Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 11:26:57 PMScarcity is why we have property.

Alright, even if we roll with that idea as property (and I wouldn't), if then society just decided to collectively agree 'this is not literal property but we agree to treat it as such for the purpose of rewarding non-physicall tangible endeavors and prevent the guild system', would that be OK? And if society did that, would people breaking that law be unethical?

Quote from: soundchaser on October 10, 2021, 11:32:02 PM
Nice to see some good grasp of basic economics here (I especially am glad to see the correct definition of cost as rooted in a value-laden action, not some weird accident of a thing of substance).

Err....Im confused as to what exactly you mean by that.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:22:59 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 11:18:28 PM
Let's say you sell candy bars. If you're the only one selling candy bars, then you can charge $100 and maybe some people will pay. But if 30 companies are selling candy bars for $1, you're going to have a hard time selling an equivalent one for $100. Does the existence of the other 29 companies reduce the value of your candy bar? Yes.

So if I make my 'rival' banknotes so everybody can benefit from 100$ bills (10 cents each), im doing everybody a benefit right?
I know about mandated bank notes. But your not really engaging with my argument. Which is that ideas can have value and be a property.

Bank note, credit, whatever the fuck else: are representations or ideas of some value. If I conterfiet a deed to a house, (and then sell it for the reduced cost) is that still a benefit?

Edit: Property is just an idea.

I did engage your argument, you just missed the point. Let's try again.

Yes, if you create an alternate currency, you're providing a value. The monopoly status of the US dollar hurts us, because it allows the Fed to engage in destructive practices like money printing go brrr that hurt the public, and the market isn't being allowed to create a stable currency people can use instead.

You seem to be confusing that with counterfeiting. Again: What does that have to do with ideas being property? Counterfeiting is fraud or deception. It doesn't require the exact format of the dollar bill to be property.

Quote from: Oddend on October 10, 2021, 11:32:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 10, 2021, 11:25:28 PM
IF my candybar has a unique flavor and the recipe is unique, do any of the other 29 companies have the right to steal my recipe and sell the exact same flavor as me after stealing my recipe?

Presuming you're using the word "steal" in your usual sense (i.e. to "learn of the recipe through a book I publish"), then yes, they actually do. Recipes aren't protected by IP law.

No dumbass, not everything that's been published is in the public domain in a commercial sense and no I am talking about stealing it. It's an idea, but to you to own such things they must be kept a secret.

But there's such things as reverse ingeneering, which constitutes theft also.

But then since no one got inside a private building I guess you think that's also using the nanny state, right ideologue?

You have already put your opinion in the matter out to everybody to see in plain english, the only way to own the game/novel/etc I wrote is to never publish it.

In other words if you publish it then "SOCIETY" claims ownership of it "for the greater good" and if they are magnanimous will grant you the "privilege" of a limited time monopoly so you can earn some money from it before some crook takes it and makes money from it.

I'm for IP lasting forever now and to continue talking to you ideologues is of no use, you already exposed yourselves, thank you very much for that.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:29:24 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 10, 2021, 11:24:13 PMThere is nothing wrong with trade secrets; if a thief breaks and enters to steal the trade secret, they've violated all sorts of property rights in order to do so. If an employee leaks the trade secret, they have violated their employment contract.

[/b]

A law is a social contract. If the employee disagrees with their contract, and thinks its unfair and feel they where forced to be under it, does that make it OK for them to break said contract?

This is a totally different discussion. The point is that the employment contract (along with worthwhile compensation) is a perfectly peaceful way to discourage the publication of information you'd like to keep secret. What would happen to the employee if they violated the contract would be up to whatever court they were taken to (if the employer even bothered to take legal action against them).

My original point was that, yes, it can be possible to violate property rights in the course of acquiring protected information (breaking into a building, stealing a briefcase, etc.). While information itself cannot be property, it can be protected using property (kept locked inside a building and inside employees' heads, for example).

Authors don't usually plan to publish their novels as confidential company memos, though. They just want them to be treated as such.

Quote from: Oddend on October 10, 2021, 11:04:05 PM

It really is bizarre how everyone thinks IP law is meant to protect them. News flash: IP law protects only those who can afford expensive frivolous lawsuits (hint: not you).

Exactly, that's why convincing so many people that ideas are property and thus a natural right plays right into the hands of the giant corporations that want to lock up and monetize every last piece of the world's cultural heritage, and not allow anyone access except on their terms ($$$).

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:33:55 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 11:26:57 PMScarcity is why we have property.

Alright, even if we roll with that idea as property (and I wouldn't), if then society just decided to collectively agree 'this is not literal property but we agree to treat it as such for the purpose of rewarding non-physicall tangible endeavors and prevent the guild system', would that be OK? And if society did that, would people breaking that law be unethical?

Every piece of land and physical object has an owner, who has the exclusive monopoly of its use. People can exchange these objects, and pass then to their heirs. Are you okay with that happening to every idea anyone has ever had?

Ideas aren't property, and they can't be treated as property.

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 11:39:39 PMYes, if you create an alternate currency, you're providing a value.

