Establishing Copy Prohibition Laws is Unjust

reed's picture
Submitted by reed on Tue, 2012-05-15 21:24

1) A punishment greater than the harm caused (or intended) is unjust.

2) There is no harm caused (or intended) by copying.

3) Therefore, any punishment for copying is unjust.


( categories: )

scarce

Damien Grant's picture

Ok, I see you point, I think. Property can only exist in scarce goods. so a physical book be owned but the contents cannot. Would you extend this to trade marks?

I never said I was either rational nor an objectivist. You have made an assumption.

Rationality

Richard Goode's picture

I don't think you folk understand rationality.

Being an Objectivist doesn't make you (ir)rational.

Being a Christian doesn't make you (ir)rational.

What makes you rational—the only thing that makes you rational—is following the rules.

Your view is the heretical one, burden of proof lies with you because if you want to pull people to your view you at least need to explain it.

The rules say that the burden of proof is on he who makes the positive claim. The rules don't say anything about "heresy".

A and B the C of D

Richard Goode's picture

The chair did not exist prior to my labour. Why does this not apply to a book?

Because the book is not a scarce commodity.

The fact that your (in the sense of authorship) book is the fruit of your labour is insufficient to make the book your property.

Whereas, the fact that your chair is the fruit of your labour and also scarce is sufficient to make the chair your property.

There, you've got an actual answer to go with your burden of proof.

Turtleside

Damien Grant's picture

I am not denying the possibility of your position, I am trying to understand it and to displace from my mind the possibility that you are a crank,

Your view is the heretical one, burden of proof lies with you because if you want to pull people to your view you at least need to explain it.

If I buy wood, hammer etc, and I build a chair, the wood remains mine, I can now sell this "improved" wood at a profit.

The chair did not exist prior to my labour. Why does this not apply to a book?

I would like an actual answer and not just a restatement of your position that there is no such thing as intellectual property.

Flat earther

Richard Goode's picture

I claim that the earth is not, as most people seem to think, flat. It's actually roughly spherical.

Your position is interesting if odd.

That's what they always say. You're just so used to the idea that the earth is flat, that you can't readily conceive of an alternative view. But examine your reasons for thinking that the earth is flat. They don't stack up like turtles.

If the earth is flat, you ask, how come the people on the sides and bottom don't fall off? OK, this is going to take some explaining.

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

I would define property as something that can be owned. This covers pretty much everything ...

Sure. But a communist government could pass a law decreeing that what was previously your private property is now communally owned. Your stuff would then be my stuff, legally speaking. We would both balk at this. The question is not, do you have legal rights in so-called intellectual property? You do. The question is, do you have moral rights in so-called intellectual property? You don't. I can't think of a good reason why you should.

I am unsure why you state that the creator of it cannot retain ownership of it?

The creator cannot retain ownership of his creation because he never owned it in the first place.

Are you going to man up and shoulder the burden of proof? It's all yours.

Further Reading

Jmaurone's picture

A reading list on the topic of IP/copyrights, and how it affects artists and creators. Starting with Alvin Toffler, since his books Future Shock, Power Shift, and The Third Wave anticipated much of this; his more recent followup, Revolutionary Wealth, speculates on how artists and creators might thrive in the digital age. Moving from theory to practice, Lawrence Lessig and Robert Levine argue from the pro and con side of the debate.

Alvin Toffler:
The Third Wave
Revolutionary Wealth

"Third Wave is the post-industrial society. Toffler would also add that since the late 1950s most countries are moving away from a Second Wave Society into what he would call a Third Wave Society. He coined lots of words to describe it and mentions names invented by him (super-industrial society) and other people (like the Information Age, Space Age, Electronic Era, Global Village, technetronic age, scientific-technological revolution), which to various degrees predicted demassification, diversity, knowledge-based production, and the acceleration of change (one of Toffler’s key maxims is 'change is non-linear and can go backwards, forwards and sideways')."

