[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

copyright is very complicated, and they make it so on purpose. any artwork, at the instant of creation, is copyrighted in the USA. I have done research on this when I was drawing a daily comic strip.

i don't think that the law is made complicated on purpose, but rather, the law has to grapple with the complexities of copyright in real life.

like i was just reading a bit about the copyright of ringtones playing in cellphones, and there was a case on whether the telcos were responsible for the copyright, bla bla bla. such a specific circumstance among a myriad others.

each case is different, and each case may test the limits of the current law, and expand its interpretation-- the jesuits knew that much when they refused to apply categorical judgments to situations. life is by definition baroque.

[Keeping It Gimple]

see monsanto, seeds, indian farmers, suicide.

fuck copyright

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Keeping It Gimple

see monsanto, seeds, indian farmers, suicide.

fuck copyright

no, you're confusing two things. that there is not an argument-- it's 4 words making a vague appeal to some sort of feeling.

i fucking hate monsanto, but it does not follow that by extension i hate all copyrights.

i also believe that patents and copyrights should be time-limited and ideas should eventually entered into the public domain-- i do not support the mickey mouse copyright extension.

failures of implementation or excesses do not mean that copyright is inherently bullshit. it's kind of like saying that because you fucked up your tax return the rules of multiplication should be tossed out.

--

eta-- just like digital looting is a disruptor in the media market, monsanto is a disruptor in the agricultural system. should we embrace them wholeheartedly then, as things that "make other things obsolete"? (that was just a rhetorical question).

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

 

[Keeping It Gimple]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

eta-- just like digital looting is a disruptor in the media market, monsanto is a disruptor in the agricultural system. should we embrace them wholeheartedly then, as things that "make other things obsolete"? (that was just a rhetorical question).

rhetorical, facetious, disingenuous, idiotic. you can use lots of words to describe it.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Keeping It Gimple

rhetorical, facetious, disingenuous, idiotic. you can use lots of words to describe it.

why do you resort to insults when you run out of arguments? seriously. i haven't called you an imbecile or a pie-in-the sky lunatic or any of that. i have responded to your arguments, maybe not to your satisfaction, but i haven't resorted to ad-hominems because that would mean that it's not about understanding, but about winning.

maybe you just want to win at all costs.

the basic fact as i see it is that the existence of copyright and intellectual property creates a marketplace. and in that marketplace we have incentives for invention, innovation, and intellectual creation.

remove those incentives and the best minds will move to other activities-- stealing, maybe. or war- since without a market the best way to get stuff you want is to take it by force. or politics, which is the same thing-- acquisition by fiat.

honestly, i'd rather deal with a merchant than with some petty warlord or a tyrant. markets are far from perfect but they are better than the alternative. the bourgeoisie with all its faults has been better for humanity than feudalism.

[Keeping It Gimple]

well when you deliberately take my argument and say that it implies the opposite of what i mean, as if we're all some kind of automaton autists that have to follow logic to its most retarded extremes, then you're talking shit and you know it.

and now you are repeating arguments that i already responded to, as if i never did, so we're done here.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Keeping It Gimple

well when you deliberately take my argument and say that it implies the opposite of what i mean, as if we're all some kind of automaton autists that have to follow logic to its most retarded extremes, then you're talking shit and you know it.

and now you are repeating arguments that i already responded to, as if i never did, so we're done here.

i don't know why you sound so enranged to my ears but you do.

anyway good luck with that.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

!@#$! the flaw in your argument is that copyrights don't create a market, indeed they are the product of government regulation and have their root in the feudal guilds and craft licensing that the American colonists so despised

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

!@#$! the flaw in your argument is that copyrights don't create a market, indeed they are the product of government regulation and have their root in the feudal guilds and craft licensing that the American colonists so despised

markets are based on rules-- like a game.

to begin: there are no markets without the rule of property-- this is mine, this is yours, therefore we can exchange. otherwise, everybody grabs what they want and soon there's nothing left.

when intellectual products are property, they are also exchangeable.

if intellectual products were a free-for-all, nobody would need to trade them, they coudl just grab them, but then a lot of people would cease to produce them. why slave away at the lab for nothing?

copyrights, which are a form of intellectual proprty, are created by law (a rule) which says that only the creator of a work has the right to copy, distrubute, etc-- their creative works.

there is nothing in nature that says this needs to be. it's a legal construct. and it enables a social activity (a market).

without that rule, i could take rob's lou reed picture, put it on a t-shirt, and sell millions of them, and not pay rob a singel red cent.

but because there is that rule, i have to BUY permission from rob if i want to use his work. i may buy it outright, license it, pay a royalty, etc-- there are many ways.

watch "shark tank" some time to see how this shit operates in practice. the show is full of obnoxious egomaniacs swinging their cocks, but for the most part they're there to buy ideas and/or trademarks. without the rule of intellectual property, nobody would show up because the sharks would just steal the idea.
"i have invented a process to make circus peanust from rocks"
"great, thanks, now i'll go make millions from that, you can fuck off."

it's really that basic.

