I would not describe my response a "blowing off a corollary". I did not say it was a bad idea, nor that it does not reasonably follow from the premise, only that I was not particularly interested in discussing it. And I'm still not.
Is it a reductio ad absurdum argument intended to deal a death blow to the idea of treating IP the same as physical property? Or is there some other reason that I should be particularly interested in digressing onto taxes?
As for my advantage, I own no IP of any note, nor do expect to. I'd rather go open source. So taxes on IP would not appear to be to my disadvantage financially. Nor do I see how the idea of IP taxes would be to my disadvantage as a point in this argument. Did I miss something?
If you feel I'm slighting your import point, I'm truly sorry that you feel slighted, but I still don't feel compelled to discuss everything brought up in response to a post of mine.
"... the government... allowing you the opportunity to make money from your creations..."
So, making money off my creations is now a privilege? I need the permission of the government to contract with others to sell the fruits of my labor? Do I exist solely at the convenience of the state?
Your post is all well and good, except that it is not at all clear how it relates to my post to which you were purportedly replying. Maybe you should go back to my post and actually address my comment. Thanks.
"This costs the government money to enforce.... ". All true enough, but Why should the state enforce any contract? What does the public get from enforcing any other contract, that they do not get from enforcing license contracts on intellectual property? So where is your case for making a distinction?
OK. You have now made it clear that intellectual property is somehow different than other property. That it ought to be considered perhaps a gift from the state. But you have not shown why intellectual property ought to be considered different. Is there a better reason than because you say so?
"What do you care about what's done with it after you're dead, and it no longer benefits you?... But since that doesn't happen until long after your death, why do you care?"
Clearly, expiration of a copyright or patent affects the price at which it may be sold today, and the value it has to my heirs after my death. So of course it matters to me what is expected to happen after my death!
"One of the benefits of copyright is that a copyright holder can use the power of the state, ultimately big guys with guns, to enforce the copyright. Why should the public give copyright holders this power if they get nothing in return?"
Why should the state enforce any contract? What does the public get from enforcing any other contract, that they do not get from enforcing license contracts on intellectual property?
So, making money off my work is now a privilege? I need the permission of the government to contract with others to sell the fruits of my labor? Do I exist solely at the convenience of the state?
"The reason that copyrights have a limited period is because freedom of information is necessary for free thought."
(1) Ideas and information cannot be copyrighted, only the form of expression can, so an unlimited copyright has only incidental impact of ideas and information.
(2) The copyrights under discussion have little to do with information and a whole lot to do with entertainment.
As you have suggested, one can make a reasonable argument that a creator ought to be able to set his own terms on the licensing of his creation. When you license your creation to a prospective user, you can I suppose demand that the user keep it confidential in perpetuity, and pay damages if he reveals it. But suppose now that you have just invented the cotton gin, and you have licensed it on strict terms to a user; and suppose further that that user in violation of his license leaves your machine in a public place, and open so that anyone can see how it operates. And suppose a tinker sees it and builds a similar machine, and markets it. Now clearly, your licensee owes you a lot of money, and probably can't pay it. But in the absence of a copyright or patent imposed by the government, does that tinker owe you anything? If so, why? Is a copyright or a patent not a reasonable and convenient way to protect your creation against third parties when you otherwise have no legal or moral claims to prevent their exploitation of your creation? When Congress, acting as an agent of all those prospective third parties, contracts to restrain its citizens for a limited time, in exchange for eventual free usage, Is this not a reasonable form of contract?
"The copyright contract is a contract between the government, the holder of the copyright, and the People. That contract goes into effect when the copyright is granted. Like any other contract, those terms are fixed at the time of the contract." Seems to me that Congress, acting as our representatives, made a gift to copyright holders. Gifts by the gov. ought to be unconstitutional, and here in California, they are (Tho the courts might not agree with my perception of this a gift.)
Slashdot Mirror
I would not describe my response a "blowing off a corollary". I did not say it was a bad idea, nor that it does not reasonably follow from the premise, only that I was not particularly interested in discussing it. And I'm still not.
