Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 05:00:09 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:18:00 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 04:13:21 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:02:48 PM
Why is it that an engineer earns more than a janitor? Isn't because of his intellect?

No, they're both paid to provide a service to the employer. You can be a highly intellectual janitor (more educated than the engineer, even), but you're not going to suddenly get an engineer's salary.

Why is it that one job pays more than the other? Because of the intellect required to do it, same intellect you seem to despise.

Ayn Rand is one of my all-time favorite thinkers, but she's not my high priest. My shelf is mostly full of classic books on philosophy, economics, history, theology, math, design, programming (in addition to the RPGs). I wouldn't say I despise the human intellect. Rather, it's out of my love of learning that I've come to despise the IP myth (I used to be an IP protectionist too).

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:18:00 PM
Why is a brick maker able to protect his work but a writer shouldn't?

Writers can protect any property they have, just like the brick maker. Just like nobody is allowed to steal a brick maker's finished bricks, nobody is allowed to steal an author's crates full of offset print copies of their new novel.

The information inside those print copies can't be property, though.

Seriously, just watch this talk (again, from a career patent attorney): Intellectual Property - The Root of All Evil | Stephan Kinsella

If you're serious about publishing, it'll save you a lot of anxiety down the road.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:49:52 PM
If I copy your work and then sell it you lost my money and all the money I manage to get from selling your game.

Who come that's not theft?

This is just a logical fallacy; he didn't lose that money, since it was never in his possession. He may have lost a few sales opportunities, but opportunities are not property.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:49:52 PM
Why is it that you didn't put your game freely available to anyone to download for free or PWYW way?

A common way to monetize public-domain-dedicated works is to charge for the initial download, and just politely ask that your fans will not share the download willy-nilly (though they're certainly allowed to). This makes the paid download the easiest way for most people to grab the work, make sure they have the latest version, and get free updates. If it's a reasonable price, most people aren't going to bother scouring the internet for the free copy, since buying it will actually have a lower cost than "pirating" it, and can have lasting benefit.

This is the strategy behind Steam's massive success: "provide a better service than the pirates".

Right, loosing sales thanks to my taking his game and selling it without giving him any money isn't him loosing the money of those sales...

You're being willingly obtuse because it goes against your ideology, I've never read Ayn Raind, I'm not an Ancap nor any other form of utopian ideology.

"reasonable price" please define that in such a way that virtually no one would disgree with said price.

Again the pirate most likelly wasn't going to pay for it anyway so nothing lost.

Me taking his game and selling it without giving him money is not the same.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 01:39:02 PM
Because convenient accidents won't result in the author's work being dumped into the public domain anytime in the useful future.

Incentives matter, and you're proposing a very negative one.

...
If you're demanding my position on the topic, I don't have a clear stance. I tend to believe in the old information must free mantra that led to GNU and volumes of freeware, and don't think more and more of our cultural legacy should be locked up in perpetual hereditary trusts or controlled by large corporations. But I also see the value in granting a temporary monopoly to someone who comes up with something novel, so they can profit from it, because that encourages people to create more things that will eventually add to our shared heritage.

But I also completely reject the idea that it's a natural right. That just because you wrote a song, you should have absolute control over it forever. No. If you released it, it becomes part of the commons. If we decide to grant you a temporary monopoly, it's not because you own it, but because we've decided it's a good way to incentivize people to create more. Thus it should always be temporary, and while the period should be long enough to give you time to do all the work it to bring it to a wider audience, it shouldn't be some indefinitely long period. I don't have an exact figure, but even 20 years for patents seem excessive, much less the absurd lengths of current copyrights.

Too many people have come to think of it as an entitlement, or property, which isn't why these kinds of laws were created. I think we should treat them more like a grant or a subsidy; something given by the general public at their discretion because they think it creates a better outcome, rather than something demanded as a right.

So we change it, life of the author or 20 years, whatever comes first (or make it 20 years period). So the heirs have sometime to profit from it in the case of an untimely death of the author. And remove all trademarks over the work at the same time.

Patents are a special case, I think it should be tied to the ammount invested in the development: Meaning you have enough time to cover said costs and make I dunno twice that ammount in profits?

My thing is that if I publish a game and it turns out to be a hit I want protections so no megacorp can just take it from me. Same thing with novels etc.

I find it ridiculous that the estate of a long dead author still has the trademark of part of the creation and can use it to bully you to give them money or risk a lawsuit.

