Ironically, after all this, there's a mirror of the Trove on Reddit. And Zweihander is still there! Ha ha ha...

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 11, 2021, 01:48:20 AM
I actually do have my work posted for free, but I feel if I didn't want it posted for free my desires should be respected at least on a personal ethics level.

Good manners aren't enforced by law, but they're still considered a good thing by lots of people (hence the name). I don't think it's advisable to run a business in such a way that it succeeds or fails by the good manners of others, though.

In a restaurant, rude customers can be forced to leave, in the interest of the other customers (and the long-term success of the business). In the case of digital goods, though, it's not possible to exclude people who download or share a PDF against your wishes. You can say "I'd appreciate it if you don't", but since it's impossible to stop them, it's best to treat it as such. Taking action against them is just a good way to burn money and bridges (just look at the Zweihander RPG guy; he's made himself into a laughing stock, known only for his enormous hypocrisy rather than the content of his game).

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 11, 2021, 01:48:20 AM
Edit: I know plenty of small youtubers that suffer from having their stuff just reposted. So im not sure having no protections would help them.

Compared to what, though? Even government protectionism doesn't help them now.

In a world without IP law, there's nothing (aside from feasibility) to stop a private business like YouTube from having a rule that they only want to host uploads from the original author (however they define that). I don't think it's possible to actively pursue such a thing, but they could at least respond to complaints, which they probably already do. They could already demonetize re-uploads automatically, if they wanted to (I don't know if they do or not).

If such a thing is a desirable feature, platforms that want to be successful will support it. I think the culture is moving away from that, rather than toward it, though. Tons of videos are slight edits and remixes of other videos, and I don't think anybody wants that to go away (except for Metallica, maybe: https://www.iheartradio.ca/news/metallica-muted-on-twitch-over-copyright-concerns-1.14613932).

Quote from: Oddend on October 11, 2021, 11:35:56 AMCompared to what, though? Even government protectionism doesn't help them now.

Well youtube actually does all the things you mentioned. But it only setup those automated system after pressure from megacorps. Its largely used by them to punish smaller channels, but it is also used by smaller channels to stop theft from themselves.

I just do not see large scale creative ventures being made without some level of protection, and saying you can't steal them because they are just ideas feels the sort of an immensly disengenous and unethical one. Laws or no laws, assuming no government mandate: you are denying revenue to somebody because its convenient for you. You are the one breaking a social contract with somebody else. Just because its un-enforcable doesn't make it a breech of ethics.

Its like calling a person a degenerating cell cluster. Its technically true, and in a physical analysis of it, is more true then a person.

Edit: Also can you find me some sources for your claim that guilds didn't uphold forms of IP law before IP? You said its a myth, and Id like to educate myself if thats the case.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 11, 2021, 12:04:06 PM
I just do not see large scale creative ventures being made without some level of protection

It's fine if you can't imagine a successful business model, but the rights of others do not end at the limits of an author's imagination. This is literally a line of argument used against abolishing slavery: "But without slaves, who would pick the cotton?" The correct answer is obviously, "It doesn't matter".

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 11, 2021, 12:04:06 PM
and saying you can't steal them because they are just ideas feels the sort of an immensly disengenous and unethical one

It's not that we're "saying" you can't steal information. Unless you're talking imprecisely about stealing the only physical copy in a person's posession, you just can't "steal" information. In the exact same way that triangles cannot be squares, information cannot be property. It just doesn't make any sense. It's a contradiction in terms.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 11, 2021, 12:04:06 PM
Laws or no laws, assuming no government mandate: you are denying revenue to somebody because its convenient for you. You are the one breaking a social contract with somebody else.

Neglecting to buy a a copy of a product is not "denying revenue" to anyone. If "not purchasing" is theft, then the biggest perpetrators of "IP theft" are the people who have never even heard of the "IP" in question.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 11, 2021, 12:04:06 PM
Just because its un-enforcable doesn't make it a breech of ethics.

I agree, but I didn't say it's because it's unenforceable; I just said it is unenforceable. I'm trying to emphasize that even if an author chooses to believe they have a right to control other people because they published a book, it's very costly and impractical to do so. It would be much easier to just figure out a viable business model than to make it illegal for their poorly-thought-out business to fail (or even to pursue legal action where it already is illegal).

