Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 08, 2021, 10:12:04 AM
Wow, that's a lot of pages of GeekBugle being an idiot.

People pay for ideas.  People have literally paid millions of dollars for the film rights for a book that hasn't even been written yet.  The right to use an idea is itself valuable.  Even before products that derive from the work exist, owning an idea can be very profitable.

They have paid millions for the rights of a book that doesn't exist from an unknown author? Or from a famous author and the book is not the first in the series?

You're the idiot that doesn't understand anything.

Edited to add: They have paid said author millions because they can't just take his work and use it dumbass!

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 07:06:46 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:21:53 AM
To write a game involves, time, software, a computer, electricity, internet to do research, art, formating, all of that costs money. And you think I don't have the right to have that product protected from thiefs!?

No I don't think you have the right to have your protect from what you call thieves. I do however think it that it is a good thing to give you exclusive right to copy and profit from the things you create for a limited time as a societal benefit.

That the difference between our view. You view what you create as a form of personal property and like all property it needs to be protected by the legal system. I view copyright as a incentive for creators to take those extra steps towards making their effort a finished work and sharing the result by granting creators a limited monopoly to profit from their work. But my primary criteria in weighing changes to copyright is what benefits society more not the protection of personal property. Which also incidentally is the view of the United States Constitution and the founding father who wrote that clause.

And up until 1976 the United States was historically skeptical of strong copyrights. Everything we are wrestling with has come about in the past five decades.

Did you took the corn from my field/truck? No? Then no.

But the idea is to sell corn, the corn isn't an idea but a tangible good that costs money to produce.

Likewise, the idea to write a game is the idea, the actual game is a tangible good that cost money to produce.

Let me put it this way: I've the idea of developing a Pulp RPG. Would you give $60 US for that? How about $5 US? No? Why?

A couple of years later, after spending my time and investing in it I have a finished game, the hardback goes for $60, the paperback goes for $40 and the PDF for $20 Would you buy any of those? Why?

So, if I tell you I have the idea of writing a pulp game and you beat me to the punch you stole my idea, but ideas aren't property.

If you take my finished product, print it and sell it you didn't stole an idea, you stole MY product. Even if it was only in digital format it is a product.

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

So Videos are not a good fit for me given that I am partially deaf. So I did some googling and found Kinsella's writing.
https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0

The part he is missing in his discussion of IP as property rights and IP as Contract is the fact that the act of creation requires an investment of resources. Everything he says about the scarcity is on point and accurate in my opinion. How IP law hinders the ability of other to use their property as they see fit seems to me a reasonable conclusion as well. Overall he misses the fact they are only applicable once an idea exists. Or more specifically once an idea has been shared beyond the confines of one's own mind.

As I said before, I view the ideas behind creative works as property to be nonsense. However I recognize their work involve to create an idea in the first place. I also agree that without incentives people will often not do that work to bring a idea to it's fullest fruition. An example is something like Lord of the Rings Without the protection of copyright Tolkien have not have done the work to finish the ideas they had into the form we now have. Tolkien stories would have remained in his head and within his notes. Shared among family and friends like the Inklings. But because of copyright he was able to justify the time he put in to write the Hobbit and later the Lord of the Rings to what we see them down. Tolkien was able to convince a publisher to put in capital and time to make multiple copies in nicely bound books because they could realize a return on the time spent.

So to me good IP law is an incentive given by society to creative to take their work to the level by allowing people to get a return on the time they spent on the act of creation.

To use one of Kinsella's example from the paper I quoted. The point of society conferring a monopoly on the creation of copies of the iron sword that the smith created isn't to recognize any type of property, moral, or contract rights. It is to encourage that smith to make the sword in the first place. Which to me is worthwhile provided the term of the monopoly isn't something stupid like life+95 years along with recognizing fair use, recognizing the first sale doctrine, and so forth and so on.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 11:41:54 AM

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

So Videos are not a good fit for me given that I am partially deaf. So I did some googling and found Kinsella's writing.
https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0

The part he is missing in his discussion of IP as property rights and IP as Contract is the fact that the act of creation requires an investment of resources. Everything he says about the scarcity is on point and accurate in my opinion. How IP law hinders the ability of other to use their property as they see fit seems to me a reasonable conclusion as well. Overall he misses the fact they are only applicable once an idea exists. Or more specifically once an idea has been shared beyond the confines of one's own mind.

