Posted: 11/8/2013 7:26:33 PM EDT
|
I tried to PM this, but you guys have them turned off. Feel free to delete this thread once you're aware of it.
----- Mark: I sell vinyl decals on the side, and a friend linked me to this site because they're selling some of my original designs. That's fine by me - I'm anti-copyright in general, and would have given them the vectors if they'd asked. Browsing their site though, I found your logo: http://a1decals.com/products-page/guns-decals/larue-tactical-decal-sticker/ Thought you'd want to know. |
|
Quoted:
I tried to PM this, but you guys have them turned off. Feel free to delete this thread once you're aware of it. ----- Mark: I sell vinyl decals on the side, and a friend linked me to this site because they're selling some of my original designs. That's fine by me - I'm anti-copyright in general, and would have given them the vectors if they'd asked. Browsing their site though, I found your logo: http://a1decals.com/products-page/guns-decals/larue-tactical-decal-sticker/ Thought you'd want to know. Anti-copyright? I guess it takes all kinds.... 
|
|
Quoted:
Anti-copyright? I guess it takes all kinds.... Quoted:
Quoted:
I tried to PM this, but you guys have them turned off. Feel free to delete this thread once you're aware of it. ----- Mark: I sell vinyl decals on the side, and a friend linked me to this site because they're selling some of my original designs. That's fine by me - I'm anti-copyright in general, and would have given them the vectors if they'd asked. Browsing their site though, I found your logo: http://a1decals.com/products-page/guns-decals/larue-tactical-decal-sticker/ Thought you'd want to know. Anti-copyright? I guess it takes all kinds.... My background is conservative, and I've gone through several phases of various libertarian thought and have finally arrived at Anarcho-Capitalism. The concept of intellectual property was something that I was in very vocal support of until about a year ago, when I read Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella. If you're interested in IP, I strongly suggest you read it. It might not change your mind, and that's fine - but his arguments are well-structured and researched. In short, protecting IP requires that restrictions be placed on what other people do with their property, even when they have never entered into any agreement with you. The only way to "protect" IP is through violence - and since that violence is an initiation of force, it is immoral. I do my best to live by my principles, for what it's worth. I'm a software developer, and I exclusively work on open source. I also do not claim exclusive use of the designs on my decal site, and often provide the vector files for them upon request. |
|
Quoted:
Tattle-tale.  Although I am opposed to IP, I do understand copyright law in the US. If you own the copyright for a design, you must protect it or you lose the ability to do so. Since LaRue is an active member of this site and supports many of the same pro-Liberty causes that are in my own interests, I don't want to see them harmed. If at some point in the future LaRue sued a Chinese manufacturer over using their logo on crappy knockoff mounts, that manufacturer's lawyers could point to cases like this where the LaRue logo has been displayed and sold by others in the open market. If LaRue hadn't acted to protect that copyright, then it could be decided that they'd abandoned it and LaRue would have no standing to sue. |
|
Quoted:
My background is conservative, and I've gone through several phases of various libertarian thought and have finally arrived at Anarcho-Capitalism. The concept of intellectual property was something that I was in very vocal support of until about a year ago, when I read Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella. If you're interested in IP, I strongly suggest you read it. It might not change your mind, and that's fine - but his arguments are well-structured and researched. In short, protecting IP requires that restrictions be placed on what other people do with their property, even when they have never entered into any agreement with you. The only way to "protect" IP is through violence - and since that violence is an initiation of force, it is immoral. I do my best to live by my principles, for what it's worth. I'm a software developer, and I exclusively work on open source. I also do not claim exclusive use of the designs on my decal site, and often provide the vector files for them upon request. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I tried to PM this, but you guys have them turned off. Feel free to delete this thread once you're aware of it. ----- Mark: I sell vinyl decals on the side, and a friend linked me to this site because they're selling some of my original designs. That's fine by me - I'm anti-copyright in general, and would have given them the vectors if they'd asked. Browsing their site though, I found your logo: http://a1decals.com/products-page/guns-decals/larue-tactical-decal-sticker/ Thought you'd want to know. Anti-copyright? I guess it takes all kinds.... My background is conservative, and I've gone through several phases of various libertarian thought and have finally arrived at Anarcho-Capitalism. The concept of intellectual property was something that I was in very vocal support of until about a year ago, when I read Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella. If you're interested in IP, I strongly suggest you read it. It might not change your mind, and that's fine - but his arguments are well-structured and researched. In short, protecting IP requires that restrictions be placed on what other people do with their property, even when they have never entered into any agreement with you. The only way to "protect" IP is through violence - and since that violence is an initiation of force, it is immoral. I do my best to live by my principles, for what it's worth. I'm a software developer, and I exclusively work on open source. I also do not claim exclusive use of the designs on my decal site, and often provide the vector files for them upon request. While I haven't read the literary works of Mr. Kinsella, I can tell you that my Socialist Free Love Hippie Bullshit FSA Detector is far into the red on this one. It sounds to me that what both you and Mr. Kinsella are promoting is the theft of MY property (I've spent my entire career of 40 years to date creating copyrighted works, from which I derive my income and provide for my family). In the past, I have defended my copyrights in court, and will continue to do so on principle whenever infringements occur. So, to you and Mr. Kinsella, I say "Molon Labe"....I'll be waiting...with my big stick. Freedom ain't free, and neither is the sweat off my brow. If you want to give your work away, that's your business, but don't think for a second you're free to take my property without repercussions. ETA: The immoral part is not my protecting my own property, or the enforcement there of ....the immoral part is in the taking of property that is not yours. |
