3 ms·

> People should only have the right to earn one's profits in voluntary exchange. > The free market will not work without artists starving on the street, or taki

> People should only have the right to earn one's profits in voluntary exchange. > The free market will not work without artists starving on the street, or taking a part time job to support their art career. It's almost comical that you wax poetic about the capitalist system, and then in the next sentence blithely assert that art must necessarily exist outside of it! Especially given that the two have fruitfully coexisted for some four hundred years. Oh, but I guess the interweb changes everything, doesn't it? > Our economic system is a dynamic one, and thus, cannot have an equilibrium that is so often at heart of economic models. Our economic system is a dynamic one? Well done, Sherlock! To say that dynamic systems can't lead to equilibria ('so often at heart of economic models' -- I chuckled when I read that little pearl of wisdom) is patently wrong and frankly asinine. > For the reason of satisfying consumer preferences, we must ignore people who insists and demand compensation for their work without giving people a reason to buy. And I think we should ignore people whose prose and logic are reminiscent of Manuel from Faulty Towers. Remember that the 'reason to buy' -- as opposed to stealing -- in the physical domain is the fear of being locked up. Getting stuff for free, in case you haven't noticed, will usually 'satisfy consumer preferences'! > Why should they make people fork money over something that they would not buy without copyright and government intervention? Because a) it's unethical not too, and b) if people don't do it (i.e. if property rights aren't respected) then markets cease to function. Do you not agree would be unethical to steal a purse from a stall in Portobello Market? Do you not also agree that policemen, the agents which 'give [you] a reason to buy', as opposed to just grabbing the stuff and running, are a form of 'government intervention'? You assume a pro-market, libertarian mantle, but the truth is that you are a fraud who uses such lofty talk in much the same way that New Agers use quantum physics to make vacuous points about the inter-connectedness of everyone and everything. Markets rely on the respect of property. That is no less true in the physical domain than in the intellectual one.

