Quote from: Oddend on October 12, 2021, 11:49:08 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 04:06:40 PM
More like he'd rather dance his little sidestep than explain himself. Hell, estar did a perfectly good job of laying out a cogent argument. One that I can agree with.

If you think Pat hasn't explained his views at length, then either you never read anything he wrote, like GeekyBugle, or you're just treating "cogent" as synonymous with "something I can agree with" (also like GeekyBugle, I guess).

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 04:06:40 PM
Eternal copyright is bullshit. But so is 'but information wants to be free, maaaaaan'.

If anybody has brought up Richard Stallman or his ilk favorably, it wasn't me or Pat (maybe estar? but you said he was "cogent", so I guess not).

Stallman, despite somehow also being a privacy wonk, thinks that you're morally obligated to publicly release any private modifications you've made to software bearing his cancerous GPL license. I haven't seen a single person in this thread advocate for anything similar.

Rather, the assertion has been that you can't force people to abstain from using their own property just because that particular usage would offend your sensibilities or hurt your feelings.

Aren't you the one quoting the guy who insists there's no such thing as IP? Whatsisname, Kinsella? Or have the nested quotes betrayed me again?

In any case, I put the question again: does a person have the right to profit from his intellectual labors? If you say yes, then you're just negotiating over what compensation he should receive -- the principle that his expressed idea has value (which is variable, because yeah, value isn't a static thing) is established.

And I just thought of this. I wonder how this jibes with the new trend of NFTs?

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 08:11:48 AM

In any case, I put the question again: does a person have the right to profit from his intellectual labors?

No one has the "right to profit" from anything. If your business model is a good one, you will profit. Otherwise, not. It's pretty simple really. Profit is a reward that smart, energetic people obtain. No one is entitled to it.

Do you also agree that Uber should be illegal because it's driving taxis out of business? Isn't that taking away the taxi's "right" to profit?

Quote from: Oddend on October 12, 2021, 11:49:08 PM
If anybody has brought up Richard Stallman or his ilk favorably, it wasn't me or Pat (maybe estar? but you said he was "cogent", so I guess not).

Stallman, despite somehow also being a privacy wonk, thinks that you're morally obligated to publicly release any private modifications you've made to software bearing his cancerous GPL license. I haven't seen a single person in this thread advocate for anything similar.

I brought up Stallman. I agree that no one has such a moral obligation and that Stallman is whack on this point. Stallman makes other very good points, however, regarding the viability of a Gift Economy, which was the context in which he was mentioned (along with Eric Raymond, who is perhaps the easier of the two to read).

Linus Torvalds and Guido Van Rossum were also mentioned as living proof of that viability, being people who profited greatly from giving away their intellectual work for free.

Quote from: Zalman on October 13, 2021, 09:42:02 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 08:11:48 AM

In any case, I put the question again: does a person have the right to profit from his intellectual labors?

No one has the "right to profit" from anything. If your business model is a good one, you will profit. Otherwise, not. It's pretty simple really. Profit is a reward that smart, energetic people obtain. No one is entitled to it.

Do you also agree that Uber should be illegal because it's driving taxis out of business? Isn't that taking away the taxi's "right" to profit?

Not a good analogy. Uber is supplying a (presumably) better product (in this case, short range transport). One might as well try to go to bat for the horse and buggy industry. By your argument, someone who writes a better book and outsells another is infringing on the second person's 'right to profit'.

I will concede that 'right' might not be the best term (since the term itself can be complicated). Maybe 'opportunity'?

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 08:11:48 AM

Quote from: Oddend on October 12, 2021, 11:49:08 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 04:06:40 PM
Eternal copyright is bullshit. But so is 'but information wants to be free, maaaaaan'.

If anybody has brought up Richard Stallman or his ilk favorably, it wasn't me or Pat (maybe estar? but you said he was "cogent", so I guess not).

Stallman, despite somehow also being a privacy wonk, thinks that you're morally obligated to publicly release any private modifications you've made to software bearing his cancerous GPL license. I haven't seen a single person in this thread advocate for anything similar.

Rather, the assertion has been that you can't force people to abstain from using their own property just because that particular usage would offend your sensibilities or hurt your feelings.

