Napster is About Freeloading, not Freedom by Michelle Malkin

I agree with you. Not sure why this is hard for some to see, nor why it is among those talking most stridently about individual reward for individual effort, or constitutionalism, who are also the most strident in voicing an end to the very notion of IP, and a defense of simply taking someone's material without permission for material gain.

 

I don't know. I guess they don't have a moral conscience. They just don't understand right and wrong.

I think they sat around days trying their hardest to rationalize it because they don't want to stop stealing someone else's hard work.

 

This is so funny. Not my perspective, but funny nonetheless. Any experienced webmaster or SEO consultant would tell you this is difficult and unrewarding to do.

I wouldn't take parenting advice from Michelle Malkin. What you're missing is that I read her all of the time in the local paper. She's a moron. AND HER MESSAGE SUCKS.

What you are endorsing is soft fascism. You think it's protecting the rights of individuals, but it's creating new rights for corporations at the expense of individuals.

I asked in the other IP thread you abandoned, I'll ask again here.

Do you believe in permanent or temporary ownership of IP?

 

Oh no, someone flip flopped.

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E

Capitalism.

lol, what? I don't think I ever used the term corporation. Stop making things up. I'm for protecting property rights. The backbone of capitalism.

Permanent.

 

Actually, you're the hypocrite. You were the one against listening to someone you disliked, and now you are calling me out for (what you are implying) agreeing with your position.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. I'm talking about fascism. When government and business collude through regulatory processes to limit competition and increase the barriers to entry.

So you're saying that corporations shouldn't own patents?

Then how do you reconcile that with your position on supporting expiring rights? What you're saying is that ideas and their licensing is permanently owned. Ownership of ideas can never expire.

Which creates a paradox when two people in isolation come up with the same idea. How do you resolve this?

 

Oh noes, he didn't quote the flippity floppity

Oh I don't have a problem if you do it, I think it's smart. I just thought you had your own standards for yourself, which makes you a hypocrite.

I think you're confused. Protecting property from theft isn't regulation, but protection of property rights. lol

No I'm not.

I didn't say I supported expiring rights. I believe in PROPERTY and unfortunately PROPERTY doesn't expire.

Yes. That's usually how PROPERTY works.

First one to patent/copyright wins.

 

And that is the failure in your position.

If someone cannot afford to obtain a patent or copyright, or is in a region that does not offer patent or copyright services, then you're saying that they can lose out and that somehow means they can't own their own thoughts?

How utterly unbelievable!

 

Oh no. He didn't quote anything else. He must of been PWNED.

No it's not.

I never said they couldn't use it. I said they don't get property rights over it. The sole owner of it is at discretion.

See, this topic is about pirating music, you have to degenerate it to "ideas" what ever the hell that is supposed to mean. No one else on the face of this earth will ever create an identical song or the identical "ideas" of copyright holders.

As usual, you're just trying to degenerate this down to vagueness of "ideas" which probably means something like a "peanut butter pizza" or something stupid like that. Rather than the complex building DNA or instrumental music.

 

Are thoughts or ideas not intellectual property? If not, how would you define IP in it's broadest sense?

 

Intellectual property is products of the mind and the thoughts required to create them.

You can't copyright "Check email on your television, while you watch TV"

You can copyright technology to check your email on television while you watch TV.

 

You can't consistently define property. Your definition of property is contingent upon the government recognizing it as such.

You've said yourself that two people can have the same IP, but only one can own it. He who gets to the registration first. However, that is impossible to do with physical (tangible) property. It's scarce, and it would be impossible for me to own my car and register it, while you also own my car.