Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:54:14 PM

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.

What does that have to do with anything?

I've repeatedly stated, even in this discussion tonight with you, that I support limited monopoly protections for ideas and intellectual creations. That doesn't require the false assertion that ideas can be property.

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.

There was a time in US history where you could make your own bank notes and. as you may expect, some bank notes were worth more or less then others.

Of course that was before the big banks cornered the market and monopolised the control over creating currency.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 11, 2021, 12:00:16 AM

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?

You keep framing things as "moral" or "ethical". Why? I've made zero moral or ethical arguments. My entire premise is that property is a utilitarian way of allocating scarce resources, and that ideas aren't property. We're not talking about natural rights, which I do believe have an intrinsic moral value. We're talking about ways to organize society efficiently. And while more efficient ways are better, the value is in the utilitarian efficiency rather than anything inherent. The most topical natural rights are those that Geeky is so keen to violate.

Quote from: Oddend on October 10, 2021, 11:56:50 PM

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?

Unless you can prove I copied someone fuck you, because that's not the same as we were talking about. But you know it, you can't argue without using motte and bailey, false equivalence, strawman and ad hominem. Because you have no arguments. Because you're an ideologue.

So I'll say it again, there's no use in talking to you, you're and ideologue, and as such can't argue in good faith, proven by the fact that you say I'm stealing from ppl if I demand they pay for my shit and then deny it only to say it again a few post down.

You're so used to lying you can't even keep your lies straight.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:50:20 PM
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.

How is that not fraud or deception?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 11, 2021, 12:14:11 AM
Unless you can prove I copied someone fuck you, because that's not the same as we were talking about. But you know it, you can't argue without using motte and bailey, false equivalence, strawman and ad hominem.

You forgot sea lioning, gaslighting, and holdoing. Those are my favorites!

Quote from: Pat on October 11, 2021, 12:13:05 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 11, 2021, 12:00:16 AM

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?

You keep framing things as "moral" or "ethical". Why? I've made zero moral or ethical arguments. My entire premise is that property is a utilitarian way of allocating scarce resources, and that ideas aren't property. We're not talking about natural rights, which I do believe have an intrinsic moral value. We're talking about ways to organize society efficiently. And while more efficient ways are better, the value is in the utilitarian efficiency rather than anything inherent. The most topical natural rights are those that Geeky is so keen to violate.

Natural rights: I own my self, from this it follows that I own that which I make with my own money. But to you ideas are so expansive that a novel is an idea, a game is an idea never mind that writting any of those IS the idea and any of those once written is a product.

Fucking ideologues man...

Quote from: Pat on October 11, 2021, 12:13:05 AMYou keep framing things as "moral" or "ethical". Why? I've made zero moral or ethical arguments.

Well because Im not a utalitarianist, and I assumed you where not either. I think its important that laws and society be built on ethics or morals and not just utility.
At this base level of discussion (what does or does not constitute property), personal morals or ethics play a great deal.

Quote from: Pat on October 11, 2021, 12:15:01 AMHow is that not fraud or deception?

I just decided to make copies one day man. And just passed them out cause I felt like it. Why do my morals or ethics play a role in this action?

Quote from: Pat on October 11, 2021, 12:16:12 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 11, 2021, 12:14:11 AM
Unless you can prove I copied someone fuck you, because that's not the same as we were talking about. But you know it, you can't argue without using motte and bailey, false equivalence, strawman and ad hominem.

You forgot sea lioning, gaslighting, and holdoing. Those are my favorites!

You choose to answer to that and not where I call you out for lying...

Fucking ideologues man...

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 11, 2021, 12:17:58 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 11, 2021, 12:16:12 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 11, 2021, 12:14:11 AM
Unless you can prove I copied someone fuck you, because that's not the same as we were talking about. But you know it, you can't argue without using motte and bailey, false equivalence, strawman and ad hominem.

You forgot sea lioning, gaslighting, and holdoing. Those are my favorites!

You choose to answer to that and not where I call you out for lying...

Fucking ideologues man...

No, fucking people (you) who can't keep other posters straight.

(You were responding to someone else.)

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:54:14 PM
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.

This is an assertion that demands quite an explanation. Especially in regards to the software industry, and also the many thriving industries which have no IP law protection at all (fashion and culinary, for example).

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:54:14 PM
Which is again why there have always been historical protections for this sort of thing even before modern IP law.

There have not. This is a myth. But even if IP law was as old as time (protectionism in general is quite old), it would be no less total nonsense (which protectionism in general is). Oldness isn't an argument.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:54:14 PM
Not everybody can beg for charity.

Who's advocated for begging? Read the thread (or better yet, google) for endless examples of successful businesses and creators who intentionally forego IP protection.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:52:33 PM

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?