|
Quoted:
While I haven't read the literary works of Mr. Kinsella, I can tell you that my Socialist Free Love Hippie Bullshit FSA Detector is far into the red on this one. It sounds to me that what both you and Mr. Kinsella are promoting is the theft of MY property (I've spent my entire career of 40 years to date creating copyrighted works, from which I derive my income and provide for my family). In the past, I have defended my copyrights in court, and will continue to do so on principle whenever infringements occur. So, to you and Mr. Kinsella, I say "Molon Labe"....I'll be waiting...with my big stick. Freedom ain't free, and neither is the sweat off my brow. If you want to give your work away, that's your business, but don't think for a second you're free to take my property without repercussions. ETA: The immoral part is not my protecting my own property, or the enforcement there of ....the immoral part is in the taking of property that is not yours. Plus 87 |
|
Quoted:
While I haven't read the literary works of Mr. Kinsella, I can tell you that my Socialist Free Love Hippie Bullshit FSA Detector is far into the red on this one. It sounds to me that what both you and Mr. Kinsella are promoting is the theft of MY property (I've spent my entire career of 40 years to date creating copyrighted works, from which I derive my income and provide for my family). In the past, I have defended my copyrights in court, and will continue to do so on principle whenever infringements occur. So, to you and Mr. Kinsella, I say "Molon Labe"....I'll be waiting...with my big stick. Freedom ain't free, and neither is the sweat off my brow. If you want to give your work away, that's your business, but don't think for a second you're free to take my property without repercussions. ETA: The immoral part is not my protecting my own property, or the enforcement there of ....the immoral part is in the taking of property that is not yours. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I tried to PM this, but you guys have them turned off. Feel free to delete this thread once you're aware of it. ----- Mark: I sell vinyl decals on the side, and a friend linked me to this site because they're selling some of my original designs. That's fine by me - I'm anti-copyright in general, and would have given them the vectors if they'd asked. Browsing their site though, I found your logo: http://a1decals.com/products-page/guns-decals/larue-tactical-decal-sticker/ Thought you'd want to know. Anti-copyright? I guess it takes all kinds.... My background is conservative, and I've gone through several phases of various libertarian thought and have finally arrived at Anarcho-Capitalism. The concept of intellectual property was something that I was in very vocal support of until about a year ago, when I read Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella. If you're interested in IP, I strongly suggest you read it. It might not change your mind, and that's fine - but his arguments are well-structured and researched. In short, protecting IP requires that restrictions be placed on what other people do with their property, even when they have never entered into any agreement with you. The only way to "protect" IP is through violence - and since that violence is an initiation of force, it is immoral. I do my best to live by my principles, for what it's worth. I'm a software developer, and I exclusively work on open source. I also do not claim exclusive use of the designs on my decal site, and often provide the vector files for them upon request. While I haven't read the literary works of Mr. Kinsella, I can tell you that my Socialist Free Love Hippie Bullshit FSA Detector is far into the red on this one. It sounds to me that what both you and Mr. Kinsella are promoting is the theft of MY property (I've spent my entire career of 40 years to date creating copyrighted works, from which I derive my income and provide for my family). In the past, I have defended my copyrights in court, and will continue to do so on principle whenever infringements occur. So, to you and Mr. Kinsella, I say "Molon Labe"....I'll be waiting...with my big stick. Freedom ain't free, and neither is the sweat off my brow. If you want to give your work away, that's your business, but don't think for a second you're free to take my property without repercussions. ETA: The immoral part is not my protecting my own property, or the enforcement there of ....the immoral part is in the taking of property that is not yours. Say you and I both have a piece of wood. We've never met. One day, you carve your piece of wood into a wedge, and use it to split a log into planks that you then use to build a house. You've never seen anyone else use a wedge like that, and the copyright office agrees - so you file to register your copyright on this novel concept. 500 miles away, I shape my piece of wood into a wedge, having never heard of you or your copyright. I make planks, and build a house. My neighbor sees this, and I offer to sell him my wood wedge for $1. About this time, the local sheriff comes back from visiting your area, and sees the transaction. He contacts you and you are compelled by law to enforce your copyright against me in civil court. At what point did you gain the moral right to tell me what to do with my property? Why do you have claim to the product of my mind, simply because you managed to get a piece of paper from a court before I did? Obviously, this is an extreme and contrived case - but it effectively illustrates the asymetrical nature of intellectual property. Don't get me wrong - copying someone else's work as your own is an asshole thing to do. I wouldn't do that. I'm not seeking to profit from someone else's work, and I would not do that even if it were legal. I also cannot in good conscience use government's threat of violence to attempt to prevent others from using an idea. An idea cannot be owned, because it is not property. I'm not telling you that you must so. I'm not calling you names or denigrating you for following the law and using it to your advantage. I'm not trying to take anything from you at all; I won't use your work because I'm not an asshole, not because I agree with the fundamental concept of intellectual property. Keep your big stick leaning against the door, because you won't need it with me. |
|
This is why you research (patents) before you sell your new invention. Also it is only pertinent to a transaction where you are selling copies of the (patented) wedge.
