4 ms·

Criminal impersonation, fraud, forgery, it's someone assuming your identity for financial gain. It's similar to selling a car you don't own or someone else's re

Criminal impersonation, fraud, forgery, it's someone assuming your identity for financial gain. It's similar to selling a car you don't own or someone else's real estate property through title fraud. If IP disappeared tomorrow, I'd bet quite a bit of money that some skilled lawyers would quickly find a way to get the kind of protection you speak of to exist under other laws. I'd go so much as to say that if something can't be argued under existing laws of things like damage, theft, impersonation, forgery, abuse and fraud, then it probably would be the kind of rights exercise that I'd consider objectionable.

notJim 5y ago
> Criminal impersonation, fraud, forgery, it's someone assuming your identity for financial gain. It's similar to selling a car you don't own or someone else's real estate property through title fraud. It doesn't not require fraud or forgery to sell someone else's book. You don't claim to be the author, you claim to be a publisher. Publishers always publish authors' work, that is literally the business of a publisher. You are also not forging anything, unless you are claiming that your version of the book is a specific edition of the printed work. If you sold an author's work and claimed that you have a contract with that author, so that they receive a share of the proceeds, and if that claim was untrue, then that would be fraud. But you could simply not make that claim. > It's similar to selling a car you don't own or someone else's real estate property through title fraud. The title represents the property right. If you didn't have the right to exclusive ownership of cars, then the title would be irrelevant, because you could just obtain the keys to the car and sell them to someone. Property rights are the reason this is illegal, not title fraud.
- kristopolous 5y ago
  I'm not an attorney. If this has become a question of legal interpretation I'll have to excuse myself. I would be very surprised if IP law was the only possible legal wall in such a bad faith action as the one you're referring to but I'm completely unqualified to argue any actual legal nuance. Sorry. What I really want is easier access to historical primary source research material without having to drive an hour and spend all day combining through microfiche. It feels stupid having to still do that in the 2020s. These should have been fed through a digitizer 20 years ago, it'd take like a weekend. It's not hard. The IP boogeyman is the only thing holding this up. Heck, sometimes, say with various local LA city paper, there's often only 2 existent copies, one in Downey or Lapl central and one in Sacramento. When I get that role I literally have half the world's copies in my hand. I mean really, what the hell is that? Disk space is effectively free. Let's get on this. I wish you luck on your book
  - mcguire 5y ago
    I feel your frustration. But I don't think removing IP law entirely is the right answer.
    - kristopolous 5y ago
      Intent has to be somewhere in there. If someone took a rare out of print book and after a good faith search for the copyright holder, started printing it and set aside the proceeds in escrow to go to the owner if they were found or donated otherwise, that's materially very different from stealing works in print and price sniping them.
mcguire 5y ago
Fraud, which is generally what you are talking about, is one of the weakest parts of Libertarian thought. Specifically, they are very, very careful not to define some terms too tightly. I would bet quite a bit of money that, under a Libertarian regime, restrictions would be worse, not better, than what currently exists. For example, "We hold that rights to property, including real property, are individual rights and, as such, are entitled to the same protections as all other individual rights. The owners of property have the full right to acquire, trade, control, use, dispose of, rent, collateralize, or enjoy their property in any manner, without interference, unless the exercise of their control infringes upon the valid rights of others." "Infringing on the valid rights of others" is the very fine edge in this case that can slice just about anywhere you want to put it. I could, for example, build a feedlot next door to your house. Except, "Pollution of air, water, and land violates rights. Polluters, including government, should have strict liability for harms caused by pollution. Strict liability should regulate pollution, not government agencies nor arbitrary government standards." (On the other hand, what exactly is the strict liability for the harm of stench and effluvia? The loss of property value? How would you determine that?)
- kristopolous 5y ago
  My support for libertarianism is tepid at best. People empowered or incentivized to act in bad faith is the thing we all want to avoid with our social structures. Ideally we'd somehow expel being a bastard. Where many libertarians brains break is they understand this with institutions that they choose to label with the word government, but once you remove the superficial label they think there's no longer any problems. That's where anarchism comes in. But like libertarianism it means contradictory things depending on who you talk to. Whatever you want to call it as long as we admit we are only in the current chapter of history and many more are to be written then together we can continue to try to build a better society

