Infringement on music copyright is not the same as a lack of intellectual property. That is what I am talking about. In fact, I disagree with large portions of copyright, especially software copyright. However, I think elements of intellectual property are necessary in our world. It's partway there. If it were true that a complete lack of imaginary property enforcement would result in no (or very few) creative works being made, then it follows that widespread infringement would result in a nontrivial decline in said production. It hasn't happened, so modus tollens.
The argument was not about "coercive enclosure" (whatever that means) or "commodification of ideas". The argument was, whether property can be intellectual. I hold this truth to be self-evident — if I thought of something first, I get to own it. That particular implementations (such as USPTO) are clunky is irrelevant... "Only certain people may use this concept/process/pattern/etc [enclosure]. Others who do so will be deprived of their property and/or liberty [coercive]. The purpose of this is so that access to this idea may be sold [commodification]."
If you want to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you that this is justifyable, you'll need to provide a better argument than "it's self-evident". Property is justified by it's rivalrousness, but that doesn't apply here.
So, GPL (and more permissive licenses like BSD) are the only licenses you recognize as valid? Anybody, who buys one license of a commercial software package, can, in your opinion, ethically install it on an unlimited number of computers?
Nine Inch Nails has made news recently by allowing free download of the first half of their new album. All they wanted in return, was your e-mail address (to spam you later — they've sent me one letter so far). Is it, in your opinion, ethical to share the once-downloaded album with others to deprive NiN from even the e-mail address form of compensation?
What's your opinion of postcardware? Every user still has to pay the author (with a postcard) — and for what?.. You are within your rights to install commercial software wherever you like, avoid giving NiN your email address, or refrain from sending a postcard to the authors of postcardware. Whether it is ethical or not is irrelevant to the point that I'm making. Since someone engaging in any of the above has not coercively or fraudulently deprived anyone of their life, liberty, or property, a coercive response is unjustified.
Really? If that's true, then shouldn't we be seeing some particularly severe effects from the exponential rise in infringement that's been going on for the past several years?
You don't have a right to merchantability beyond your ability to achieve it. Why would "loss of merchantability" be actionable in the case of copying, but not in the case of competition?
In the case of economic activity, more is not necessarily better. These kinds of interventions boil down to "make work" for producers, which doesn't actually serve any consumer needs.
There's nothing obvious, natural, or fair about the coercive enclosure and commodification of ideas. If you're going to assert such a right, then the onus is on you to justify it.
As for my alleged inconsistency, copyleft is perfectly acceptable within the worldview that I've presented. Copyleft says "you may not prevent others from copying this or making derivative works". I say "you may not prevent others from copying or making derivative works of anything". Without copyright, copyleft becomes superfluous.
The source-distribution requirement of the GPL is, I'll admit, a bit less clear-cut. Enforcing it is not justifyable in all cases, but it is in more cases than you would probably expect. Regardless, I'll happily abandon it once copyright is abolished.
No, I'm well aware. What are you getting at? Do you deny the right of property?
By "real property" I mean "property". Copyrights, patents, etc. do not, strictly speaking, convey property rights. The popularity of referring to them as such is a rather recent development.
That means people aren't allowed to break into your home against your will, even if they're cops. It's quite a different matter if you hand your papers over willingly.
If you trade the product of your labor (physical or mental) to me, it becomes mine. You don't retain the right to determine what I do with it. I am free to make a duplicate of it, just as I am with any other item that belongs to me. If you don't like that fact, you're free not to trade with me in the first place.
Congress can create whatever laws they want. Sure, the supreme court can strike down those laws, but they can also let them stick, at their discretion. It's not like the supremes are any more accountable than congress is.
I agree that free sharing of information (in all its various forms) is beneficial in a utilitarian sense. However, I think it's more important to point out that we do have the individual right to freely share information. The constitution and the law can infringe upon that, but they can't revoke it.
We, the US, are governed by the rule of law. Sure, if by "rule of law" you mean "arbitrary decree of unaccountable rulers".
And sometimes, the rule of law is very unfair for a few of us. BUT, it will correct itself eventually and to be honest, I prefer "eventually" to a bloody revolution. I mean "bloody" in the "folks are dieing in the streets" bloody - not the British version. This is pure fantasy, and is the kind of thinking that leads to bloodshed. If abuses are not resisted through active, vigorous civil disobedience, then your "eventual correction" IS a bloody revolution.
I read it too. The book was called "The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps". At the end of the book, the author called for the formation of "The First Millennial Foundation" in order to advance the project that he had outlined. The FMF later changed their name to "The Living Universe Foundation".
The USA isn't calling anyone anything. The fact that people living within territory claimed by the US government have to put up with shit doesn't mean they shouldn't be critical of what happens outside said territory.
It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. And yes, you are entitled to disobey this baseless legal fiction. Information is not property and will never be property, no matter what the legislators decree.
If the child is actually committing a crime against the parent, then yes, a broader range of responses are justifiable. However, to bring this back to the context of the original article and the assertion that I was replying to, hitting a child in order to coerce them to attend school would not be justifiable.
