This conversation reminds me a lot of some dialogue from Guardians of the Galaxy

Quote
    "Your criminal records have also been expunged. However, I have to warn you against breaking any laws in the future."
    "Question. What if I see something that I wanna take and it belongs to someone else?"
    "Then you will be arrested."
    "But what if I want it more than the person who has it?"
    "Still illegal."
    "That doesn't follow. No, I want it more, sir. Do you understand me? What are you laughing at? What? I can't have a discussion with this gentleman?"
    ―Rocket Raccoon and Rhomann

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:58:49 PM
Sounds reasonable, it allows the author time to benefit from his creation while stoping the Rat Shack from doing what they are doing.

Inheritance, does the heir own it until the original time limit expires and then it's public domain or what?

Trademarks, what about those? Should anyone be able to trademark Superman and thus prevent everybody from ever using it even if it got into public domain?

Whatever the time frame is, either the creator has it for the full time, including their heirs.  Or the person who paid you to create it gets the first half, and then first chance to buy the second half off of you.  If the goal of the law is to encourage content creation, then it has to recognize the contributions of both parties.  If a corporation can own it, then an estate can own it.  Shouldn't matter who has rights to the estate.

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 03:03:14 PM
56 years is way too long.

Maybe, but 15/15 is either too short or darn close to it.  I wouldn't go less than 20/20.  If you want 25/25 for nice round numbers, that works.  The original idea is that if you produced something as a young adult, and lived a full life, you'd own it for most of that life.  If you died young, your heirs would have something to compensate them. 

Personally, I think it should be set to match what is considered an adult--and that should be consistent through the law.  That is, your kids benefit if you aren't around but your grandchildren probably don't.  But age of an adult gets into all kinds of tricky questions that aren't going to be resolved even if agreement could be reached on IP law. In some cases, we are now counting people up to age 26 as dependents.  Barring a change in that, 28/28 isn't off.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 08, 2021, 05:57:05 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:58:49 PM
Sounds reasonable, it allows the author time to benefit from his creation while stoping the Rat Shack from doing what they are doing.

Inheritance, does the heir own it until the original time limit expires and then it's public domain or what?

Trademarks, what about those? Should anyone be able to trademark Superman and thus prevent everybody from ever using it even if it got into public domain?

Whatever the time frame is, either the creator has it for the full time, including their heirs.  Or the person who paid you to create it gets the first half, and then first chance to buy the second half off of you.  If the goal of the law is to encourage content creation, then it has to recognize the contributions of both parties.  If a corporation can own it, then an estate can own it.  Shouldn't matter who has rights to the estate.

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 03:03:14 PM
56 years is way too long.

Maybe, but 15/15 is either too short or darn close to it.  I wouldn't go less than 20/20.  If you want 25/25 for nice round numbers, that works.  The original idea is that if you produced something as a young adult, and lived a full life, you'd own it for most of that life.  If you died young, your heirs would have something to compensate them. 

Personally, I think it should be set to match what is considered an adult--and that should be consistent through the law.  That is, your kids benefit if you aren't around but your grandchildren probably don't.  But age of an adult gets into all kinds of tricky questions that aren't going to be resolved even if agreement could be reached on IP law. In some cases, we are now counting people up to age 26 as dependents.  Barring a change in that, 28/28 isn't off.

It's not "ownership". It's a temporary granting of monopoly privileges in order to encourage a socially desirable behavior. Just look at any of GeekyBugle's posts to see why that's important -- telling people they can own ideas creates a massive sense of entitlement. This is exactly why Disney and other large companies were able to extend their legal monopolies to what is an effectively infinite duration. Because somewhere in the past 40 years, people have started to think of it as a right, and began reacting to restrictions as if their rights were being violated, and thus effectively have been supporting the corporate taking of our shared culture. It's socialist thinking, and it's the same problem that cropped up with the emergence of other positive rights. We see the same outrage when it comes to things like a UBI, or minimum wages. Monopolies are inherently anti-free market restrictions on fair competition, and they need to be recognized as such. We need to make it very clear that forcing others to provide something for you or forcing others to limit their behavior is not a right, though it may be a temporary and limited gift or privilege given in extreme cases for clear reasons.