Then you realize that the other wedge is too slim or obtuse, and you make an improved design and (patent) it yourself. Copyrights and patents incentivize innovation. Otherwise the profit margin when you take into account research and development costs is non-existent and nobody wants to come up with anything new because they won't make money when the idea is stolen. |
|
Quoted:
Say you and I both have a piece of wood. We've never met. One day, you carve your piece of wood into a wedge, and use it to split a log into planks that you then use to build a house. You've never seen anyone else use a wedge like that, and the copyright office agrees - so you file to register your copyright on this novel concept. 500 miles away, I shape my piece of wood into a wedge, having never heard of you or your copyright. I make planks, and build a house. My neighbor sees this, and I offer to sell him my wood wedge for $1. About this time, the local sheriff comes back from visiting your area, and sees the transaction. He contacts you and you are compelled by law to enforce your copyright against me in civil court. At what point did you gain the moral right to tell me what to do with my property? Why do you have claim to the product of my mind, simply because you managed to get a piece of paper from a court before I did? Obviously, this is an extreme and contrived case - but it effectively illustrates the asymetrical nature of intellectual property. Don't get me wrong - copying someone else's work as your own is an asshole thing to do. I wouldn't do that. I'm not seeking to profit from someone else's work, and I would not do that even if it were legal. I also cannot in good conscience use government's threat of violence to attempt to prevent others from using an idea. An idea cannot be owned, because it is not property. I'm not telling you that you must so. I'm not calling you names or denigrating you for following the law and using it to your advantage. I'm not trying to take anything from you at all; I won't use your work because I'm not an asshole, not because I agree with the fundamental concept of intellectual property. Keep your big stick leaning against the door, because you won't need it with me. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I tried to PM this, but you guys have them turned off. Feel free to delete this thread once you're aware of it. ----- Mark: I sell vinyl decals on the side, and a friend linked me to this site because they're selling some of my original designs. That's fine by me - I'm anti-copyright in general, and would have given them the vectors if they'd asked. Browsing their site though, I found your logo: http://a1decals.com/products-page/guns-decals/larue-tactical-decal-sticker/ Thought you'd want to know. Anti-copyright? I guess it takes all kinds.... My background is conservative, and I've gone through several phases of various libertarian thought and have finally arrived at Anarcho-Capitalism. The concept of intellectual property was something that I was in very vocal support of until about a year ago, when I read Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella. If you're interested in IP, I strongly suggest you read it. It might not change your mind, and that's fine - but his arguments are well-structured and researched. In short, protecting IP requires that restrictions be placed on what other people do with their property, even when they have never entered into any agreement with you. The only way to "protect" IP is through violence - and since that violence is an initiation of force, it is immoral. I do my best to live by my principles, for what it's worth. I'm a software developer, and I exclusively work on open source. I also do not claim exclusive use of the designs on my decal site, and often provide the vector files for them upon request. While I haven't read the literary works of Mr. Kinsella, I can tell you that my Socialist Free Love Hippie Bullshit FSA Detector is far into the red on this one. It sounds to me that what both you and Mr. Kinsella are promoting is the theft of MY property (I've spent my entire career of 40 years to date creating copyrighted works, from which I derive my income and provide for my family). In the past, I have defended my copyrights in court, and will continue to do so on principle whenever infringements occur. So, to you and Mr. Kinsella, I say "Molon Labe"....I'll be waiting...with my big stick. Freedom ain't free, and neither is the sweat off my brow. If you want to give your work away, that's your business, but don't think for a second you're free to take my property without repercussions. ETA: The immoral part is not my protecting my own property, or the enforcement there of ....the immoral part is in the taking of property that is not yours. Say you and I both have a piece of wood. We've never met. One day, you carve your piece of wood into a wedge, and use it to split a log into planks that you then use to build a house. You've never seen anyone else use a wedge like that, and the copyright office agrees - so you file to register your copyright on this novel concept. 500 miles away, I shape my piece of wood into a wedge, having never heard of you or your copyright. I make planks, and build a house. My neighbor sees this, and I offer to sell him my wood wedge for $1. About this time, the local sheriff comes back from visiting your area, and sees the transaction. He contacts you and you are compelled by law to enforce your copyright against me in civil court. At what point did you gain the moral right to tell me what to do with my property? Why do you have claim to the product of my mind, simply because you managed to get a piece of paper from a court before I did? Obviously, this is an extreme and contrived case - but it effectively illustrates the asymetrical nature of intellectual property. Don't get me wrong - copying someone else's work as your own is an asshole thing to do. I wouldn't do that. I'm not seeking to profit from someone else's work, and I would not do that even if it were legal. I also cannot in good conscience use government's threat of violence to attempt to prevent others from using an idea. An idea cannot be owned, because it is not property. I'm not telling you that you must so. I'm not calling you names or denigrating you for following the law and using it to your advantage. I'm not trying to take anything from you at all; I won't use your work because I'm not an asshole, not because I agree with the fundamental concept of intellectual property. Keep your big stick leaning against the door, because you won't need it with me. I'm not sure you understand the difference between Copyright and Patent Law, but I'm glad to hear you won't be misappropriating the work of others. Meanwhile, if you hope to have anything to retire on, I strongly urge you to reconsider protecting your own work. |
|
Quoted:
Plus 87 Quoted:
Quoted:
