Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 27. (Read 105899 times)

You are apparently confused as to what a contract is. More so, since you are confusing it with IP law. Copyright law is in no way a contract. At most it's property that can be entered under a contract.
Consideration is both people givng something up. When I buy a car, I give up cash, the seller gives up a car. When I buy a house, I give up cash and the mortgage company gives up a portion of the principal. When I buy insurance, I give up cash, and insurance company gives up the right to a portion of their funds in case I need them. In every contract case I am free to do whatever i wish with the thing I have traded for under contract. In case of mortgage, I am free to use my principal to get a home equity loan, or to sell my house. In case of insurance, I am free to get covered against events for the months I have paid for.
When I buy a DVD, I give up cash, and the movie company gives up a disk with a movie on it. If I am to contractually give up access to DVD copying tools (ones that I own, so this doesn't even make sense), the movie company must give something up in exchange for that to be a valid contract. They do not. In fact under current IP laws they gain the right to maintain license to their movie despite not having physical possession of all copies any more. The only way IP here can be in a contractual exchange is if I gave up money, and they gave up rights to their movie to me.

Because both types of objects (even though one is biological) were sold to me as-is. Therefore I have every right to utilize them as I please (the exception being if they were human).


You're being way too vague and abstract here.


Sure why not? Depends on what the contract would say. Oh and by the by, there is no such thing as "right to redistribute" (unless you're first-owner under a exchange contract, but that would be a "right to distribute", not a "right to redistribute"). Any supposed "agreement" beyond initial distribution or exchange, would be binding a third party to a contract he didn't agree to. Don't tell me I don't understand "copyright" laws, I do. I just don't think they are appropriate legal constructs because they violate contract and induce theft. Ya know, a pretty basic concept if you apply a modicum of thought to it.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barron's cruelty sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." --C.S. Lewis

I'll take the violent minority any day of the week. It's definitely better than the alternative.

Ah, the Whiskey Rebellion.  Washington did not impose that tax.  The POTUS does not have the power to tax, only Congress.  Congress passed a law, and then expected the executive branch to enforce it.  Sure, he could have vetoed it, but he also understood the nature of government, and that if he neutered it they would be right back to the interstate bickering that dominated under the Articles.  The rebels believed, correctly, that they were being singled out for their way of life and means of income.  They lost, it doesn't mean that they were incorrect.

It seems that you don't know the copyright laws too well, either.  The Millinium Copyright Act made the, knowing or unknowing, redistribution of copyrighted materials on encrypted media a crime.  It also makes the circumvention of said encryption a crime.  DVD's had a rudimentary encryption scheme, that proved trival for a talented 13 year old to defeat using three line of C code.  The act of buying a DVD, and then lending it to your buddy for the night without you (the owner) being present at the viewing is redistribution under the act.  Libraries have exceptions under fair use, and individuals used to as well, but no longer.  You can sell the DVD used, even though they don't like that and tried to make that illegal as well, but then the license travels with ownership.

The same thing applies to installing a game that you legally purchased on more than one computer, it's now a crime punishishable by federal prison time, even if you personally own both computers and are the only person intended to use either installation.

How many times have you committed a federal crime in the past year?

I agree.  In fact in Italy and in Boston, sometimes the mafia has effectively won elections and used taxation coupled with corruption as an easy alternative to intimidation.  But the fact that a violent minority uses force does not mean that the peaceful majority should not use force.  In a democracy, if you break the law you do tend to find that people turn against you and punishment comes along. The alternative is surrender to the violent minority.

How is it ironic? Washington understood the nature of government, he just accepted it and/or was a hypocrite.


The same could be said for the mafia. As long as you give what they ask, or let them take it without defending yourself, they won't get violent with you.

Your quote from Washington is ironic - he imposed a tax on whiskey and the courts imposed the death sentence on those who led the resistance.

If you fail to show up, eventually you will have your assets taken and your earnings garnished.  It may he cheaper not to steal someone's property but you won't go to jail unless you get violent yourself.

Wrong. Demonstrate how they're the same. As an example, demonstrate how, because you handed Joe ten one hundred dollar bills in exchange for Rover, you are under the belief that such an act accords you the exact same rights as handing Sally ten one hundred dollar bills for her refrigerator.

More generally, you engage in act A with Joe, and he engages in act B with you. You engage in act A with Sally, and she engages in act C with you. Now, independent of act A in either case, your life is now affected by both acts B and C, which are radically different.