As I said before, I view the ideas behind creative works as property to be nonsense. However I recognize their work involve to create an idea in the first place. I also agree that without incentives people will often not do that work to bring a idea to it's fullest fruition. An example is something like Lord of the Rings Without the protection of copyright Tolkien have not have done the work to finish the ideas they had into the form we now have. Tolkien stories would have remained in his head and within his notes. Shared among family and friends like the Inklings. But because of copyright he was able to justify the time he put in to write the Hobbit and later the Lord of the Rings to what we see them down. Tolkien was able to convince a publisher to put in capital and time to make multiple copies in nicely bound books because they could realize a return on the time spent.

So to me good IP law is an incentive given by society to creative to take their work to the level by allowing people to get a return on the time they spent on the act of creation.

To use one of Kinsella's example from the paper I quoted. The point of society conferring a monopoly on the creation of copies of the iron sword that the smith created isn't to recognize any type of property, moral, or contract rights. It is to encourage that smith to make the sword in the first place. Which to me is worthwhile provided the term of the monopoly isn't something stupid like life+95 years along with recognizing fair use, recognizing the first sale doctrine, and so forth and so on.

Bolding mine.

So the act of taking that idea from the abstract of my mind and into a form that can be sold requires what? Oh, right the investment of resources.

If only someone had been saying this for this entire conversation...

So you take my game/novel/song/movie/etc and replicate it or create a derivative work from it, then sell it.

You didn't pay me a red cent.

You are benefiting from my investment without compensating me from it.

If only there was a word to describe the act of taking resources from someone without a monetary exchange...

But DeadBrainWalking dares call me an idiot...

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 11:15:08 AM
Did you took the corn from my field/truck? No? Then no.

But the idea is to sell corn, the corn isn't an idea but a tangible good that costs money to produce.

However how you sell your corn is an idea. You were first to come up with the idea to sell at that market house in the first place. You may have invested decades in making your stall just so and years in cultivating business relationship with various customers. Then I waltz in selling corn at half the price you are.

There is more to selling corn than possession of the physical product and setting a price. How you sell your corn is a bunch of ideas. If ideas are property then me moving into that market house just meant I stole your idea to sell corn at that market house. I compounded the theft by having temerity to sell my corn at half of your price.

In many parts of the world this kind of thing is consider a moral or property right and protected by law. Usually applied to goods that are strongly associated with a regional or national identity. Like the various types of wines in France.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 11:15:08 AM
Likewise, the idea to write a game is the idea, the actual game is a tangible good that cost money to produce.

Yes and after I produced my copy you still have your copy that you printed.

Furthermore by having a system of IP laws like copyright, you are now demanding control over some of my physical property. My printer, my ink, my paper, my box making machine and so on. Is that moral or right? Who is now stealing from who?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 11:15:08 AM
If you take my finished product, print it and sell it you didn't stole an idea, you stole MY product. Even if it was only in digital format it is a product.

And if I did this without license from Judges Guild?



Would I be stealing then? I retyped the entirety of the book by hand. I did the layout, I bought the most of the art. I did use some of the original art but I could easily substituted other art I had rights too.

The book has everything the original has but with a completely new presentation. If I didn't have a license what did I stole if I used all my own art?

As for stealing digital goods that is not a clear issue because you can't steal a digital file unless you take the physical media that it is on. You can only make a copy. You still have the original file at the end of the day. The law is still trying to catch up but generally the penalty these days start with unauthorized access and goes on from there.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:01:25 PM
So the act of taking that idea from the abstract of my mind and into a form that can be sold requires what? Oh, right the investment of resources.

However this doesn't give you a property right to the idea. And the article explains why.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:01:25 PM
You are benefiting from my investment without compensating me from it.

Why is that a right? You still benefit from having come up with the idea whether it be a game or a sword. You still own the physical products that resulted from your idea.

If you pick up a paper cup from a sidewalk does the owner of the sidewalk owe you compensation for having cleaned up the litter that was strewn about?

