Re: How to stop Piracy?

[Jim Thompson]

On 24 Apr 2006 06:29:21 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

[snip]

The disagreement may be more fundamental, as I arguing that this
"intellectual property" is a fiction that is hurting us all.
[snip]

Investors are generally looking for a business plan that will make them
money. Government protectionism has made a lot of investors rich, that
is true - but it doesn't make it right. Slavery also made a lot of
investors rich for example.

[snip]

Sheeeesh! Another fucking Sloman... totally without a clue on how the
real world operates... yet an opinion on how to "fix" everything.

Don't go away mad, just go away ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[[email protected]]

On 24 Apr 2006 06:29:21 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

[snip]

The disagreement may be more fundamental, as I arguing that this
"intellectual property" is a fiction that is hurting us all.
[snip]

Investors are generally looking for a business plan that will make them
money. Government protectionism has made a lot of investors rich, that
is true - but it doesn't make it right. Slavery also made a lot of
investors rich for example.

[snip]

Sheeeesh! Another fucking Sloman... totally without a clue on how the
real world operates... yet an opinion on how to "fix" everything.

I'd love to hear a counter-opinion. That's why I'm posting here.
However it looks like you are unwilling to provide me with one. What
do you think I an unaware of re: how the real world operates?

 

[Jim Thompson]

On 24 Apr 2006 06:29:21 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

[snip]

The disagreement may be more fundamental, as I arguing that this
"intellectual property" is a fiction that is hurting us all.
[snip]

Investors are generally looking for a business plan that will make them
money. Government protectionism has made a lot of investors rich, that
is true - but it doesn't make it right. Slavery also made a lot of
investors rich for example.

[snip]

Sheeeesh! Another fucking Sloman... totally without a clue on how the
real world operates... yet an opinion on how to "fix" everything.

I'd love to hear a counter-opinion. That's why I'm posting here.
However it looks like you are unwilling to provide me with one. What
do you think I an unaware of re: how the real world operates?

The operation of the "real world" is really quite simple... personal
property rights... something you ne'er-do-well socialists have trouble
comprehending... you seem to think everything should be "yours"
without any effort on your part.

...Jim Thompson

 

[[email protected]]

On 24 Apr 2006 06:29:21 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

[snip]d operates?

The operation of the "real world" is really quite simple... personal
property rights... something you ne'er-do-well socialists have trouble
comprehending... you seem to think everything should be "yours"
without any effort on your part.

...Jim Thompson

My apologies. I thought you'd been reading the thread. My devil's
advocate position here only discusses only so-called intellectual
property. Even though I do like to practice arguing from difficult
positions, I'm not going to argue against personal property rights
here.

The difference is very clear: personal property is baryonic matter.
It's not exactly clear what intellectual property is, but it doesn't
contain protons.

Perhaps that's understandable even for your ne'er-do-well socialists?

 

[Jim Thompson]

Jim Thompson wrote:
On 24 Apr 2006 06:29:21 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

[snip]d operates?

The operation of the "real world" is really quite simple... personal
property rights... something you ne'er-do-well socialists have trouble
comprehending... you seem to think everything should be "yours"
without any effort on your part.

...Jim Thompson

My apologies. I thought you'd been reading the thread. My devil's
advocate position here only discusses only so-called intellectual
property. Even though I do like to practice arguing from difficult
positions, I'm not going to argue against personal property rights
here.

The difference is very clear: personal property is baryonic matter.
It's not exactly clear what intellectual property is, but it doesn't
contain protons.

Intellectual property IS personal property... there is no difference.

Perhaps that's understandable even for your ne'er-do-well socialists?

Shove it!

...Jim Thompson

 

[[email protected]]

On 24 Apr 2006 08:47:12 -0700, [email protected] wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:
On 24 Apr 2006 06:29:21 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

[snip]d operates?

The operation of the "real world" is really quite simple... personal
property rights... something you ne'er-do-well socialists have trouble
comprehending... you seem to think everything should be "yours"
without any effort on your part.

...Jim Thompson

My apologies. I thought you'd been reading the thread. My devil's
advocate position here only discusses only so-called intellectual
property. Even though I do like to practice arguing from difficult
positions, I'm not going to argue against personal property rights
here.

The difference is very clear: personal property is baryonic matter.
It's not exactly clear what intellectual property is, but it doesn't
contain protons.

Intellectual property IS personal property... there is no difference.

How so? Certainly not legally or physically..

Shove it!

You first.
Who is arguing for government control of the marketplace? Not I. How
am I a socialist?

 

[John Fields]

The disagreement may be more fundamental, as I arguing that this
"intellectual property" is a fiction that is hurting us all.

---
You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without
intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think,
no music, no poetry, no computer programs... Also, no antibiotics.
Wanna go back to that kind of a life?

I don't, and I'm no longer interested in this dialogue.

Goodbye.

 

[[email protected]]

You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without
intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think,
no music, no poetry, no computer programs... Also, no antibiotics.
Wanna go back to that kind of a life?

I don't, and I'm no longer interested in this dialogue.

Rather ignorant assumptions you are making, considering that all of
your examples were well established traditions BEFORE the became
considered ownable "intellectual property"

 

[Jim Thompson]

---
You don't know what you're talking about and, in fact, without
intellectual property our lives would be pretty boring. Just think,
no music, no poetry, no computer programs... Also, no antibiotics.
Wanna go back to that kind of a life?

I don't, and I'm no longer interested in this dialogue.

Goodbye.

[email protected] is from the same-location/political-crap-attitude as
Sloman... adjectives: stupid, ignorant, head-up-ass, obstinate,
ne'er-do-well wanting my property for free... PLONK!

