Piracy and the Entitlement Mentality

So you agree that what the law says is irrelevant.

Garbage. There is no such ownership "right," only a government-created and -enforced monopoly privilege.

 

What i find interesting is this strong intellectual property belief in America in the Technological age, a culture practically bread from the pirates of silicon valley. Of course Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both take the role of both Pirates and Protectionists which clearly demonstrates a contradiction or rather a double standard in their morality, do whats good for you but don't let others do the same. Of course then you have the hackers, the copy left and open source movements, the peer to peer media sharing and now even currencies.

Intellectual property rights are simply a protectionist way to monopolize markets, most people in America tend to dislike monopolies. If we didn't have these sorts of laws it would empower people to work and improve upon idea's to benefit us all.

I don't think its accurate to say the law is irrelevant, rather i would say that some laws tend to in reality be unseen burdens on certain factors of society and people in a very general sense would benefit from removing them.

I agree that intellectual property in not a right but a privilege, i would also like to expand and say that its a burden on people achieving their goals in the market. Intellectual property takes a lot of power from the inventor or artist from pursuing their goals independent of benefactors or investors. You see this with venture capitalism, the cost getting the proper permits and patents and again in the Music Industry with major record labels and long term contracts.These kinds of laws seem to often bind people to a sort of wage slavery rather than being able to truly pursue their independent dreams as they come along.

 

No, there are other options. Get freeware, or if you don't like freeware, get a job. Again, I'm not against some producer deciding to give away a product, or even a demo of a pay product. What I oppose is theft -- you don't get to take other people's stuff without their permission. there's even a freeware version of CAD, let alone Gimp as a photoshop clone. I use Star Office most of the time. There are freeware versions of just about anything, games, productivity, word processing, even Linux as a free replacement for windows.

How many people could get ahead in the world having a car? How much better would it be for poor people to be able to own a car rather than being tied to the buslines? therefore people should take the bus to the nearest car dealership and drive off in a new car. Point being that just because you could be happier owning an item does not mean that you have the right to take it.

You get to decide how to distribute what you make, I don't dispute that. What I object to is the theft of the labor of other people without their permission. Those hours of coding are not something you can get back, so it should be up to you. It's the same thing with music -- studio time ain't free, background singers aren't free, backup bands aren't free, so that's why it's not up to the pirate to decide how things should all be free.

 

I cannot think of an objective way to define the violating of a state-granted monopoly privilege in a concept as "theft of labor." Unless there is a contract, where labor and title are to be exchanged, and the title side of the contract does not live up to the contract, there cannot be said to be theft of labor. Once the labor is completed, how can it be stolen again?

This is still the ends justifies the means. How do you justify, objectively, the proposition that something which is not tangible and which does not have any of the properties of tangible property, be property without going into the reasons that people supposedly benefit from such regulations.

 

That depends. In my eyes, copying isn't necessarily taking if you're going to use it for yourself. If I wish to make a backup of a disc, I can do so because I've purchased the rights to it and I'm covered under the Fair Use act. Where it becomes debatable, for me, is the point of when copying becomes unlawful. For me, if someone wishes to borrow it, that's different. If you're going to just copy the disc and give it to someone, I think that's where I'd have to draw the line. Let's dig into this a little bit.

The case can be made on both sides, I understand the case to remove all IP/copyright laws, here's where I disagree with it. If you have a piece of software, let's take Microsoft Office 2012 for instance, and one person buys it. If copying isn't theft and once labor is completed, it no longer becomes tangible, then we can gather a group of folks together, one person buys the software, and shares it with everyone. We all use the same license and one person only bought the software while X users can now use the software. Does that make it fine? In my eyes, it doesn't. The laws should be there to protect those from that type of copying. Where I have issues with the IP/copyright laws is when companies begin to sue others for infringing their patents because they are similar to something. Case in point, a chip maker (Elan Microelectronics) sued Apple because Apple started using multi-touch technology. The case was in regards to the following patent: touch-sensitive input devices with the ability to detect the simultaneous presence of two or more fingers. This is where I draw the line because if Apple developed a newer technology but still performed the same thing, how is Apple at fault?

Moreover, I always have a right to my liberty. The difference is, the government continues to remove them.

 

It's never taking, by definition.

Circular reasoning at its finest. You can't justify a law by reference to that same law.

But you are wrong. If M$ doesn't want more than one person to use their software, they should dongle it, or use some other method of preventing use of multiple copies. What M$ actually wants, and has encouraged repeatedly, is for people to copy their software freely until it becomes the standard, and then charge everyone for using M$'s standard.

No, they should not. The laws should be there to protect everyone's rights. IP is a privilege, not a right.

You say you are drawing a line, but you can't draw all the lines needed for every case, and you can't define a procedure for drawing all the lines in the right places.

 

Call it what you wish.

Again, call it what you wish, still doesn't refute my stance.

I'm not arguing they shouldn't go after a different technology. That's why I believe SaaS will become the standard in the future. However, you still haven't disproved my point.

