• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Intellectual Property is an Oxymoron.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sonofodin
  • Start date Start date
That's not Homer. That's Guy Incognito. The man known as "Homer Simpson" was thrown out of Moe's Bar that day.

Oh look! That dog has a puffy tail! Here puff! He he he...
 
Donuts. Is there anything they can't do?
 
Guy Incognito said:
Lack of a coercive copyright regime does not eliminate incentive to produce creative works, nor does it eliminate the ability to profit off of them..
Click to expand...

Yes, it basically does. As soon as a publisher releases an artist's product, what's to stop another company from simply copying it en masse and selling it at a fraction of the cost? If such practices were allowed, no company would ever pay an artist for their product, as doing so would put them at a huge disadvantage to their competitors.
 
the_recruit said:
Yes, it basically does. As soon as a publisher releases an artist's product, what's to stop another company from simply copying it en masse and selling it at a fraction of the cost? If such practices were allowed, no company would ever pay an artist for their product, as doing so would put them at a huge disadvantage to their competitors.
Click to expand...

don't be applying logic and reality to contrarian psychobabble!!
 
the_recruit said:
Yes, it basically does. As soon as a publisher releases an artist's product, what's to stop another company from simply copying it en masse and selling it at a fraction of the cost? If such practices were allowed, no company would ever pay an artist for their product, as doing so would put them at a huge disadvantage to their competitors.
Click to expand...

They would have to pay if they had a contract that required them to pay. You don't know much about how the legal system works, do you?
 
Guy Incognito said:
They would have to pay if they had a contract that required them to pay. You don't know much about how the legal system works, do you?
Click to expand...

No, i'm talking about a third party that's not in the contract. Britney spears signs a contract with publishing Company A. Company A then starts selling a CD with her songs. Company B (who is not in any way bound by the contract between A and Britney) picks up the cd at best buy, and then makes a million copies and starts selling them for less than Company A.

Company B is not bound by any terms of any contract so how would this behavior be prevented in your scenario?
 
the_recruit said:
No, i'm talking about a third party that's not in the contract. Britney spears signs a contract with publishing Company A. Company A then starts selling a CD with her songs. Company B (who is not in any way bound by the contract between A and Britney) picks up the cd at best buy, and then makes a million copies and starts selling them for less than Company A.

Company B is not bound by any terms of any contract so how would this behavior be prevented in your scenario?
Click to expand...

It is prevented by anti-counterfeiting measures. I know how hard it is to imagine for people so used to suckling at the teat of the nanny-state, but the free market really does have the solution to everything. If a company wants to keep others from copying its product, the need to keep it secret, or put a watermark on it, or maybe they invest in an encrypted uncopyable CD, or whatever. If they fail then they fail, and the counterfeit achieves the success. That's how the market works, for crying out loud!

If a third party isn't part of the contract, they are within their rights to copy an idea. The government stepping in and preventing it is just a protection racket. The person who "originally" came up with the idea (whatever that means) does not have some metaphysical claim to all profits yielded by that idea. It is absurd and has no basis in propertarian theory. If the counterfeiter does a better job capitalizing on the idea, so be it. It is up the to entrepreneur to protect their business. If the lack of coercive protection rackets changes the landscape of the market place, so be it. I refuse to support an illegitimate protection racket just so that you can have your steady supply of Britney Spears records. It is not the role of government to prop up a business model that only works with illegitimate coercion of third parities.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
The government isn't there to provide incentives, that's nanny-state nonsense. The legitimate purpose of government is, at most, to referee disputes and ensure that natural human rights are respected.

Lack of a coercive copyright regime does not eliminate incentive to produce creative works, nor does it eliminate the ability to profit off of them. A publisher will have to pay artists with whom they have contracted to create publishable work. Much of the same can be accomplished by way of personal contract, just like limited liability. But third parties who are not party to a contract cannot be bound by a contract. I know, I know, I'm going over your head now, might as well not bother.
Click to expand...