And why should someone be granted those rights for their entire life? Saying it should last the life of the author seems like a backdoor way of granting ownership, albeit with a restriction on inheritance. That's the wrong approach, because the only reason to grant monopoly privileges is utilitarian: To encourage people to make more creative things. So the limit on the duration should be pragmatic, and based on the typical lifecycle of a product. How long does it take to produce and a song and make it into a hit? Only a couple years, max. So the limit shouldn't be any longer that. This isn't a title of ownership, but a grace period where they're given an advantage they can use to monetize their invention or creation. It should be a use or lose it situation, because they have to do something useful with their creation before it's released into the public domain. For something like pharmaceuticals, where the development, testing, and production can take a very long time, there's an argument for a longer period. But that's an outlier, and even there the current 20 years seems to be too long. Most monopolies should terminate in a fraction of that period.

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 07:30:17 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 08, 2021, 05:57:05 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:58:49 PM
Sounds reasonable, it allows the author time to benefit from his creation while stoping the Rat Shack from doing what they are doing.

Inheritance, does the heir own it until the original time limit expires and then it's public domain or what?

Trademarks, what about those? Should anyone be able to trademark Superman and thus prevent everybody from ever using it even if it got into public domain?

Whatever the time frame is, either the creator has it for the full time, including their heirs.  Or the person who paid you to create it gets the first half, and then first chance to buy the second half off of you.  If the goal of the law is to encourage content creation, then it has to recognize the contributions of both parties.  If a corporation can own it, then an estate can own it.  Shouldn't matter who has rights to the estate.

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 03:03:14 PM
56 years is way too long.

Maybe, but 15/15 is either too short or darn close to it.  I wouldn't go less than 20/20.  If you want 25/25 for nice round numbers, that works.  The original idea is that if you produced something as a young adult, and lived a full life, you'd own it for most of that life.  If you died young, your heirs would have something to compensate them. 

Personally, I think it should be set to match what is considered an adult--and that should be consistent through the law.  That is, your kids benefit if you aren't around but your grandchildren probably don't.  But age of an adult gets into all kinds of tricky questions that aren't going to be resolved even if agreement could be reached on IP law. In some cases, we are now counting people up to age 26 as dependents.  Barring a change in that, 28/28 isn't off.

It's not "ownership". It's a temporary granting of monopoly privileges in order to encourage a socially desirable behavior. Just look at any of GeekyBugle's posts to see why that's important -- telling people they can own ideas creates a massive sense of entitlement. This is exactly why Disney and other large companies were able to extend their legal monopolies to what is an effectively infinite duration. Because somewhere in the past 40 years, people have started to think of it as a right, and began reacting to restrictions as if their rights were being violated, and thus effectively have been supporting the corporate taking of our shared culture. It's socialist thinking, and it's the same problem that cropped up with the emergence of other positive rights. We see the same outrage when it comes to things like a UBI, or minimum wages. Monopolies are inherently anti-free market restrictions on fair competition, and they need to be recognized as such. We need to make it very clear that forcing others to provide something for you or forcing others to limit their behavior is not a right, though it may be a temporary and limited gift or privilege given in extreme cases for clear reasons.

And why should someone be granted those rights for their entire life? Saying it should last the life of the author seems like a backdoor way of granting ownership, albeit with a restriction on inheritance. That's the wrong approach, because the only reason to grant monopoly privileges is utilitarian: To encourage people to make more creative things. So the limit on the duration should be pragmatic, and based on the typical lifecycle of a product. How long does it take to produce and a song and make it into a hit? Only a couple years, max. So the limit shouldn't be any longer that. This isn't a title of ownership, but a grace period where they're given an advantage they can use to monetize their invention or creation. It should be a use or lose it situation, because they have to do something useful with their creation before it's released into the public domain. For something like pharmaceuticals, where the development, testing, and production can take a very long time, there's an argument for a longer period. But that's an outlier, and even there the current 20 years seems to be too long. Most monopolies should terminate in a fraction of that period.