kiba 17y ago
It's almost comical that you wax poetic about the capitalist system, and then in the next sentence blithely assert that art must necessarily exist outside of it! Especially given that the two have fruitfully coexisted for some four hundred years. Oh, but I guess the interweb changes everything, doesn't it? Non-sequitur. Our economic system is a dynamic one? Well done, Sherlock! To say that dynamic systems can't lead to equilibria ('so often at heart of economic models' -- I chuckled when I read that little pearl of wisdom) is patently wrong and frankly asinine. Prove it instead of saying it is. And I think we should ignore people whose prose and logic are reminiscent of Manuel from Faulty Towers. Remember that the 'reason to buy' -- as opposed to stealing -- in the physical domain is the fear of being locked up. Getting stuff for free, in case you haven't noticed, will usually 'satisfy consumer preferences'! Is copying stealing? Is depriving someone of potential profits stealing? Because a) it's unethical not too, and b) if people don't do it (i.e. if property rights aren't respected) then markets cease to function. Do you not agree would be unethical to steal a purse from a stall in Portobello Market? Do you not also agree that policemen, the agents which 'give [you] a reason to buy', as opposed to just grabbing the stuff and running, are a form of 'government intervention'? Unethical on what ground? I am not stealing anything. I am duplicating content. I am not depriving anyone of anything, except their potential profits. You assume a pro-market, libertarian mantle, but the truth is that you are a fraud who uses such lofty talk in much the same way that New Agers use quantum physics to make vacuous points about the inter-connectedness of everyone and everything. Markets rely on the respect of property. That is no less true in the physical domain than in the intellectual one. Yes, we must imagine that copyright are really property rights, and the consumers can go to hell for attempting to make use of their actual property rights. We must also imagine that copyright laws and patents laws are not really a form of economic intervention with abritary rules. And yes, we must resort to name calling, copying IS stealing fallacy, and non-sequiturs to make our argument. I don't even care if artists starve to death on the street. Why don't you make your ethical argument to someone who actually care and actually be tricked by your copying is stealing fallacy? Do you even know who you're talking to? You're talking to a die-hard anarcho-capitalist who love and respect property right. You know how many anarcho-capitalists who hate copyright and patents? Do you want my friends over at the mises.org forum and the #mises channel at freenode to come over to show you how many hard-core libertarians despise these kind of laws? You want me to show you anti-IP articles written by libertarians? You want to call me a fraud who really disrespect property right in the disguise of libertarianism? You know, maybe I really do think copyright and patent are not property right.
- seertaak 17y ago
  > Non-sequitur. Eh? I'm positing why you might think a system which has worked for centuries should suddenly be obsolete. You're the one who made the claim, so why don't you enlighten me? > Prove it instead of saying it is. Stop being so lazy and google 'dynamic system equilibrium'. > Is copying stealing? No. Did I say it was? No. > Is depriving someone of potential profits stealing? No, but that doesn't make it ok. > Unethical on what ground? Unethical because: a) the artist hasn't consented to it; b) you are enjoying the fruits of the artist's labour without compensating him/her; c) you contribute to his/her economic deprivation. Of course, since you 'don't even care if artists starve to death on the street' as a direct result of your illegal activities, a discussion of ethics is pointless: you clearly have none. The fact that you have not physically removed the original is irrelevant. If I plagiarize someone's work, the original is still there. Does that mean plagiarism is an ethical activity? > I am not depriving anyone of anything, except their potential profits. Except that 'potential profits' are, in many cases, the only means to livelihood for content creators (in anticipation of the 'go tour' defense: consider Steely Dan, a studio-only band). So the 'anything', is, in fact, everything. > Yes, we must imagine that copyright are really property rights As I mentioned before, 'real' property rights are just as artificial as intellectual property rights. All 'rights' are inventions of man. Do you deny this? Or do you and your 'die-hard anarcho-capitalist' nutter pals at mises.org believe your particular selection of fundamental rights were handed down on a tablet by Moses? > We must also imagine that copyright laws and patents laws are not really a form of economic intervention with abritary rules. Any law of any sort is an 'intervention', insofar as it alters the natural, hobbesian state of affairs. But to claim that copyright law is arbitrary is just silly. Copyright law has developed slowly over centuries, adapting to new technologies in a coherent fashion. It is, moreover, absolutely predictable in its application, and serves a very real economic purpose, namely to bring artistic and scientific output under the umbrella of capitalism -- allowing said activity to be monetized and exchanged for other goods and services. One would have thought that a 'die-hard .. capitalist' would have found this rather useful and elegant. > Do you want my friends over at the mises.org forum and the #mises channel at freenode to come over to show you how many hard-core libertarians despise these kind of laws? If it leads to an improvement in your spelling, grammar, and logic, then why not? And yes, I'd certainly be interested in reading anti-IP articles by libertarians. Seriously. > You know, maybe I really do think copyright and patent are not property right. Now it's my turn not to 'even care' -- I really don't care what you, or any of your nutter pals, think are the 'true' property rights. Your philosophical deliberations on IRC are of no importance to me. What matters is that if you are filesharing, you are breaking the law. And we, the community of musicians and other content creators, are going to ensure you're punished for that. If you think we're wrong about that, then you're free to lobby your politicians. But I rather suspect you're going to have to do better than your lame-ass 'copying is not stealing' and 'copyright law is arbitrary intervention' arguments.