While I haven't read the literary works of Mr. Kinsella, I can tell you that my Socialist Free Love Hippie Bullshit FSA Detector is far into the red on this one. It sounds to me that what both you and Mr. Kinsella are promoting is the theft of MY property (I've spent my entire career of 40 years to date creating copyrighted works, from which I derive my income and provide for my family). In the past, I have defended my copyrights in court, and will continue to do so on principle whenever infringements occur. So, to you and Mr. Kinsella, I say "Molon Labe"....I'll be waiting...with my big stick. Freedom ain't free, and neither is the sweat off my brow. If you want to give your work away, that's your business, but don't think for a second you're free to take my property without repercussions. ETA: The immoral part is not my protecting my own property, or the enforcement there of ....the immoral part is in the taking of property that is not yours. Plus 87 And a half ~!! ETA ... Many people may have the idea for Warp drive, but maybe only one knows how to actually make it work. Does that mean all the Trekies get to share in the spoils? Yes, as ridiculous as the block of wood. |
|
Quoted:
Say you and I both have a piece of wood. We've never met. One day, you carve your piece of wood into a wedge, and use it to split a log into planks that you then use to build a house. You've never seen anyone else use a wedge like that, and the copyright office agrees - so you file to register your copyright on this novel concept. 500 miles away, I shape my piece of wood into a wedge, having never heard of you or your copyright. I make planks, and build a house. My neighbor sees this, and I offer to sell him my wood wedge for $1. About this time, the local sheriff comes back from visiting your area, and sees the transaction. He contacts you and you are compelled by law to enforce your copyright against me in civil court. At what point did you gain the moral right to tell me what to do with my property? Why do you have claim to the product of my mind, simply because you managed to get a piece of paper from a court before I did? Obviously, this is an extreme and contrived case - but it effectively illustrates the asymetrical nature of intellectual property. Don't get me wrong - copying someone else's work as your own is an asshole thing to do. I wouldn't do that. I'm not seeking to profit from someone else's work, and I would not do that even if it were legal. I also cannot in good conscience use government's threat of violence to attempt to prevent others from using an idea. An idea cannot be owned, because it is not property. I'm not telling you that you must so. I'm not calling you names or denigrating you for following the law and using it to your advantage. I'm not trying to take anything from you at all; I won't use your work because I'm not an asshole, not because I agree with the fundamental concept of intellectual property. Keep your big stick leaning against the door, because you won't need it with me. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I tried to PM this, but you guys have them turned off. Feel free to delete this thread once you're aware of it. ----- Mark: I sell vinyl decals on the side, and a friend linked me to this site because they're selling some of my original designs. That's fine by me - I'm anti-copyright in general, and would have given them the vectors if they'd asked. Browsing their site though, I found your logo: http://a1decals.com/products-page/guns-decals/larue-tactical-decal-sticker/ Thought you'd want to know. Anti-copyright? I guess it takes all kinds.... My background is conservative, and I've gone through several phases of various libertarian thought and have finally arrived at Anarcho-Capitalism. The concept of intellectual property was something that I was in very vocal support of until about a year ago, when I read Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella. If you're interested in IP, I strongly suggest you read it. It might not change your mind, and that's fine - but his arguments are well-structured and researched. In short, protecting IP requires that restrictions be placed on what other people do with their property, even when they have never entered into any agreement with you. The only way to "protect" IP is through violence - and since that violence is an initiation of force, it is immoral. I do my best to live by my principles, for what it's worth. I'm a software developer, and I exclusively work on open source. I also do not claim exclusive use of the designs on my decal site, and often provide the vector files for them upon request. While I haven't read the literary works of Mr. Kinsella, I can tell you that my Socialist Free Love Hippie Bullshit FSA Detector is far into the red on this one. It sounds to me that what both you and Mr. Kinsella are promoting is the theft of MY property (I've spent my entire career of 40 years to date creating copyrighted works, from which I derive my income and provide for my family). In the past, I have defended my copyrights in court, and will continue to do so on principle whenever infringements occur. So, to you and Mr. Kinsella, I say "Molon Labe"....I'll be waiting...with my big stick. Freedom ain't free, and neither is the sweat off my brow. If you want to give your work away, that's your business, but don't think for a second you're free to take my property without repercussions. ETA: The immoral part is not my protecting my own property, or the enforcement there of ....the immoral part is in the taking of property that is not yours. Say you and I both have a piece of wood. We've never met. One day, you carve your piece of wood into a wedge, and use it to split a log into planks that you then use to build a house. You've never seen anyone else use a wedge like that, and the copyright office agrees - so you file to register your copyright on this novel concept. 500 miles away, I shape my piece of wood into a wedge, having never heard of you or your copyright. I make planks, and build a house. My neighbor sees this, and I offer to sell him my wood wedge for $1. About this time, the local sheriff comes back from visiting your area, and sees the transaction. He contacts you and you are compelled by law to enforce your copyright against me in civil court. At what point did you gain the moral right to tell me what to do with my property? Why do you have claim to the product of my mind, simply because you managed to get a piece of paper from a court before I did? Obviously, this is an extreme and contrived case - but it effectively illustrates the asymetrical nature of intellectual property. Don't get me wrong - copying someone else's work as your own is an asshole thing to do. I wouldn't do that. I'm not seeking to profit from someone else's work, and I would not do that even if it were legal. I also cannot in good conscience use government's threat of violence to attempt to prevent others from using an idea. An idea cannot be owned, because it is not property. I'm not telling you that you must so. I'm not calling you names or denigrating you for following the law and using it to your advantage. I'm not trying to take anything from you at all; I won't use your work because I'm not an asshole, not because I agree with the fundamental concept of intellectual property. Keep your big stick leaning against the door, because you won't need it with me. I have never read the book. Is the wedge example from the book or is it your own? |
