Copyright Infringement, Intellectual Property and Pirating

You need permission to do covers.

But no, that wasn't the argument I was making. I mean britney spears actual song, with her singing.

 

That's our difference of opinion. I believe you are wrong, and you continue to validate that by not responding to my assertion that scarcity is a key component of property.

Wrong. People produce ebooks for cross marketing. People would still produce ebooks if there was no IP support from ISPs. Mises produces their for sale printed material in free ebooks to drive sales. Your knowledge of the commercial sphere is very simplistic and limited.

The founding fathers, including one of my favs, TJ, kept slaves even though he knew slavery was wrong. They were men. You won't catch me arguing for or against God. I'm agnostic.

You just outed yourself again. I am not arguing from pragmatism, consequentialism etc. I am a rationalist. It has nothing to do with the market. It has to do with understanding what property is and is not.

Law is regulation. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

I did argue the point. Brittney Spears probably doesn't write any of her music, produce any of her albums or videos and is best known for marrying an idiot, having a hard body back in the day, not wearing panties in public and shaving her head. Her music is not what sells. Her celebrity status and sexuality is. IP is irrelevant to her. No one wants to copy her crap songs, there is no money, skill or honor in it.

You'd be surprised. What men want, is what women buy. Again, do you actually engage in any capitalistic activity, or is your role to be a blog and forum gadfly?

 

IP is property.

I think I finally get why objectivists, so similar to libertarians, so viciously hate them. It's this tone. It's funny how you can define the motives for every single person that writes an ebook.

Whatever point you're arguing, it's not based in reality.

Property rights are not regulation.

Nah ahh ahh. You're trying to weasel yourself out of the point. Is it really necessary for me to make announce another musician or are you just going to continue to weasel out of it. How about Hanson or Michael Jackson or the Beatles? stop weasling and start answering.

Run weasel run.

Britney Spears main demographic is young girls, so unless they're huge lesbians, I don't see your point about "sex". It's irrelevant anyway. People don't buy britney spears music to listen to her "sexyness".

 

I don't believe it is. And I can play this game until Armageddon, so by all means continue.

Objectivism is a cult of narcissism and Rand worship. It has little in common with libertarianism, not that you are a valid example of an Objectivist either. I think you're just trying to identify with an ideology, but you're clearly not well versed on Rand's anti-state perspectives.

As for defining motives, didn't you try to define motives for everyone who ever had an idea, by saying they only do it because there is IP protection? I mean, on top of being an incredibly stupid idea, do you really believe that no one thinks in Papa New Guinea because their IP laws aren't up to snuff?

Snore.

IP, patent and copyright law is. Without the law, there would be no IP rights. And law is, by definition, regulation.

No, I'm not trying to weasel out of it. Unlike you, I have actually recorded music. You used a bad example. Spears does not write her own music, she is an empty headed bimbo whose only talent lies in shaking her ass for a living.

Now if you had said Alicia Keys, that would have been different. You wrote (Edited)

No, I don't think people have a "right". You're not understanding anything I am writing, which makes me wonder why you continue to respond.

I don't think anyone has a "right" to own it, because I don't think it is property. If it was, Keys would be able to control it's scarcity, because it would be unique and tangible. But it is neither, because anyone can learn the lyrics and sing the songs. And anyone can record that. And anyone can try to market it.

Regardless of what you or I think, that is REALITY.

Like your ridiculous notion of suing everyone, the law cannot enforce IP effectively. IT IS NOT REAL PROPERTY!

 

Yeah, I hear this a lot from Guerilla, along with an accusation of slander, and wildly inappropriate remarks that I am mentally ill, and mentally deranged, and suffering from psychosis, and paranoia, and narcissism. Trouble is:

Compare:

********

Compare:

********

Compare:

I've misrepresented nothing, and saying so trips an already severely taxed bullshit meter into overdrive, in my opinion.

Korr, I've been interested in your posts on this thread, if I don't agree with all of your conclusions. I previously asked three basic questions, and I'd appreciate a reply. They are contained above, my "misrepresentations" of Guerilla's positions.