Just because you do some labor without a prior agreement doesn't mean the rest of us owe you compensation for it.

But it may be in our interest to make it worth your while to do that labor particularly for creative works. Hence my reason why we should have some form of IP law.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:05:18 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 11:15:08 AM
Did you took the corn from my field/truck? No? Then no.

But the idea is to sell corn, the corn isn't an idea but a tangible good that costs money to produce.

However how you sell your corn is an idea. You were first to come up with the idea to sell at that market house in the first place. You may have invested decades in making your stall just so and years in cultivating business relationship with various customers. Then I waltz in selling corn at half the price you are.

There is more to selling corn than possession of the physical product and setting a price. How you sell your corn is a bunch of ideas. If ideas are property then me moving into that market house just meant I stole your idea to sell corn at that market house. I compounded the theft by having temerity to sell my corn at half of your price.

In many parts of the world this kind of thing is consider a moral or property right and protected by law. Usually applied to goods that are strongly associated with a regional or national identity. Like the various types of wines in France.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 11:15:08 AM
Likewise, the idea to write a game is the idea, the actual game is a tangible good that cost money to produce.

Yes and after I produced my copy you still have your copy that you printed.

Furthermore by having a system of IP laws like copyright, you are now demanding control over some of my physical property. My printer, my ink, my paper, my box making machine and so on. Is that moral or right? Who is now stealing from who?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 11:15:08 AM
If you take my finished product, print it and sell it you didn't stole an idea, you stole MY product. Even if it was only in digital format it is a product.

And if I did this without license from Judges Guild?



Would I be stealing then? I retyped the entirety of the book by hand. I did the layout, I bought the most of the art. I did use some of the original art but I could easily substituted other art I had rights too.

The book has everything the original has but with a completely new presentation. If I didn't have a license what did I stole if I used all my own art?

As for stealing digital goods that is not a clear issue because you can't steal a digital file unless you take the physical media that it is on. You can only make a copy. You still have the original file at the end of the day. The law is still trying to catch up but generally the penalty these days start with unauthorized access and goes on from there.

You keep conflating simple piracy with what I'm talking, most pirates would never pay for anything, if they can't pirate it they go without.

You keep responding to my arguments about you taking my game and selling it without compensating me with money with banal arguments, and then you aknowledge my argument about the investment responding to someone that sorta agrees with you.

No, by stating that my game is mine and only I can sell it I'm not violating your rights nor controlling anything of yours, you can still pirate it if you can find it and print it in your personal printer if you so choose. What you can't do is go to a printer and have it printed and made into a book and then sell it because you don't have the right to make a profit of MY investment of resources without my consent and just economic compensation agreed between we both.

You pirating it is still immoral and a crime, because being able to play it without buying it is taking advantage of MY investment of resources without a monetary exchange. Therefore theft.

To create said digital goods I made an investment of resources, why do you claim the right to enjoy the fruits of my labor, creativity and investment without a monetary exchange?

Are you working to not understand what I'm writting and to answer to other stuff while aknowledging my arguments in response to others?

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 11:41:54 AM
To use one of Kinsella's example from the paper I quoted. The point of society conferring a monopoly on the creation of copies of the iron sword that the smith created isn't to recognize any type of property, moral, or contract rights. It is to encourage that smith to make the sword in the first place. Which to me is worthwhile provided the term of the monopoly isn't something stupid like life+95 years along with recognizing fair use, recognizing the first sale doctrine, and so forth and so on.

If someone is too cowardly to perform a service, for fear that someone else may also offer the same service, they're deserving only of mockery, not coddling at the expense of everyone else.

If the smith in question would shake in his boots at the thought of producing a sword without the government breaking the thumbs of his competitors, then there must already be a worthy competitor in town whose thumbs he's afraid of, and unless he wants to compete with better quality or lower prices or both, then that other smith will suit the town just fine.

If there is no other smith, then maybe he'd be brave enough to go into business without the help of the local protection racket. And once a competitor emerges and scares him back under his rock, then the town will still have a smith, so no great loss.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 11:41:54 AM
Without the protection of copyright Tolkien have not have done the work to finish the ideas they had into the form we now have. Tolkien stories would have remained in his head and within his notes. Shared among family and friends like the Inklings. But because of copyright he was able to justify the time he put in to write the Hobbit and later the Lord of the Rings to what we see them down.