"Revolutionary Wealth is about how tomorrow’s wealth will be created, and who will get it and how. But twenty-first-century wealth, according to the Tofflers, is not just about money, and cannot be understood in terms of industrial-age economics. Thus they write here about everything from education and child rearing to Hollywood and China, from everyday truth and misconceptions to what they call our “third job”—the unnoticed work we do without pay for some of the biggest corporations in our country."

Lawrence Lessig:
Free Culture:How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity
The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World

"Lawrence Lessig, “the most important thinker on intellectual property in the Internet era” (The New Yorker), masterfully argues that never before in human history has the power to control creative progress been so concentrated in the hands of the powerful few, the so-called Big Media. Never before have the cultural powers- that-be been able to exert such control over what we can and can’t do with the culture around us. Our society defends free markets and free speech; why then does it permit such top-down control? To lose our long tradition of free culture, Lawrence Lessig shows us, is to lose our freedom to create, our freedom to build, and, ultimately, our freedom to imagine."

"The Internet revolution has come. Some say it has gone. In The Future of Ideas, Lawrence Lessig explains how the revolution has produced a counterrevolution of potentially devastating power and effect. Creativity once flourished because the Net protected a commons on which widest range of innovators could experiment. But now, manipulating the law for their own purposes, corporations have established themselves as virtual gatekeepers of the Net while Congress, in the pockets of media magnates, has rewritten copyright and patent laws to stifle creativity and progress."

Robert Levine:
Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back

"How did the newspaper, music, and film industries go from raking in big bucks to scooping up digital dimes? Their customers were lured away by the free ride of technology. Now, business journalist Robert Levine shows how they can get back on track.

"On the Internet, “information wants to be free.” This memorable phrase shaped the online business model, but it is now driving the media companies on whom the digital industry feeds out of business. Today, newspaper stocks have fallen to all-time lows as papers are pressured to give away content, music sales have fallen by more than half since file sharing became common, TV ratings are plum­meting as viewership migrates online, and publishers face off against Amazon over the price of digital books.

"In Free Ride, Robert Levine narrates an epic tale of value destruction that moves from the corridors of Congress, where the law was passed that legalized YouTube, to the dorm room of Shawn Fanning, the founder of Napster; from the bargain-pricing dramas involving iTunes and Kindle to Google’s fateful decision to digitize first and ask questions later. Levine charts how the media industry lost control of its destiny and suggests innovative ways it can resist the pull of zero.

"Fearless in its reporting and analysis, Free Ride is the busi­ness history of the decade and a much-needed call to action."

Thoughtful poice

Damien Grant's picture

Yes, jackbooted thugs can be used but civil courts more likely.

Your position is interesting if odd.

Using the book example; I would define property as something that can be owned. This covers pretty much everything from the air to people, and includes intellectual property.

Land is an easy, we can see it, but a book is something that has been created by the author, it did not exist previously, I am unsure why you state that the creator of it cannot retain ownership of it?

What is your basis for your views? I do not understand the thinking behind your premise.

Thought police

Richard Goode's picture

The idea for a grocery store is not an original one. The chemical combination of Viagara is.

Right. So you and your jackbooted thug mates are going to break down my door and arrest me ... for being insufficiently original.

Commander

Richard Goode's picture

The essential issue is whether or not someone can own what they've created. According to you, they cannot, so someone who has spent five years locked away in a room writing a book, on the final day does not own that book. It's entirely proper, according to you, for anyone to reproduce it and sell, or perhaps even just give it away freely if they don't care about turning a dollar. According to you, there is no ownership vested in that creation by the creator.

Correct.

The owners of property have every right to defend their property

There is no such thing as intellectual property. Therefore, the non-owners of intellectual property have no right to defend their non-property.

I don't think anything needs to be proved to you

There's the small matter of burden of proof. You say that there is such a thing as intellectual property. You're the one making the positive existential claim. Where's your justification? Put up or shut up.

