Pages: [1] 2 3 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Copying eBooks & Other Intellectual Property (Read 6793 times)
|
Alex Libman
Guest
|
----- This thread is split from the discussion at: http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=24162.0---- Pirates intercept your ship in open ocean, hold you at gunpoint, loot, pillage, rape, abduct / enslave, and sometimes kill. I copy 1's and 0's over the Internets, and I have a documented history of voluntarily contributing hundreds / thousands of dollars to producers of intellectual content (or anti-intellectual content, as tragically turned out to be the case with Free Talk Live). See a difference? Bringing this discussion closer to the thread's topic - the fallacy of a "positive right" to "intellectual property" enforcement, along with other forums of censorship, will have a significant impact on any movements toward "secessionism" / greater intergovernmental competition. All normal laws have limitations of distance - I can't snatch a purse in Boston if I never left my seastead (or my "Galt's Gulch" in the orbit of Alpha Centauri), and the evolution of more rational standards of proving consent would make it more difficult to enter into an enforceable contract with just 1's and 0's as evidence, but I can be accused of violating a software license or a patent or of defamation at the speed of light! Along with environmental nuttery that tries to turn local failures to enforce externality liabilities into a universal crisis, the claim of universal "IP Rights" is the perfect excuse to impose a universal government from which there is no escape! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 04:19:32 am by B.D. Ross »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
I appreciate that you would give him money for it, but if you didn't I don't see why that wouldn't be like stealing it... even if it is in 1's and 0's. Simple answer, so as not to go too far off-topic: because he would still have it. Stealing something involves depriving its owner of that thing. If you copy data, the owner still has the original, and may still enjoy it. If you deleted his original copy, after making yours, that would be stealing, because he would be deprived of the thing in question. I'd suggest starting a separate thread in the political discussion forum, if you want to go into more detail. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Second step: Recall all federal representatives, and don't replace them.
You can get around any requirement to have them, by constantly having the elections "too close to call" and various legal challenges.
The federal government says that federal elected individuals are not subject to state recall efforts. However, I'm not aware of any prohibition that prevents the Secretary of State from refusing ballot access to someone who refuses to resign from office. I wasn't specifically talking about a Recall Election ... though I was unaware of that bit o' information. I was talking more in terms of either ordering them back home, or unelecting them at the next election in favor of someone who refuses to take the federal oath. While you probably couldn't order them home, either ... you could enforce laws that require residency for elected officials.  They all have residency in their districts. NH can go without representation... that doesn't change the authorization. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Walt
|
They all have residency in their districts. NH can go without representation... that doesn't change the authorization.
What I meant is ... many representatives have an "official residence" in their district, but don't actually live there. For example, an OR representative owns a house in OR for "residency" requirements ... but actually lives in NYC. If you tighten up the residency laws, to require actually living there ... quite a few representatives would no longer qualify as residents of the states they represent. Personally, even without secession, I think that's a good idea. But that's because I'm on the west coast, and we probably have more non-resident "representatives" than eastern states. And with modern communication technology, it's not like they HAVE to be in Washington DC. I mean, sure, it makes it easier for the lobbyists - having all the representatives in one location. (but that's an entirely separate discussion) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
I appreciate that you would give him money for it, but if you didn't I don't see why that wouldn't be like stealing it... even if it is in 1's and 0's. Simple answer, so as not to go too far off-topic: because he would still have it. Stealing something involves depriving its owner of that thing. If you copy data, the owner still has the original, and may still enjoy it. If you deleted his original copy, after making yours, that would be stealing, because he would be deprived of the thing in question. I'd suggest starting a separate thread in the political discussion forum, if you want to go into more detail. Joe When you create Intellectual Property you own the exclusive right to distribute it. I think we would all agree on that. Example, if I make up a story I can decide whether to tell it to you or not. If you break into my computer and read the story, then you've stolen something from me. (Suppose it was some story that a magazine would pay $100K for and you post it on the Internet and now I can't sell it; you've deprived me of $100K.) The stickier question is when I tell the story to John Doe with the understanding that he's not allowed to tell anyone else. But he tells you anyway. However, you understand that I didn't want him to tell you. Should you be restricted from telling anyone else even though you have no contract with me? I think so. Each time you tell someone else, you're depriving me of the opportunity of selling that story to them. You may disagree, but I think you should at least recognize the right of distribution as something of value. The question is whether it's my property. I think it is (or should be) since I created the opportunity to distribute when I created the story. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
Each time you tell someone else, you're depriving me of the opportunity of selling that story to them. You may disagree, but I think you should at least recognize the right of distribution as something of value. The question is whether it's my property. I think it is (or should be) since I created the opportunity to distribute when I created the story. Simply solution...if you think it is that valuable why would you not include contractually obligating someone to keep it a secret? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