Did he actually say this? If so, that's embarrassing. But if it's true that Tolkien was an open coward, why would that justify violating the rights of innocent people just in case any other cowards are also talented? I don't think the potential for fine entertainment is worth victimizing innocent people.

If Tolkien did not say this, then there's no reason to assume he thought that way. Lots of artists, engineers, designers, etc., produce work under open licenses (or forgo licensing altogether).

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:10:32 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:01:25 PM
So the act of taking that idea from the abstract of my mind and into a form that can be sold requires what? Oh, right the investment of resources.

However this doesn't give you a property right to the idea. And the article explains why.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:01:25 PM
You are benefiting from my investment without compensating me from it.

Why is that a right? You still benefit from having come up with the idea whether it be a game or a sword. You still own the physical products that resulted from your idea.

If you pick up a paper cup from a sidewalk does the owner of the sidewalk owe you compensation for having cleaned up the litter that was strewn about?

Just because you do some labor without a prior agreement doesn't mean the rest of us owe you compensation for it.

But it may be in our interest to make it worth your while to do that labor particularly for creative works. Hence my reason why we should have some form of IP law.

Because you're benefiting from my investment without giving me money!

You don't have the obligation to buy my stuff, that's correct, but you also don't have the right to enjoy the fruits of my investment without giving me money.

Again, the idea is lets write a game about X, that's the idea, so far I have made zero investment.

In order to take that idea from the abstract and make it into something you could play I made investments. Therefore that idea is no longer an abstract, it's a finished game. Yet you claim you have the right to take said finished game and use it/sell it without giving me money.

What do you call taking the resources from someone without economic compensation?

Why is it that stealing a car is a crime? There are other cars identical to it. Because to BUY that car you made an investment of resources, and by taking the car I'm depriving you of said resources.

That's the difference beteween buying and stealing.

If I buy your car you still have no car, but you have an ammount of resources freely agreed between us.
If I steal your car you have neither.

If you take my game to play it you're benefiting from my investment without giving me money.

If you take it to print and then sell you are benefiting from my investment without giving me money.

In both cases you're benefiting from MY investment without just compensation.

But please do keep trying to justify your immoral and illegal actions.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 11:41:54 AM
To use one of Kinsella's example from the paper I quoted. The point of society conferring a monopoly on the creation of copies of the iron sword that the smith created isn't to recognize any type of property, moral, or contract rights. It is to encourage that smith to make the sword in the first place. Which to me is worthwhile provided the term of the monopoly isn't something stupid like life+95 years along with recognizing fair use, recognizing the first sale doctrine, and so forth and so on.

If someone is too cowardly to perform a service, for fear that someone else may also offer the same service, they're deserving only of mockery, not coddling at the expense of everyone else.

If the smith in question would shake in his boots at the thought of producing a sword without the government breaking the thumbs of his competitors, then there must already be a worthy competitor in town whose thumbs he's afraid of, and unless he wants to compete with better quality or lower prices or both, then that other smith will suit the town just fine.

If there is no other smith, then maybe he'd be brave enough to go into business without the help of the local protection racket. And once a competitor emerges and scares him back under his rock, then the town will still have a smith, so no great loss.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 11:41:54 AM
Without the protection of copyright Tolkien have not have done the work to finish the ideas they had into the form we now have. Tolkien stories would have remained in his head and within his notes. Shared among family and friends like the Inklings. But because of copyright he was able to justify the time he put in to write the Hobbit and later the Lord of the Rings to what we see them down.

Did he actually say this? If so, that's embarrassing. But if it's true that Tolkien was an open coward, why would that justify violating the rights of innocent people just in case any other cowards are also talented? I don't think the potential for fine entertainment is worth victimizing innocent people.

If Tolkien did not say this, then there's no reason to assume he thought that way. Lots of artists, engineers, designers, etc., produce work under open licenses (or forgo licensing altogether).

Bolding mine.