As for the localized contract-based law part, that would be something like a Hoppean "covenant community", which is a real idea proposed by some anarchists. But in the case of IP, enforcement wouldn't be feasible (just like real-life current-day IP law), since every new piece of information implies a new magical contract between the author and everyone other than the author.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 11, 2021, 12:17:14 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 11, 2021, 12:13:05 AMYou keep framing things as "moral" or "ethical". Why? I've made zero moral or ethical arguments.

Well because Im not a utalitarianist, and I assumed you where not either. I think its important that laws and society be built on ethics or morals and not just utility.
At this base level of discussion (what does or does not constitute property), personal morals or ethics play a great deal.

I'm not a utilitarianist. I'm not even sure what you mean by that, though I'm generally less of a fan of John Stuart Mill than you'd expect. My strongest moral beliefs are rooted in natural rights.

But property isn't a natural right. It's a utilitarian construct, which is valuable because it works. Respect for private property is one of the key pillars that allows societies to develop economically, and improve living conditions. Which I value highly, and why I constantly argue against the government fucking things up because it makes live worse for everyone. Economic advancement is cumulative in a cumulative interest sense, and when you hold back everyone 10%, then it means that any point in the future, we'll be 10% worse off than we could be. We'll never catch up, which should be a strong incentive. But it never is, because politicians the public are short sighted.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:50:20 PM

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.

Counterfeiting involves copying, but not in the sense we're discussing here. Money is, by its nature, scarce. You cannot make real (100% equivalent) copies of real money units, or it wouldn't be a viable money. PDFs are not scarce, so their value cannot be decreased by producing additional copies. Sure, somebody could value their copy at a lower price point in light of new copies, but that would just mean they don't understand what a digital file is. Not even owners of print books sit around lamenting reprints.

Counterfeiting is an example of fraud: trading something to someone under false pretenses. The same would go for selling a copy of a painting under the pretense that it's an original (that would make it a counterfeit). On the other hand, selling a copy of a painting honestly, with the customer's knowledge that it's a copy, is not fraud, nor is it theft from the original artist (permission or not).

Quote from: Pat on October 11, 2021, 12:26:22 AMMy strongest moral beliefs are rooted in natural rights.

Which you see as?

Im against government intervention for practical reasons but also moral ones where I do not believe the majority have the right to demand things from the minority by that standing.

Quote from: Oddend on October 11, 2021, 12:21:53 AMThis is an assertion that demands quite an explanation. Especially in regards to the software industry, and also the many thriving industries which have no IP law protection at all (fashion and culinary, for example).

Fasion/Culinary is a service and a percieved value market. Software has a fuck ton of IP protection in many places. Im not saying things can't exist without IP law. Im just saying its a stretch to say they would all exist without it.

Quote from: Oddend on October 11, 2021, 12:21:53 AM
There have not. This is a myth.

I did not know that. It would be interesting to read your basis for this. And my argument wasn't oldness. My argument was this was a cycle of society that would rebuilt itself almost instantly akin to the idea of higharchy. It was an appeal to social systems.

Quote from: Oddend on October 11, 2021, 12:36:50 AM
Counterfeiting involves copying, but not in the sense we're discussing here. Money is, by its nature, scarce. You cannot make real (100% equivalent) copies of real money units, or it wouldn't be a viable money.

Again, if I made a bunch and just put it on the side of the road with no intent to profit directly. Me doing so difuses a real value.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 10, 2021, 11:29:09 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 10, 2021, 11:24:13 PM
There is no "must share". If you wish to keep information to yourself, you are perfectly free to do so. In business, this is what "trade secrets" are: information carefully kept from eyes outside the company, both through physical security and through non-disclosure agreements signed by the information handlers.

There 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. Of course, there's still a limit to how far things can go: once the secret is out, the information itself cannot be "defended" any longer without violating the property rights of people who did not break-and-enter and who never signed an NDA.

Of course, most aspiring authors aren't planning to keep their work a secret. The contradiction is when authors like GeekyBugle want to publish their work (release it into the public domain) but also have the government treat it like a trade secret, and pretend that everyone in the world has signed an NDA (GeekyBugle might call it "The Social Contract").

Fucking ideologues man...

Edited to add:

I hadn't noticed that gemm in italics now.

There it is in plain sight, I can't publish it because the moment I do I forfeit my property over it.

Yep, I'm for IP lasting forever now.

Wrong. You can publish whatever you want, and you forfeit nothing, since you never owned the information to begin with. Information can't be owned. Get over it, comrade.

By the way, when are you deleting your book? Or do you have no principles, and you'll just wait till Disney gets IP extended to infinity before you do "the right thing"? Nah, I bet you wouldn't even do it then. "IP law for thee... not for me."