Free speech is free data; free data is free speech.

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Quote from: kokjo on January 14, 2012, 02:23:31 PM

Quote from: Explodicle on January 14, 2012, 02:03:20 PM

Quote from: bb113 on January 13, 2012, 10:03:55 PM

Quote from: Explodicle on January 12, 2012, 02:13:38 PM

Quote from: P4man on January 12, 2012, 01:26:50 PM

Quote from: epbaha on January 12, 2012, 01:17:59 PM

@SgtSpike

Quote

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright.

They were for the most part, paid by
... governments.

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

Government funded art= Free speech? Or did I misunderstand?

Lack of IP = free speech
Government funding to the arts would provide a public good WITHOUT stripping away an essential human right.

depends on how it's funded. some say that taxes is an act of stripping away essential human right, you know?

I know that some people say that, but people say lots of crazy nonsense and I'm glad you haven't bought into it. Some taxes, like sales taxes, are wrong. Taxes against aggression are justified.

altuin

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

We are allowed to say whatever we want, but the government is allowed to decide who can listen - EG porn restrictions.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: Explodicle on January 14, 2012, 02:03:20 PM

Quote from: bb113 on January 13, 2012, 10:03:55 PM

Quote from: Explodicle on January 12, 2012, 02:13:38 PM

Quote from: P4man on January 12, 2012, 01:26:50 PM

Quote from: epbaha on January 12, 2012, 01:17:59 PM

@SgtSpike

Quote

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright.

They were for the most part, paid by
... governments.

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

Government funded art= Free speech? Or did I misunderstand?

Lack of IP = free speech
Government funding to the arts would provide a public good WITHOUT stripping away an essential human right.

depends on how it's funded. some say that taxes is an act of stripping away essential human right, you know?

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Quote from: bb113 on January 13, 2012, 10:03:55 PM

Quote from: Explodicle on January 12, 2012, 02:13:38 PM

Quote from: P4man on January 12, 2012, 01:26:50 PM

Quote from: epbaha on January 12, 2012, 01:17:59 PM

@SgtSpike

Quote

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright.

They were for the most part, paid by
... governments.

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

Government funded art= Free speech? Or did I misunderstand?

Lack of IP = free speech
Government funding to the arts would provide a public good WITHOUT stripping away an essential human right.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: Explodicle on January 12, 2012, 02:13:38 PM

Quote from: P4man on January 12, 2012, 01:26:50 PM

Quote from: epbaha on January 12, 2012, 01:17:59 PM

@SgtSpike

Quote

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright.

They were for the most part, paid by
... governments.

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

Government funded art= Free speech? Or did I misunderstand?

DoubleIcaras

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Kill me~

I don't even understand how people who have no idea what they're being told can decide the fate of something so many use.
It's ridiculous.

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Quote from: bb113 on January 12, 2012, 03:00:48 PM

An important question for any social theory to ask itself:

Would this have allowed Star Trek to exist?

Absolutely. Gene patents might be useful in enforcing the widespread genetic discrimination. We can't just allow the Julian Bashirs of the world to have "superior ambition", can we?

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

An important question for any social theory to ask itself:

Would this have allowed Star Trek to exist?

Anyway, I think most good art is produced before the artist gets big. The best artists will make it as a hobby because they enjoy doing it. As an example of extravagant art, I wonder if amon tobin has this protected as IP:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU8v_zZV5GM&feature=related

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Quote from: P4man on January 12, 2012, 02:33:37 PM

Quote from: Explodicle on January 12, 2012, 02:13:38 PM

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

Ive said it all along; the only feasible way to abolish property rights is by massively expanding the government to take over these kind of things that are in society interest, but not profitable without IP protection. that goes for all kinds of R&D, music, arts etc.

You die hard libertarians really want the government to do that?

I'm a left-libertarian. I don't object to taxes on public resources (land, air pollution permits, etc) to pay for public goods.

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: Explodicle on January 12, 2012, 02:13:38 PM

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

Ive said it all along; the only feasible way to abolish property rights is by massively expanding the government to take over these kind of things that are in society interest, but not profitable without IP protection. that goes for all kinds of R&D, music, arts etc.

You die hard libertarians really want the government to do that?

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Quote from: westkybitcoins on January 12, 2012, 02:16:17 PM

Quote from: Explodicle on January 12, 2012, 02:13:38 PM

Quote from: P4man on January 12, 2012, 01:26:50 PM

Quote from: epbaha on January 12, 2012, 01:17:59 PM

@SgtSpike

Quote

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright.

They were for the most part, paid by
... governments.

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

Well, presuming there would be some art that would just be considered too objectionable to be funded by the public, I would think this would tend to politicize art.

Probably. It's certainly not perfect, but I'd rather be forced to pay for terrible offensive garbage than not be allowed to spread something beautiful and brilliant.

westkybitcoins

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!

Quote from: Explodicle on January 12, 2012, 02:13:38 PM

Quote from: P4man on January 12, 2012, 01:26:50 PM

Quote from: epbaha on January 12, 2012, 01:17:59 PM

@SgtSpike

Quote

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright.

They were for the most part, paid by
... governments.