Im not creating an alternate currency. Im riding off the assumed value of an existing one.

You keep not engaging with the idea that value is purely percieved. As a result society (and not in the commie sense, just a 'collection of people' sense) makes protections for certain ideas for this reason.

If I made copies of credits and just gave them away for free, or just dumped them on the road, I would be reducing value with no fraud or deception.
Society would come to the decision that if you wanted to make your own credits, you would need to mark them as different in order to make trade with them possible.

Do note the central bank directly influences the money BASE which is currency and RESERVES (digital money). The control is roughly 10% (give or take) the money assets actively held. The monopoly production argument often forgets that the real source of money supply adjustments would be commercial banks.

Quote from: Oddend on October 10, 2021, 11:42:18 PM
This is a totally different discussion. The point is that the employment contract (along with worthwhile compensation) is a perfectly peaceful way to discourage the publication of information you'd like to keep secret. What would happen to the employee if they violated the contract would be up to whatever court they were taken to (if the employer even bothered to take legal action against them).

So if the town of 'Buba Springs' requested that anybody that worked or lived there abided by IP law, would that also be peaceful?

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 11:49:12 PMIdeas aren't property, and they can't be treated as property.

Even if that where the assumption we wen't off of, its not a practical way to have any sort of society where ideas can have serious value and require serious capital to develop. Which is again why there have always been historical protections for this sort of thing even before modern IP law.

Not everybody can beg for charity.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:34:49 PM

Quote from: soundchaser on October 10, 2021, 11:32:02 PM
Nice to see some good grasp of basic economics here (I especially am glad to see the correct definition of cost as rooted in a value-laden action, not some weird accident of a thing of substance).

Err....Im confused as to what exactly you mean by that.

Value isn't based on the input. It doesn't matter what effort you put into something, or how many resources you have to expend. If nobody wants to buy it, it's worthless (in the economic value sense; this isn't a moral or spiritual judgment). The value of something is what the next person is willing to spend to buy it. In other words, if you sell 100 candy bars at $1 each and nobody else wants to buy them, the value of the next candy bar is <$1.

This is the refutation of the labor theory of value by the marginalists.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 10, 2021, 11:40:28 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 10, 2021, 11:32:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 10, 2021, 11:25:28 PM
IF my candybar has a unique flavor and the recipe is unique, do any of the other 29 companies have the right to steal my recipe and sell the exact same flavor as me after stealing my recipe?

Presuming you're using the word "steal" in your usual sense (i.e. to "learn of the recipe through a book I publish"), then yes, they actually do. Recipes aren't protected by IP law.

No dumbass, not everything that's been published is in the public domain in a commercial sense and no I am talking about stealing it. It's an idea, but to you to own such things they must be kept a secret.

But there's such things as reverse ingeneering, which constitutes theft also.

But then since no one got inside a private building I guess you think that's also using the nanny state, right ideologue?

Reverse engineering is literally not considered theft. You are woefully ignorant of the system you're so adamant in defending.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 10, 2021, 11:40:28 PM
You have already put your opinion in the matter out to everybody to see in plain english, the only way to own the game/novel/etc I wrote is to never publish it.

You still can't "own" the pattern of information, since it's possible for someone else to produce the same pattern of information on their own. But yes, keeping it on your hard drive would be the most effective way of ensuring that nobody ever enjoys it without your permission.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 10, 2021, 11:40:28 PM
In other words if you publish it then "SOCIETY" claims ownership of it "for the greater good" and if they are magnanimous will grant you the "privilege" of a limited time monopoly so you can earn some money from it before some crook takes it and makes money from it.

"""SOCIETY""" isn't a person and can't claim anything. Nor can it grant you new rights (though you insist that it can and does). If you publish information, it's out there. People can see it. They can remember it. It's not possible for you to prevent information transfer except by never publishing it. Get over it. If you want people to send you money, then convince them to do so. What are you so worried about?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 10, 2021, 11:40:28 PM
I'm for IP lasting forever now and to continue talking to you ideologues is of no use, you already exposed yourselves, thank you very much for that.

When are you planning to delete everything you've written, out of nobility and respect for all those IP holders whose work you've enjoyed and drawn from?

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 11:55:41 PMThis is the refutation of the labor theory of value by the marginalists.

Ah, well I will agree on that.

Well, lets take it a step away from society. If I ask you to not share/use my ideas without my permission as a contingent of me sharing them with you at all, is it ethical if you do so anyway?

Quote from: soundchaser on October 10, 2021, 11:50:27 PM
Do note the central bank directly influences the money BASE which is currency and RESERVES (digital money). The control is roughly 10% (give or take) the money assets actively held. The monopoly production argument often forgets that the real source of money supply adjustments would be commercial banks.

That's an irrelevant distinction at this level of discussion. The central bank influences the commercial banks by any number of methods, including adjusting the overnight rate of treasuries, setting the reserve limit (currently abolished), changing the assets it buys, and making pronouncements that sway the market. While they've offloaded the responsibility and don't have precise control over how much money is lent out, and they're technically (but not really) a private bank, it's still the government creating money out of nothing.