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 11, 2021, 12:04:06 PM
Edit: Also can you find me some sources for your claim that guilds didn't uphold forms of IP law before IP? You said its a myth, and Id like to educate myself if thats the case.

I didn't mean that non-competitive people have never broken or threatened to break the thumbs of competitors. What I'm saying is that the idea that breaking thumbs over the content of books has always been a normal thing, just because some hack frauds did it in medieval Europe, is really stretching the terms "always" and "normal". Sure, there are historical precedents, like medieval occupational cartels (guilds) or that Irish king who waged a small war over an unauthorized personal copy of a hymn book, or the patents on actual literal piracy granted to actual literal pirates. I think it's safe to say that western civilization does not owe them a debt of gratitude.

Note: I realize your original phrasing was not "it's always been normal", but I don't have the time to scroll back at the moment. I'm talking about the general idea, not your exact phrasing. I hope I've clarified my stance.

Quote from: Oddend on October 11, 2021, 02:15:09 PMIt's fine if you can't imagine a successful business model, but the rights of others do not end at the limits of an author's imagination. This is literally a line of argument used against abolishing slavery: "But without slaves, who would pick the cotton?" The correct answer is obviously, "It doesn't matter".

Well currently we just very much differ on what we see property as. You take on a purely materialistic view, while I take a mental one as well. I feel your also very much muddying the water by trying to call in slavery like a godwin law. Which I feel is a very sort of unfair argumentative tactic.

I just fundementally disagree on 'property as scarcity' idea. And I don't like your disparaging spin on people that disagree with you. I think we have been arguing in circles and im gonna leave it there.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 11, 2021, 12:04:06 PM
Edit: Also can you find me some sources for your claim that guilds didn't uphold forms of IP law before IP? You said its a myth, and Id like to educate myself if thats the case.

Hmm, an interesting claim. In my work as an economist in higher ed, I taught medieval and renaissance economic history for a couple years while in Europe (at a campus program abroad). My readings of a range of IP practices suggested that there were uses of brandnames, brandmarks, and other IP-like actions, often with a kind of voluntary beginning, which began to be relied upon in legal proceedings (thus carrying the force of protective law). The IP behaviors have ancient origins but become more codified in the 1300s AD/CE in Venetian guilds... pacts were being put in place with local government to support and protect guild IP practices by 1320.

I'd need to dig out the research.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 11, 2021, 02:50:51 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 11, 2021, 02:15:09 PMIt's fine if you can't imagine a successful business model, but the rights of others do not end at the limits of an author's imagination. This is literally a line of argument used against abolishing slavery: "But without slaves, who would pick the cotton?" The correct answer is obviously, "It doesn't matter".

Well currently we just very much differ on what we see property as. You take on a purely materialistic view, while I take a mental one as well. I feel your also very much muddying the water by trying to call in slavery like a godwin law. Which I feel is a very sort of unfair argumentative tactic.

If an analogy is so solid that it seems "unfair", then it might just be accurate. You can think that I'm being rude, but I didn't invent the comparison. If you're interested in hearing an accomplished scholar and career patent attorney make the case, then I refer you to my earlier list of talks by Stephan Kinsella:

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 10:34:42 AM

Quote from: Slambo on October 07, 2021, 01:09:15 PM
So i guess my next question is how is  it really better not to have copyright law for someone who doesnt want to create derivative works.

While there are answers to this question, it's important to remember that answering it is not necessary to justify abolishing IP law: it's analogous to asking how abolishing slavery would help slaves who don't want to be free, or asking how ending the "war on drugs" would help people who don't want to use them.

For example, abolishing slavery did not make slavery a crime; slavery was always a crime, but the governments that protected the slave industry eventually just acknowledged this by abolishing the state protection of a certain criminal class.

Likewise, legalizing drug use doesn't make drug use a peaceful behavior (i.e. a "victimless crime"); it always was a peaceful behavior, but the governments who have victimized those people are slowly starting to acknowledge it.

Once you recognize IP protectionism as the fiat criminalization of peaceful behavior (even if it's a behavior that frightens the cowardly and offends the faint of heart), it becomes self-evident that abolishing it would be a good thing.