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

The burden of proof falls on those opposing copyright to demonstrate that intellectual property is not property.

The burden of proof falls on those who support copyright laws to demonstrate that so-called "intellectual property" is property.

As a general rule, the burden of proof is on he who makes the positive existential claim, i.e., that God exists, or that there is such a thing as "intellectual property".

You flunked Rationality 101, didn't you?

And Tennille

Damien Grant's picture

The burden of proof falls on those opposing copyright to demonstrate that intellectual property is not property.

The difference is the

Richard Wiig's picture

The difference is the illegitimate use of another persons property. In competing in the clothing market by producing a pair of jeans, there's no misuse of anyone elses property. As soon as you try to pass off your product as a pair of levis though, in order to benefit from the popularity of the levis brand name, then you've entered the realm of fraud. The essential issue is whether or not someone can own what they've created. According to you, they cannot, so someone who has spent five years locked away in a room writing a book, on the final day does not own that book. It's entirely proper, according to you, for anyone to reproduce it and sell, or perhaps even just give it away freely if they don't care about turning a dollar. According to you, there is no ownership vested in that creation by the creator. I don't think anything needs to be proved to you, anymore than anything needs to be proved to Islamofascists. The owners of property have every right to defend their property, and no excuses to violators are needed.

Commander

Richard Goode's picture

For arguments sake, let's assume they are legitimate.

For argument's sake, let's assume that copy prohibition laws are illegitimate. The burden of proof is on you to show otherwise. This is a thread about establishing copy prohibition laws.

Commander

Richard Goode's picture

Does copyright piracy eat into sales or not? It's a straightforward question that only requires a straightforward answer.

It's a straightforward case of begging the question.

Does copying eat into sales or not?

Yes, it does. So does competition in a free market. What's the difference?

You still haven't answered

Richard Wiig's picture

You still haven't answered the question. Whether the laws are legitimate or not is another question altogether. For arguments sake, let's assume they are legitimate. It's a straightforward question that only needs a straightforward answer.

Richard W

reed's picture

Does copyright piracy eat into sales or not?
There is no copyright piracy prior to the establishment of copy prohibition.

The lost dog I never had but

Richard Wiig's picture

The lost dog I never had but could've, doesn't expose any problem with his question. It's entirely unrelated and evasive. Does copyright piracy eat into sales or not? It's a straightforward question that only requires a straightforward answer.

Christians are sinners

reed's picture

Richard (Wiig)
I answered Michael's question begging questions with answers to show the problems with his questions. It's not really being evasive or dishonest if my purpose is to demonstrate the flaws in his questions is it?

Even if I were evasive and dishonest you don't need my cooperation to say what is wrong with the syllogism.

Just say why you think the argument fails. Can you do it without begging the question?

My mind is fragile...

Damien Grant's picture

The idea for a grocery store is not an original one. The chemical combination of Viagara is.

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

Yes. If you copy another persons idea then you have harmed them and you have initiated force as surely as you had come into their house and stolen their assets.

So if I open a grocery store I have harmed you and initiated force as surely as if I had come into your house and stolen your assets? No, I don't think so.

Are you out of your mind?

Widgets...

Damien Grant's picture

Yes. If you copy another persons idea then you have harmed them and you have initiated force as surely as you had come into their house and stolen their assets.

This is so obvious I am unsure if it needs to be debated.

I thought the area of disagreement was narrower than that.

Widgets

Richard Goode's picture

Suppose that you invent a new widget. You go into business manufacturing and selling the newly invented widget. Your business flourishes.

Suppose that I copy your invention and go into business manufacturing and selling the same widget. Your business loses sales to my business.

Have I caused you harm by copying your invention? Have I initiated force against you? Have I done anything wrong?