notJim 5y ago

> Criminal impersonation, fraud, forgery, it's someone assuming your identity for financial gain. It's similar to selling a car you don't own or someone else's real estate property through title fraud. It doesn't not require fraud or forgery to sell someone else's book. You don't claim to be the author, you claim to be a publisher. Publishers always publish authors' work, that is literally the business of a publisher. You are also not forging anything, unless you are claiming that your version of the book is a specific edition of the printed work. If you sold an author's work and claimed that you have a contract with that author, so that they receive a share of the proceeds, and if that claim was untrue, then that would be fraud. But you could simply not make that claim. > It's similar to selling a car you don't own or someone else's real estate property through title fraud. The title represents the property right. If you didn't have the right to exclusive ownership of cars, then the title would be irrelevant, because you could just obtain the keys to the car and sell them to someone. Property rights are the reason this is illegal, not title fraud.

kristopolous 5y ago
I'm not an attorney. If this has become a question of legal interpretation I'll have to excuse myself. I would be very surprised if IP law was the only possible legal wall in such a bad faith action as the one you're referring to but I'm completely unqualified to argue any actual legal nuance. Sorry. What I really want is easier access to historical primary source research material without having to drive an hour and spend all day combining through microfiche. It feels stupid having to still do that in the 2020s. These should have been fed through a digitizer 20 years ago, it'd take like a weekend. It's not hard. The IP boogeyman is the only thing holding this up. Heck, sometimes, say with various local LA city paper, there's often only 2 existent copies, one in Downey or Lapl central and one in Sacramento. When I get that role I literally have half the world's copies in my hand. I mean really, what the hell is that? Disk space is effectively free. Let's get on this. I wish you luck on your book
- mcguire 5y ago
  I feel your frustration. But I don't think removing IP law entirely is the right answer.
  - kristopolous 5y ago
    Intent has to be somewhere in there. If someone took a rare out of print book and after a good faith search for the copyright holder, started printing it and set aside the proceeds in escrow to go to the owner if they were found or donated otherwise, that's materially very different from stealing works in print and price sniping them.

mcguire 5y ago

Fraud, which is generally what you are talking about, is one of the weakest parts of Libertarian thought. Specifically, they are very, very careful not to define some terms too tightly. I would bet quite a bit of money that, under a Libertarian regime, restrictions would be worse, not better, than what currently exists. For example, "We hold that rights to property, including real property, are individual rights and, as such, are entitled to the same protections as all other individual rights. The owners of property have the full right to acquire, trade, control, use, dispose of, rent, collateralize, or enjoy their property in any manner, without interference, unless the exercise of their control infringes upon the valid rights of others." "Infringing on the valid rights of others" is the very fine edge in this case that can slice just about anywhere you want to put it. I could, for example, build a feedlot next door to your house. Except, "Pollution of air, water, and land violates rights. Polluters, including government, should have strict liability for harms caused by pollution. Strict liability should regulate pollution, not government agencies nor arbitrary government standards." (On the other hand, what exactly is the strict liability for the harm of stench and effluvia? The loss of property value? How would you determine that?)

kristopolous 5y ago
My support for libertarianism is tepid at best. People empowered or incentivized to act in bad faith is the thing we all want to avoid with our social structures. Ideally we'd somehow expel being a bastard. Where many libertarians brains break is they understand this with institutions that they choose to label with the word government, but once you remove the superficial label they think there's no longer any problems. That's where anarchism comes in. But like libertarianism it means contradictory things depending on who you talk to. Whatever you want to call it as long as we admit we are only in the current chapter of history and many more are to be written then together we can continue to try to build a better society