|
Quoted:
I have never read the book. Is the wedge example from the book or is it your own? It's more of an essay, but the example is my own. There was a thread here a few weeks ago about some Russian guy who built a hunting cabin in the wilderness, and I remember seeing him use that technique to make rough planks. |
|
Quoted:
I'm not sure you understand the difference between Copyright and Patent Law, but I'm glad to hear you won't be misappropriating the work of others. Meanwhile, if you hope to have anything to retire on, I strongly urge you to reconsider protecting your own work. Quoted:
Quoted:
Say you and I both have a piece of wood. We've never met. One day, you carve your piece of wood into a wedge, and use it to split a log into planks that you then use to build a house. You've never seen anyone else use a wedge like that, and the copyright office agrees - so you file to register your copyright on this novel concept. 500 miles away, I shape my piece of wood into a wedge, having never heard of you or your copyright. I make planks, and build a house. My neighbor sees this, and I offer to sell him my wood wedge for $1. About this time, the local sheriff comes back from visiting your area, and sees the transaction. He contacts you and you are compelled by law to enforce your copyright against me in civil court. At what point did you gain the moral right to tell me what to do with my property? Why do you have claim to the product of my mind, simply because you managed to get a piece of paper from a court before I did? Obviously, this is an extreme and contrived case - but it effectively illustrates the asymetrical nature of intellectual property. Don't get me wrong - copying someone else's work as your own is an asshole thing to do. I wouldn't do that. I'm not seeking to profit from someone else's work, and I would not do that even if it were legal. I also cannot in good conscience use government's threat of violence to attempt to prevent others from using an idea. An idea cannot be owned, because it is not property. I'm not telling you that you must so. I'm not calling you names or denigrating you for following the law and using it to your advantage. I'm not trying to take anything from you at all; I won't use your work because I'm not an asshole, not because I agree with the fundamental concept of intellectual property. Keep your big stick leaning against the door, because you won't need it with me. I'm not sure you understand the difference between Copyright and Patent Law, but I'm glad to hear you won't be misappropriating the work of others. Meanwhile, if you hope to have anything to retire on, I strongly urge you to reconsider protecting your own work. No, I understand the difference. I admit my example would have been patented instead of registered as a copyright, but the basis of my argument is the same in both cases. An idea is not property. One inherent difference between the two is that it is possible to have the same idea as someone else and implement it in the same way, without contact between the two parties. One of those people must "lose" if we accept the concept of intellectual property, and has therefore violated the property rights of someone he has never met, while performing an activity that relied solely on his own abilities and using his own property. This presents a paradox - if you own property, why must you check with an arbitrary body to get permission to use it in a certain way before you do? Doesn't seeking that permission imply that the person with whom you're asking it holds at least partial ownership of your property? Rand said: "To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality." She's verbose, but she's right here - you cannot both own something and also be compelled to seek permission to use it. It doesn't work like that. Ironically, Rand would have vehemental defended your position. :) |
| I won't get into the weeds but on the surface it seems to be some free advertising for LT. Just sayin. If someone wants to promote my bus and make a buck doing it...ok. As long as it is not in a negative light, and no harm is done to the reputation or name of the one being promoted. But this is ML call or his lawyers not mine of course. |
|
Quoted:
I won't get into the weeds but on the surface it seems to be some free advertising for LT. Just sayin. If someone wants to promote my bus and make a buck doing it...ok. As long as it is not in a negative light, and no harm is done to the reputation or name of the one being promoted. But this is ML call or his lawyers not mine of course. From a business and legal perspective, it's not about that. If you don't defend the copyright in one instance, you lose the legal ability to defend it in others. |
|
Quoted:
No, I understand the difference. I admit my example would have been patented instead of registered as a copyright, but the basis of my argument is the same in both cases. An idea is not property. One inherent difference between the two is that it is possible to have the same idea as someone else and implement it in the same way, without contact between the two parties. One of those people must "lose" if we accept the concept of intellectual property, and has therefore violated the property rights of someone he has never met, while performing an activity that relied solely on his own abilities and using his own property. This presents a paradox - if you own property, why must you check with an arbitrary body to get permission to use it in a certain way before you do? Doesn't seeking that permission imply that the person with whom you're asking it holds at least partial ownership of your property? Rand said: "To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality." She's verbose, but she's right here - you cannot both own something and also be compelled to seek permission to use it. It doesn't work like that. Ironically, Rand would have vehemental defended your position. :) Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Say you and I both have a piece of wood. We've never met. One day, you carve your piece of wood into a wedge, and use it to split a log into planks that you then use to build a house. You've never seen anyone else use a wedge like that, and the copyright office agrees - so you file to register your copyright on this novel concept. 