Willingly, you forgot that part they willingly do that. Your authoritarianism disguised of libertarianism wants to force everybody to do that or not produce shit. Fuck you.

Edited for gramatical error

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:28:10 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM
If Tolkien did not say this, then there's no reason to assume he thought that way. Lots of artists, engineers, designers, etc., produce work under open licenses (or forgo licensing altogether).

Bolding mine.

Willingly, you forgot that part they willingly do that. You're authoritarianism disguised of libertarianism wants to force everybody to do that or not produce shit. Fuck you.

"Lots of people eat food without stealing it."

"Willingly, you forgot that part they willingly do that. You're authoritarianism disguised of libertarianism wants to force everybody to do that or not eat shit. Fuck you." - GeekyBugle Probably

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:17:19 PM
You keep conflating simple piracy with what I'm talking, most pirates would never pay for anything, if they can't pirate it they go without.

And you avoided answering my question. By sitting down and typing down every word of the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, myself. By doing the layout myself. Even doing the maps myself. And purchasing the art myself. Did I steal Judges Guild's Property if I didn't have a license. Yes or No?

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM
If someone is too cowardly to perform a service, for fear that someone else may also offer the same service, they're deserving only of mockery, not coddling at the expense of everyone else.

If the smith in question would shake in his boots at the thought of producing a sword without the government breaking the thumbs of his competitors, then there must already be a worthy competitor in town whose thumbs he's afraid of, and unless he wants to compete with better quality or lower prices or both, then that other smith will suit the town just fine.

If there is no other smith, then maybe he'd be brave enough to go into business without the help of the local protection racket. And once a competitor emerges and scares him back under his rock, then the town will still have a smith, so no great loss.

Oh for fuck sake, you know damn well that there are creative works that require tremendous teamwork like a movie production. it would be extremely impractical with the current state of the work make something like the Lord of the Rings without the right to control how the finished worked is copied and distributed. Without some type of IP Law nobody would be willing to invest the resources needed to create something on that scale with the current state of the art.

While that used to be true of books, digital technology has made it possible for individuals to do what it took an entire staff of a publishing house to do 50 years ago. There may come a time with nearly all creative works no matter the scale can be done by a single individual.  But even then there still the time invested by the creative to realize their work. The point of having copyright is to give creative the incentive to complete their work.

It not cowardly for somebody to provide for themselves or their family first.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM
Did he actually say this?

No he did not say this. But he did act like most authors did at the time and had a contract with a publisher BEFORE he started writing both book. And his entire creative process was laid out in great details in the History of Middle Earth series.

I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that neither the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings would have been written without those contracts and without IP law backing those contract. In fact we do know from the professor's own letters that his passion was the Silmarillion. That the Lord of Rings was born of he and the publisher agreeing to have a sequel to the Hobbit.  Tolkien tried to get the publication of the Silmarillion wrapped up in that deal but the publisher agreed only to the hobbit sequel.

So I stand by my statement that without copyright, without his contract with the publisher that the Hobbit would have remained a story told his children, that Lord of the Rings would have been still born, and the most we would have had is a rough draft of the Silmarillion.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:17:19 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM

Man there really is no middle or nuance with you two.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:50:42 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:28:10 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM
If Tolkien did not say this, then there's no reason to assume he thought that way. Lots of artists, engineers, designers, etc., produce work under open licenses (or forgo licensing altogether).

Bolding mine.

Willingly, you forgot that part they willingly do that. You're authoritarianism disguised of libertarianism wants to force everybody to do that or not produce shit. Fuck you.

"Lots of people eat food without stealing it."

"Willingly, you forgot that part they willingly do that. You're authoritarianism disguised of libertarianism wants to force everybody to do that or not eat shit. Fuck you." - GeekyBugle Probably

Right, because not allowing you to steal my shit is equal to you not stealing my shit willingly.

Your "argument" is: "The source of all theft is private property, if we abolished private property there would be no more theft."

That's all you have besides conflating an idea "Lets make a long knife and call it a sword" with the sword already made.

The IDEA isn't the sword, just like the IDEA isn't the game, novel, etc.

Ideas cost nothing (almost always since sometimes it costs market research but I can beat you to it and it's not theft).