Each time you tell someone else, you're depriving me of the opportunity of selling that story to them. You may disagree, but I think you should at least recognize the right of distribution as something of value. The question is whether it's my property. I think it is (or should be) since I created the opportunity to distribute when I created the story. Simply solution...if you think it is that valuable why would you not include contractually obligating someone to keep it a secret? Generally people do, especially with things like valuable exclusive stories. But mainstream music CD's also include restrictions. Now, I wouldn't call them valid contracts, since they're just printed on the package somewhere, but I have to admit that the cost of executing a valid contract is prohibitive compared to the cost of the CD. But like I said, the real question is in regards to people I don't have a contract with. If it goes A->B->C->D, I don't have a contract with C. I could go after B, but that may not be feasible. IMO, it makes more sense (and is more practical) to say I own the right to distribution my intellectual creation. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Alex Libman
Guest
|
Dear B.D. Ross, I appreciate thread splitting as a solution to natural topic drift, but the mod doing it should provide more of an explanation and link to the original thread. Without it, an imperfectly-astute reader would think that I've started this thread, which is a mischaracterization... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
Please be patient while heavy lifting is in progress.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 04:18:22 am by B.D. Ross »
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
When you create Intellectual Property you own the exclusive right to distribute it. I think we would all agree on that. No, "we" wouldn't. The big issue being that there is no such thing as "intellectual property." Ideas aren't property. Example, if I make up a story I can decide whether to tell it to you or not. If you break into my computer and read the story, then you've stolen something from me. No, if I were to do that, I would be a trespasser (breaking into your computer), not a thief. The stickier question is when I tell the story to John Doe with the understanding that he's not allowed to tell anyone else. But he tells you anyway. However, you understand that I didn't want him to tell you. Should you be restricted from telling anyone else even though you have no contract with me? I think so. If I have no contract with you, you have no claim upon me. How about this: if you marry someone who has an identical twin, does the fact that your spouse has agreed to have sex with you, mean that you can demand sex from the twin sibling? They're two different people, but genetically, they're copies, so what applies to one copy should apply to another copy, regardless of the fact that they're two different people, right? Sorry, no. What applies to one person and one copy, through the contract you agreed-to, does not automatically apply to a separate person, even if the separate person holds a copy. Each time you tell someone else, you're depriving me of the opportunity of selling that story to them. You may disagree, but I think you should at least recognize the right of distribution as something of value. The same would apply if I tell them that I read it, and it was lousy. Do you have a "right" to demand that no one give your story bad reviews, because it would "deprive" you of opportunities to sell it? If I build knives, and someone else comes out with a knife that stays sharp longer, holds a sharper edge, and has a tool kit hidden inside the handle, for 10% less than I charge, do I have a "right" to demand that he refrain from selling them, because he's interfering with my "opportunity" to sell my product? Just because something is valuable to you, does not make it a right. Being able to tell others they aren't allowed to compete with me, such that I could charge more and provide less, would certainly be valuable to me, but I have no right to make such demands. The question is whether it's my property. I think it is (or should be) since I created the opportunity to distribute when I created the story. It's not whether it's your property. It's whether it's property, at all. And it isn't property of any sort... yours, mine, or anyone else's. You can own a book, or a hard drive, or whatnot, but if you allow a copy to get out there, and someone else makes a copy of that copy, you still possess the unaltered physical object that you own. The fact that a copy exists does not in any way deprive you of the free use of your original. Maybe it will deprive you of the ability to sell copies, or maybe it will cause others to show up and donate money to get you to create more (the latter is usually true, based upon the experience of authors who have given their works away, FYI), but that's not really relevant; no one is obligated to provide you with opportunities, or even refrain from interfering with them. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Please be patient while heavy lifting is in progress. Uh, replies #2 and #3 in this thread should be in the "representation" thread, and reply #1 in the "representation" thread should be in this one... Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
Alex Libman
Guest
|
When you create Intellectual Property you own the exclusive right to distribute it. I think we would all agree on that. Example, if I make up a story I can decide whether to tell it to you or not. If you break into my computer and read the story, then you've stolen something from me. (Suppose it was some story that a magazine would pay $100K for and you post it on the Internet and now I can't sell it; you've deprived me of $100K.) Aside from the nitpicks already offered by MaineShark, I disagree with is the notion that anyone hacking your computer would be liable to pay you whatever damages you claim your secret was worth. The Internet is a bunch of computers configured to communicate with each-other, and it is your responsibility to set yours up in a way that keeps your secrets secret. Hacking is a form of free speech, and if you don't want to listen to a hacker's packets then you should keep your ports closed or properly secured. The stickier question is when I tell the story to John Doe with the understanding that he's not allowed to tell anyone else. But he tells you anyway. However, you understand that I didn't want him to tell you. Should you be restricted from telling anyone else even though you have no contract with me? I think so. Your "understanding" in this scenario is with John Doe. You can require him to sign a contract before telling him the Story, in which case you can be entitled to his "pound of flesh", but no one else's. What I describe here is Natural Law, that is universal law based on pure reason, but that doesn't tell you the whole story. It is