500 miles away, I shape my piece of wood into a wedge, having never heard of you or your copyright. I make planks, and build a house. My neighbor sees this, and I offer to sell him my wood wedge for $1. About this time, the local sheriff comes back from visiting your area, and sees the transaction. He contacts you and you are compelled by law to enforce your copyright against me in civil court. At what point did you gain the moral right to tell me what to do with my property? Why do you have claim to the product of my mind, simply because you managed to get a piece of paper from a court before I did? Obviously, this is an extreme and contrived case - but it effectively illustrates the asymetrical nature of intellectual property. Don't get me wrong - copying someone else's work as your own is an asshole thing to do. I wouldn't do that. I'm not seeking to profit from someone else's work, and I would not do that even if it were legal. I also cannot in good conscience use government's threat of violence to attempt to prevent others from using an idea. An idea cannot be owned, because it is not property. I'm not telling you that you must so. I'm not calling you names or denigrating you for following the law and using it to your advantage. I'm not trying to take anything from you at all; I won't use your work because I'm not an asshole, not because I agree with the fundamental concept of intellectual property. Keep your big stick leaning against the door, because you won't need it with me. I'm not sure you understand the difference between Copyright and Patent Law, but I'm glad to hear you won't be misappropriating the work of others. Meanwhile, if you hope to have anything to retire on, I strongly urge you to reconsider protecting your own work. No, I understand the difference. I admit my example would have been patented instead of registered as a copyright, but the basis of my argument is the same in both cases. An idea is not property. One inherent difference between the two is that it is possible to have the same idea as someone else and implement it in the same way, without contact between the two parties. One of those people must "lose" if we accept the concept of intellectual property, and has therefore violated the property rights of someone he has never met, while performing an activity that relied solely on his own abilities and using his own property. This presents a paradox - if you own property, why must you check with an arbitrary body to get permission to use it in a certain way before you do? Doesn't seeking that permission imply that the person with whom you're asking it holds at least partial ownership of your property? Rand said: "To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality." She's verbose, but she's right here - you cannot both own something and also be compelled to seek permission to use it. It doesn't work like that. Ironically, Rand would have vehemental defended your position. :) Here's a better example (IMO): Let's say you buy a DVD of "Avatar"...While you own the physical DVD, and it's your property, do you own the content of the DVD (the movie)? No, of course not. It's actually a LICENSING AGREEMENT that you enter into every time you purchase a DVD, Blu-Ray, or CD, MP3, whatever. The work belongs to the artist, and you have purchased a LIMITED LICENSE to view that material. It's NOT yours to do with as you wish. Try and claim "Avatar" is yours, sell it, or exhibit it for commercial purposes without authorization, and I'm quite certain Jimmy Cameron has an even bigger stick than mine. |
|
Quoted:
No, I understand the difference. I admit my example would have been patented instead of registered as a copyright, but the basis of my argument is the same in both cases. An idea is not property. One inherent difference between the two is that it is possible to have the same idea as someone else and implement it in the same way, without contact between the two parties. One of those people must "lose" if we accept the concept of intellectual property, and has therefore violated the property rights of someone he has never met, while performing an activity that relied solely on his own abilities and using his own property. This presents a paradox - if you own property, why must you check with an arbitrary body to get permission to use it in a certain way before you do? Doesn't seeking that permission imply that the person with whom you're asking it holds at least partial ownership of your property? The same could be said for firearm ownership, or driving a car....yet we get permissions for that too....Why? Because we are a society of laws. Implied ownership? No, it really doesn't mean that at all. The DMV doesn't own my car, yet I have permission to operate from them (the State). The State doesn't own my firearms either, but I have permission to use them in a legally acceptable manner. ETA: There's also nothing arbitrary about it. The Copyright Office was established in 1897, and patent law pre-dates the United States going back in primitive form to 1331 AD. The first American patent was created in 1641, and Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution from 1787 provides for intellectual property protection with the first Constitutional US Patent issued in 1790. There is nothing new or deceptive about the practice...so it's hardly arbitrary. Bottom line: He who's 1st, wins. So if you're going to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you're OK with, I gotta wonder how you feel about the 2nd Amendment too... |
|
Quoted:
Here's a better example (IMO): Let's say you buy a DVD of "Avatar"...While you own the physical DVD, and it's your property, do you own the content of the DVD (the movie)? No, of course not. It's actually a LICENSING AGREEMENT that you enter into every time you purchase a DVD, Blu-Ray, or CD, MP3, whatever. The work belongs to the artist, and you have purchased a LIMITED LICENSE to view that material. It's NOT yours to do with as you wish. Try and claim "Avatar" is yours, sell it, or exhibit it for commercial purposes without authorization, and I'm quite certain Jimmy Cameron has an even bigger stick than mine. If I buy a copy of Avatar, it comes with the agreement that I not make and distribute copies. By purchasing it, I've voluntarily agreed to abide by that agreement, and upon violation of said agreement should be held responsible for both punitive (as prescribed) and compensatory damages (as may be proven). The above doesn't require intellectual property - it requires contract law, which is well establish and universally accepted. It exists even outside of government (see Lex Mercatoria). It's perfectly clear that one may not distribute work for which your ownership is limited. It's less clear when you consider someone several transactions downstream, who acquired the work through illicit means (perhaps without knowledge that they were illicit). Since they never entered into an agreement with