I'll ask you again. Honestly, do you really think you can buy the rights to redistribute 'True Grit' for $20? Or, do you really think anybody would sell you the rights to redistribute 'True Grit' for $20?

And since your current answer is so bizarre, please tell me why a filmmaker would sell you distribution rights for $20.

Wrong, owning a sofa is exactly like owning land (except mobility), like owning a dog, like owning a DVD. Making IP laws, dog laws and DVD laws different distorts the meaning and interpretation of property and makes it inconsistent in its utility and logical construction.


Yes that's exactly what we want. Contracts are exclusively between consenting non-coerced men, not consenting men and coercive legislators. That too is logically and materially inconsistent with the definition of contract.


If a "piece of plastic" was sold to me, and there was a contract proffered (visible and known) with consideration, that I signed to (binding only upon me), and it specified an explicit use or forbearance thereof of said piece of plastic, then I, and only I, am bound to those covenants. Otherwise, I own that plastic and every material aspect of it in perpetuity. I would have every right to destroy, copy, modify and exchange that item at any time, and with any person.

No law(maker) should ever intercede between men and their contracts, except and unless there is a breach of the terms and arbitration is needed to resolve the materials or services in question.

So you're saying that you can make it illegal to read something? Sadly, Fred, you're the one who doesn't understand copyright law. It all boils down to ownership laws. Owning a sofa is not like owning land which is not like owning a dog which is not like owning a DVD which is decidedly not like owning rights to redistribute a movie.

Because you guys are so in love with the concept of contract, it seems that some of us are forced to put everything in terms of contracts. You might own the plastic that is the DVD, but you don't own 'True Grit'. 'True Grit' the movie was not sold to you when you went to Walmart and bought it.

Honestly, do you really think you can buy the rights to redistribute 'True Grit' for $20? Or, do you really think anybody would sell you the rights to redistribute 'True Grit' for $20?

A piece of plastic was sold to you, which you now own. You are free to watch it, break it, give it to your friend, etc. When you bought the DVD, you paid for the plastic DVD, but not the data. I think somehow, somewhere, you got misled into thinking you are buying ownership rights to a movie when you buy a DVD. Why that is, I don't know. If you need a simplistic example, think of the DVD as being like a condo. When you buy a condo, you own the space inside the condo, various fixtures, etc., but you don't own what's inside the walls, although you're granted the right to benefit from them.

You've been offered a convenience when you buy a DVD. Nobody is required to sell you rights to redistribute a movie for $20.

Don't forget, you'll also be morally justified in sending goons to the houses of those who do not pay willingly. And if, in the course of the attempt to collect, the individual is killed, so be it.

Being aware of a law/contract does not a just law/contract make. See below.

So let me ask you this. This new and creative form of contract seems like it could be taken advantage of. There's the shrink-wrapped version of it, the law-warning version of it, and the copyright-notice version of it.

Given the above "contract" styles, I'm going to try a little experiment. I'm going to rent a billboard, and on that billboard I'm going to write a message, but before the message I'm going to list the copyright notice, and a warning. The billboard will essentially say this, "Anyone reading this billboard without the prior permission of the copyright holder owes the owner $10,000."

Now given that one need only be "aware of", "unwraps" or gives "warning" regarding the message, that contract should be valid. I should be able to legally collect fees.

I think you have no idea what a contract is.

Let me guess, if I were to resist the civil action, you tell me what would happen eventually.  Sure it may be civil, but if I never show up in court, they will attempt to confiscate my property, and if I resist that, they will attempt to arrest me, and if I resist that, I could very well get a bullet in the head.

Yes, all laws that are enforced will lead to dire circumstances given enough resistance. That's the nature of law.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master! It is an instrument of force and unless our conscience is clear that we would not hesitate to put a man to death, put him in jail or forcibly deprive him of his property for failing to obey a given law, we should oppose it.” --George Washington

False and unsubstantiated. Straw man.

The morals are a creation too.  Unless you think moral laws are written in the stars or some such superstition, you accept that morality is a social construct.

Eventually your assets will be taken and sold.  If that doesn't suffice, your earning will be garnished so that when you start to make money, you will repay the damage you have done.

So if I refuse to pay the leeches a dime, what happens then?

Surely you realize that fictional characters represent the morals of the men who create them.