Groceries

Richard Goode's picture

Suppose that we live in a small, outlying suburban neighbourhood that is not well served by the business community in terms of easy availability of beer, wine and other essential household items.

Suppose that you have a good idea. Your good idea is to open a convenience store in the neighbourhood. So you do. Your business flourishes.

Suppose that I copy your good idea and open a second convenience store in the neighbourhood in direct competition. Your business loses sales to my business.

Have I caused you harm by copying your good idea? Have I initiated force against you? Have I done anything wrong?

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

What is property?

First in, is the rule. If I developed the new technique, either by investing limited resources or though divine (or goblin) inspiration, then this is my property.

Why it is mine is a more philosophical question I do not have an answer for but this seems accepted ...

It's not accepted. This ... "If I developed the new technique ... then [it's] is my property" ... is the production theory of property, and it's not accepted. Nor should it be. It hasn't yet been established.

Richard (Wiig)

Lindsay Perigo's picture

As I've noted elsewhere, it's becoming clear thanks to these discussions that Goblianity is synonymous with dishonesty. Scroll back a few posts and there is Goblian Baade barefacedly saying it is not wrong to pass off someone else's work as your own. And see Reede's responses to Moeller. This is serial dishonesty. And they think it's funny. Then again, why should we be surprised? Their entire superstition is lies based on a lie.

I thought Christians were

Richard Wiig's picture

I thought Christians were supposed to be honest.

More evasion.

Richard Wiig's picture

More evasion.

is it true that a sale of an

reed's picture

is it true that a sale of an infringer's [copier's] product is a potentially lost sale to the creator?
Yes, it's a potential loss. Like the lost dog I never had but could've.

Very Good, Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

Yes, it was evasion. No, you did not address the substance.

All you did was play juvenile little games, such as purposely evading my point and your copying and pasting of my argument in an attempt to use it as your own.

Oh, it is just sooooo funny. The author loses a sale due to an infringer's copying -- a point obvious to everybody. Oh, what a side-splitter! Let's play little games now to avoid this obvious fact!

Just as I said earlier. Any damage to the creator is not even given a second thought to people like Reed, even when put right in front of their face. It doesn't fit their ideas, so they pretend like it doesn't exist. Reed's evasive tactics are obvious to everybody at this point.

Thus, I am glad Reed has put this mentality on display for everybody to see.

But I will give him another shot and rephrase the question: is it true that a sale of an infringer's product is a potentially lost sale to the creator?

Michael

BTW ...

Richard Goode's picture

The ruling in question, while unconscionable, had no legal weight, but you got all bent out of shape about the end of liberty and so forth.

The Advertising Standards Authority is an "authority" and it issues "rulings". I had no idea that it was sans teeth until Reed brought it to my attention. That's why I got my knickers in a twist. I'm reassured that you consider the ruling in question unconscionable. Because it is.

Linz ...

Richard Goode's picture

... let's cut to the chase.

Especially since the principal topic from which Jeezy/cancer was a momentary and frivolous diversion (or at least was intended as such by me) was: intellectual property rights.

Yes. This debate is all about intellectual property and rights therein. My position is that there is NO such thing as intellectual property. Hence, you do NOT have any intellectual property rights. NO one does.

Fraud is never a joke, especially in a context in which you've already been defending it. That's why I don't accept "any wrongdoing" and insist on "the wrongdoing."

You've accused me of fraud and, elsewhere, of theft and plagiarism, and of defending fraud, theft and plagiarism. It's not clear to me exactly what the wrongdoing is that I am alleged to have committed. But what is clear to me is that were I to apologise for committing the wrongdoing I would thereby concede that I had in some way infringed your intellectual property rights. But my position is that you don't have any such rights. So any such apology on my part would be a lie. It would be dishonest. Unconscionable.

Either, (1) you persuade me that I infringed your intellectual property rights and, having done so, I then apologise for the wrongdoing.

Or, (2) I apologise in advance for any wrongdoing, and you then persuade me that I did, in fact, commit one.