Is it a reductio ad absurdum argument intended to deal a death blow to the idea of treating IP the same as physical property? Or is there some other reason that I should be particularly interested in digressing onto taxes?
As for my advantage, I own no IP of any note, nor do expect to. I'd rather go open source. So taxes on IP would not appear to be to my disadvantage financially. Nor do I see how the idea of IP taxes would be to my disadvantage as a point in this argument. Did I miss something?
If you feel I'm slighting your import point, I'm truly sorry that you feel slighted, but I still don't feel compelled to discuss everything brought up in response to a post of mine.
Thank you for taking an interest in my post.
No, I wasn't. Nor do I wish to comment on the idea.
I was only pointing out that the previous comment failed to make his case for less protection for IP.
And this is different than the state protecting your house from burglars how?
"... the government doing you a favor ..."
So when did protecting property cease being the job of the state and become a favor from the state?
So, making money off my creations is now a privilege? I need the permission of the government to contract with others to sell the fruits of my labor? Do I exist solely at the convenience of the state?
Your post is all well and good, except that it is not at all clear how it relates to my post to which you were purportedly replying. Maybe you should go back to my post and actually address my comment. Thanks.
"This costs the government money to enforce. ... ". All true enough, but Why should the state enforce any contract? What does the public get from enforcing any other contract, that they do not get from enforcing license contracts on intellectual property? So where is your case for making a distinction?
I neither asserted nor defended natural rights in the post. I only pointed out that his "argument" against natural rights made no sense.
OK. You have now made it clear that intellectual property is somehow different than other property. That it ought to be considered perhaps a gift from the state. But you have not shown why intellectual property ought to be considered different. Is there a better reason than because you say so?
Clearly, expiration of a copyright or patent affects the price at which it may be sold today, and the value it has to my heirs after my death. So of course it matters to me what is expected to happen after my death!
Is the constitution now the revealed word of God, by which all rights ought to be solely judged?
True, but important, useful new ideas are scarce and valueable, and those able to produce them should be rewarded appropriately.
Yes, they are infinitely reproducable, but how does that affect the logic of compensation?
Why should the state enforce any contract? What does the public get from enforcing any other contract, that they do not get from enforcing license contracts on intellectual property?
So, making money off my work is now a privilege? I need the permission of the government to contract with others to sell the fruits of my labor? Do I exist solely at the convenience of the state?
To pick a small nit, no, you can't *sell* the same idea more than once, only sell non-exlusive licenses to every person on the planet.
"There isn't. Under the Constitution ..."
If it's a natural right, how can it depend on the constitution? Your appeal to the constitution has no force against a assertion of natural right.
(1) Ideas and information cannot be copyrighted, only the form of expression can, so an unlimited copyright has only incidental impact of ideas and information.
(2) The copyrights under discussion have little to do with information and a whole lot to do with entertainment.
As you have suggested, one can make a reasonable argument that a creator ought to be able to set his own terms on the licensing of his creation. When you license your creation to a prospective user, you can I suppose demand that the user keep it confidential in perpetuity, and pay damages if he reveals it. But suppose now that you have just invented the cotton gin, and you have licensed it on strict terms to a user; and suppose further that that user in violation of his license leaves your machine in a public place, and open so that anyone can see how it operates. And suppose a tinker sees it and builds a similar machine, and markets it. Now clearly, your licensee owes you a lot of money, and probably can't pay it. But in the absence of a copyright or patent imposed by the government, does that tinker owe you anything? If so, why? Is a copyright or a patent not a reasonable and convenient way to protect your creation against third parties when you otherwise have no legal or moral claims to prevent their exploitation of your creation? When Congress, acting as an agent of all those prospective third parties, contracts to restrain its citizens for a limited time, in exchange for eventual free usage, Is this not a reasonable form of contract?
"The copyright contract is a contract between the government, the holder of the copyright, and the People. That contract goes into effect when the copyright is granted. Like any other contract, those terms are fixed at the time of the contract." Seems to me that Congress, acting as our representatives, made a gift to copyright holders. Gifts by the gov. ought to be unconstitutional, and here in California, they are (Tho the courts might not agree with my perception of this a gift.)