Aren't you the one quoting the guy who insists there's no such thing as IP? Whatsisname, Kinsella? Or have the nested quotes betrayed me again?

No, you've got it right, but Kinsella has nothing in common with the "information wants to be free" crowd; they would be better identified with Stallman. Unlike Kinsella, Stallman is a totalitarian in regards to information sharing.

Kinsella's argument has nothing to do with what "information wants", or "the greater good", or "the social contract" any of that commie nonsense; it's all about the defense of individual property rights: If you want to draw, print, AND sell a comic starring Mickey and his friends, Disney has no right to stop you. Likewise, if you want to rearrange some bits on your friend's hard drive to reproduce the 5e Player's Handbook, Wizards has no right to stop you. But also, if you want to do the same to some poor schmuck's homebrew PDF, he also has no right to stop you. But this is NOT because "boy, it would be great if you were ALLOWED to pirate that poor schmuck's homebrew"; it's just because different people don't have different rights.

It's not a "it would be great if things worked this way" argument; it's "given the way the physical world works, there's no justification for legally protecting information as if it can be property".

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 08:11:48 AM
In any case, I put the question again: does a person have the right to profit from his intellectual labors? If you say yes, then you're just negotiating over what compensation he should receive -- the principle that his expressed idea has value (which is variable, because yeah, value isn't a static thing) is established.

The bolded assertion does not follow. If I say "yes", what I mean is "a person has the right to do what they will with their property" (property as in their body, pen, paper, laptop, etc., not units of information).

"Do what they will" would obviously include attempting to profit from producing and publishing a book, for example, but I don't have to accept or believe anything about whether they could make any money, or whether anybody would like the book if they read it; that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they have the right to use their property as they see fit. It is fully possible, no matter how unlikely, that not a single person on the planet will ascribe value to their book.

My guess is you probably would agree with that, though, even if that's not why you would say "yes they have the right".

I think our real point of disagreement (where my "yes they have the right" becomes completely different from yours), is that I believe everyone has the right to do what they will with their property, even if some author would prefer that they didn't, and even while that author is alive and kicking, and even the moment that author's work is published.

Because different people don't have different rights, and the rights they have don't have start or end dates.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 08:11:48 AM
And I just thought of this. I wonder how this jibes with the new trend of NFTs?

I would probably consider NFT's a scam, but I'd probably also disagree with any internet article saying the same, since it's probably written by a communist who hates money. I haven't really looked into them, so I can't say exactly.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 10:00:00 AM

Quote from: Zalman on October 13, 2021, 09:42:02 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 08:11:48 AM

In any case, I put the question again: does a person have the right to profit from his intellectual labors?

No one has the "right to profit" from anything. If your business model is a good one, you will profit. Otherwise, not. It's pretty simple really. Profit is a reward that smart, energetic people obtain. No one is entitled to it.

Do you also agree that Uber should be illegal because it's driving taxis out of business? Isn't that taking away the taxi's "right" to profit?

Not a good analogy. Uber is supplying a (presumably) better product (in this case, short range transport). One might as well try to go to bat for the horse and buggy industry. By your argument, someone who writes a better book and outsells another is infringing on the second person's 'right to profit'.

I will concede that 'right' might not be the best term (since the term itself can be complicated). Maybe 'opportunity'?

It's a better analogy than you might think; government taxis have long had a "selling car rides" monopoly, and Uber and Lyft absolutely have been breaking the law (depending on the city/state, maybe). But most people recognize that prohibiting the sale of car rides to protect taxis, even if they weren't infamously complete garbage, is an unjust law, and that nobody is under any obligation to obey it.

Even though it's not about services, necessarily, IP law is also a system of government-granted monopoly privilege. In the IP case, you might have a "using the idea of Superman monopoly", or even a "using a slight modification of a Grimm fairy tale monopoly".

EDIT: Everyone seems to agree that government-granted monopolies are bad, except in the cases of IP and health care. I'm just saying that all government-granted monopolies are always bad (because they're a violation of property rights).

Quote from: Oddend on October 13, 2021, 10:17:56 AM
No, you've got it right, but Kinsella has nothing in common with the "information wants to be free" crowd; they would be better identified with Stallman. Unlike Kinsella, Stallman is a totalitarian in regards to information sharing.