I also find it ridiculous that WotC holds the trademark over stuff they didn't create so many years after it's creation. I might agree if it was the still living Author.

Edited to add:

You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

If I thought 20 years was excessive, why would I think 80 years was better? (A 20 year old who writes something could easily live to 100.)

I don't think profit fixing is ever going to be a good solution. It's just price fixing, under another name. I don't have a clear solution, but I'll point to the software industry where patents have been highly destructive, and completely unnecessary.

Are you making the Hans-Herman Hoppe argument, that all rights start with self-ownership? I find that a dubious chain of reasoning.

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 05:18:13 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 01:39:02 PM
Because convenient accidents won't result in the author's work being dumped into the public domain anytime in the useful future.

Incentives matter, and you're proposing a very negative one.

...
If you're demanding my position on the topic, I don't have a clear stance. I tend to believe in the old information must free mantra that led to GNU and volumes of freeware, and don't think more and more of our cultural legacy should be locked up in perpetual hereditary trusts or controlled by large corporations. But I also see the value in granting a temporary monopoly to someone who comes up with something novel, so they can profit from it, because that encourages people to create more things that will eventually add to our shared heritage.

But I also completely reject the idea that it's a natural right. That just because you wrote a song, you should have absolute control over it forever. No. If you released it, it becomes part of the commons. If we decide to grant you a temporary monopoly, it's not because you own it, but because we've decided it's a good way to incentivize people to create more. Thus it should always be temporary, and while the period should be long enough to give you time to do all the work it to bring it to a wider audience, it shouldn't be some indefinitely long period. I don't have an exact figure, but even 20 years for patents seem excessive, much less the absurd lengths of current copyrights.

Too many people have come to think of it as an entitlement, or property, which isn't why these kinds of laws were created. I think we should treat them more like a grant or a subsidy; something given by the general public at their discretion because they think it creates a better outcome, rather than something demanded as a right.

So we change it, life of the author or 20 years, whatever comes first (or make it 20 years period). So the heirs have sometime to profit from it in the case of an untimely death of the author. And remove all trademarks over the work at the same time.

Patents are a special case, I think it should be tied to the ammount invested in the development: Meaning you have enough time to cover said costs and make I dunno twice that ammount in profits?

My thing is that if I publish a game and it turns out to be a hit I want protections so no megacorp can just take it from me. Same thing with novels etc.

I find it ridiculous that the estate of a long dead author still has the trademark of part of the creation and can use it to bully you to give them money or risk a lawsuit.

I also find it ridiculous that WotC holds the trademark over stuff they didn't create so many years after it's creation. I might agree if it was the still living Author.

Edited to add:

You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

If I thought 20 years was excessive, why would I think 80 years was better? (A 20 year old who writes something could easily live to 100.)

I don't think profit fixing is ever going to be a good solution. It's just price fixing, under another name. I don't have a clear solution, but I'll point to the software industry where patents have been highly destructive, and completely unnecessary.

Are you making the Hans-Herman Hoppe argument, that all rights start with self-ownership? I find that a dubious chain of reasoning.

You can find it faulty, you'd still need to demonstrate how it is faulty.

Lets agree to disagree then.

Quote from: Jam The MF on October 06, 2021, 02:39:21 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:32:13 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

These are different things. Self ownership is a natural right. If I build my house in my own property with my own bricks, its mine. If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud. Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Why is it manufacturing bricks different than manufacturing a novel?

I can't go take your bricks without paying you, why should I be able to take your novel without paying you? From day one no less!

Sound reasoning.  If all creative works become free public domain, then all creators will be broke.  There will be much less incentive to create.

Not necessarily. Michaelangelo didn't rely on copyright law, and today instead of rich Italian patrons we have things like Patreon and other forms of crowdsourcing. Humans attach a lot of subjective value to the creator of something.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 05:27:37 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 05:18:13 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 01:39:02 PM
Because convenient accidents won't result in the author's work being dumped into the public domain anytime in the useful future.

Incentives matter, and you're proposing a very negative one.

...
If you're demanding my position on the topic, I don't have a clear stance. I tend to believe in the old information must free mantra that led to GNU and volumes of freeware, and don't think more and more of our cultural legacy should be locked up in perpetual hereditary trusts or controlled by large corporations. But I also see the value in granting a temporary monopoly to someone who comes up with something novel, so they can profit from it, because that encourages people to create more things that will eventually add to our shared heritage.