Or, (3) I leave. (You have only to ask. For any reason or no reason. It's your website, not mine.)

I have already acknowledged that I copied without permission some sentences authored by you and apologised for any wrongdoing thereby committed. Why don't you persuade me that there is such a thing as IP, that you have IP rights, and that I infringed them? Make a case. If you're right, it shouldn't be difficult. After all, reason is your only absolute. It's mine, too.

Reed

Richard Wiig's picture

Whether there is harm or not isn't really the point. What matters is whether or not rights are being violated. There is clearly something to protect, and that is the ability to profit from the work and effort put into the creation by its creator. It is their property. I ask you, Reed, in establishing copyright law, who's rights have been violated?

Richard

reed's picture

Yes it was but it was a poorly phrased question and I'd already addressed its substance.

That was an evasive

Richard Wiig's picture

That was an evasive answer.

Yes. I can grasp your statement.

This question?

reed's picture

I've already addressed the substance of your statement but I will answer your question.

Let me make it real simple for you, Reed. A sale by an infringer would represent a potentially lost sale to the original creator in the absence of copyright laws. You can grasp that much, right Reed?

Yes. I can grasp your statement.

Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

It was not my desire to declare myself the winner. I just wanted a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the question.

Michael

Michael, should we just keep

reed's picture

Michael, should we just keep saying the same things to each other over and over again?

Without copy prohibition the loss you are referring to is no different than than a loss from competition.

Please, declare yourself the winner and move on. Smiling

Nice Try, Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

The real reason you are not answering is because the answer is obvious. An infringer's sale of a product IS potentially a lost sale to the owner -- whether or not there are copyright laws. I really cannot explain why you are evading this obvious fact. That's for you to come to grips with.

No, my position is not circular. A lost sale (i.e. monetary damage) is simply that, thus your premise #2 is completely false. It is not because there are copyright laws that damage is suffered, the damage is the result of the copying, distribution, and sale. Copyright protects against it. It is not the cause. I have smuggled no premise into the conclusion, you just aren't comprehending the argument, unfortunately.

But your position is completely circular. First you say there is no damage as a result of copying, thus totally evading the simple facts spoon fed to you. And after I point this out, you turn around and say that because there are no copyright laws, there is no damage. Totally circular, you just smuggled premise #2 into your conclusion while evading there IS damage as a result of the lost sale to the author.

C'mon, Reed, I know you God-botherers aren't too keen on facts, but it makes your syllogism look like a total joke, which it is.

Michael

Michael

reed's picture

This thread is about justly establishing copy prohibition. You presume it is established already in your responses. Your reasoning is circular. I didn't respond because you didn't say anything new.

Using your reasoning a company suffers loss when it can not establish a monopoly. Loss of potential sales etc.

Baade ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

What you apparently fail to grasp is that your authorship is the whole reason I copied the sentences in question in the first place. I wanted you to recognise your own words—and then stand by them.

I fully grasp that, and did from the get-go. What you apparently fail to grasp is that no one who read those words would have spotted your ploy, unless he'd been paying admirably close attention to my doings over the previous few months. He would have assumed the words were yours, and would not have learned otherwise had I not spoken up. The honest way of proceeding would have been to ask, "Linz, do you stand by these words you wrote for Don Brash?" etc. Especially since the principal topic from which Jeezy/cancer was a momentary and frivolous diversion (or at least was intended as such by me) was: intellectual property rights.

My copying of your sentences was in the nature of a prank, a tease, tomfoolery to get your attention. I got it. With all due respect, I think you need to learn to take a joke.

Fraud is never a joke, especially in a context in which you've already been defending it. That's why I don't accept "any wrongdoing" and insist on "the wrongdoing." And with all due respect, it's you who need to lighten up. My insertion of "Jeezy doesn't cure cancer" into the debate was a humorous side-bar about Jeezy's powers, not a serious commentary on freedom of speech. The ruling in question, while unconscionable, had no legal weight, but you got all bent out of shape about the end of liberty and so forth. Of course I would stand by my words—and did. But that wasn't the point! Jeez[y] Louise!

