6 ms·

> The photographers have created and published their work under the expectation that existing IP law will be upheld. That's tough shit for them, then. Existing

> The photographers have created and published their work under the expectation that existing IP law will be upheld. That's tough shit for them, then. Existing IP laws currently are really hard to uphold, and soon they will be literally impossible to enforce. Also, IP is not a right; it's a privilege provided by the government.

gress 13y ago
By that argument, ownership of possessions is not a right, but a privilege provided by the government, and if a tough guy comes and takes your laptop away from you - tough shit for you.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  No. Possessions are a scarce resource that can be defended by the owner. Ideas are not scarce. The only way to "defend" an idea from improper uses in a society is with a coercive entity.
  - gress 13y ago
    Do you live in Somalia?
    - burntsushi 13y ago
      Do you enjoy trolling?
      - gress 13y ago
        No - the idea that individuals are able to practically defend their possessions against determines thieves doesn't make sense in most societies where violence is not accepted as a normal part of life. Instead, most of us rely on the state to provide a police force. Somalia seemed like somewhere your statement might hold true.
        burntsushi 13y ago
        > No Then don't do it. > the idea that individuals are able to practically defend their possessions against determines thieves doesn't make sense in most societies where violence is not accepted as a normal part of life I agree. Defense takes on many forms. In the more forward thinking societies, it's usually done with some sort of arbitration. > Instead, most of us rely on the state to provide a police force. OK? So? > Somalia seemed like somewhere your statement might hold true. Your straw man is behind the times. Somalia has had a central government for quite some time.
        gress 13y ago
        Fair enough about the central government. I hadn't realized that. However, I see you make no attempt to actually defend your argument other than calling me a troll. How does 'arbitration' stop armed thieves taking your possessions, and what societies are you calling 'forward thinking'?
        burntsushi 13y ago
        > However, I see you make no attempt to actually defend your argument other than calling me a troll. You made no attempt at an argument other than a borderline ad hominem when you asked, "Do you live in Somalia?" It's a blatant straw man, plain and simple. (Precisely because I never claimed that no government is always better than any government.) > How does 'arbitration' stop armed thieves taking your possessions Mostly the same way courts do it today. I defer to David Friedman and his work on polycentric law. > and what societies are you calling 'forward thinking'? Any society that prefers non-violent conflict resolution. It's pretty much the cornerstone property and ownership.
        gress 13y ago
        Courts do not stop thieves. That is done by police. You have not supported your assertion that owners can defend their own property in some way that is different from how intellectual property is defended. Polycentric law is an academic construct. If you are advocating a new political system, why not admit that rather than making false claims about the current one.
- pikachu_is_cool 13y ago
  I'm not talking about a god damned laptop, I'm talking about digital data. And yes, if someone manages to copy a 4MB mp3 file that you sold to them or crack an executable file you put on their hard drive, then it is tough shit for you. The government should keep it's greedy little nose out of affairs like this, and make piracy legal. Then maybe people will stop dedicating their careers to worthless games like Angry Birds and actually do something with real impact. Thankfully, the tech will eventually get so good that the government literally can't do anything about it, so all we have to do is wait.
  - gress 13y ago
    You're saying that intellectual property only exists because of government protection. I'm pointing out that this is true for other forms of property too. Saying 'I'm not talking about a god damned laptop' doesn't change this.
    - pikachu_is_cool 13y ago
      I'm not talking about a god damned laptop. I'm not talking about morality or "what I think the government should be doing". I'm talking about the eventual certainty that intellectual property "rights" will be unenforceable in the (possibly near) future based on current trends. Piracy is only going up. Thus, the privilege provided by the government I initially referenced will be taken away by superior technology. If a government was smart they would embrace this early on and learn to adapt before other countries catch on. And I guess we also get the benefit of a better and more prosperous life earlier, but that's just my opinion. Let's not get into that.
      - gress 13y ago
        You're ignoring the fact that other forms of property are also privileges provided by the government. I'm not at all convinced that piracy will win out given the increasing intrusiveness of governments and ISPs into network traffic. The net is built by corporations who will filter if the government tells them to even if they are not doing so for their own commercial reasons (e.g. AT&T u-verse who block torrents) The internet itself is privilege provided by the government, as is the legal basis for the corporations that maintain it.