But I also completely reject the idea that it's a natural right. That just because you wrote a song, you should have absolute control over it forever. No. If you released it, it becomes part of the commons. If we decide to grant you a temporary monopoly, it's not because you own it, but because we've decided it's a good way to incentivize people to create more. Thus it should always be temporary, and while the period should be long enough to give you time to do all the work it to bring it to a wider audience, it shouldn't be some indefinitely long period. I don't have an exact figure, but even 20 years for patents seem excessive, much less the absurd lengths of current copyrights.

Too many people have come to think of it as an entitlement, or property, which isn't why these kinds of laws were created. I think we should treat them more like a grant or a subsidy; something given by the general public at their discretion because they think it creates a better outcome, rather than something demanded as a right.

So we change it, life of the author or 20 years, whatever comes first (or make it 20 years period). So the heirs have sometime to profit from it in the case of an untimely death of the author. And remove all trademarks over the work at the same time.

Patents are a special case, I think it should be tied to the ammount invested in the development: Meaning you have enough time to cover said costs and make I dunno twice that ammount in profits?

My thing is that if I publish a game and it turns out to be a hit I want protections so no megacorp can just take it from me. Same thing with novels etc.

I find it ridiculous that the estate of a long dead author still has the trademark of part of the creation and can use it to bully you to give them money or risk a lawsuit.

I also find it ridiculous that WotC holds the trademark over stuff they didn't create so many years after it's creation. I might agree if it was the still living Author.

Edited to add:

You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

If I thought 20 years was excessive, why would I think 80 years was better? (A 20 year old who writes something could easily live to 100.)

I don't think profit fixing is ever going to be a good solution. It's just price fixing, under another name. I don't have a clear solution, but I'll point to the software industry where patents have been highly destructive, and completely unnecessary.

Are you making the Hans-Herman Hoppe argument, that all rights start with self-ownership? I find that a dubious chain of reasoning.

You can find it faulty, you'd still need to demonstrate how it is faulty.

Lets agree to disagree then.

Eric Diaz pointed out the basic flaw in your logic. Just because you made something doesn't mean anyone owes you anything. Labor is not a measure of value. And the reason property matters is because it's how we allocate scarce resources. If you only have enough bricks for 1 house, you can't make 2, so you have to decide who gets the house. If someone takes your bricks, they're depriving you of that potential house. But words and ideas can be replicated endlessly with no degradation of the original. A million houses can have a copy of the KJV Gutenberg Bible, and it doesn't prevent Gutenberg or King James from enjoying their own copies.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:54:27 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 03:49:21 PM

Quote from: Slambo on October 06, 2021, 03:32:59 PM
Okay, my question here is what if, in this example dosney, takes your thing, word for word, and publishes it at a price you can't compete with, like if i wrote a book and needed to sell for 20$ and disney  makes a word for word copy can afford to sell it for 5$.

Aside from calling out Disney, you could just tell your fans that if they want to support you and see any future work from you, they'll need to buy your version, even though it's more expensive. You might also want to figure out a way to print cheaper copies.

You already see this kind of thing with POD creators; I've heard, lots of times, things like "Hey, if you're going to buy my new book, I'd really appreciate if you get the Kindle version instead of the print version, because that gives me a much bigger cut."

If you don't have those fans, though, you probably shouldn't be needing to sell any of your creative works. That's just called making poor life decisions. Like IP-abolitionist patent attorney Stephan Kinsella says, "Your failed business model isn't my problem."

And since money talks you'd end without sells because the vast majority would go buy the $5.00 version over the $20.00 one.

I forgot to mention this earlier, but the idea that Disney would ever do something like this anyway is just laughable tinfoil hat tier paranoia (though I don't fault most people for being taught to worry about it). Did Disney really make their millions by producing the cheapest reprint copies of Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty that the market had ever seen? What public domain stuff do they reprint today?

Has anybody here actually tried to buy a print copy of a public domain work lately? It's not easy to find nice ones that aren't simple copy/paste jobs, with no QA or typesetting involved (they all have 1-star reviews, by the way; no need to take them to court). Even among university presses like Oxford's, the product description won't usually tell you which English translation is inside the book, and they only print the lowest quality of trade paperbacks.

I was elated to find a couple evil capitalist megacorps that still put out quality public domain reprints: Yesterday's Classics (nicely typeset POD done by two people) and Everyman's Library (really nice hardbacks from a traditional publisher).