Kinsella's argument has nothing to do with what "information wants", or "the greater good", or "the social contract" any of that commie nonsense; it's all about the defense of individual property rights: If you want to draw, print, AND sell a comic starring Mickey and his friends, Disney has no right to stop you. Likewise, if you want to rearrange some bits on your friend's hard drive to reproduce the 5e Player's Handbook, Wizards has no right to stop you. But also, if you want to do the same to some poor schmuck's homebrew PDF, he also has no right to stop you. But this is NOT because "boy, it would be great if you were ALLOWED to pirate that poor schmuck's homebrew"; it's just because different people don't have different rights.

It's not a question of 'different people have different rights' (or the negative thereof).

Is intellectual property -- a book, a song, a game system -- somehow intrinsically different from physical property, in the aspect of being able to profit from it? I make no guarantees you CAN profit -- but how is it somehow 'okay' to take what other people have worked on, without recompense?

There's a word for that. Starts and ends with 'T', five letters.

QuoteIt's not a "it would be great if things worked this way" argument; it's "given the way the physical world works, there's no justification for legally protecting information as if it can be property".

Why? Why is there 'no justification' for it?

I can appreciate 'limited allowance'; I'm no friend of the House of Mouse, either. But one wonders how fruitful such labors might be if people know they can never be benefited from, or at least severely limited.

QuoteThe bolded assertion does not follow. If I say "yes", what I mean is "a person has the right to do what they will with their property" (property as in their body, pen, paper, laptop, etc., not units of information).

"Do what they will" would obviously include attempting to profit from producing and publishing a book, for example, but I don't have to accept or believe anything about whether they could make any money, or whether anybody would like the book if they read it; that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they have the right to use their property as they see fit. It is fully possible, no matter how unlikely, that not a single person on the planet will ascribe value to their book.

My guess is you probably would agree with that, though, even if that's not why you would say "yes they have the right".

I think our real point of disagreement (where my "yes they have the right" becomes completely different from yours), is that I believe everyone has the right to do what they will with their property, even if some author would prefer that they didn't, and even while that author is alive and kicking, and even the moment that author's work is published.

Because different people don't have different rights, and the rights they have don't have start or end dates.

Really? How is the right to ownership (even temporary) of an intellectual property somehow 'different' from ownership of a car or a piece of land?

Are you seriously going to tell that author, 'You can make money on your book but everyone has the right to copy it without giving you compensation or credit'? Really?

Because you keep saying 'people don't have different rights', but it looks to me like you're demanding just that: different rights (or lack thereof) for someone who develops an intellectual property rather than a physical one.

Quote
I would probably consider NFT's a scam, but I'd probably also disagree with any internet article saying the same, since it's probably written by a communist who hates money. I haven't really looked into them, so I can't say exactly.

That's been my thought, but then, I also thought crypto was bullshit too, so what do I know

Quote from: Oddend on October 13, 2021, 10:35:14 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 10:00:00 AM

Quote from: Zalman on October 13, 2021, 09:42:02 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 08:11:48 AM

In any case, I put the question again: does a person have the right to profit from his intellectual labors?

No one has the "right to profit" from anything. If your business model is a good one, you will profit. Otherwise, not. It's pretty simple really. Profit is a reward that smart, energetic people obtain. No one is entitled to it.

Do you also agree that Uber should be illegal because it's driving taxis out of business? Isn't that taking away the taxi's "right" to profit?

Not a good analogy. Uber is supplying a (presumably) better product (in this case, short range transport). One might as well try to go to bat for the horse and buggy industry. By your argument, someone who writes a better book and outsells another is infringing on the second person's 'right to profit'.

I will concede that 'right' might not be the best term (since the term itself can be complicated). Maybe 'opportunity'?

It's a better analogy than you might think; government taxis have long had a "selling car rides" monopoly, and Uber and Lyft absolutely have been breaking the law (depending on the city/state, maybe). But most people recognize that prohibiting the sale of car rides to protect taxis, even if they weren't infamously complete garbage, is an unjust law, and that nobody is under any obligation to obey it.

Even though it's not about services, necessarily, IP law is also a system of government-granted monopoly privilege. In the IP case, you might have a "using the idea of Superman monopoly", or even a "using a slight modification of a Grimm fairy tale monopoly".