gress 13y ago

By that argument, ownership of possessions is not a right, but a privilege provided by the government, and if a tough guy comes and takes your laptop away from you - tough shit for you.

burntsushi 13y ago
No. Possessions are a scarce resource that can be defended by the owner. Ideas are not scarce. The only way to "defend" an idea from improper uses in a society is with a coercive entity.
- gress 13y ago
  Do you live in Somalia?
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    Do you enjoy trolling?
    - gress 13y ago
      No - the idea that individuals are able to practically defend their possessions against determines thieves doesn't make sense in most societies where violence is not accepted as a normal part of life. Instead, most of us rely on the state to provide a police force. Somalia seemed like somewhere your statement might hold true.
      - burntsushi 13y ago
        > No Then don't do it. > the idea that individuals are able to practically defend their possessions against determines thieves doesn't make sense in most societies where violence is not accepted as a normal part of life I agree. Defense takes on many forms. In the more forward thinking societies, it's usually done with some sort of arbitration. > Instead, most of us rely on the state to provide a police force. OK? So? > Somalia seemed like somewhere your statement might hold true. Your straw man is behind the times. Somalia has had a central government for quite some time.
        gress 13y ago
        Fair enough about the central government. I hadn't realized that. However, I see you make no attempt to actually defend your argument other than calling me a troll. How does 'arbitration' stop armed thieves taking your possessions, and what societies are you calling 'forward thinking'?
        burntsushi 13y ago
        > However, I see you make no attempt to actually defend your argument other than calling me a troll. You made no attempt at an argument other than a borderline ad hominem when you asked, "Do you live in Somalia?" It's a blatant straw man, plain and simple. (Precisely because I never claimed that no government is always better than any government.) > How does 'arbitration' stop armed thieves taking your possessions Mostly the same way courts do it today. I defer to David Friedman and his work on polycentric law. > and what societies are you calling 'forward thinking'? Any society that prefers non-violent conflict resolution. It's pretty much the cornerstone property and ownership.
        gress 13y ago
        Courts do not stop thieves. That is done by police. You have not supported your assertion that owners can defend their own property in some way that is different from how intellectual property is defended. Polycentric law is an academic construct. If you are advocating a new political system, why not admit that rather than making false claims about the current one.
pikachu_is_cool 13y ago
I'm not talking about a god damned laptop, I'm talking about digital data. And yes, if someone manages to copy a 4MB mp3 file that you sold to them or crack an executable file you put on their hard drive, then it is tough shit for you. The government should keep it's greedy little nose out of affairs like this, and make piracy legal. Then maybe people will stop dedicating their careers to worthless games like Angry Birds and actually do something with real impact. Thankfully, the tech will eventually get so good that the government literally can't do anything about it, so all we have to do is wait.
- gress 13y ago
  You're saying that intellectual property only exists because of government protection. I'm pointing out that this is true for other forms of property too. Saying 'I'm not talking about a god damned laptop' doesn't change this.
  - pikachu_is_cool 13y ago
    I'm not talking about a god damned laptop. I'm not talking about morality or "what I think the government should be doing". I'm talking about the eventual certainty that intellectual property "rights" will be unenforceable in the (possibly near) future based on current trends. Piracy is only going up. Thus, the privilege provided by the government I initially referenced will be taken away by superior technology. If a government was smart they would embrace this early on and learn to adapt before other countries catch on. And I guess we also get the benefit of a better and more prosperous life earlier, but that's just my opinion. Let's not get into that.
    - gress 13y ago
      You're ignoring the fact that other forms of property are also privileges provided by the government. I'm not at all convinced that piracy will win out given the increasing intrusiveness of governments and ISPs into network traffic. The net is built by corporations who will filter if the government tells them to even if they are not doing so for their own commercial reasons (e.g. AT&T u-verse who block torrents) The internet itself is privilege provided by the government, as is the legal basis for the corporations that maintain it.