...Jim Thompson

 

[Jim Thompson]

Rather ignorant assumptions you are making, considering that all of
your examples were well established traditions BEFORE the became
considered ownable "intellectual property"

What a pile of BS. "Traditions"?

What is it YOU are saying were established BEFORE they were patented
and/or copyrighted?

They say, "Ignorance is bliss". You must be very deeply into that
state ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[[email protected]]

What a pile of BS. "Traditions"?

What is it YOU are saying were established BEFORE they were patented
and/or copyrighted?

Music, poetry, computer programs, and using certain substances to
prevent bacterial infection. All were doing quite well, even before
the became elgible for synthetic property status via legal monopolies.
To assume that they could only exist under this status is to ignorantly
ignore the fact that they existed without it.

 

[Jim Thompson]

Music, poetry, computer programs, and using certain substances to
prevent bacterial infection. All were doing quite well, even before
the became elgible for synthetic property status via legal monopolies.
To assume that they could only exist under this status is to ignorantly
ignore the fact that they existed without it.

Huh? Sounds like double-talk to me. Anything know to the public
beforehand CAN NOT be patented or copyrighted.

Stop talking generalities and cite a specific example.

...Jim Thompson

 

[[email protected]]

Huh? Sounds like double-talk to me. Anything know to the public
beforehand CAN NOT be patented or copyrighted.

Stop talking generalities and cite a specific example.

Beowulf

 

[Jim Thompson]

Beowulf

Beowulf what? A book about Beowulf?

You're being vague and ignorant again... you are about to become
amongst those of the great ignored ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[John Fields]

Rather ignorant assumptions you are making, considering that all of
your examples were well established traditions BEFORE the became
considered ownable "intellectual property"

---
Well, sometimes it takes a while before we can figure out what
something should be called, but the fact remains that if someone
thinks up a way to do something it was _their_ intellect which
allowed them to do it, so that means that the intellectual property
(which is the way to do it) belongs to them.

let's do a little thought experiment, OK? See if you can keep up...

Let's say that my name is Isaac Newton and that I've come up with a
way to describe, in exquisite detail, the motions of the planets
around the sun, but I don't tell anyone how it works, I just sell
them the data.

Since I'm the one who invented the method and I'm the only one who
knows how to make it work, who would you say the method (and the
data, BTW) belonged to, before I sold it? To you?

To someone else?

Who?

 

[[email protected]]

Beowulf what? A book about Beowulf?

No the quasi-poetic story itself. A creative work long preceding the
concept of copyright, raised as a counter to the ignorant assumption
that our lives would be devoid of such richness in a world without the
concept of copyrights.

 

[Jim Thompson]

No the quasi-poetic story itself. A creative work long preceding the
concept of copyright, raised as a counter to the ignorant assumption
that our lives would be devoid of such richness in a world without the
concept of copyrights.

Can you refer me to a copyright on the work?

...Jim Thompson

 

[[email protected]]

Well, sometimes it takes a while before we can figure out what
something should be called, but the fact remains that if someone
thinks up a way to do something it was _their_ intellect which
allowed them to do it, so that means that the intellectual property
(which is the way to do it) belongs to them.

Recognizing the originator of an idea is not nearly the same thing as
granting them ownership of the idea or its use as virtual property.

let's do a little thought experiment, OK? See if you can keep up...

Let's say that my name is Isaac Newton and that I've come up with a
way to describe, in exquisite detail, the motions of the planets
around the sun, but I don't tell anyone how it works, I just sell
them the data.

Data? From what input? For what purpose?

The irony of course is that calculus would not be protectable even if
first discovered today.

Since I'm the one who invented the method and I'm the only one who
knows how to make it work, who would you say the method (and the
data, BTW) belonged to, before I sold it? To you?

Neither mathematical method nor data are protectable even today. Yet
there are lots of advances ongoing there as well...

 

[[email protected]]

Can you refer me to a copyright on the work?

Of course not - which is exactly the point. It's an example of a
creation that managed to get created even in John Field's supposedly
dull and monochrome world without intellectual property.

I can however refer you to a copyright on the modern story "Grendel" -
as a demonstration on how much modern creativity owes to the public
domain past.

 

[[email protected]]

---
Well, sometimes it takes a while before we can figure out what
something should be called, but the fact remains that if someone
thinks up a way to do something it was _their_ intellect which
allowed them to do it, so that means that the intellectual property
(which is the way to do it) belongs to them.

Yes, as it consists of only a neural arrangment in their head. Or
perhaps a collection of notes in their possession, symbolic
information, or perhaps in binary form on a hard drive. Any theft of
these objects is a clear violoation of your rights. Especially the
head.

Once others have seen or recorded this information, they now also
possess copies of that information. If you don't want anyone to know,
you'd better be careful who you tell.

let's do a little thought experiment, OK? See if you can keep up...

Let's say that my name is Isaac Newton and that I've come up with a
way to describe, in exquisite detail, the motions of the planets
around the sun, but I don't tell anyone how it works, I just sell
them the data.

Since I'm the one who invented the method and I'm the only one who
knows how to make it work, who would you say the method (and the
data, BTW) belonged to, before I sold it? To you?

To someone else?

Who?

Johannes Kepler

Or maybe some other giants who's shoulders you've stood upon.

Now that you've told me you have such an idea Isaac, I would be
curious. Probably not much commercial application however. Have you
tried to write or sell your idea as a proposal to some religious or
academic bigwigs? Perhaps you'd best publish it openly in a concise
form and you'll have any academic job offer you'd like and more. As
for your ideas about calculus, you should have published them openly
much earlier. Sure, you still obtained fame and fortune, but with his
earlier publication Leibinz stole some of the glory that could have
been yours in inventing the Calculus.

Sorry for the diversion.. how about an example for the discussion
using someone who actually benefitted from intellectual property law?

Cheers - shevek