- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 30,870
- Reaction score
- 4,246
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
If you rewrite it then it's yours but if you're just taking his work and putting your name on it then it's fraud.
I did write it. Using my ideas.
Just as if I take a software program and rename it and sell it.
What part of this hypothetical do you require proof of? That the sales of the first few weeks aren't usually the majority of sales of a book?"Yes company A and the author got all the sales for the first few weeks, but that is such a small part of what the book makes that it by no means makes up for it."
The problem here is that we're not just talking about an idea. "A story where kids play laser tag in space and fight aliens by accident" is an idea. Enders Game in all its hundreds of pages isn't an idea, it's a product and a piece of work. If Orson Scott Card sued me for writing a book that is similar in some ways to his, that would be suing me over an idea. Suing me for publishing Enders Game without his permission is making sure he gets paid for the product and piece of work he created.You don't deserve any compensation for coming up with an idea. The problem here is that people are arguing that there will be no incentive for the creation of new ideas without IP. I'm showing that there will be incentive. Because from the moment you create it, it is not scarce, you deserve no compensation.
If you made air on the moon and sold it to colonists damn right you should get paid for it. The only way the text of a book isn't scarce is because anyone can make copies of it. It's not the same as air, and you know it.Then try to listen to what I'm saying. If what you produce isn't scarce then why should you deserve any profits? If I start up an air factory I shouldn't expect people to start paying me for air. Much in the same way, I shouldn't expect compensation for an idea because there's no production involved. Just because you worked hard on it doesn't mean that you deserve to get paid.
Like royalties? Royalties are the basis of all intellectual work, and depend on IP laws.If you think that it'll be a surprise hit then work out some kind of a deal with the publishing company so that you'll be paid accordingly.
So we set up payment schemes to reflect that, like royalties. you're trying to fix a system that isn't broken.It has. It's a gamble. Nothing is for sure in the marketplace.
But immediate profits aren't enough to support things. Take steven king: many of his books are still selling very well decades later. Or what about things that become hits long after they're put out, like Napoleon Dynamite?Because of the immediate profits.
What would you require as proof?But no one has proven that there are no incentives without IP.
**** "scarcity". You can keep your precious little concepts you learned in High School Economics. Let's get back to the basics. If people don't get paid, they don't do work. This is a simple truth. Instead of accepting this, you come up with all these rube goldberg style schemes where the authors somehow magically get paid for their work but anyone can copy it.Because they'd be distributing a scarce good whereas you just have a non-scare and therefore nonvaluable good.
Why should you be able to make money off of work I did?And why should they?
Because I don't accept them? Please.
If you rewrite it then it's yours but if you're just taking his work and putting your name on it then it's fraud.
How can people want something that doesn't exist? You can't value something that doesn't exist.
Here is a guy that got screwed:
DETROIT February 25, 2005; The AP reported that Robert Kearns, the inventor of intermittent windshield wipers who won multimillion-dollar judgments against Ford and Chrysler for using his idea, has died. He was 77.
Kearns died of cancer Feb. 9 at his home in suburban Baltimore, his family said.
Kearns, a onetime Wayne State University professor, received numerous patents in 1967 for his design for wipers that paused between swipes, making them useful in very light rain or mist. The invention allows the driver to set the interval at which the wiper sweeps the window.
He shopped his invention around to various automakers but did not reach a licensing deal with any of them. But carmakers eventually began offering intermittent wipers as standard or optional equipment.
Kearns sued Ford Motor Co. in 1978 and Chrysler in 1982, claiming patent infringement.
Robert Kearns, Inventor of Intermittent Windshield Wipers and Battled Car Companies, Dies at 77
**** "scarcity". You can keep your precious little concepts you learned in High School Economics. Let's get back to the basics. If people don't get paid, they don't do work. This is a simple truth. Instead of accepting this, you come up with all these rube goldberg style schemes where the authors somehow magically get paid for their work but anyone can copy it.
Exact same words, different author, me.
If you can't accept this as NOT fraudulent, then you are denying the basic principle you are arguing. That ideas are not scarce and people can have the exact same ideas and are equally entitled to those ideas and the revenue that results from them.
Excellent way of expressing it. Ask a libertarian why taxes shouldn't be high. They will tell you because people will not work unless they can make a profit!
What part of this hypothetical do you require proof of? That the sales of the first few weeks aren't usually the majority of sales of a book?
The problem here is that we're not just talking about an idea. "A story where kids play laser tag in space and fight aliens by accident" is an idea. Enders Game in all its hundreds of pages isn't an idea, it's a product and a piece of work. If Orson Scott Card sued me for writing a book that is similar in some ways to his, that would be suing me over an idea. Suing me for publishing Enders Game without his permission is making sure he gets paid for the product and piece of work he created.
If you made air on the moon and sold it to colonists damn right you should get paid for it. The only way the text of a book isn't scarce is because anyone can make copies of it. It's not the same as air, and you know it.
Like royalties? Royalties are the basis of all intellectual work, and depend on IP laws.
So we set up payment schemes to reflect that, like royalties. you're trying to fix a system that isn't broken.
But immediate profits aren't enough to support things. Take steven king: many of his books are still selling very well decades later. Or what about things that become hits long after they're put out, like Napoleon Dynamite?
What would you require as proof?
**** "scarcity". You can keep your precious little concepts you learned in High School Economics. Let's get back to the basics.
If people don't get paid, they don't do work. This is a simple truth. Instead of accepting this, you come up with all these rube goldberg style schemes where the authors somehow magically get paid for their work but anyone can copy it.
Why should you be able to make money off of work I did?
Because your schemes keep on getting more and more elaborate and whimsical.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're the smart one, we're all just brainwashed from birth.
So prove that it shouldn't exist by "real economics."