Taking said ideas from the abstract to something you can sell does cost money.

Again, heres an idea I'm putting in the public domain willingly because I'm that kind of generous guy:

Lets make a vaccine that grants true and permanent immunity to ALL types of coronaviruses.

If you hurry and share my idea world wide we could save hundreds of millions of lives so get to it.

You wont? Why? Could it be because my idea is worth nothing without the investment needed to produce said vaccine? (Assuming it was possible I know it isn't).

Likewise dumbass, the idea of writing a game about X is worth shit. Once I make the investment needed to take it from the abstract into something that can be sold it MIGHT be worth something.

You don't have the obligation to buy it (give money for writting it), but you also don't have the right of taking advantage of my investment without giving me whatever ammount of money I'm asking for the finished product.

But you think you do, because reasons. Again fuck you.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:17:19 PM
You keep conflating simple piracy with what I'm talking, most pirates would never pay for anything, if they can't pirate it they go without.

And you avoided answering my question. By sitting down and typing down every word of the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, myself. By doing the layout myself. Even doing the maps myself. And purchasing the art myself. Did I steal Judges Guild's Property if I didn't have a license. Yes or No?

Is it a word for word copy? Are the maps an exact copy? Or is it just a "copy" in the same sense that any retroclone is a copy of a famous game?

You see, the idea is the abstract, the words arranged in a certain way (like I have already stated elsewhere in this thread) are not an abstract, those are a tangible work that took investment of resources to produce.

See, I don't know the original and havent read your take either so I can't make a call wiothout knowing that, but...

If it's not a word for word exact copy with the maps being an exact copy then it's not the same product is it?

That's why the OGL has a clasule about designating open content and why trade dress is often not included as such.

Oh, and that's another thing, is the wilderlands under the OGL?

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM
If someone is too cowardly to perform a service, for fear that someone else may also offer the same service, they're deserving only of mockery, not coddling at the expense of everyone else.

If the smith in question would shake in his boots at the thought of producing a sword without the government breaking the thumbs of his competitors, then there must already be a worthy competitor in town whose thumbs he's afraid of, and unless he wants to compete with better quality or lower prices or both, then that other smith will suit the town just fine.

If there is no other smith, then maybe he'd be brave enough to go into business without the help of the local protection racket. And once a competitor emerges and scares him back under his rock, then the town will still have a smith, so no great loss.

Oh for fuck sake, you know damn well that there are creative works that require tremendous teamwork like a movie production. it would be extremely impractical with the current state of the work make something like the Lord of the Rings without the right to control how the finished worked is copied and distributed. Without some type of IP Law nobody would be willing to invest the resources needed to create something on that scale with the current state of the art.

While that used to be true of books, digital technology has made it possible for individuals to do what it took an entire staff of a publishing house to do 50 years ago. There may come a time with nearly all creative works no matter the scale can be done by a single individual.  But even then there still the time invested by the creative to realize their work. The point of having copyright is to give creative the incentive to complete their work.

It not cowardly for somebody to provide for themselves or their family first.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM
Did he actually say this?

No he did not say this. But he did act like most authors did at the time and had a contract with a publisher BEFORE he started writing both book. And his entire creative process was laid out in great details in the History of Middle Earth series.

I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that neither the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings would have been written without those contracts and without IP law backing those contract. In fact we do know from the professor's own letters that his passion was the Silmarillion. That the Lord of Rings was born of he and the publisher agreeing to have a sequel to the Hobbit.  Tolkien tried to get the publication of the Silmarillion wrapped up in that deal but the publisher agreed only to the hobbit sequel.

So I stand by my statement that without copyright, without his contract with the publisher that the Hobbit would have remained a story told his children, that Lord of the Rings would have been still born, and the most we would have had is a rough draft of the Silmarillion.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:17:19 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM

Man there really is no middle or nuance with you two.

Man there's really not getting thru you. You agree that IP law is needed, and yet claim IP works aren't property. You need to decide which is true.

And you also need to stop conflating the abstract (idea) with the concrete (a finished creative work).

IMO, Pirates needed to be arrested, tried, convicted and sent to jail.