the creator, why should they be bound by the creator's wishes? Should not the responsibility for compensation fall upon the shoulders of the person who first violated their voluntary agreement? Also consider that this downstream person might have believed he was entering into an agreement with the content's creator. The person who they reasonably believed owned the work authorized their distribution - in other words, they entered into a contract that turned out to be fraudulent. These sorts of details would need to be hammered out in arbitration, rather than through pre-emptive force of law. Finally, consider someone who merely heard a plot summary of Avatar, and decided to create their own work. Should Cameron's claim of ownership restrain this person from using his own property as he sees fit? Why? Upon what basis could Cameron claim ownership of a derivative work that would not also be applicable to those who came before him? After all, Avatar was obviously inspired by works like Orson Scott Card's Speaker for the Dead and Frank Herbert's The Jesus Incident. In summary - a media work such as a book, a movie, or a painting can be sold under contract, the terms of which prevent distribution and define punitive damages for doing so. An idea can be shared under similar contract - and they are even today, with Non-Disclouse Agreements. An idea, once publicly known, cannot be owned. This is because the act of enforcing such ownership would entail the pre-emptive use of force against uninvolved parties. I firmly believe that the use of such force is morally equivalent to usurping ownership of another's property by force. It is theft. To be honest, I'm not entirely comfortable with the conclusion I've reached in my analysis of the morality of IP. I believe someone should profit from the product of their own mind. Upon careful contemplation of how that could be practiced, I've come to the same conclusion as Kinsella; intellectual property is a flawed concept whose practice violates the natural rights of everyone except the holder of the IP, in order to create additional profit for them through the threat of force. I believe artists and other creators should be compensated. When I find music I like, I buy it directly from the artist if I can. Where I've downloaded it illegally, I've sent them cash. In a couple of cases where the music was copyrighted but the artist was dead, I donated money in their name to a cause I believe they would have supported. I do this because I feel like it's polite and what my God would ask of me. My own actions are influenced by what satisfies me spiritually. I do not support forcing others to behave that way. I believe that a man's use of force against others should be governed solely by rationality. Logic dictates that I have no claim over their property; therefore I have no basis for asserting control over its disposition. PS: My apologies if I'm being excessively verbose. Being able to form a coherent argument for one's own beliefs is the fire through which a philosophy is born. Exposing them to the arguments of others who disagree is like submerging them in a tank of cold water. If the argument doesn't survive the quenching, it was too brittle for practical use - if it survives the process, it can be honed to an edge that cuts through bullshit like the sharpest sword. |
|
Quoted:
I know, right?
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone else find it amusing that Kinsella's book is copyrighted? I know, right?
All creative work is copyrighted under the law. Kinsella's work is explicitly released into the public domain, and he has released all rights. I got a chuckle out of it too at first, but then I read up on the topic. It's actually not even possible to do in some jurisdictions. When I do so, I use the Creative Commons CC0 license. Be sure to read the full text if you're interested - it takes them almost 1,000 words to say "do whatever you want with this". Lawyers
|
|
Quoted:
Anyway the premise of the book and this guy's argument are centrally wrong. Property is anything one exerts effort on to obtain that one values to make his life better. Saying ir has to me tangible is completely arbitrary. That's awfully close to the Labor Theory of Value. I'm a proponent of Lockean private property. Property is obtained by mixing with a resource your own labor. In the context of this discussion, intellectual property requires labor (thought) but has no resource component. Hence, it is not property. |
|
Quoted:
The same could be said for firearm ownership, or driving a car....yet we get permissions for that too....Why? Because we are a society of laws. Implied ownership? No, it really doesn't mean that at all. The DMV doesn't own my car, yet I have permission to operate from them (the State). The State doesn't own my firearms either, but I have permission to use them in a legally acceptable manner. ETA: There's also nothing arbitrary about it. The Copyright Office was established in 1897, and patent law pre-dates the United States going back in primitive form to 1331 AD. The first American patent was created in 1641, and Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution from 1787 provides for intellectual property protection with the first Constitutional US Patent issued in 1790. There is nothing new or deceptive about the practice...so it's hardly arbitrary. Bottom line: He who's 1st, wins. So if you're going to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you're OK with, I gotta wonder how you feel about the 2nd Amendment too... Quoted:
Quoted:
No, I understand the difference. I admit my example would have been patented instead of registered as a copyright, but the basis of my argument is the same in both cases. An idea is not property. One inherent difference between the two is that it is possible to have the same idea as someone else and implement it in the same way, without contact between the two parties. One of those people must "lose" if we accept the concept of intellectual property, and has therefore violated the property rights of someone he has never met, while performing an activity that relied solely on his own abilities and using his own property. This presents a paradox - if you own property, why must you check with an arbitrary body to get permission to use it in a certain way before you do? Doesn't seeking that permission imply that the person with whom you're asking it holds at least partial ownership of your property? The same could be said for firearm ownership, or driving a car....yet we get permissions for that too....Why? Because we are a society of laws. Implied ownership? No, it really doesn't mean that at all. The DMV doesn't own my car, yet I have permission to operate from them (the State). The State doesn't own my firearms either, but I have permission to use them in a legally acceptable manner. ETA: There's also nothing arbitrary about it. The Copyright