Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 10, 2021, 10:37:39 PM
I'll ask again: How the flying fuck is me selling a good/service forcing anyone to give me money?

You're intentionally misconstruing what's been said, but I'll answer anyway (not for you, but for anyone who might be genuinely curious).

When you put out a PDF, and somebody pays you to download it, nobody has been forced to do anything. Nobody in this thread - not even the actual communists who have chimed in to explain your misunderstanding of capitalism to you - have claimed that this is theft.

However, when that person shares a copy of that PDF with another person who did not pay you money, and you (somehow) find out about it and complain to the nanny state to extort money from that second person, then you have forced someone to give you money.

Likewise, when a person puts a copy of that PDF up for sale on a download site, and you complain to the nanny state to extort money from that person, then you have forced someone to give you money.

Of course, in real life, you would never get any money from anyone, because even if you could afford to take a nameless online identity to court, you would pay far more in legal fees than you would "reclaim" (steal) from the $10-100 they made from selling copies of your crap.

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

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:02:31 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 10:54:47 PMIt would help to link the post, but yes that looks like what I wrote. How did you get any of the rest of what you wrote from what I said?

What rest? The one about corporate espionage and theft? Thats just a logical extrapolation of the logic. Its that in logically extrapolating your logic, it has now convinced me why you can in fact steal an idea.
Because so far all the arguments made against the idea of idea property, can be made as arguments against all property.

If land was infinite, if we just had a infinite amount of land, I assume that forcing somebody off of land they claim as their own (and in turn wasn't stolen or the like), would still be unethical right?

None of that logically follows.

And even if land is infinite, it's still a scarce resource. Property in cities, or along rivers, or arable land or will be worth more than an equal sized plot of scrub a zillion miles from anything. And only one person can utilize the resources of each plot of land at the same time.

Quote from: Oddend on October 10, 2021, 11:04:05 PMHowever, when that person shares a copy of that PDF with another person who did not pay you money, and you (somehow) find out about it and complain to the nanny state to extort money from that second person, then you have forced someone to give you money.

Lets assume Geeky Bundle is a baddass, forgoes the nanny state, and just busts in with a gun himself demanding money.

If Im a counterfieter, and I counterfiet bank notes. Am I doing something unethical? I would sayyes because by copying something, I am reducing value of said bank note. If I counterfiet the mona lisa, is that any different?

Value is purely a human idea. Value is based off of human perception. Anything only ever has a cost because of perception. Making copies of something reduces it in percieved value. Ergo illegal copying is unethical reduction of value for your benefit.

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 11:06:03 PMAnd even if land is infinite, it's still a scarce resource.

And the same goes for ideas. Though there are an infinite number of ideas, valuable ideas are still a scarce resource.

Multiple people COULD already use land at the same time. Is demanding that farmer joe let other people use his property when he isn't using it ethical?

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

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 10, 2021, 10:37:39 PM
I'll ask again: How the flying fuck is me selling a good/service forcing anyone to give me money?

You're intentionally misconstruing what's been said, but I'll answer anyway (not for you, but for anyone who might be genuinely curious).

When you put out a PDF, and somebody pays you to download it, nobody has been forced to do anything. Nobody in this thread - not even the actual communists who have chimed in to explain your misunderstanding of capitalism to you - have claimed that this is theft.

However, when that person shares a copy of that PDF with another person who did not pay you money, and you (somehow) find out about it and complain to the nanny state to extort money from that second person, then you have forced someone to give you money.

Likewise, when a person puts a copy of that PDF up for sale on a download site, and you complain to the nanny state to extort money from that person, then you have forced someone to give you money.

Of course, in real life, you would never get any money from anyone, because even if you could afford to take a nameless online identity to court, you would pay far more in legal fees than you would "reclaim" (steal) from the $10-100 they made from selling copies of your crap.

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

Right, so they aren't stealing and profiting from MY work without giving me money.

I'm forcing them to give me money they shouldn't have to give me for MY work in order to be able to enjoy/profit from it.

Ergo I'm pro slavery AND theft (As pat has already said), if I don't allow ppl to steal MY work and to profit from it.

When in reality the inverse is true.

I have already stated that piracy has no solution and that's not MY real concern. But you, Pat and Estar will keep ignoring that point because it's an easy strawman to build.

IF I publish a game, NOBODY has the right to profit from it but me and the store I put it in. IF YOU download it, print it and sell it you're commiting theft.