Perhaps I can meet you halfway, here. Children do need to learn how to interact with others in a productive fashion. Doing so will obviously serve them well later in life. While reprimand and sanction may be appropriate in the course of imparting these skills, violence is not.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm aware of all that. You made a specific claim about music, though. I provided evidence to the contrary. Either defend that point or redact it.
Well, he is making the positive claim, here. I can break down whatever justifications he provides.
Also, it's a deontological assertion. Were he to justify it, a consequentialist response wouldn't refute it.
If you want to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you that this is justifyable, you'll need to provide a better argument than "it's self-evident". Property is justified by it's rivalrousness, but that doesn't apply here. So, GPL (and more permissive licenses like BSD) are the only licenses you recognize as valid? Anybody, who buys one license of a commercial software package, can, in your opinion, ethically install it on an unlimited number of computers?
Nine Inch Nails has made news recently by allowing free download of the first half of their new album. All they wanted in return, was your e-mail address (to spam you later — they've sent me one letter so far). Is it, in your opinion, ethical to share the once-downloaded album with others to deprive NiN from even the e-mail address form of compensation?
What's your opinion of postcardware? Every user still has to pay the author (with a postcard) — and for what?.. You are within your rights to install commercial software wherever you like, avoid giving NiN your email address, or refrain from sending a postcard to the authors of postcardware. Whether it is ethical or not is irrelevant to the point that I'm making. Since someone engaging in any of the above has not coercively or fraudulently deprived anyone of their life, liberty, or property, a coercive response is unjustified.
Really? If that's true, then shouldn't we be seeing some particularly severe effects from the exponential rise in infringement that's been going on for the past several years?
You don't have a right to merchantability beyond your ability to achieve it. Why would "loss of merchantability" be actionable in the case of copying, but not in the case of competition?
In the case of economic activity, more is not necessarily better. These kinds of interventions boil down to "make work" for producers, which doesn't actually serve any consumer needs.
There's nothing obvious, natural, or fair about the coercive enclosure and commodification of ideas. If you're going to assert such a right, then the onus is on you to justify it.
As for my alleged inconsistency, copyleft is perfectly acceptable within the worldview that I've presented. Copyleft says "you may not prevent others from copying this or making derivative works". I say "you may not prevent others from copying or making derivative works of anything". Without copyright, copyleft becomes superfluous.
The source-distribution requirement of the GPL is, I'll admit, a bit less clear-cut. Enforcing it is not justifyable in all cases, but it is in more cases than you would probably expect. Regardless, I'll happily abandon it once copyright is abolished.
No, I'm well aware. What are you getting at? Do you deny the right of property?
By "real property" I mean "property". Copyrights, patents, etc. do not, strictly speaking, convey property rights. The popularity of referring to them as such is a rather recent development.
That means people aren't allowed to break into your home against your will, even if they're cops. It's quite a different matter if you hand your papers over willingly.
If you trade the product of your labor (physical or mental) to me, it becomes mine. You don't retain the right to determine what I do with it. I am free to make a duplicate of it, just as I am with any other item that belongs to me. If you don't like that fact, you're free not to trade with me in the first place.
Tough luck. Time for a career change.
I'll certainly defend your right to keep your real property, but information isn't property, never was, and never will be.
Congress can create whatever laws they want. Sure, the supreme court can strike down those laws, but they can also let them stick, at their discretion. It's not like the supremes are any more accountable than congress is.
I agree that free sharing of information (in all its various forms) is beneficial in a utilitarian sense. However, I think it's more important to point out that we do have the individual right to freely share information. The constitution and the law can infringe upon that, but they can't revoke it.
Due process?
I read it too. The book was called "The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps". At the end of the book, the author called for the formation of "The First Millennial Foundation" in order to advance the project that he had outlined. The FMF later changed their name to "The Living Universe Foundation".
The USA isn't calling anyone anything. The fact that people living within territory claimed by the US government have to put up with shit doesn't mean they shouldn't be critical of what happens outside said territory.
The orders of a court that would do such a thing are clearly not worth respecting.
That's awfully presumptuous of you. Imaginary property propaganda is "The Truth", now?
It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. And yes, you are entitled to disobey this baseless legal fiction. Information is not property and will never be property, no matter what the legislators decree.
Yeah, he could be struck by lightning too. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen.
If the child is actually committing a crime against the parent, then yes, a broader range of responses are justifiable. However, to bring this back to the context of the original article and the assertion that I was replying to, hitting a child in order to coerce them to attend school would not be justifiable.
Perhaps I can meet you halfway, here. Children do need to learn how to interact with others in a productive fashion. Doing so will obviously serve them well later in life. While reprimand and sanction may be appropriate in the course of imparting these skills, violence is not.
Depends what's being done. If your parents were to spank you now, it would be assault, wouldn't it? If you were under 18, it would still be assault.
On the other hand, your parents are perfectly entitled to deny you the use of their TV, for example, no matter how old you are.
"Providing boundaries", huh? That's a nice euphemism for assault.
Well, excuse me for thinking your response was supposed to have a point. Have a nice day.