The only examples I can think of which resemble all these hypothetical Disney-reprint nightmare scenarios are Chaosium pretending like they invented H.P. Lovecraft, or Bethesda claiming to own the word "Scrolls", and that sort of nonsense. Of course, the only reason they can do that is thanks to IP law.

@ErikDiaz @Pat & @Oddend, you're all willingly obtuse and I don't have the time, crayons or patience to keep on explaining you why you're wrong. Besides this is totally off topic.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 05:47:41 PM
@ErikDiaz @Pat & @Oddend, you're all willingly obtuse and I don't have the time, crayons or patience to keep on explaining you why you're wrong. Besides this is totally off topic.

Willfully obtuse. That's the word you're looking for. 

But no, we just disagree. I have noticed you seem to be equating labor and value, which no major economist has believed since Marx. So if you're interested in why I've been pointing out that working on something doesn't mean you're owed anything, you could look into the marginal theory of value.

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 06:21:32 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 05:47:41 PM
@ErikDiaz @Pat & @Oddend, you're all willingly obtuse and I don't have the time, crayons or patience to keep on explaining you why you're wrong. Besides this is totally off topic.

Willfully obtuse. That's the word you're looking for. 

But no, we just disagree. I have noticed you seem to be equating labor and value, which no major economist has believed since Marx. So if you're interested in why I've been pointing out that working on something doesn't mean you're owed anything, you could look into the marginal theory of value.

Nope, I equate the work, money, and time + creativity that goes into creating an intellectual work to value. You don't owe me anything for creating it, but you also have no right to take it and enjoy it or to sell it without giving me money.

Profiting from my work without me benefiting from it seems to be the definition of slavery.

Let me explain my position, if it's something that has no inherent dificulty/value go write the next Harry Potter. Then put it into the public domain. And if you manage to get as rich as JK Rowling from voluntary donations then come and I will change my mind.

Until then your argument is the same as "if only we abolished property there wouldn't be any theft!"

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 06:27:46 PM

Profiting from my work without me benefiting from it seems to be the definition of slavery.

No, forcing you to work is the definition of slavery. (Hi IRS!)

If you're not forced to do anything or deprived or anything, you're not a slave nor are you entitled to anything.

Thought you were done with this topic?

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 07:21:14 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 06:27:46 PM

Profiting from my work without me benefiting from it seems to be the definition of slavery.

No, forcing you to work is the definition of slavery. (Hi IRS!)

If you're not forced to do anything or deprived or anything, you're not a slave nor are you entitled to anything.

Thought you were done with this topic?

"If only we abolished private property then there wouldn't be any theft!"

You're also not entitled to my creative work, especially not for free, much less to profit from it without me receiving proper compensation for it.

Are you already putting your money where your mouth is?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 07:36:48 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 07:21:14 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 06:27:46 PM

Profiting from my work without me benefiting from it seems to be the definition of slavery.

No, forcing you to work is the definition of slavery. (Hi IRS!)

If you're not forced to do anything or deprived or anything, you're not a slave nor are you entitled to anything.

Thought you were done with this topic?

"If only we abolished private property then there wouldn't be any theft!"

You're also not entitled to my creative work, especially not for free, much less to profit from it without me receiving proper compensation for it.

Are you already putting your money where your mouth is?

Did you missed the "deprived of anything"? That's explicitly a reference to private property.

If you don't want anyone to have access to your creative works, then don't publish them. Simple, done.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:57:48 PM
Why is it different producing bricks than producing a creative work?

Because a brick is an actual tangible thing where as a creative work has no inherent value.

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 07:40:09 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 07:36:48 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 07:21:14 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 06:27:46 PM

Profiting from my work without me benefiting from it seems to be the definition of slavery.

No, forcing you to work is the definition of slavery. (Hi IRS!)

If you're not forced to do anything or deprived or anything, you're not a slave nor are you entitled to anything.

Thought you were done with this topic?

"If only we abolished private property then there wouldn't be any theft!"

You're also not entitled to my creative work, especially not for free, much less to profit from it without me receiving proper compensation for it.

Are you already putting your money where your mouth is?

Did you missed the "deprived of anything"? That's explicitly a reference to private property.

If you don't want anyone to have access to your creative works, then don't publish them. Simple, done.

Right because if I do publish them to profit from my creative efforts then you feel entitled to take them and profit from them without my consent and without compensating me for my efforts... Slavery and theft.

Go write the next Harry Potter and put it under public domain, get as rich as JK Rowling then you might have an argument. In the meantime you're just trying to justify theft and slavery.