Now please come and tell me again how you lot aren't saying exactly what everybody can read you saying.

Or I shouldn't believe my lying eyes?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:10:26 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 10, 2021, 11:04:05 PMHowever, when that person shares a copy of that PDF with another person who did not pay you money, and you (somehow) find out about it and complain to the nanny state to extort money from that second person, then you have forced someone to give you money.

Lets assume Geeky Bundle is a baddass, forgoes the nanny state, and just busts in with a gun himself demanding money.

If Im a counterfieter, and I counterfiet bank notes. Am I doing something unethical? I would sayyes because by copying something, I am reducing value of said bank note. If I counterfiet the mona lisa, is that any different?

Value is purely a human idea. Value is based off of human perception. Anything only ever has a cost because of perception. Making copies of something reduces it in percieved value. Ergo illegal copying is unethical reduction of value for your benefit.

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. That's how the free market works. But it also drives down prices, which is a great public benefit. And forces you to come up with something new if you want to stand out from the pack, which also has great public benefit.

Also, you're not really addressing property, which was the key point. I don't really see how this relates.

In addition, it's strange that you used banknotes in your example. They're basically extinct, and have been related by federal reserve notes aka national notes. Legal tender laws are another example of a forced monopoly. People are forced to use dollars because the US federal government made competition illegal.

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.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 09:12:43 PM
Edit Edit: The premise around piracy being moral centers around that ideas cannot be property....But literally everything in human civilization is an idea or a concept. Unless the argument is that the only property your are allowed to have and protect is for the most basest of physical objects. And you MUST share everything else.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 09:12:43 PM
Pat I have my issues with IP law as well, but your making it sound like that you believe corporate espionage and actual theft is ethical  as long as the thief makes more money then the original holder.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:02:31 PM
What rest? The one about corporate espionage and theft? Thats just a logical extrapolation of the logic. Its that in logically extrapolating your logic, it has now convinced me why you can in fact steal an idea.

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").

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 09:12:43 PM
Because so far all the arguments made against the idea of idea property, can be made as arguments against all property.

If land was infinite, if we just had a infinite amount of land, I assume that forcing somebody off of land they claim as their own (and in turn wasn't stolen or the like), would still be unethical right?

This isn't a good comparison. Even if land itself was infinite in its expanse, any given plot of land would still be different from other plots (whether in distance from shopping centers, composition of soil, or just the fact that your house is on it). If the exact state of your land plot (including the soil composition, your house, and everything in it) could be copy-pasted instantaneously and with near-zero consumption of resources, then we might be close enough to call land non-scarce (at least close enough to treat it as such legally).

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 11:18:28 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:10:26 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 10, 2021, 11:04:05 PMHowever, when that person shares a copy of that PDF with another person who did not pay you money, and you (somehow) find out about it and complain to the nanny state to extort money from that second person, then you have forced someone to give you money.

Lets assume Geeky Bundle is a baddass, forgoes the nanny state, and just busts in with a gun himself demanding money.

If Im a counterfieter, and I counterfiet bank notes. Am I doing something unethical? I would sayyes because by copying something, I am reducing value of said bank note. If I counterfiet the mona lisa, is that any different?

Value is purely a human idea. Value is based off of human perception. Anything only ever has a cost because of perception. Making copies of something reduces it in percieved value. Ergo illegal copying is unethical reduction of value for your benefit.

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. That's how the free market works. But it also drives down prices, which is a great public benefit. And forces you to come up with something new if you want to stand out from the pack, which also has great public benefit.

Also, you're not really addressing property, which was the key point. I don't really see how this relates.

In addition, it's strange that you used banknotes in your example. They're basically extinct, and have been related by federal reserve notes aka national notes. Legal tender laws are another example of a forced monopoly. People are forced to use dollars because the US federal government made competition illegal.

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?

Mote and bailey.

Lets stick to "ideas".

I write a novel, publish it, who has the right to profit from it and why?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:13:05 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 11:06:03 PMAnd even if land is infinite, it's still a scarce resource.

And the same goes for ideas. Though there are an infinite number of ideas, valuable ideas are still a scarce resource.

Multiple people COULD already use land at the same time. Is demanding that farmer joe let other people use his property when he isn't using it ethical?