kiba 17y ago

It's almost comical that you wax poetic about the capitalist system, and then in the next sentence blithely assert that art must necessarily exist outside of it! Especially given that the two have fruitfully coexisted for some four hundred years. Oh, but I guess the interweb changes everything, doesn't it? Non-sequitur. Our economic system is a dynamic one? Well done, Sherlock! To say that dynamic systems can't lead to equilibria ('so often at heart of economic models' -- I chuckled when I read that little pearl of wisdom) is patently wrong and frankly asinine. Prove it instead of saying it is. And I think we should ignore people whose prose and logic are reminiscent of Manuel from Faulty Towers. Remember that the 'reason to buy' -- as opposed to stealing -- in the physical domain is the fear of being locked up. Getting stuff for free, in case you haven't noticed, will usually 'satisfy consumer preferences'! Is copying stealing? Is depriving someone of potential profits stealing? Because a) it's unethical not too, and b) if people don't do it (i.e. if property rights aren't respected) then markets cease to function. Do you not agree would be unethical to steal a purse from a stall in Portobello Market? Do you not also agree that policemen, the agents which 'give [you] a reason to buy', as opposed to just grabbing the stuff and running, are a form of 'government intervention'? Unethical on what ground? I am not stealing anything. I am duplicating content. I am not depriving anyone of anything, except their potential profits. You assume a pro-market, libertarian mantle, but the truth is that you are a fraud who uses such lofty talk in much the same way that New Agers use quantum physics to make vacuous points about the inter-connectedness of everyone and everything. Markets rely on the respect of property. That is no less true in the physical domain than in the intellectual one. Yes, we must imagine that copyright are really property rights, and the consumers can go to hell for attempting to make use of their actual property rights. We must also imagine that copyright laws and patents laws are not really a form of economic intervention with abritary rules. And yes, we must resort to name calling, copying IS stealing fallacy, and non-sequiturs to make our argument. I don't even care if artists starve to death on the street. Why don't you make your ethical argument to someone who actually care and actually be tricked by your copying is stealing fallacy? Do you even know who you're talking to? You're talking to a die-hard anarcho-capitalist who love and respect property right. You know how many anarcho-capitalists who hate copyright and patents? Do you want my friends over at the mises.org forum and the #mises channel at freenode to come over to show you how many hard-core libertarians despise these kind of laws? You want me to show you anti-IP articles written by libertarians? You want to call me a fraud who really disrespect property right in the disguise of libertarianism? You know, maybe I really do think copyright and patent are not property right.

seertaak 17y ago
> Non-sequitur. Eh? I'm positing why you might think a system which has worked for centuries should suddenly be obsolete. You're the one who made the claim, so why don't you enlighten me? > Prove it instead of saying it is. Stop being so lazy and google 'dynamic system equilibrium'. > Is copying stealing? No. Did I say it was? No. > Is depriving someone of potential profits stealing? No, but that doesn't make it ok. > Unethical on what ground? Unethical because: a) the artist hasn't consented to it; b) you are enjoying the fruits of the artist's labour without compensating him/her; c) you contribute to his/her economic deprivation. Of course, since you 'don't even care if artists starve to death on the street' as a direct result of your illegal activities, a discussion of ethics is pointless: you clearly have none. The fact that you have not physically removed the original is irrelevant. If I plagiarize someone's work, the original is still there. Does that mean plagiarism is an ethical activity? > I am not depriving anyone of anything, except their potential profits. Except that 'potential profits' are, in many cases, the only means to livelihood for content creators (in anticipation of the 'go tour' defense: consider Steely Dan, a studio-only band). So the 'anything', is, in fact, everything. > Yes, we must imagine that copyright are really property rights As I mentioned before, 'real' property rights are just as artificial as intellectual property rights. All 'rights' are inventions of man. Do you deny this? Or do you and your 'die-hard anarcho-capitalist' nutter pals at mises.org believe your particular selection of fundamental rights were handed down on a tablet by Moses? > We must also imagine that copyright laws and patents laws are not really a form of economic intervention with abritary rules. Any law of any sort is an 'intervention', insofar as it alters the natural, hobbesian state of affairs. But to claim that copyright law is arbitrary is just silly. Copyright law has developed slowly over centuries, adapting to new technologies in a coherent fashion. It is, moreover, absolutely predictable in its application, and serves a very real economic purpose, namely to bring artistic and scientific output under the umbrella of capitalism -- allowing said activity to be monetized and exchanged for other goods and services. One would have thought that a 'die-hard .. capitalist' would have found this rather useful and elegant. > Do you want my friends over at the mises.org forum and the #mises channel at freenode to come over to show you how many hard-core libertarians despise these kind of laws? If it leads to an improvement in your spelling, grammar, and logic, then why not? And yes, I'd certainly be interested in reading anti-IP articles by libertarians. Seriously. > You know, maybe I really do think copyright and patent are not property right. Now it's my turn not to 'even care' -- I really don't care what you, or any of your nutter pals, think are the 'true' property rights. Your philosophical deliberations on IRC are of no importance to me. What matters is that if you are filesharing, you are breaking the law. And we, the community of musicians and other content creators, are going to ensure you're punished for that. If you think we're wrong about that, then you're free to lobby your politicians. But I rather suspect you're going to have to do better than your lame-ass 'copying is not stealing' and 'copyright law is arbitrary intervention' arguments.