Yes Pat, it's socialists that support private property... Fuck me, how can you write something like that and hit send?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 08:02:52 PM
Yes Pat, it's socialists that support private property... Fuck me, how can you write something like that and hit send?

I've found it really ironic how you're calling everyone communists for opposing your socialist ideas about positive rights that have to be imposed on others. It's a serious case of doublethink on your part.

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 08:11:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 08:02:52 PM
Yes Pat, it's socialists that support private property... Fuck me, how can you write something like that and hit send?

I've found it really ironic how you're calling everyone communists for opposing your socialist ideas about positive rights that have to be imposed on others. It's a serious case of doublethink on your part.

Yep, private property is a "positive right" and also socialist.

But wanting free access to MY shit is totally capitalist ancap free markets...

You can't be this dense, I refuse to believe it, but maybe you are, who knows? After all human stupidity is infinite.

In your mind wanting people to pay for shit I made is socialist but you wanting those people to have free access to the shit I made is capitalism...

Consensual exchange of goods for you is socialism, but forcing me to give away the goods I produce is capitalism...

But I'm the one that suffers from doublethink...

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 08:27:31 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 08:11:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 08:02:52 PM
Yes Pat, it's socialists that support private property... Fuck me, how can you write something like that and hit send?

I've found it really ironic how you're calling everyone communists for opposing your socialist ideas about positive rights that have to be imposed on others. It's a serious case of doublethink on your part.

Yep, private property is a "positive right" and also socialist.

But wanting free access to MY shit is totally capitalist ancap free markets...

You can't be this dense, I refuse to believe it, but maybe you are, who knows? After all human stupidity is infinite.

In your mind wanting people to pay for shit I made is socialist but you wanting those people to have free access to the shit I made is capitalism...

Consensual exchange of goods for you is socialism, but forcing me to give away the goods I produce is capitalism...

But I'm the one that suffers from doublethink...

Did you make the book? Then yes, it's your property. With a few limitations we can ignore, you can do whatever you want with it, including selling it or keeping it for your exclusive use.

But at least three people have explained to you why they think the book is property, but the collection of words in the book is not. You have strong opinions on the subject and it's fine if you don't agree with us, but it's really hard to talk with you about the subject because you don't seem to even understand the points we've been making.

If you're willing to step back and try to grok the concept, I'll explain it again. Property exists because of scarcity. We only have limited resources in the world, and we have to figure out how to utilize them. The idea that we can all just share everything fails from a utilitarian perspective. Just think of public parks and roads, and how much garbage they tend to collect. An owner has a strong vested interest in caring for what they own, but when ownership if diffuse or unclear, people just don't bother as much to maintain it. This leads to what is known as the tragedy of the commons. The reason owners tend to care for what they own is because they directly benefit from its use, sale, or utilization. So ownership has a utilitarian basis. We want people to own things, and we want a free market where people can make exchanges of mutual benefit, because it's the best way to ensure the limited resources of the world are used in the most efficient way to meet human needs. This tends to benefits everyone, not just the owners.

But ideas, stories, songs, and so on aren't limited resources. If you steal someone's car, they have to do without. But if you write a story, and someone copies it, you still have the story. It wasn't taken away from you, like the car was. If you throw trash on someone's lawn, they have to clean it up. But if someone writes a new version of your story except all the major characters are blue, your story isn't trashed. Your version still exists, as well as the new one. So there's no scarcity, when it comes to intellectual creations. Property and property rights exist because of scarcity, so the story you wrote isn't some kind of property.

I believe in incentives, and I think it's worthwhile trade off to grant a temporary monopoly to writers and artists and so on to encourage future works. But I also think monopolies are very bad things, and that there is great value allowing everyone to exploit our intellectual heritage in new ways as soon as possible, so the duration should be sharply limited.

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 09:08:00 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 08:27:31 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 08:11:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 08:02:52 PM
Yes Pat, it's socialists that support private property... Fuck me, how can you write something like that and hit send?

I've found it really ironic how you're calling everyone communists for opposing your socialist ideas about positive rights that have to be imposed on others. It's a serious case of doublethink on your part.

Yep, private property is a "positive right" and also socialist.