Demanding farmer Joe give away time slices of use does reduce his ability to use the land, because time is part of ownership. If farmer Joe owns an acre of land, then forcing him to divide that acre among 99 other people means he is only able to use 1/100th of the land. If he has to alternate seasons with 99 other people, that means he is able to use it only 1 in 100 seasons.

The same is not true for ideas. If you build an engine, that doesn't prevent anyone else from building an engine. If 99 other people build an engine, that doesn't mean your engine now generates 1/100th as much horsepower.

Valuable ideas are valuable, but not scarce. Scarcity is why we have property, which is effectively a perpetual, transferable monopoly title to a physical object or location. Ideas simply don't fall into that category. Like I said, I support a limited monopoly privilege for ideas and intellectual creations. But it's not property, and this is a very important distinction.

Quote from: Oddend on October 10, 2021, 11:24:13 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 09:12:43 PM
Edit Edit: The premise around piracy being moral centers around that ideas cannot be property....But literally everything in human civilization is an idea or a concept. Unless the argument is that the only property your are allowed to have and protect is for the most basest of physical objects. And you MUST share everything else.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 09:12:43 PM
Pat I have my issues with IP law as well, but your making it sound like that you believe corporate espionage and actual theft is ethical  as long as the thief makes more money then the original holder.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:02:31 PM
What rest? The one about corporate espionage and theft? Thats just a logical extrapolation of the logic. Its that in logically extrapolating your logic, it has now convinced me why you can in fact steal an idea.

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").

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 09:12:43 PM
Because so far all the arguments made against the idea of idea property, can be made as arguments against all property.

If land was infinite, if we just had a infinite amount of land, I assume that forcing somebody off of land they claim as their own (and in turn wasn't stolen or the like), would still be unethical right?

This isn't a good comparison. Even if land itself was infinite in its expanse, any given plot of land would still be different from other plots (whether in distance from shopping centers, composition of soil, or just the fact that your house is on it). If the exact state of your land plot (including the soil composition, your house, and everything in it) could be copy-pasted instantaneously and with near-zero consumption of resources, then we might be close enough to call land non-scarce.

Bolding mine

In other words if I don't want anyone else to profit from my novel then I must not publish it. Because ideas, words, sentences, culture and civilization...

If I publish it then it's fair game for anyone to take it and sell it, make a movie, a game, whatever... Without giving me any money because if I force them to pay for what I created then I'm using the nanny state to steal from them...

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.

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

[/b]

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

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 11:26:57 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 10, 2021, 11:13:05 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 10, 2021, 11:06:03 PMAnd even if land is infinite, it's still a scarce resource.

And the same goes for ideas. Though there are an infinite number of ideas, valuable ideas are still a scarce resource.

Multiple people COULD already use land at the same time. Is demanding that farmer joe let other people use his property when he isn't using it ethical?

Demanding farmer Joe give away time slices of use does reduce his ability to use the land, because time is part of ownership. If farmer Joe owns an acre of land, then forcing him to divide that acre among 99 other people means he is only able to use 1/100th of the land. If he has to alternate seasons with 99 other people, that means he is able to use it only 1 in 100 seasons.

The same is not true for ideas. If you build an engine, that doesn't prevent anyone else from building an engine. If 99 other people build an engine, that doesn't mean your engine now generates 1/100th as much horsepower.

Valuable ideas are valuable, but not scarce. Scarcity is why we have property, which is effectively a perpetual, transferable monopoly title to a physical object or location. Ideas simply don't fall into that category. Like I said, I support a limited monopoly privilege for ideas and intellectual creations. But it's not property, and this is a very important distinction.

Right, I don't own that which I created at MY expense, it's just a "limited monopoly privilege" they magnanimously grant me  so I can maybe make some money before they take from me what's mine "for the greater good".

But I'm the thief, slaver and socialist...

Nice to see some good grasp of basic economics here (I especially am glad to see the correct definition of cost as rooted in a value-laden action, not some weird accident of a thing of substance).

Far back I missed the book printing cost discussion so I'll add that in doing much work on the economics of publishing, note that once you go to 10K+ runs, a WOTC PHB hardcover, saddle stitched, color interior etc, that will run you around $1.35-45 per unit. At runs WOTC likely actually does, more like $0.90 per book. It's a classic fat tail costing where the upfront overhead attributed is often sunk while the operative work for the output is very low per unit (perfect example is $1B on R&D for a drug and then 0.40/pill to make the drug).

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.