 

Beautiful. Now my examples and hypotheticals are back as further attempts at conflating discussion with my business tactics...

Regale us with another story about guerilla the warez dealer or my thoughts on communal ownership. Oh wait, you don't lie, you just don't have any proof of what you post...

No wonder the BS meter is taxed! It's running 24/7 in this thread!

 

Yes, yes, I know. "Context." "Hypotheticals." You don't actually do these things, god forbid - you just think it is groovy to do these things. Now, as I've crossed the line, clearly, I think it's about time to change colors, go to oversized text, and use all caps with words like Slander! Lies! Mental Illness!..and so forth, again.

Since these are your words, and since I asked if the examples you provided are examples of theft, pretty hard, on both scores, to be a lie, since a lie is both false, and a statement.

At 18+ posts per day, I would have said your involvement was about 21/7 - but I do forget your lurking time. Apologies.

All above; or, you can just allow your words to be evaluated by someone other than myself, Guerilla. Unless you disown them, in which case my issue with what I feel is your attempt to justify theft is dropped.

 

I'm not at home, milking it on the computer with my bad back, posting on a webmaster forum, calling actual webmasters who make a living at it, software thieves.

The BS Meter runneth over!

Like I wrote, I make a living online, and a very good one thank you. Which makes your charges of thievery all that much more ridiculous.

How many websites do you have again?

You call it theft. I have maintained, and you are incapable apparently of grasping it, that IP is not property. If there was theft, then I would call it such. But the laws, which should be followed, are ridiculous and enforceable. And that argument of merit, no one has credibly disputed (unless you count Supper acting like a 5 year old with his Neener Neener comebacks).

I see you carefully evaded the question on drugs. Should a drug patent in America stop someone in Japan from manufacturing a drug to provide for a patient?

Or better yet, should a domestic patent stop a Dr. in Alaska from doing the same? Is there any difference?

If IP is property, then why does it expire? Why is it transferable? Why can it be replicated without anyone knowing it was (sic) "stolen"?

I'm sure we'll see another personal attack reply, because actually discussing IP in good faith isn't what participation in this thread is about. It's about attacking me for the false charge of condoning theft, which I have clearly, and explicitly rejected, numerous times in this thread.

BS meter overload!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yes, yes, all good, and known.

It comes down to:

It has never been misunderstood, Guerilla, your view that IP isn't property, by its lack of rival (presumably) and scarcity.

CLUE: I, uh, don't care. I have provided an alternative view, which is that our species, peculiar for conscious thought, measures all kinds of things by constructions we find useful - with one of the most useful, to me, being the concept of production. What does a person produce, that is beneficial to him or herself, and others? What spurs progress?

Now, given your definition, a very, very convenient thing to do: a kind of nifty tautology to justify theft.

1. "I have no issue with taking the work of others, at will, without their permission, and to use it and disseminate it, equally at will."

2. "IP isn't property."

3. "Therefore, it isn't theft to take the work of others, at will, without their permission, and to use it and disseminate it, equally at will, because their work isn't their property."

Let's try another nifty one:

1. "Guerilla claims he's a webmaster."

2. "Guerilla believes he owns nothing of the content, script, etc., from his websites, if they exist."

3. "Guerilla should therefore have no issue with posting his websites on this forum, for all of us to 'share.' "

This thread would be fine, man, thanks.

And because I'm in the mood, another kind of pithy repeat:

It's that "less" thing that well, hell, it just kinda' bums me out - you see, to do it without permission just feels kinda "coercive," n' stuff.

 

Hmm, still no answer on the drug question. I guess I will have to keep asking it.

Should a drug patent in America stop someone in Japan from manufacturing a drug to provide for a patient?

Or better yet, should a domestic patent stop a Dr. in Alaska from doing the same? Is there any difference?

Might as well ask the other dodged points, we don't want to overwork the BS meter.

If IP is property, then why does it expire? Why is it transferable? Why can it be replicated without anyone knowing it was (sic) "stolen"?