Office was established in 1897, and patent law pre-dates the United States going back in primitive form to 1331 AD. The first American patent was created in 1641, and Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution from 1787 provides for intellectual property protection with the first Constitutional US Patent issued in 1790. There is nothing new or deceptive about the practice...so it's hardly arbitrary. Bottom line: He who's 1st, wins. So if you're going to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you're OK with, I gotta wonder how you feel about the 2nd Amendment too... We seem to be drifting a bit. This line of argument is based upon law, which I am in no way calling into question. Intellectually property - both copyrights and patents - are unequivocally legal. They are not moral. I understand that we live in a society of laws. If not, I wouldn't have brought the original post in this thread to LaRue's attention. I understand the law to the extent that I am able, so that I may be aware of the external consequences of my own actions. From a moral standpoint, the US Constition simply is not relevant. It is a document signed by men I've never met, before I was born, effectively establishing their belief that the people living in the Colonies at the time were owned not by the King of England, but by the body of people living here. It applies to me only because there's a bunch of people with guns that are willing to use violence to enforce the laws created by the government established by it. There are absolutely parts of it that I'm not "OK" with - they include: * the power of taxation * the establishment of a standing military * the establishment of a means through which the people who live within the borders can make additional laws that will be enforced on everyone individually * the exclusion of private enterprises from carrying mail * the establishment and regulation of a fiat currency * the authority to press individuals into military service etc. The right to keep and bear arms, however, is not granted by that document or any other. It is in inherent, natural right of all people, and is merely recognized in the Second Amendment. In fact, while many (most) of the Founders would not agree with my arguments against its authority, I believe the vast majority would agree with the previous sentence. The Declaration of Independence says We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If you base your right of self defense and possession of arms on a dusty old document sitting in a marble building on the Potomac, you've given up the argument for Liberty before we've even begun. |
|
Finally, before i go back to working on my side business - I'm amused that such an in-depth and respectful argument can be found on an industry partner's forum on a gun website.
We might not agree 100%, but I guaran-fucking-tee you wouldn't find this level of discourse in the bowels of a site devote to some Progressive cause. |
|
Quoted:
Finally, before i go back to working on my side business - I'm amused that such an in-depth and respectful argument can be found on an industry partner's forum on a gun website. We might not agree 100%, but I guaran-fucking-tee you wouldn't find this level of discourse in the bowels of a site devote to some Progressive cause. Yeah, closer to 80-20%....but you are right about the discourse, and I thank you for your well expressed opinion. |
|
I too appreciate the civil discourse.
However I fail to see how it cannot be comprehended that this very discussion is being carried out on teh intarwebz, using specifically-developed, copyrighted software, in a forum paid for by an Industry Partner, who can only afford to put money toward such seemingly frivolous ventures as an internet discussion forum, along with hundreds of other contributing parties who all put money into the pot via purchases of space on the site and tax revenue at multiple levels to produce the infrastructure that allows us to connect, all with profit otherwise unobtainable in a system which would not guarantee security against unlawful use of property in the form of ideas, concepts, products and designs put forth as innovation into the free market. Where would innovation come from without a guarantee that innovators can protect their property from copying, unauthorized distribution or production which would effectively kill profit? Does anyone else see a temporal correlation between patent protection and the quality of life? |
|
Quoted:
^^^he said gobbledeegook^^^  Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought I should try to say more with less but MAN SP you can spit out a whole lot of gobbledeegook that skirts around reality for the fleeting fuzzy feeling inside.  ^^^he said gobbledeegook^^^ Indeed. Indeed he did. 
|
|
Quoted:
I too appreciate the civil discourse. However I fail to see how it cannot be comprehended that this very discussion is being carried out on teh intarwebz, using specifically-developed, copyrighted software, in a forum paid for by an Industry Partner, who can only afford to put money toward such seemingly frivolous ventures as an internet discussion forum, along with hundreds of other contributing parties who all put money into the pot via purchases of space on the site and tax revenue at multiple levels to produce the infrastructure that allows us to connect, all with profit otherwise unobtainable in a system which would not guarantee security against unlawful use of property in the form of ideas, concepts, products and designs put forth as innovation into the free market. Where would innovation come from without a guarantee that innovators can protect their property from copying, unauthorized distribution or production which would effectively kill profit? Does anyone else see a temporal correlation between patent protection and the quality of life? Well I sure do. And I blame these DAMN TEENAGERS -- GET OFF MY LAWN!, er, I mean....it all started with Bill Gates creating a world of COPY - CUT - & PASTE....and a little thing called "CLIP ART", not to mention the advent of DIGITAL MUSIC, followed shortly by DOWNLOADING DIGITAL MUSIC, and MOVIES, SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS, and other copyrighted works. I've met so many kids coming out of school who have lost all ethics and morals concerning the property rights of others....they feel for the most part, "if it's on the web, it's theirs to do with as they please"....regardless of who they're hurting (including themselves). We're raising a generation of FSA like we've never seen before. It's a shame, because it's a naive short sighted viewpoint....and their ignorance causes irreparable harm to content creators, and has driven the market value down as a whole. As a content creator, I've seen my own work devalued over the years simply because of a flood of unreimbursed uses. Get's my blood up almost as much as 2nd-A infringements. |