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

Well, presuming there would be some art that would just be considered too objectionable to be funded by the public, I would think this would tend to politicize art.

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Quote from: P4man on January 12, 2012, 01:26:50 PM

Quote from: epbaha on January 12, 2012, 01:17:59 PM

@SgtSpike

Quote

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright.

They were for the most part, paid by
... governments.

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: epbaha on January 12, 2012, 01:17:59 PM

@SgtSpike

Quote

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright.

They were for the most part, paid by
... governments.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: SgtSpike on January 12, 2012, 12:53:40 PM

But it doesn't matter if you ruin one company's reputation by selling an inferior product under their brand name?

Your theory of how the world should work just sounds more and more screwed up the more I listen to it. I can't imagine any modern world actually functioning with the sort of ruleset you propose.

That said, I'm going to move on from this thread now.

Define "ruined" reputation. What kind of legal restitution would you want that would improve your reputation? People will think what they will think, and say what they will say. At what point do you get to point the proverbial gun in their face and say "or else"? Physically punishing someone because of the form of speech they use is violating that right to freedom of speech. What forms of speech should be regulated and punished, and why?

This is a speech issue were talking about here. When does one's ability to express himself fall into the category of violence, or theft?

I'm not necessarily suggesting a ruleset. I'm merely pointing out that responding with violence against a form of speech might be a bit excessive. Should we not concern ourselves with proportional punishment issues, say in a worse case scenario "eye for an eye" (i.e. you don't punish petty theft with death).

epbaha

member

Activity: 82

Merit: 10

@SgtSpike

Quote

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright.

and the book I linked earlier (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm) gives historic examples of copyrights and patents being used as weapons to attack competition like Watt with his steam engine patent.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: FredericBastiat on January 12, 2012, 11:58:15 AM

Quote from: P4man on January 12, 2012, 04:35:43 AM

Quote from: bb113 on January 12, 2012, 04:33:11 AM

So you prefer the current system because it includes the threat of jail time rather than the libertarian threat of Huh

(honestly I don't know what comes after lawsuit for a professional con artist).

The libertarian threat of nothing. People here are arguing all IP should be abolished, so counterfeiting would no longer exist or be a crime. It would become a perfectly legal profession. Yes, I prefer the system where counterfeiting is a crime.

Counterfeiting should not be a crime (it is both non-violent and does not involve the physical property of others). However, if you promise -as in contract- to deliver a product originating from another manufacturer, and you deliver a "fake" or "copy", then you would be in breach of contract and could be "punished" (put in your flavor of restitution here).

But it doesn't matter if you ruin one company's reputation by selling an inferior product under their brand name?

Your theory of how the world should work just sounds more and more screwed up the more I listen to it. I can't imagine any modern world actually functioning with the sort of ruleset you propose.

That said, I'm going to move on from this thread now.

westkybitcoins

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!

Quote from: mad_miner on January 12, 2012, 02:48:53 AM

Curious; those objecting to IP rights, I assume you also object to trademarks? So it would be okay for any company to sell their hardware branded as "apple"? I could sell any drink as "coca cola", in identically looking bottles ? I could sell fake medical drugs under the same name as the real one, in the same box, even though they just contain calcium tablets?

Generally, fraud is a separate issue from IP. If you buy a bottle of aspirin, but take it home and find it contains antacids, then that's fraud, and should incur consequences, at the very least a lawsuit.

Someone who goes out of their way to convince someone they're buying a product from someone they're not falls into the same category, although the line is more blurry. Again, judges, juries and local standards should be able to hash that out.

But a company that sells knockoff Rolex watches ("Rolls-X"?) Or one that sells "Cola-Coke" that is far inferior to Coca-Cola? That sort of stuff happens all over the world already today, including in the US, and most seem to handle it fine. That's not a problem.

FredericBastiat

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: P4man on January 12, 2012, 04:35:43 AM

Quote from: bb113 on January 12, 2012, 04:33:11 AM

So you prefer the current system because it includes the threat of jail time rather than the libertarian threat of Huh

(honestly I don't know what comes after lawsuit for a professional con artist).

The libertarian threat of nothing. People here are arguing all IP should be abolished, so counterfeiting would no longer exist or be a crime. It would become a perfectly legal profession. Yes, I prefer the system where counterfeiting is a crime.

Counterfeiting should not be a crime (it is both non-violent and does not involve the physical property of others). However, if you promise -as in contract- to deliver a product originating from another manufacturer, and you deliver a "fake" or "copy", then you would be in breach of contract and could be "punished" (put in your flavor of restitution here).

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

When you're on the hammer forum, everything looks like a nail. Maybe smart property would help solve the counterfeiting problem? At the top of the supply chain, the product is signed by a manufacturer with good reviews. At every hand-off, the goods are signed off to the new owner. When you go to buy your product at the store, you scan an RFID tag or bar/QR code to verify its legitimacy and lawful ownership by the store. At the moment of purchase, the good is signed over to you.

"Hey! My phone just detected that something in my cart went through an untrusted channel! Here it is, this shampoo was sold to an anonymous recipient a year ago. And [opens it] it smells like cheese!"

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Smart_Property

Topic: Free speech is free data; free data is free speech. (Read 4535 times)