If I wasn't so damn good looking, I would be so proud of being prescient.

Yup, more BS, less substance.

 

Because the answer should be obvious. As it's not, well, here comes the spoonfeed:

Yes, if Japan expects creators from other nations to also honor the creations of Japanese inventors. The concept of international patent treaties is for this very reason. There is also a move to harmonize international patent processes, again, for mutual benefit. These are called "reasonable things to do."

Well, yes, there is a difference, because treaties between nations are not the same thing, in our current world system, as domestic laws. But, yes, if a drug costs money to develop, bring it through trial, and into final fruition, I believe the creator, whoever that is, has a right to reward from the effort and outlay. Although I don't preach from a LRC playbook, and as I said to Gworld, I have a view that the different needs, as they show up in the real world, should be addressed. Part of why I'm all for an expiry to patents. And so, for a period of 7-10 years, the little old country doctor in Alaska needs to either pay to use what has been patented, or, better yet, come up with his own idea (a concept I realize is foreign to you) and work to develop something new.

<<Sigh.>> See my post to Gworld, above, regarding expiry, for one example. As well, I have said it is in the notion of production that I see much of the value of patents, not in an abstract and constructed definition of "property," as you hold dear (see "theft" tautology above). Patents protect folks, so they not only work to do useful things, but do not feel any "chilling effect" when it comes to publically bringing them out. Expirations provide further incentive to develop and improve, based on those public disclosures. This is what happens in the real world - the world between your "screw the creator - they own nothing!" and "screw everyone who didn't do this, for all time." This is also progress.

Because it is owned by someone. Did you think owning something should mean you can't transfer it? Are you a central planning statist?

It's also a great way to actually bring something to market, in cases where a creator has the brains to come up with something, but lacks the means or other ability to bring it fully out. In fact, it's a great, voluntary arrangement. I would have thought this was also obvious. In other words, uh,

(from the 10/20/05 issue).

Because it is intangible - it isn't a "clump" of "stuff." Did you think IP had mass?

(Note: You overuse (sic), by the way, and it doesn't make you look smarter. Putting "stolen" in quotes informs the reader you do not state "stolen" as fact, and your much-beloved (sic) is a redundancy. It is also used after, not before, the "offending" word - "sic" indicating the preceding word is incorrect, but quoted verbatim.).

Well, you have said you have lived alone your entire adult life, so if what you see in the mirror floats your boat, all the more power to you.

As to being prescient, I'd concentrate on being present, first. In other words,

Should be on your morning mirror, I'd say, along with the self-adulation. Your oversized and wild-colored text thing is kind of catchy, too, so feel free to use it, at will. My treat.

*******

Now, little buddy, I have said it: your philosophy as stated here leads me to conclude you believe theft is an acceptable thing to do to the honest work of others.

I've put some questions to the community, which I'd like answered. So I'm going to pose them again, and then let you do whatever it is you do by your lonesome, while online apparently 21 (plus lurking)/7:

 

The courts have upheld the rights of angry songwriters in these types of cases, but that isn't how its really done in the industry.

Yet sampling of other actual recordings is an established convention in making new songs. Maybe just a drum beat or lead riff, maybe the whole chorus or section of the verse played as a contrast or accompaniment. Legally of course, 1 band out of 100 that gets sampled decides to sue somebody.

I would just say in music, the law is more strict about IP than the industry's typical conventions.

 

i like that ad where the kid steals a candy from the store and the dad asks him why he stole the candy? the kid says, "but dad, you steal sattelite signal."

 

You've been misled.

1. Even if I disagree with the law, I always advise following it.

2. It is never acceptable to steal. I define stealing as the confiscation by stealth or force of another's property.

3. I do not believe your examples prove out theft of property, because as defined here, IP is merely a construct of law, like the age of consent, or blood alcohol limit, or age of retirement. It is a completely arbitrary notion, that only exists in law books, and cannot exist without it.​

We've had these discussions before about victimless crimes. This is a propertyless crime. The creator never loses his property. He may not have control of copies of his property, anymore than if I built a house to look like yours, it would not revert to your ownership for lack of originality on my part.