As for actually speculating on the most likely effects of IP abolition, I would point you to Stephan Kinsella, who does a much better job than I can. Any one of his talks is great, but these are a few of my favorites that I've listened to. The first two are the same ones I recommended to GeekyBugle earlier in the thread.

• Intellectual Property - The Root of All Evil
• On Life without Patents and Copyright: Or, But Who Would Pick the Cotton?
• How Intellectual Property Hampers Capitalism
• Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Part 1)
• Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Part 2)

Quote from: Oddend on October 11, 2021, 03:32:04 PM
If an analogy is so solid that it seems "unfair", then it might just be accurate.

Or your a dick with an inflated opinion of yourself. Its solid therefore accurate.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 11, 2021, 04:42:58 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 11, 2021, 03:32:04 PM
If an analogy is so solid that it seems "unfair", then it might just be accurate.

Or your a dick with an inflated opinion of yourself. Its solid therefore accurate.

Flawless argument. I guess copying must be theft.

Technically, it is.

You kinda dodged the question last time, so I'll ask again, more specifically: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP not have a right to profit from it?

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
Technically, it is.

You kinda dodged the question last time, so I'll ask again, more specifically: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP not have a right to profit from it?

Does a person who stays at home all day and plays vidya games while binging on Cheetohs and Mountain Dew have a right to a UBI?

No, rights are negative not positive. There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege. Framing it terms of rights and ownership is wrong, and creates a massive sense of entitlement that has greatly helped the Mouse lock down everything nigh unto forever.

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:26:35 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
Technically, it is.

You kinda dodged the question last time, so I'll ask again, more specifically: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP not have a right to profit from it?

Does a person who stays at home all day and plays vidya games while binging on Cheetohs and Mountain Dew have a right to a UBI?

No, rights are negative not positive. There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege. Framing it terms of rights and ownership is wrong, and creates a massive sense of entitlement that has greatly helped the Mouse lock down everything nigh unto forever.

Yes or no. Does he have the right to profit from it?

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 11:08:46 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:26:35 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
Technically, it is.

You kinda dodged the question last time, so I'll ask again, more specifically: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP not have a right to profit from it?

Does a person who stays at home all day and plays vidya games while binging on Cheetohs and Mountain Dew have a right to a UBI?

No, rights are negative not positive. There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege. Framing it terms of rights and ownership is wrong, and creates a massive sense of entitlement that has greatly helped the Mouse lock down everything nigh unto forever.

Yes or no. Does he have the right to profit from it?

I answered your question in the text you quoted.

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:26:35 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
Technically, it is.

You kinda dodged the question last time, so I'll ask again, more specifically: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP not have a right to profit from it?

Does a person who stays at home all day and plays vidya games while binging on Cheetohs and Mountain Dew have a right to a UBI?

No, rights are negative not positive. There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege. Framing it terms of rights and ownership is wrong, and creates a massive sense of entitlement that has greatly helped the Mouse lock down everything nigh unto forever.

Okay, but this comes off more like "I don't like the Mouse so I want their stuff" than anything else.

As someone who is creative, the only reason I can see for wanting someone else's IP is to try and piggyback off the previous work and effort of others instead of putting in the work to develop my own material.

I mean, let's say Superman or Iron Man becomes public domain... are you telling me that the quality of superhero themed stories would suddenly improve?

Does being able to claim your outlaw protagonist who robs from the elites is Robin Hood instead of, say, Jack Knave (one of my characters), really make your story any better?

No, all those IPs really do is act as free advertising because those names are more familiar.

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 12, 2021, 11:19:15 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 09:26:35 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 09:16:51 AM
Technically, it is.

You kinda dodged the question last time, so I'll ask again, more specifically: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP not have a right to profit from it?

Does a person who stays at home all day and plays vidya games while binging on Cheetohs and Mountain Dew have a right to a UBI?

No, rights are negative not positive. There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege. Framing it terms of rights and ownership is wrong, and creates a massive sense of entitlement that has greatly helped the Mouse lock down everything nigh unto forever.

Okay, but this comes off more like "I don't like the Mouse so I want their stuff" than anything else.

Only if you completely ignore everything I say and replace it entirely with your own words.