[Keeping It Gimple]

we are fortunate that that spirit is still alive because it will be those people who STAND UP AND FIGHT when their solar farms are attacked by regulation designed to stop people opting out of the system and living independently

[evollove]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

!@#$! the flaw in your argument is that copyrights don't create a market, indeed they are the product of government regulation and have their root in the feudal guilds and craft licensing that the American colonists so despised

Which is why American literature was so slow to start. A book from England was imported, reprinted, sold dirt cheap, and Americans rejoiced at the near-free entertainment they were getting. Government regulations? Yes, at some point England said "Knock that shit off." After that, no surprise, American writing flourished.

The term "bootleg" comes from England too. People would go to a popular play, jot down the dialogue (they usually worked in teams) and sneak out with what they got, stuffed into their boots. Then, they printed and sold the goods. All legal, although friends of the theater might kick your ass if they spotted you.

Hence, the "bad" quartos of Shakespeare. Indeed, Shakespeare didn't want his plays printed at all, but gave in sometimes to roadblock bootleggers. He didn't want them printed because there was no such thing as performance royalties at the time. If you got your hands on the dialogue to Hamlet and put it on, Willie didn't get jack.

Once upon a time the concept of "intellectual property" didn't exist. I'm not sure it was paradise.

[Keeping It Gimple]

there have been people in american history that considered wage work for someone else an intolerable affront to their freedom. not like these snivelling limey nicey nice soft liberal but really nazi people i live among now.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Keeping It Gimple

their solar farms

who is going to develop solar technology without having a right to patents?

kickstarter?

[Keeping It Gimple]

your second last post is wrong, historically and in reality now. its not how markets developed and not how they work.

i already addressed your incentive argument, which you've made 3 times now, since you won't do anything but repeat it, even though its demonstrably wrong and ive made it clear that the capitalist development of such tech is to be supported and then distributed freely, the politest thing i can say is that you should go away.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

No !@#$! markets are free.. rules are enforced by government. The origin of copyrights is in feudal England and Europe with heavy restrictions on trades and guilds to protect a royal monopoly. You guys need to go further back than 18th and 19th centuries in your analysis..

Markets don't just naturally have inherent rules, they have inherent principles and functions but all rules are be definition artificialartificially imposed over markets..

[Keeping It Gimple]

ill make myself even clearer. the monsanto people involved in that scam deserve to be murdered at the least.

anyone who tries to enforce patents on tech that allows people to meet their energy/food/shelter needs is an enemy and deserves to be put in jail at the very least.

[Keeping It Gimple]

but personally, if someone was working to say, patent and threaten with extortion through the courts anyone who was sharing say 3d print designs for solar panels or seeds, then i'd encourage and participate in violence against them as a matter of principle

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

No !@#$! markets are free.. rules are enforced by government.

nah-ah. rules are properties of social groups. yes you might need a government to enforce them or you might not but all groups have rules, whether stated or implicit.. people who associate in a market have rules too. e.g., i can't get stuff without paying. or, if i buy your food you're not allowed to lace it with poison. or, if i go to a farmer's market in my area i do it knowing that they will accept dollars and not pesos. one vendor goes here, anothe vendor goes here, they don't invade each other's space. you sell what you say you're selling, i don't pay with counterfeit money. those are rules, otherwise the market makes no sense.

alright, enough for the day, adiós.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

nah-ah. rules are properties of social groups. yes you might need a government to enforce them or you might not but all groups have rules, whether stated or implicit..

Markets dont have rules, they have natural principles based on cause and effect relationships but any rule is artificial. After all, markets are inanimate, rules are human creation which govern human behavior. We agree to them and they regulate the market, but they are never natural to the market, as indeed if they were inherent or natural to markets there would be no need to regulate as markets would be naturally self regulated and yet every era of laissez faire policies have resulted in failed economies and human exploitation. Humans invent and enforce "the rules" to protect their interests, and while these rules must take into consideration the natural market principles they themselves are artificial not natural. They are of course a good thing but aren't natural.

Lets explore land tenure.. humans develop and enforce land tenure rules to protect their accesss to natural resources. The inherent rules of the market are that resources are scarce and fragile, the rules are developed around this natural principle to artificially protect land resource from exploitation. Proof is in the pudding, where there are less rigid artificial regulatios there is deforestation and pollution even when these are contrary to the natural market principles that the resources are scarce and fragile. Regulation takes this into consideration and artificially protects the resource.

people who associate in a market have rules too. e.g., i can't get stuff without paying. or, if i buy your food you're not allowed to lace it with poison. or, if i go to a farmer's market in my area i do it knowing that they will accept dollars and not pesos. one vendor goes here, anothe vendor goes here, they don't invade each other's space. you sell what you say you're selling, i don't pay with counterfeit money. those are rules, otherwise the market makes no sense.

Currency is issued and regulated by government. It is not some inherent or natural principle of that market, it is an artificial rule created to make the market more efficient. Even the concept of a farmer's market is result of artifical regulation, in medieval and even ancient history the designated "market place" was created to regulate and enforce trade.. collect taxes.. and also benefit the merchants as a whole by artificially controlling competition who would otherwise set up shop down the road like Lucy and Ethel selling meat out the stroller.