intellectual property is ethically opposed to property rights. - Page 5

Quote:








No, I meant that *if* claiming a right cannot work in practice *for some reason*, it makes no sense.

In which way do you want copyrights to be enforced? To which extent will these methods violate other rights of people or make life less pleasant in general? How do you want to prevent me to make e.g. MP3s out of my CDs and give them to my friends via USB stick?




I don't want them enforced. They violate the rights of others because IP laws ban others from fully utilizing their property. In fact, I think your definition of ownership is very accurate.


Quote:




Property (or ownership... let's not argue about the difference ) is the privilege of being in full command of something.





Quote:




How do you want to prevent me to make e.g. MP3s out of my CDs and give them to my friends via USB stick?




I wouldn't. I think you have every right to use your CD, computer, and USB stick as you see fit. If I use intellectual property laws to prevent you from doing so, I've violated your property rights (as you and I define them).|||I agree with you totally dinosaur, and its good to see more Austrian propaganda here. However the argument over scarcity is more convicing imo. That is, that the justification of any property right enforcement is scarcity of material resources, that are regulated with the rules. This condition IP obviously doesnt fill.


Quote:








Austrian economics always crack me up. Kangaroo! Didjerido! Throw another economist on the barbie!






|||Quote:








This was from the first page but I felt I should just point out that Austria is not Australia.




Correct, Glass, in just one short day you've managed to find an obvious joke.|||Quote:








I agree with you totally dinosaur, and its good to see more Austrian propaganda here. However the argument over scarcity is more convicing imo. That is, that the justification of any property right enforcement is scarcity of material resources, that are regulated with the rules. This condition IP obviously doesnt fill.








Scarcity of resources, eh? OK, so a musician writes a song. There is exactly one of it, regardless of how many copies there are. One song for the entire world. That scarce enough for you? You're making a severe mistake in treating an idea as a concrete object, which means you're missing the entire point.|||Quote:








Scarcity of resources, eh? OK, so a musician writes a song. There is exactly one of it, regardless of how many copies there are. One song for the entire world. That scarce enough for you? You're making a severe mistake in treating an idea as a concrete object, which means you're missing the entire point.




Actually, that would be you. we're not treating it as a concrete object, because concrete objects are scarce.

if the use of something excludes somebody elses' use of it, then it is scarce. my use of a particular pattern of notes and instrument does not exclude somebody else from using that particular pattern.

I like bobcox's idea of making a program that will create every possible song.|||Quote:








I don't want them enforced. They violate the rights of others because IP laws ban others from fully utilizing their property. In fact, I think your definition of ownership is very accurate.

I wouldn't. I think you have every right to use your CD, computer, and USB stick as you see fit. If I use intellectual property laws to prevent you from doing so, I've violated your property rights (as you and I define them).




Well, I didn't mean you personally, but the anonymous reader in general.

My main point (and yours as well, to a certain extent) was that there are things which would require giving up other essential rights if they are enforced. Maybe it's unfair, but it's the reality. There are more constitutional rights than the right to own property and in case of conflicts, others might take precedence.

I haven't seen a way of enforcing copyrights in a manner yet which (1) works and (2) is acceptable.|||The point is - there exists no economic justification for enforcement of IP rights(unlike with regular property). All that is is the incentive argument, which is not economic in nature, as economics in its strict form rejects incentives - as ends are teleological in nature, as an implication of the action axiom. Notice that this is again a STRICT argument against IP, unlike the willy-nilly loose argumentation generally used for supporting it, or other statist measures|||It's extremely ironic that this discussion is on a video game website. Under the model proposed by the original poster, the game would never have existed. Does anyone really think Blizzard would have paid professional developers to dedicate themselves for years to create a program that they could sell once, and which would then be free to the entire world? It would never happen. Nor would anyone ever record a song, write a book, produce a movie, or do anything else creative. Yellow dinosaur, your stance is great for people who hate all music, cinema, video games, and literature. Nice job.|||Quote:








It's extremely ironic that this discussion is on a video game website. Under the model proposed by the original poster, the game would never have existed. Does anyone really think Blizzard would have paid professional developers to dedicate themselves for years to create a program that they could sell once, and which would then be free to the entire world? It would never happen. Nor would anyone ever record a song, write a book, produce a movie, or do anything else creative. Yellow dinosaur, your stance is great for people who hate all music, cinema, video games, and literature. Nice job.




I guess you've never heard of World of Warcraft, or Guild Wars, or DnD online, or Everquest, or Runescape, or dragon age, or fallout 3, or Xbox Live, or the dozens of other games which rely on an alternative economic model than the traditional game did for the past 30 years.

Abolishing IP laws would actually increase the overall value of what you pay for in the video game industry.

edit:

I mean, even Diablo. Those cd-keys have become a valuable source of income as a ticket of entry to use Blizzard hosted servers. It's not necessary for users to do so (there are plenty of private servers available), but they like the certain benefits and constant updates that a large company can offer.|||Nope. All of those games charge the individual user. That's the opposite model of what you are proposing. I'm beginning to think this is just a trolling exercise. No one is really this naive.