So how's it not protecting a right? If a group of folks buy one license and share it among at minimum of two people, how is such a law to prevent such a thing not protecting the rights of the company?

Nor can you, I'm simply providing my stance. If Apple blatantly copied Elan Microelectronics work (IE: How Apple has been suing Samsung for copying their work), that's where Elan has a case. If Apple simply developed a newer, better way to have a multitouch screen, Elan has nothing to stand on. That's my point and that's where my line is.

 

All rights are created and recognised by government. So are privileges. In order to ensure that people are interested in being creative and productive and benefiting from their work, governments have created copyright and various forms of intellectual property protection such as patents. From that then I am suggesting that the law is very relevant.

 

Rights are recognized before the existence of government. If government disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, I believe that my home would be secured for me as my right. My neighbors would help secure my home for me, as I would their homes for them. What I’m saying is that I would put my life in danger to protect my neighbors rights (his home), in hope that they would do the same for me. On the other hand, I would never put my life in danger to stop someone from downloading a song or book off the internet.

Maybe you can think of it like this: rights are so important that people will protect them even without pay. Whereas privileges are only protected if someone is desperate enough for money that they will protect them for pay.

 

If government disappeared you wouldn't even need to consider the concept of rights because your individual autonomy would be recognised by your fellows, just as you would recognise theirs so the idea of “rights” and all they entail would be redundant.

Rights are necessary in an organised society that requires government to function. Where an organised society functions without government then it doesn't need rights for individuals as the interests of all individuals would be recognised by everyone. Obligations, duties, rights, all would be swept away as concepts and replaced by a mutual regard.

Where someone produced something unique in that society of no-government, their interests would be protected by everyone else who had regard to their industry and creativity by not infringing on their product.

 

If your stance is based on circular reasoning, it pretty much refutes itself. Your argument has been that it's wrong to copy because it violates the law, and it's the law says one must not copy, so therefore it's wrong to do so. That's the circular reasoning. Why should the law exist is the question.

They have no right to that protection in the first place, any more than any company has a right to be protected from competition in any other industry. IP laws don't protect rights, they create privilege.

 

If government is the source of rights, then that begs the question, how did government lawfully form?

And, if the government is the source of rights, then the basic axiom is that might is right.

 

Yes, actually, it does.

Yes, actually, I have.

There is no such right to protect. Only a government-issued privilege.

Because the company HAS NO RIGHT to stop people from exercising their rights to liberty.

Of course I can, because my stance is consistent with fact, logic, liberty, justice, and truth.

Which I have proved is indefensible.

So did Roe and Wade. You need to learn the difference between having a case and having a right.

Wrong-o. They probably still have a case. Just a different case.

IOW, whatever you say is right?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...

 

ROTFL!! You need to re-read the Declaration of Independence...

Rights are necessary to our survival as social beings, because we don't have strong enough instincts to manage the way sub-human social animals do.

This sounds like Marx's New Man.

Garbage. Until a few hundred years ago, no one ever dreamed that new products should not be copied freely. That's how we rose up from the caves. And there is no such thing as "infringing on a product." Only rights can be infringed. And there is no right to re-privatize and monopolize knowledge and ideas that are (in fact if not in law) in the public domain.

 

Wrong. Rights are necessary for any human society to function. Government is just a way of securing and reconciling the rights that people already had.

Privileges are created by government, yes. That's what makes them not rights.

Government has created them, right. Which means they are not rights but privileges.

It's not relevant to the argument, because when you are trying to justify a law, an appeal to that law is circular.

 

You say in your sig that you're a Libertarian, so are you aware of the divide in Libertarianism on intellectual property rights?

Suppose that two men owned farms on the opposite side of the world in 2000BC. Both of these men have trees and rocks. One day, the man in Tehran makes a dagger out of a sharpened rock attached to a branch lying on the ground. He then uses this to cut down trees and build a makeshift shelter. The next day, the man in Oklahoma also proclaims "eureka!" and makes his own axe from a sharpened rock and a tree branch.

He tries to cut down his own trees and build a makeshift shelter to protect his family, but as he begins travelers from a far off land arrive and demand that he ceases his activity. These travelers explain that unless he halts using their intellectual property they will be forced to throw him in prison and/or pillage his farm. They provide evidence in the form of the original axe to demonstrate that they came up with the idea first.

"But I am only using my own initiative to use my own supplies to harvest my own resources, how can you own this axe of mine?" asks the American, but the Iranians respond "Ahh but you see when we made the blueprints for our axe we gained part ownership for all persons' property in the uses we patented!". Surely this is absurd, yet same facts are true for the piracy debate today. It remains absurd even if the man in America observed the Iranian method instead of having independently formulated it. It's still a ridiculous violation of the American man's property rights.


Kinsella argues that property rights can only be attributed to scarce commodities. If anyone could wish bicycles into existence then it would not be anti-liberty to 'steal' them. The same is true for ideas. Copying an DVD from the video store in this way doesn't harm or alter in any way the property of anyone. Therefore intellectual property rights are a fiction.

Others in the community like Ayn Rand supported intellectual property rights on the assertion that a man has ownership of whatever he produces, mental or physical.

Personally I love the axe example. I think I read it on Wikipedia sometime long ago. It sums up the issue very well I reckon. But I recognize that sellers should be entitled to place whatever conditions they want on their products, including a restriction on copying the contents in any form. This, however, wouldn't apply to the man who finds a copy of the CD in the trash. He would be free from the terms of sale as he didn't obtain the item through trade. This makes this slight objection of mine redundant, as it results in the IP being shared voluntarily anyway.

I have no entitlement mentality, all of this comes directly from the non-aggression axiom.

 

I've never used a law as the basis for any of my arguments. I look at everything, dissect it, and logically think of what I believe makes the most sense. If it is similar to a law, then so be it. However, I've never stood on a law and stated that because it's a law, then it must be so. That's an idiotic stance and one I've never taken. What I believe makes most sense to me is where I believe the should exist, in which, I believe, I'm answering the question.

This is where my disagreement comes from, in my mind, I don't see how this can ultimately be effective. I see the benefit to it from a consumer perspective, as folks will simply use the same created work and find ways to make it cheaper (IE: China is currently doing it through reverse engineering, I believe I heard reports of them saying they have a version of iTunes in China). From that side, I can see how more goods will be injected into the market and prices of said good would be cheaper. Thus, the super rich won't be so rich and the poor won't be as poor, as the rich will have to reduce their profits in order to compete and the poor won't have to pay ridiculous amounts of money for said goods. I believe that is the crux of your argument, set aside the logistics of the IP law itself.

However, on the flip side, I can't seem to wrap my head around the thought of not being able to protect my investment. Granted, I believe, in the case of software, it's going to be mostly cloud based and folks will have to pay for the service (IE: SaaS) and use the software there. Folks will get upset at this but I think that's where technology is pushing itself. Thus, this is how private corporations will have to protect their investment. Where I don't see how it can be effective is when it comes to something more physical. If we stay in the technology field, if I build out a hard drive with some advanced technology that improves the speed & accuracy of the HDD, someone else comes along and replicates the same thing, I believe there should be some avenue given to these folks. I will always agree that they should look into means of protecting their investment, such as SaaS, sometimes I don't think it's always a possibility.

 

I agree with your assessment and I, too, love the axe example. However, I don't believe private individuals should be able to place restrictions on copying their product in any form. What I mean by that is, if we take the axe example, if you build an axe out of maple wood and steel, nothing should prevent me from building an axe out of oak wood and iron. Even if it's the same size & length, mine is clearly different than yours. Where I believe it becomes a bit tricky, for me at least, is when we both build out an axe with maple wood and steel. That's where I think folks should be able to protect their investments.

 

Every time I produce something (the fruits of my labor), do I not have a right to determine how it is used? What difference does it make if the product is tangible or intangible? Besides, all product takes some degree of mental labor.

 

If they're downloading and sharing GBs of music....screw em. They know its wrong. Would they know that stealing piles of clothes is wrong, or walking out of Gamestop with armfuls of videogames? Just because its a file, its OK? Oh please. They know its wrong. They're just betting they won't get caught, which is how most thieves think.

 

It seems like an intuitive thing I'll admit, but I can't find any justification for it because in a state of nature we have absolute freedom, yet intellectual property rights in the axe example seem to imply an inherent obligation. I find non-consented obligations to be tyranny itself.

Idk, I guess I can't really square it with my reasoning. I'd be very open to any suggestions.

 

So far, the entire basis of your arguments is that you want something, and therefore want government to provide it to you. In this case, it is a form of protectionism referred to as "intellectual property" law. What makes your desire to "protect your investment" more of a justification for government intervention than the desire of sugar manufacturers to protect their investments by demanding high tariffs on foreign sugar? Sure, the rest of the people in the US have to pay more for sugar or eat HFCS, but sugar planters spend a lot of money growing the stuff and low prices will drive them from the market and put them out of business.

The gist of my arguments is that IP laws violate the non-aggression principle. While I will agree that the consumer should be the protected party in all transactions, the absence of interference by government except in cases of force or fraud will do a fine job of that.

 

It might sound like I'm asking for the government to intervene, but I'm not. What I'm merely getting at is looking to find answers to my questions. I know it goes against the NAP, I know it's protectionism, what I'm looking for is a different alternative. I don't see how no IP laws will work and my concern is without something to protect them (Doesn't need to be a law, just don't know what it could be, outside of protecting your own investment. I think it might be a bit hard for this same philosophy to work on physical goods), goods won't be in the market. I think folks would be less attracted to the market and would create a rift in goods, for the concern folks simply copying it and marking it as cheaper.

Even though this would flood the market with cheaper goods and will be the most beneficial for the consumer (Myself included), I worry about the absence of more quality goods and it become more like China, where they produce more cheaper quality goods than higher quality. As such, I saw a news report, on TV, where the high quality goods are being sold from the US into the China market. This is because those folks over there are looking for the higher quality goods and no longer wish to always buy the cheaper, lower quality goods. That's my concern, government protection not being one of them.