Always insults-that's all you have.

People have to be able to make a living from their work; otherwise, people could not make a living being a novelist or an inventor without their work being funded by businesses and/or corporations. People working under contracts do not receive credit for their work, but instead, the copyright is given to the company. i do not support corporate personhood, so that would eliminate the majority of so called human rights issues. I also agree that some type of reform is necessary. But IP laws of some type are necessary as long as people require money to live.
 
Guy Incognito said:
It is prevented by anti-counterfeiting measures. I know how hard it is to imagine for people so used to suckling at the teat of the nanny-state, but the free market really does have the solution to everything. If a company wants to keep others from copying its product, the need to keep it secret, or put a watermark on it, or maybe they invest in an encrypted uncopyable CD, or whatever.
Click to expand...

hahahahahaha. uncopyable. hahahahhaha.

There is no such thing as an "un-copyable" cd. A song is a pattern of sounds. If the sounds can be played back, the pattern of sounds can be replicated.

Think about it, Einstein. Don't you think that if such an "uncopyable" mechanism were possible, all the record companies and all the movie companies would ALREADY be making all of their products "uncopyable", given how much money they are losing to pirating??? The reason they are not, is that this kind of complete 100% "uncopyable-ness" that you are talking about is IMPOSSIBLE.

The kind of encryption and protection measures that record companies are currently using is a deterrent, nothing more. It makes it a hassle for the average joe to do on his home laptop. These protection measures are not by any means insurmountable (as evidenced by the rampant pirating that exists), and certainly would not be for a company with vast resources at its disposal.


Guy Incognito said:
If they fail then they fail, and the counterfeit achieves the success. That's how the market works, for crying out loud!
Click to expand...

Uh-huh, exactly my point. Since this mystical "uncopyable" encryption you made up isn't actually possible in reality, all companies that pay artists for their product will end up having their products copied, and they will fail. Therefore, as I already pointed out, NO companies will pay artists for their product.


Guy Incognito said:
If a third party isn't part of the contract, they are within their rights to copy an idea. The government stepping in and preventing it is just a protection racket.

The person who "originally" came up with the idea (whatever that means) does not have some metaphysical claim to all profits yielded by that idea. It is absurd and has no basis in propertarian theory.

If the counterfeiter does a better job capitalizing on the idea, so be it. It is up the to entrepreneur to protect their business. If the lack of coercive protection rackets changes the landscape of the market place, so be it. I refuse to support an illegitimate protection racket just so that you can have your steady supply of Britney Spears records.
Click to expand...

You're exactly right, the landscape of the market will change. Companies will no longer invest in developing products that are inherently vulnerable to replication (ie, companies will no longer invest in creating music, movies, etc.). Maybe you're cool with that. I'm not.


Guy Incognito said:
It is not the role of government to prop up a business model that only works with illegitimate coercion of third parities.
Click to expand...

You can keep asserting that personal opinion all you want. I'll keep asserting mine: yes it is.
 
evanescence said:
I'll take that as a "I surrender." It's duly noted.
Click to expand...

he's bringing a pea shooter to a flamethrower fight with you

turn on the sparker and fry his ass
 
the_recruit said:
hahahahahaha. uncopyable. hahahahhaha.

There is no such thing as an "un-copyable" cd. A song is a pattern of sounds. If the sounds can be played back, the pattern of sounds can be replicated.

Think about it, Einstein. Don't you think that if such an "uncopyable" mechanism were possible, all the record companies and all the movie companies would ALREADY be making all of their products "uncopyable", given how much money they are losing to pirating??? The reason they are not, is that this kind of complete 100% "uncopyable-ness" that you are talking about is IMPOSSIBLE.
Click to expand...