I am, shocked, shocked that existing companies would utilize government power to enforce a monopoly in the case of taxis vs Uber/Lyft.

Your comment seems like you're implying this is the only area where governments offer privilege, though. Or am I misreading?

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 10:00:00 AM
I will concede that 'right' might not be the best term (since the term itself can be complicated). Maybe 'opportunity'?

Opportunity is pretty good, in the sense that you have the right to pursue profit without obstruction. That doesn't mean, however, that you have the right to profit itself, or that any particular method of pursuit will guarantee profit.

Consider that both sides of a football game have an opportunity to win. Neither side has a "right" to win. If one team uses a new trick play to score, and the other team copies that play later in the game (and also scores!), did they deny the first team an opportunity to win?

Quote from: Pat on October 13, 2021, 06:31:22 AMbad behavior on your part, Shrieking Banshee.

Because I don't want to engage in conversation with somebody who is dismissive of me? I can take being called names or taking insults but I just have not found it to ever be a good use of my time to debate with somebody that is ultimatly only there to speak AT me.

As for science, my view doesn't preclude humans making judgements and observations, but our science is not a perfect complete thing. And thus all our observations are still channeled through our imperfect worldview. To be clear Im not a subjectivist or anti-science. Im saying we should take our irrationality at face value, and still value our observations. But placing rationality on a pedestal is whats being used to tear science down. Instead of taking science with a grain of salt, its being compared to an abstract impossible ideal (of rationality), and being torn down in turn.

Anyway as to how this relates to IP law: All rights and property are fundementally arbitrary if examined through a lens of rationality. You are ultimatly picking whats real or not real based on personal preference.

Quote from: Zalman on October 13, 2021, 10:54:25 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 10:00:00 AM
I will concede that 'right' might not be the best term (since the term itself can be complicated). Maybe 'opportunity'?

Opportunity is pretty good, in the sense that you have the right to pursue profit without obstruction. That doesn't mean, however, that you have the right to profit itself, or that any particular method of pursuit will guarantee profit.

Absolutely. Or perhaps my terminology should have been 'the right to PURSUE profit'. No guarantees you'll actually catch it.

QuoteConsider that both sides of a football game have an opportunity to win. Neither side has a "right" to win. If one team uses a new trick play to score, and the other team copies that play later in the game (and also scores!), did they deny the first team an opportunity to win?

Considering that the whole point of a football game is to win (and by extension, deny the other team the opportunity to win), not sure this is a great analogy.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 10:37:51 AM
Is intellectual property -- a book, a song, a game system -- somehow intrinsically different from physical property, in the aspect of being able to profit from it?

Yes, they are intrinsically different (that's central to the anti-IP case), but it's in their qualification for being treated as property, not anything to do with the possibility for profit.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 10:37:51 AM
I make no guarantees you CAN profit -- but how is it somehow 'okay' to take what other people have worked on, without recompense?

There's a word for that. Starts and ends with 'T', five letters.

I think you missed my earlier response to you (it doesn't address everything you're asking now, but some of it): https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/reddit-gamers-were-mad-they-lost-an-easy-means-of-pirating-ttrpgs/msg1192687/#msg1192687

This is a common characterization of "piracy", but it's a misconception, even legally speaking; the legal system does not consider copying to be theft, which is why they call it "[category of IP monopoly] infringement". So in that sense, the legal system agrees with me.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 10:37:51 AM
Really? How is the right to ownership (even temporary) of an intellectual property somehow 'different' from ownership of a car or a piece of land?

You probably missed it, but this has been beaten to death in the thread (I'm not demanding that you "read the thread, REEEE"). The gist is that physical things are scarce, but information is not.

If somebody is using your lawnmower, with or without your permission, you cannot also use the lawnmower at the same time. So taking it from you would deprive you of the mower. It is "scarce", economically speaking. Control over it can be contested. It qualifies as property.

On the other hand, if you write a song, play it for a crowd, and then a crowd member hears it and later plays it for his own crowd, he has not deprived you of the song or even of your ability to make use of the song.

Information itself doesn't play by the same rules as tangible things. It's just the way the universe works (and we should be grateful, because it's hugely beneficial to us).

