That ACTA stuff is pretty sinister sounding... Why the hell is the government even considering signing a treaty like that? I could of sworn their job was to protect Canadians, not turn us all into criminals.

[Fortunata]

Without a court order?

Just more of how our "new" government operates for the people.

[August1991]

So how does someone go about "stealing" the car I bought, while still leaving the car in my garage so that we both have it at the same time in two different places?

Four people can travel comfortably in a car, is that what you mean?

The simple fact is that if Hollywood producers don't receive revenue for their work, they won't make Hollywood movies. One reason the US has a successful economy is because it protects property rights including intellectual property rights.

For property rights to work properly, common rules and limits must be in place that are accepted by all. If they aren't, the free market fails.

You seem to have this backwards. In general, markets fail precisely when there are no property rights. The "rule of law" amounts to property law and contract law. When two people can't sign an enforceable contract (often because ownership of the property being transacted is not clear) then markets fail. That is, the deal falls through. Edited June 7, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

You seem to have this backwards. In general, markets fail precisely when there are no property rights.

Think that is what is what I was saying.