Uncopyable, is, of course a relative term. Your condescension is unwarranted, it only displays your profound ignorance. I know there is no such thing as absolutely copyable, only harder to copy. I've said elsewhere on this forum that an absence of a copyright regime will result in an arms race between the water-marker and the counterfeiter. But I don't really care about protecting the original. That's where I differ from you nanny-state
bedwetters. If a counterfeiter does a sufficiently good job counterfeiting, he deserves the sale. I see nothing intrinsically valuable about profits going to the originator of an idea, if somebody else is able to copy it better.

This is how the free market works. Learn to deal with it, instead of crying to the government to fix everything for you. Giving up sacred liberty for a little bit of security means you deserve neither. Authoritarians like you, TD and evanesce make me sick.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
Your condescension is unwarranted, it only displays your profound ignorance. I know there is no such thing as absolutely copyable, only harder to copy.
Click to expand...

if you can't take it, then don't dish it out, bud. I was nothing but civil to you when I started this conversation. I only get snappy with people when they do it to me first.
 
the_recruit said:
if you can't take it, then don't dish it out, bud. I was nothing but civil to you when I started this conversation. I only get snappy with people when they do it to me first.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I can take it just fine. You misunderstand. What I meant when I said you condescension is unwarranted is not that I have a problem with your being condescending. If you go the goods, by all means, be as snarky as you please. But your problem is you put on airs without having the slightest clue what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:
How...

...interesting.

So, if write a book, what do you think I'm entitled to, Guy Incognito?
 
Wake said:
How...

...interesting.

So, if write a book, what do you think I'm entitled to, Guy Incognito?
Click to expand...

Same as anyone is for anything, you're entitled to whatever the market will bear.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Same as anyone is for anything, you're entitled to whatever the market will bear.
Click to expand...

...so you have no problem with intellectual property, or...?
 
Wake said:
...so you have no problem with intellectual property, or...?
Click to expand...

Intellectual "property" is a artifice of government coercion. There is no such thing as intellectual property, as there is no propertarian justification for ownership of ideas. Intellectual "property" is a fiction, and as such it is an unjust infringement of the rights of third parties to copy the ideas of others.

So yes, I have a big problem with intellectual "property."
 
Guy Incognito said:
Intellectual "property" is a artifice of government coercion. There is no such thing as intellectual property, as there is no propertarian justification for ownership of ideas. Intellectual "property" is a fiction, and as such it is an unjust infringement of the rights of third parties to copy the ideas of others.

So yes, I have a big problem with intellectual "property."
Click to expand...

OK. So...

...I'm trying to find out where you and pro-IP people differ.

I'll ask short questions:

1. Should authors recieve royalties for their work?
2. Should their work not be allowed to be copied because they are the authors?
3. Should titles and concepts, in your opinion, not be taken by other writers?
 
Wake said:
1. Should authors recieve royalties for their work?
Click to expand...

This is an issue of contract law, not IP law.

Wake said:
2. Should their work not be allowed to be copied because they are the authors?
Click to expand...

There is no ownership of ideas.

Wake said:
3. Should titles and concepts, in your opinion, not be taken by other writers?[/I]
Click to expand...

Titles and concepts are just ideas, and as such you cannot have ownership in them. In a free market they can be used freely unless there is a contractual obligation to do otherwise.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Don't worry, I can take it just fine. You misunderstand. What I meant when I said you condescension is unwarranted is not that I have a problem with your being condescending. If you go the goods, by all means, be as snarky as you please. But your problem is you put on airs without having the slightest clue what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Oh, i see. you're an internet tough guy. Watch out everybody, guy incognito is an internet tough guy. wow, you're rude and sarcastic to strangers a million miles away from the safey of your living room - you must be a real badass.


polls_InternetToughGuy_0853_381652_poll_xlarge.jpeg
 
Ok, Guy. You believe that ideas are not property. So then you'd have no qualms about me copying and publishing the Harry Potter story as my own? How about... you? What if you spent over a year exerting your energy in creating a great story? You're just going to sit back and watch while a little while later your story pops up under the names of different authors? Why even care to create if others can snatch your reward? As a deeper question, why do you want so badly for people to take and use the ideas of others?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom