Subject:
|
Re: IP (was: Re: Any suggestions on a homepage?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:54:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
376 times
|
| |
|
|
Property is Theft.
Therefore Intellectual Property is Intellectual Theft.*
*If quoted, please attribute, as a lawsuit may offend.
--
Mark Rendle
rendle2000@hotmail.com
"Planet Earth is blue and there's nothing we can do" - Major Tom
"Jasper Janssen" <jasper@janssen.dynip.com> wrote in message
news:38a09998.425356205@lugnet.com...
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 10:55:23 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Right on. While taking content as your own, unattributed and
> > unpermitted, is not correct, anything that you can see when you view
> > source is fair game to learn from as far as I am concerned. And viewing
> > source is a GREAT way to learn.
>
> You can see content when you "view source"...
>
> Anyway, how do you make that view jive with your copyright views?
>
>
> Let's get back to those, in a separate thread. I can't even find the
> appropriate posts anymore.
>
>
> You've said earlier that you think copyrights are a fundamental
> property right. You also stated that patents, once properly granted,
> should never expire, yea unto the progeny etc.
>
> I want to find out why you think so.
>
>
> Why is an idea property?
> Things to consider:
> - Someone else could have the exact same idea, or even just a
> somewhat similar one, completely separate. If you have a mechanism for
> arbitrarily defending intellectual property of the one who got there
> first, you're infringing the right of the second to market his or her
> ideas.
> - an idea is not a physical thing, and the world got along
> just fine without any concept of IP rights for thousands of years.
>
>
> Ideas are not property in any sense applicable to the normal laws of
> property. This is pretty much a given.
> - If I copy your idea, I do not necessarily in any way use
> force on you (conceding that point as relating to physical property
> for the sake of argument), or violate _any_ rights other than the
> as-yet-unproven-to-exist IP right. In fact it is likely I bought your
> product legitimately in order to copy it.
> - Therefore any IP laws will be societal constructs, given
> legitimacy by a utilitarian argument.
>
>
> As a libertarian society wishes to reduce all laws that are not
> inspired directly from rights to zero, libertarian society must not
> want intellectual property laws, except as contracts agreed upon by
> everyone in society. Only, because the perpetrator is unlikely to
> agree to such a contract, the only way to work such a contract is by
> initiation of force, which should be deeply outlawed, therefore a
> libertarian society cannot abide intellectual property.
>
> So unless you can come up with a way to produce a concept of
> interllectual property using a rights based derivation, I think I've
> just proven that you (and IIRC the LP feels along with you) think the
> end _does_ justify the means, even when it infringes on the rights of
> others, except in different ways from other people.
>
> Jasper
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | IP (was: Re: Any suggestions on a homepage?)
|
| (...) You can see content when you "view source"... Anyway, how do you make that view jive with your copyright views? Let's get back to those, in a separate thread. I can't even find the appropriate posts anymore. You've said earlier that you think (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