But wanting free access to MY shit is totally capitalist ancap free markets...

You can't be this dense, I refuse to believe it, but maybe you are, who knows? After all human stupidity is infinite.

In your mind wanting people to pay for shit I made is socialist but you wanting those people to have free access to the shit I made is capitalism...

Consensual exchange of goods for you is socialism, but forcing me to give away the goods I produce is capitalism...

But I'm the one that suffers from doublethink...

Did you make the book? Then yes, it's your property. With a few limitations we can ignore, you can do whatever you want with it, including selling it or keeping it for your exclusive use.

But at least three people have explained to you why they think the book is property, but the collection of words in the book is not. You have strong opinions on the subject and it's fine if you don't agree with us, but it's really hard to talk with you about the subject because you don't seem to even understand the points we've been making.

If you're willing to step back and try to grok the concept, I'll explain it again. Property exists because of scarcity. We only have limited resources in the world, and we have to figure out how to utilize them. The idea that we can all just share everything fails from a utilitarian perspective. Just think of public parks and roads, and how much garbage they tend to collect. An owner has a strong vested interest in caring for what they own, but when ownership if diffuse or unclear, people just don't bother as much to maintain it. This leads to what is known as the tragedy of the commons. The reason owners tend to care for what they own is because they directly benefit from its use, sale, or utilization. So ownership has a utilitarian basis. We want people to own things, and we want a free market where people can make exchanges of mutual benefit, because it's the best way to ensure the limited resources of the world are used in the most efficient way to meet human needs. This tends to benefits everyone, not just the owners.

But ideas, stories, songs, and so on aren't limited resources. If you steal someone's car, they have to do without. But if you write a story, and someone copies it, you still have the story. It wasn't taken away from you, like the car was. If you throw trash on someone's lawn, they have to clean it up. But if someone writes a new version of your story except all the major characters are blue, your story isn't trashed. Your version still exists, as well as the new one. So there's no scarcity, when it comes to intellectual creations. Property and property rights exist because of scarcity, so the story you wrote isn't some kind of property.

I believe in incentives, and I think it's worthwhile trade off to grant a temporary monopoly to writers and artists and so on to encourage future works. But I also think monopolies are very bad things, and that there is great value allowing everyone to exploit our intellectual heritage in new ways as soon as possible, so the duration should be sharply limited.

So because you can print a theoretically infinite number of my book (without buying the rights from me) then it's a okay to just go ahead and do so because free markets?

Ideas aren't finite, but the game isn't an idea, it's a finished product, it has my words structured in the way I did, if you had writtn a game with the same basic concept, lets say Pulp, your ideas would be there, probably a little different than mine codified with your words that you arranged in a different way than I.

The IDEA is to write a pulp game. So far I have incurred in no expense, zero investment. Go ahead and take it IDGAF

The PRODUCT is the finished game. Now I have incurred in expenses, I made an investment. You're under no obligation to buy it, but you sure as fuck don't have the right to take it for free and much less to take it print it and sell it without giving me any money I and only I deem sufficient to give you the right to do so.

Investement of resources said Estar, well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

To buy a car I make an investment of resources. If you buy it from me I loose the car but I get at least part of said investment.

If you steal it then I loose the investment and the car. It's not about the car, it's about the voluntary exchange of goods at an agreed price.

Now lets change to a game:

To write a game I make an investment of resources. If you buy one of my books I get back minus taxes and whatever % the store takes a part of my investment with probably some profit.

If you pirate it I get no return on my investment (I don't care much about this because most pirates wouldn't have bought it anyhow), but this doesn't mean they have the right to enjoiy the fruits of my investment without just compensation to me.

If you take it to sell it without buying the right to do so from me then I loose money because I get no return on my investment. This is the part that concerns me the most, but you and your croonies keep on harping about pirates. Under your totally capitalist system Disney, Hasbro or another corporation should be able to just print it without buying the rights from me. Because you can distinguish between ideas and finished product.

And when I say this shouldn't be you cry about entitlement and about how nobody owes me money for just writing a game.