To prove a loss, I suppose one might try to make a case for dilution of the value of an idea. But then some ideas are bad, some ideas are good. Some dilutions cause increases in the power of the idea, and some might cause decreases. It's not enough to say, that all dilutions of "idea ownership" consistently result in "X". It's simply not true.

Regulations which are not consistent, aren't any sort of natural, or self-evident law. Contrast this with physical property, and it is very evident when property is diluted in ownership. Instead of copying my house, you take away my front door and put it on your new abode. Now there is a meaningful, measurable and correctable loss of property.

But going to Home Depot to purchase a door identical to mine, as your identical house is built, this isn't a theft of an idea or intellectual property.

Some will say, oh but the lost profits! What lost profits? How can one establish loss for something that is not guaranteed, cannot be measured and may not even have occurred?

Again, I will repeat, IP is not property. Stealing is wrong, and disobeying the law is ill-advised. But just as so many of our laws are contradictory to nature and man, so too are the laws that govern IP.

 

Stealing .

Government steals all the money we make through hard work and they call it "taxes". We work half a year to pay the government.

Stick to open source software and freeware.

The root of all evil is the lack of money. If everyone had more money, maybe they would actually buy more things.

P.S I think "stealing" from britney spears is acceptable. I am going to download her songs and rip her off. I may even listen to some.

 

Guerilla, I realize you are attempting to say that given these laws, you do not advocate breaking them; that you seek a change in the laws, so that you may take the work of others who actually create something, without hazard of penalty.

Outside of the fact you did inquire about the availability of a warez site on a thread devoted to its sale, I cannot know what you do, and don't do, in actuality. I have asked you to provide links to the websites you claim to master, but so far you have been unwilling to provide them on this forum.

I only know what you advocate on a consistent basis, and that advocacy is theft, in my opinion. What I actually said was:

And I stand by this. You're merely repeating your tautology: IP isn't property, therefore, to take it and use it at will without permission isn't theft. If you accept the notion that IP is not property, and creations do no belong to the people who create them, then all else among your various arguments flows from this presumption.

If you reject this notion, and very much believe that the work of an original creator belongs to them, then taking that work without permission, and doing with it what one would, is very much stealing, and your advocacy of same is advocacy of theft.

We will go round and round on this, because we have no common ground. Bottom line, Guerilla, if I write a book, and without my permission you copy it, hand it out and sell it, you are, in my opinion (and thankfully, the opinion of most societies where I might choose to live), a thief, and you will have to ante up for your crime.

Your argument to profit loss is meaningless. Casuistry aside, again, it doesn't get any more basic than:

 

Yes, undoubtedly true - if I were richer, I'd likely buy more things as well.

I am troubled by the notion, though that one's lack of means might justify theft. As was earlier said in the thread:

Which begged the reply:

I'm all for voluntarily sticking to openware and freeware, if that is your choice. I flatly reject stealing someone's material without their permission, because you either find their product too expensive , or you don't "make enough." In other words, "man, I make only 200E per week, and those assholes have really expensive cars" is not a bona fide reason to steal someone's work.

 

The thing is "Everybody is doing it". So how does an average man restrict himself from doing the same and dowloading free movies and music.
The average free music/movie downloader would rather have enjoyment than principles.

 

His comment had to be about the biggest one that made me laugh. "If IP is property, how come people can sell it?" ahhh, because it's property lol.

I don't think he's even anywhere near the discussion of reality.

Is this a serious question? Don't do it comes to mind.

 

Lightless, this is no kind of an an argument to justify stealing. "How does an average man restrict himself"...is to say he lives on a principle of honor, and doesn't do it. Or else, since "everyone does it," "everyone should just do it even more," and an entire generation learns one's individuality and creative effort is meaningless, all progress stops, and we're in a bigger toilet than we're in now.

This is not a tomorrow I'd hope for for my children.