very likely that in a free society the vast majority of people will become entangled in a mesh of voluntary contracts that establish a certain degree of obligation to recognize IP. If such mutual obligations constitute a competitive advantage for an institution (ex. company, charter city, university, church, etc), then they would proliferate enough to profit authors proportionally to their achievement - without the nasty side-effects of a censorship monopoly. A universal "Non-Aggression Principle" is essential to the existence of civilized society, but a universal "Non-Copying Principle" would do a lot more harm than good! Each time you tell someone else, you're depriving me of the opportunity of selling that story to them. You may disagree, but I think you should at least recognize the right of distribution as something of value. The question is whether it's my property. I think it is (or should be) since I created the opportunity to distribute when I created the story. See the lemonade stand example in one of my e-mails to L. Neil Smith.No one can deprive you of the opportunity to prove that you created that story (unless of course you make a humongous mistake, like I did when I trusted Ian Freeman (and Google, etc)). An author's privilege is attribution, not a censorship monopoly! As civilization advances further, the relative cost of living will continue to decline, and it will become ever-easier for content creators to pull their material weight without resorting to violent extortion. As I keep saying, there's more to capitalism than just material assets. There are some things money can't buy: love, reputation, waivers from the laws of physics, and the impressiveness of one's resume. [...] Ideas aren't property. [...] |
Ideas are attributes of property, like your head, a piece of paper, a digital storage device, or a live feed. They can be provided as a product or a service. Their value is determined by the willingness of other people to pay for those ideas (or be recognized as their patron, or sit through commercials while listening to them, etc). Some ideas can be worth as much as a ton of platinum, while others as much as a ton of water during a rainstorm. Of course platinum is only valuable as long as it is rare, and water would be very valuable to someone dying of thirst - supply and demand. The unique quality of ideas is that once they're no longer secret, their supply becomes pretty much infinite. Someone sharing a copy of your idea online isn't "stealing" any more than someone digging for platinum! Let's hope that someday soon (after we kill all commies!) humanity will achieve a state of civilization where we have a super-abundance of energy by directly harnessing the power of stars, a super-abundance of building material from asteroid mining, a super-abundance of labor from robots and AI, and StarTrek-style replicators / holodecks / etc. Fulfilling human material needs would then be as cheap as downloading a file on a computer. But the human thirst for achievement and recognition will remain. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 12:54:41 pm by Alex Libman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
Aside from the nitpicks already offered by MaineShark, I disagree with is the notion that anyone hacking your computer would be liable to pay you whatever damages you claim your secret was worth. The Internet is a bunch of computers configured to communicate with each-other, and it is your responsibility to set yours up in a way that keeps your secrets secret. Hacking is a form of free speech, and if you don't want to listen to a hacker's packets then you should keep your ports closed or properly secured. That's an interesting take. I would agree, for example, that if you log into an anonymous ftp site and grab a file that someone didn't intend to put there, that you haven't done anything wrong. But suppose you guess a username and password for a server somewhere. You SSH into that server and it tells you something along the lines of " ... expressly authorized users only; everyone else go away." Is it still a free speech issue if you continue to pry around? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ggeezz
|
If I have no contract with you, you have no claim upon me.
How about this: if you marry someone who has an identical twin, does the fact that your spouse has agreed to have sex with you, mean that you can demand sex from the twin sibling? They're two different people, but genetically, they're copies, so what applies to one copy should apply to another copy, regardless of the fact that they're two different people, right?
Sorry, no. What applies to one person and one copy, through the contract you agreed-to, does not automatically apply to a separate person, even if the separate person holds a copy.
To be clear, I'm not saying that an author has ownership of the copies themselves. I'm saying that right of distribution should be considered a form of property. No, "we" wouldn't.
The big issue being that there is no such thing as "intellectual property." Ideas aren't property.
I'm still not clear on why you think ideas can't be property. Are you saying only physical things can be property? If so, why choose that arbitrary distinction? IMO, ownership of property flows from self ownership. You own your self, therefore you own the things you produce with your labor. That principle doesn't depend on the thing being produced being a physical object. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
To be clear, I'm not saying that an author has ownership of the copies themselves. I'm saying that right of distribution should be considered a form of property. Rights aren't property. They're rights (and, in most cases, deal with how you may use your property, including your body). You have a right to distribute copies of things you create. You do not have a right to prevent others from distributing copies of things you create. I'm still not clear on why you think ideas can't be property. Are you saying only physical things can be property? If so, why choose that arbitrary distinction? You cannot be deprived of an idea, hence it is not property. IMO, ownership of property flows from self ownership. You own your self, therefore you own the things you produce with your labor. That principle doesn't depend on the thing being produced being a physical object. Even if we were to postulate that you own some idea you create (rather than the actual situation, where you own the physical object that stores that idea - book, hard drive, brain, whatever), that still would not create the situation where you own others' copies of the same idea. If you invent a widget, you have that idea, and if I look at yours, then build my own widget, you still have that idea; I have not deprived you of it. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