You just don't understand those words either: Nobody owes me money JUST for writting a game. On that we agree, you have the right to buy it to play it or not and not play it (Or be an immoral fuck and pirate it). But you don't understand the part about you don't having the right to enjoy the fruits of my investment (since for some reason if I say labor you reeeee because you must think writting is easy and takes no time and needs no monetary investment) without giving me some money in exchange for those fruits. And this includes both plain piracy or stealing it to sell.

If even after this you keep on Reeeeeeing how the one for privvate property and the free and voluntary exchange of goods for money is an entitled socialist while you that feel entitled to the fruits of my investmnet without giving me any money are the one true ancap capitalist free market advocate I will have to conclude you fell on your head as a child.

I'm not advocating for an UBI for anyone, But I'm sure as fuck also not advocating for some entitled fuck to have free access to the fruits of my investment of resources without giving money in exchange. ты понимаешь товарищ?

ty ponimayesh' tovarishch?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
...well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

I went out my way to be nice despite your hostility, but since you clearly have no interest in listening to what anyone else has to say, fuck the hell off socialist.

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 09:46:40 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
...well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

I went out my way to be nice despite your hostility, but since you clearly have no interest in listening to what anyone else has to say, fuck the hell off socialist.

It was a noble effort.

On the bright side, this thread has accumulated some good material for anyone who actually has the patience to read.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 09:54:08 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 09:46:40 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
...well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

I went out my way to be nice despite your hostility, but since you clearly have no interest in listening to what anyone else has to say, fuck the hell off socialist.

It was a noble effort.

On the bright side, this thread has accumulated some good material for anyone who actually has the patience to read.

It's probably all wasted efforts. There don't seem to be many left on this board who are willing to engage with people with different opinions. It's all SOMEONE DISAGREED WITH ME! NO! I MUST ATTACK combined with attempts to misconstrue every sentence.

<insert it's all so tiresome meme>

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 09:46:40 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
...well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

I went out my way to be nice despite your hostility, but since you clearly have no interest in listening to what anyone else has to say, fuck the hell off socialist.

Yep, we already established you think that advocating for private property and the free exchange of goods for money is socialism.

And that you think that labelling me an entitled socialist is you not being hostile and listening to what I have to say.

Does gravity also work different in your world?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 10:22:30 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 09:46:40 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
...well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

I went out my way to be nice despite your hostility, but since you clearly have no interest in listening to what anyone else has to say, fuck the hell off socialist.

Yep, we already established you think that advocating for private property and the free exchange of goods for money is socialism.

And that you think that labelling me an entitled socialist is you not being hostile and listening to what I have to say.

Does gravity also work different in your world?

No, I don't. That's exactly the opposite of what I've stated. You're not even trying to understand what anyone is saying to you.

And who called multiple people in the thread communists, again? If you throw something at somebody, and they throw it back at you, they're not the aggressor. You are.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
Investement of resources said Estar, well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

Yeah so about that. You are not getting what I said, the investment of resources does not grant you any rights other than ownership of any physical objects that were created. However it is a good idea for society to allow people to seek a return on a investment of time and resources for a creative work to encourage more investment into making ideas and other creative works.  ​

I get you think you have a inherent right to monopolize the expression of the ideas you think of like a game. But I and others don't agree with that. But society is willing to allow you to have a monopoly to give you the incentive to create copies of game to be used or enjoyed by others. But you don't own anything other the property you created.

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 10:05:54 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 09:54:08 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 09:46:40 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
...well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

I went out my way to be nice despite your hostility, but since you clearly have no interest in listening to what anyone else has to say, fuck the hell off socialist.

It was a noble effort.

On the bright side, this thread has accumulated some good material for anyone who actually has the patience to read.

It's probably all wasted efforts. There don't seem to be many left on this board who are willing to engage with people with different opinions. It's all SOMEONE DISAGREED WITH ME! NO! I MUST ATTACK combined with attempts to misconstrue every sentence.

<insert it's all so tiresome meme>

If it makes you feel any better ive seen this argument play out dozens of times about ip but this is the first time ive actually got a good grasp of what the anti-IP people think and how they believe abolishing ip laws would work out. Its got me to think alot about what my future business nodel may be when i finally finish some stuff for publishing.