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 10:37:51 AM
Because you keep saying 'people don't have different rights', but it looks to me like you're demanding just that: different rights (or lack thereof) for someone who develops an intellectual property rather than a physical one.

I'm arguing for protecting property as property, and against protecting non-property as if it was property (because doing so violates the ostensible basis of it, which is "protecting property").

Given the objections you've just presented to my arguments (i.e. demanding logical consistency), I really do genuinely think you would enjoy this talk by Kinsella (again, rather than "read the thread, REEEE"). It includes a great Q&A and hits on everything discussed in this thread, from a radically anti-communist point of view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfU34KkNV1s

Ignore the hippie vibe of the venue branding. He's not associated with them, it's just a venue.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 10:41:28 AM

Quote from: Oddend on October 13, 2021, 10:35:14 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 10:00:00 AM

Quote from: Zalman on October 13, 2021, 09:42:02 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 08:11:48 AM

In any case, I put the question again: does a person have the right to profit from his intellectual labors?

No one has the "right to profit" from anything. If your business model is a good one, you will profit. Otherwise, not. It's pretty simple really. Profit is a reward that smart, energetic people obtain. No one is entitled to it.

Do you also agree that Uber should be illegal because it's driving taxis out of business? Isn't that taking away the taxi's "right" to profit?

Not a good analogy. Uber is supplying a (presumably) better product (in this case, short range transport). One might as well try to go to bat for the horse and buggy industry. By your argument, someone who writes a better book and outsells another is infringing on the second person's 'right to profit'.

I will concede that 'right' might not be the best term (since the term itself can be complicated). Maybe 'opportunity'?

It's a better analogy than you might think; government taxis have long had a "selling car rides" monopoly, and Uber and Lyft absolutely have been breaking the law (depending on the city/state, maybe). But most people recognize that prohibiting the sale of car rides to protect taxis, even if they weren't infamously complete garbage, is an unjust law, and that nobody is under any obligation to obey it.

Even though it's not about services, necessarily, IP law is also a system of government-granted monopoly privilege. In the IP case, you might have a "using the idea of Superman monopoly", or even a "using a slight modification of a Grimm fairy tale monopoly".

I am, shocked, shocked that existing companies would utilize government power to enforce a monopoly in the case of taxis vs Uber/Lyft.

Your comment seems like you're implying this is the only area where governments offer privilege, though. Or am I misreading?

Not at all. If I implied that, I didn't mean to. Monopoly privileges are all over the place, and every industry they touch just happens to be generally agreed to suck shit: health care, internet service providers, taxis, power companies, car dealerships... the entertainment industry.

Playing devils advocate for commies:

Isn't ownership over physical goods just as much an unenforceable idea? Because you found it first you now have some claim to an abstract territory or item?

Except in terms of denying society opportunity, denying a physical good is worse. Because it IS scarce, you are denying vital necessity to others based on nothing but an idea if ownership or use of force.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 10:00:00 AM

Quote from: Zalman on October 13, 2021, 09:42:02 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 08:11:48 AM
In any case, I put the question again: does a person have the right to profit from his intellectual labors?

No one has the "right to profit" from anything. If your business model is a good one, you will profit. Otherwise, not. It's pretty simple really. Profit is a reward that smart, energetic people obtain. No one is entitled to it.

Do you also agree that Uber should be illegal because it's driving taxis out of business? Isn't that taking away the taxi's "right" to profit?

Not a good analogy. Uber is supplying a (presumably) better product (in this case, short range transport). One might as well try to go to bat for the horse and buggy industry. By your argument, someone who writes a better book and outsells another is infringing on the second person's 'right to profit'.

I will concede that 'right' might not be the best term (since the term itself can be complicated). Maybe 'opportunity'?

I think the farming analogy is pretty direct. Shouldn't someone who plows the soil, plants the seeds, and tends the crop be entitled to the profits? For our society, the answer is no. If it is private land, then the landowner has the right to profit.

For intellectual property, there is a parallel situation. If someone labors and creates an RPG module for an existing game, they don't have the right to profit off their labor. They need the permission of whoever owns the RPG.

I find that this tends to overrate the value of supposed "originality" - which tends to just mean shaving off a few distinctive traits while still being derivative. I think a well-realized module for an existing game is just as much value as yet another RPG system.