I think that you are purposely ignoring things... an idea exists once it is realized, and you are not taking the next step into account, making the idea public in order to make a profit. Once it is public, then nobody can prove that they came up with the idea independently, hence copyrights and patents.
Secondly, the idea, once shared, can be unlimited... but the original idea, the first time it happened and before it was shared in order to make a profit, THAT idea was and is scarce.
Regarding the State of Nature... there are no rights in the State of Nature according to Hobbes. Read Leviathan again. In the State of Nature there are no rights, there is simply what you can do to others and what you can keep them from doing to you. The whole point of the Social Contract is that the formation of government gives those that live under it the very Rights that did not exist in the State of Nature.
It seems that you are taking communism or some Orwellian nightmare to a new level of mindless idea sharing with no individuality or independence or personal ownership.
But you didn't write it. When it says written by, and you put your name, you're lying. That is fraud.
Further, ideas in one’s head are not “owned” any more than labor is owned. Only scarce resources are owned. By losing sight of scarcity as a necessary aspect of a homesteadable thing, and of the first occupancy homesteading rule as the way to own such things, Rothbard and others are sidetracked into the mistaken notion that ideas and labor can be owned. If we recognize that ideas cannot be owned (they are not scarce resources), that creation is neither necessary nor sufficient for ownership (first occupancy is), and that labor need not be “owned” in order to be a homesteader, then the trouble caused by these confused notions disappears.
All action, including action which employs owned scarce means (property), involves the use of technical knowledge. Some of this knowledge may be gained from things we see, including the property of others. We do not have to have a “right to copy” as part of a bundle of rights to have a right to impose a known pattern or form on an object we own. Rather, we have a right to do anything at all with and on our own property, provided only that we do not invade others’ property borders. We must not lose sight of this crucial libertarian point.
Do you know a good website to look up book sales on?That the profit made from those few weeks is not enough to spur creation of new works.
So if I make vacuum tubes, I should sue consumers for not buying them and compensating me for my work?
What's your point. You used another silly analogy instead of actually discussing the case as presented, I described the difference and gave an example where making air is a good idea.:rofl Seriously? Producing air ON EARTH can be done, but it makes no sense because air isn't scarce. No one in their right mind would pay for the air that you produce.
Which part don't you believe?Groundless statement. No proof has been offered for this.
Those are specific cases to be dealt with, but not in ways that upend the entire system.Except it is broken. Ever seen the price of a college education? How about prescription drugs? Exorbitant and a waste of resources.
Please address my point instead of ignoring half of it.Where is your proof that these immediate profits are not enough?
Bull. I've given examples where people were screwed over because IP laws weren't used. And your online example doesn't count because the people choose to put them up, they're not required to. We've also explained why IP laws are needed, you've mostly just ignored it.Anything. I've shown that authors put up their works for free online. I've shown that IP (more specifically patents) can hold up technological progress. All you've argued is theoretically, and I've cast doubts into those theories.
Because I'm being a bit impolite? I'm sorry, here's a hankie.Looks like trolling to me.
NOT THE SAME AND YOU KNOW IT!!! I've explained over and over why your silly analogy doesn't count. Arguing by analogy is a logical fallacy, you know. Would you like to discuss the concept that people don't do work if they don't get paid?A scheme where everyone gets paid for their work? So then let's make sure that the guy who makes vacuum tubes gets paid for his work even though it's a waste of resources.
Define "idea"Because you don't own what you created. It's just an idea and it isn't scarce. Furthermore, your idea is based on ideas that other people came up with. Shouldn't they, according to IP arguments, also receive some of the benefits of your idea?
How many authors do you think would support your plan?Yet plausible.
I've never argued against trademark.
It wasn't scarce. It didn't exist.
It's an appeal to authority. I don't care what Hobbes said, he was wrong. There are rights in the state of nature, they are just routinely violated.
But on the subject, there is a right in the state of nature according to Hobbes. That right is for each man to use his power to do whatever he needs to do. But that's unimportant for this discussion.
Lol, I'm a Marxist again!
The same suit would have won if he had showed them his invention while signing a contract with them agreeing not to use it unless they purchase the idea from him.
An idea is an intangible thing, you can not hold it, smell it, feel it, see it or taste it. It does not exist except in your mind.
As long as it is in your mind you own it.
Now when you release that idea, it can be copied an infinite number of times.
Using the economic theory of supply and demand, we start with the number of items, in case the number of 1 idea.
It can be produced to infinitely at near zero cost, so supply is infinite.
The demand on the other hand is finite, so you get infinite supply / finite demand = price of near 0.
The same suit would have won if he had showed them his invention while signing a contract with them agreeing not to use it unless they purchase the idea from him.
No, it's not artificial scarcity. Land IS scarce. Ideas are not.
If an absentee landlord possesses title to a tract of land encompassing thousands of acres of prime agricultural land that sits fallow, how is that not creating an artificial scarcity?
And he might have won some money, from that one company. But if there were no IP, once his secret was out, anyone could copy it and use it. And if his suit against the first company would likely be based on damages - the money he lost - he would get very little, since he wouldn't have made anything anyway.
It's not actually. He is right in this point. The same amount of land area exists no matter what (Well barring a volcanic eruption - read Hawaii). What the land is being used for has no impact on the amount of land that is available. It's always the same. It can only be traded between people. In order for one person to buy another must relinquish control of a parcel of land. Hence it is scarce.
In the end he wound up winning roughly 38 million dollars.
It is de facto.. It doesn't exist to the other folks who would use it if not for the land title granting exclusivity to the "owner." The title effectively reduces the amount of land available to others for farming.
A claim to the land would exist with or without a deed. The amount of land DOES NOT CHANGE. Land is scarce merely by the fact that only a certain amount exists. Something can't then make it artificially scarce by any means.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?