Reed? Anybody Home?

Michael Moeller's picture

I asked you a question directly pertaining to your premise #2, as follows:

"Let me make it real simple for you, Reed. A sale by an infringer would represent a potentially lost sale to the original creator in the absence of copyright laws. You can grasp that much, right Reed?"

What say you?

Michael

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

I'm not a great man.

I'm keen to re-enter the fray. But only with the blessing of our host. (Excuse the puns.)

look

Damien Grant's picture

This thread is getting messy.

Richard Goode; Maybe you can start a new thread on this topic so I can ignore it.

And remember, a good man (another pun) says sorry when he knows he is in the wrong.

Only a great man says sorry when he thinks he is right*

Thanks.

* (for clarity, not a damien originial)

Linz ...

Richard Goode's picture

If you insert the words "and passed off as my own" ...

But I didn't pass off your sentences as my own. You made quite sure of that. In any case, I have already acknowledged your authorship on the original thread.

What you apparently fail to grasp is that your authorship is the whole reason I copied the sentences in question in the first place. I wanted you to recognise your own words—and then stand by them.

We should rage, rage and rage again against anything which threatens its demise.

Actually, are they your own words? They look "substantially similar" to a line from Dylan Thomas's poem Do not go gentle into that good night.

My copying of your sentences was in the nature of a prank, a tease, tomfoolery to get your attention. I got it. With all due respect, I think you need to learn to take a joke.

I note with interest what Wikipedia says in its entry on plagiarism.

The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement, while in the previous centuries authors and artists were encouraged to "copy the masters as closely as possible" and avoid "unnecessary invention."

Call me old school, but where I come from, imitation is the highest form of flattery. With all due respect, I think you need to learn to take a compliment.

I'm also starting to suspect that you have a drinking problem. Not a severe one, I pray. Go pour yourself a glass of Shiraz! (I'm going to have to grab myself another BRB.)

(BTW, I sent you a peace offering via email. I hope you liked it.)

Reed: what is property?

Damien Grant's picture

That is a big question I'd like to avoid but let’s plough in (pun intended; apologies)

There has been much debate on the other thread, although it seemed to become a bit of a one way beating (although I did note to my embarrassment that I was not the first person to make use of the Black Knight clip this month, apt to this this debate) but none on this discrete point.

There are some things that I do wonder about. I question if DNA is something that should be patented, because this is a discovery of something in nature, as opposed to developing something totally new, but leaving such distractions aside; the issue of being harmed is not relevant.

First in, is the rule. If I developed the new technique, either by investing limited resources or though divine (or goblin) inspiration, then this is my property.

Why it is mine is a more philosophical question I do not have an answer for but this seems accepted, so we come back to issue one.

If the thing is mine it cannot be used without my consent, even if no harm is done. There is no line of reasoning that will allow us to differentiate between property that by its nature is some type of common good and that which is discrete where someone else using it diminishes its value to me.

This is where the issue of damages may become relevant. If I am suffering no economic loss as a result of my idea being copied then any damages award is likely to be low, if someone rips off the contents of my book and passes it off as theirs the damages claim will be larger.

Copyright and patents are important because property rights are important. Property rights are the fundamental blocks of capitalism.

Baade ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Do you acknowledge my acknowledgement and accept my apology?

No to the latter in its current form:

I acknowledge that I copied without permission some sentences authored by Lindsay Perigo and I apologise for any wrongdoing thereby committed.

If you insert the words "and passed off as my own" after the words "without permission," change the word "any" to "the," and post the apology on the thread on which it was committed as well as this one, I shall accept it and we can go from here.

Damien

reed's picture

On point 2
a) What property? It might be something like a new plowing technique.
b) Are you harmed if innovations are tied up by IP?

Can we go from here?

Richard Goode's picture

Do you acknowledge my acknowledgement and accept my apology?

Damien

reed's picture

On point 1 we agree - $50 of harm is $50 of harm - it doesn't matter how much money a person has.

I disagree

Damien Grant's picture

1) A punishment greater than the harm caused (or intended) is unjust.


2) There is no harm caused (or intended) by copying.


3) Therefore, any punishment for copying is unjust.

I disagree.

1) A punishment greater than the harm caused (or intended) is unjust.

If you own property, and the loss of that property causes you no real harm, (making even a nominal punishment meet your criteria) that does not validate the theft of your property. Is stealing a dollar from a wealthy person more acceptable from stealing from a poor one? Morally, you could try and make that argument (you would be wrong), but legally the answer must be no. Theft, and the consequences from it, is absolute and not a function of the effect of the person stolen from.


2) There is no harm caused (or intended) by copying.


Well, there can be harm if a) the owner of the property loses revenue as a result and b) innovation is deterred

 

 

You're Not Following, Ace

Michael Moeller's picture

Reed wrote:

"...you turn around and say that copying is not allowed so there are damages"

In fact, that's NOT what I said. I pointed out there are real damages from copying, and that the copyright laws prevent this from happening. I mean, it's not that hard to point to the lost sales when Napster and Grokster happened. Are you able to extrapolate what would have happened if allowed to continue, i.e. without copyright laws? Apparently not.

Let me make it real simple for you, Reed. A sale by an infringer would represent a potentially lost sale to the original creator in the absence of copyright laws. You can grasp that much, right Reed?

Michael

Copy and paste

reed's picture

This is totally circular. You say there is harm, and therefore others should not be allowed to copy. Then when I present to you that your clients' "real damages" depend on copy prohibition, you turn around and say that copying is not allowed so there are damages. You're totally incoherent at this point.

Your objection to premise #2 is totally out the window, Ace.

Reed

Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

This is totally circular. You say there is no harm, and therefore you should be allowed to copy. Then when I present you with real damages that are approximated in court cases, such as Napster, you turn around and say that copying is allowed so there are no damages. You're totally incoherent at this point.

Your premise #2 is totally out the window, Ace.

Michael

.

reed's picture

Michael: "My client would have made $X if copying were prohibited."
Judge: "But copying in not prohibited. Do you have any other claims?"

Theft?

reed's picture

No.
I did think you might have used some parts of his speech.

There's no harm in asking. Right?

Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

The same way the calculate actual damages in a copyright case. The plaintiff has to show proof of a causal connection between the expected revenue and the infringing product. Then they measure damages generally from the defendant's profits.

I think it should be obvious that a sale on an infringing product is potentially a lost sale to the actual creator, right? Does that strike you as a possibility?

I am not sure where you are going with this meandering on damages. I think, at the very least, you should recognize that a sale to the infringing product is potentially a lost sale to the creator's product.

Michael

Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

The same way the calculate actual damages in a copyright case. The plaintiff has to show proof of a causal connection between the expected revenue and the infringing product. Then they measure damages generally from the defendant's profits.

I think it should be obvious that a sale on an infringing product is potentially a lost sale to the actual creator, right? Does that strike you as a possibility?

I am not sure where you are going with this meandering on damages. I think, at the very least, you should recognize that a sale to the infringing product is potentially a lost sale to the creator's product.

Michael

Reed

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Wasn't the speech you wrote for Brash an adaptation of a Ronald Reagan speech?

No, but it used the same concept, for which it specifically credited Reagan: the choice is not between left and right but between up or down.

Here's the Brash speech:

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Here's Reagan:

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/a...

As you would already have seen had you taken the trouble to research your own question, they are completely different speeches, though the point is the same.

To get to the nub of it: are you accusing me of theft?

Lets say there was a law that

reed's picture

Lets say there was a law that allowed someone to seek compensation for any loss caused by another but there were no copy prohibition laws.

How would you explain to a judge the loss you suffered by someone copying your work?

You can't appeal to copy prohibition to justify the loss.

The loss you are appealing to

Richard Wiig's picture

The loss you are appealing to only exists under copyright law.
You can not appeal to that loss to establish copyright law.

There is no need to establish copywrite law if there is nothing to protect. You are saying that there is nothing to protect. If there is nothing to protect, why do the originators of music, books, paintings, etc, seek to establish copywrite laws? They must be insane or something? At very least, a bit out of touch with reality.

Lindsay

reed's picture

Wasn't the speech you wrote for Brash an adaptation of a Ronald Reagan speech?

We can go from here

Richard Goode's picture

I acknowledge that I copied without permission some sentences authored by Lindsay Perigo and I apologise for any wrongdoing thereby committed.

Reed

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Wasn't what Ronald Reagan's speech?

Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

What the hell are you talking about?

I laid out a situation in which copying, such as Napster, happens. If there was no law preventing Napster's activities and the copying would continue apace, what do you think would happen? I don't think it is that difficult to extrapolate, Reed.

Please read your second premise, this directly refutes it!!

You are accurate in one respect, the copying wouldn't be as rampant because the works would not get produced; hence the secondary questions I asked you about what would happen to the music studios and writer in scenarios where there would be no laws protecting the products of their efforts.

Michael

Lindsay

reed's picture

Wasn't it Ronald Reagan's speech?

Michael

reed's picture

The loss you are appealing to only exists under copyright law.
You can not appeal to that loss to establish copyright law.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

Unfortunately, it is not just God-botherers and anarchists. The left exhibits this attitude in spades. "Who cares where the song comes from as long as I get it for 'free'!!"

Anarchists have many libertarian sympathizers on their end as well.

As I said, I think it is a real cultural sickness, and it is widespread. No thought is given to the creators of songs, novels, nonfiction writings, paintings, movies, and the effort they put in. No thought is given to the creators of new medicines, iPhones, and other advanced devices, or they knowledge, effort, and capital that goes into producing those goods.

"It's here, and I want it NOW! Did I mention I don't want to pay for it?" We see it all over the place with people like that puny little collectivist clammering for "free" birth control. And it is people like Kinsella who give them a pseudo-intellectual justification for their demands.

Sick, real sick.

Michael

Michael ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It's interesting that Reed, a Goblian, should go to the trouble of creating a thread expressing precisely the views you ascribe to him. We saw in front of our very eyes a blatant example of plagiarism by his fellow-Goblian Baade, which, when it was pointed out, Baade treated as a joke. Is intellectual theft an anarcho- Goblian thing? Reed omits a couple of words when he talks about copying. Those words are "without permission." His post shows him to be utterly cavalier about that. Evidently when folk believe in goblins they lose their moral compass.

Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

Is this meant as a serious argument, or a joke? You wrote:

"
2) There is no harm caused (or intended) by copying.
"

Tell that to the music studios who lost millions during the Napster and Grokster episodes. Tell that to the struggling writer who, as soon as he puts out his book, finds it immediately copied and sold by others, thus denying him the fruits of his labor.

Reed, as the music studios revenues dwindle down to nothing because everything they sunk into discovering new talent, into getting music produced, recorded, and distributed is now "free", just how do you propose they will continue to exist? How many writers are going to work for years on a book, only to see it ripped off with no ability to profit from their creation?

"No harm", says Reed. This mentality that does not give a second thought to the person who created the work (that people like Reed enjoy) and the creator's right to the fruits of their labor is totally foreign to me. "Hey, I get free songs!! Nobody's getting 'harmed', so fork over the free songs!!".

Unfortunately, this attitude is all too prevelant and a real symptom of cultural sickness.

Michael

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.