Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 43. (Read 33901 times)

Gain is what it's all about.

So, Thomas Edison spent 1000's of hours of trial and error before he came up with a tungsten filament for a light bulb, and you maintain that anyone should be able to profit from his work, right off the bat.  The system you propose would result in large monopolies controlling production;  If a small outfit makes a design, a large outfit could easily reverse-engineer it and manufacture the widget on a larger scale.  I'm afraid we must agree to disagree here, as what you propose will result in this: A low-liquidity outfit/entrepreneur sinks his millions of dollars and thousands of hours designing a widget and bringing it to market, and an outfit flush with liquidity then out-competes him because the outfit who designed the widget needs time to develop HIS market for HIS product design, whereas the liquidity-rich outfit already has a ready-made market due to it's financial power. 
What you propose is theft, which I feel is evident from the result it would have on the marketplace, and the players therein.

You blow me away.

Don't mind him. I've tried to explain Liberty to him more times than I can count. He's a bigger windbag than I am.

Not all contracts are valid. Like Myrkul said, many EULAs are deemed unenforceable. It's usually up to the courts to decide where that line falls.

all you people are doing is talking about gain!

Do you think that by selling them an object, you can dictate what they do with their skills and materials? If they can determine the design from your widget, they can manufacture it. You can't sell them that right, because they already have it.

If your widget is sufficiently complex that it took you 10 years to design it, it should take quite some time for the new owner to reverse-engineer it, and gear up for competition, if he so desires. During that time, you have a monopoly on that widget. I suggest you exploit it. First to market is your competitive advantage.

You can restrict the new owner from reverse-engineering the widget via contract, if you want, or you can build anti-tamper measures into the widget itself, both will buy you some more time, but eventually someone's going to break that contract, or bypass the anti-tamper measures, and ferret out your design. If they broke a contract, then you can take the measures provided for in the contract for breach against the person who broke it, but if he, rather than manufacturing it himself, spreads the design far and wide, you can't exact anything from those third parties who get the design.

Bottom line is: You want a limited-term monopoly on the manufacture and sale of the widget? You got it, until someone reverse engineers it and tools up to manufacture it.

But there is much more than "The Arts" represented by IP, like patents and proprietary designs.  Not recognizing ownership of design could have drastic effects on commerce.

What if I spend 10 years designing a widget, and sell widgets?  Do you feel that by selling the widget I am also selling the design, and the right to manufacture my widget?

Software EULAs are widely regarded as unenforcable. If you wish to sell people the license to read your book, you'll have to publish digitally, and maintain control of the text by keeping it under DRM. You're welcome to do that, but people have a rather firmer view of property than that, and consider something that they have paid for to be theirs. I would expect copies of your work to be freely downloadable within days, if not hours.

If intellectual property is indeed property, then we should treat it as property, and not some special class of thing. When you sell property, it is no longer yours. You don't get to say what the new owner does with it - not into perpetuity, and not for some specified time, either.

Now, I don't view it as property, because I think it's silly to claim to own an idea. How you can own something that can be in two places at once - and own it in both places - just doesn't compute. You can't own words, and you can't own a particular pattern of words.

The free market will determine what I deserve, and I can write up contracts as I see fit, and if no-one buys  into them, then I fail.
Sadly, most commercial SW operates under the conditions that I mentioned, folk don't buy M$ products, but rather a licence to use them, and folk seem to buy a lot of said licences, so many sellers require the buyer to agree to contracts much worse than the type I mentioned.
In the end, I think IP rights exist, but there is a strong limit to how far these rights extend, and they definitely do not extend into perpetuity.

No, do read carefully. I said that no buyer is currently bound by any such contract. Should he agree to such a a contract, he would indeed be bound by it, but no seller currently requires buyers to agree to such a contract.

Actually, you're the one sounding like a commie, expecting people to pay you because you "deserve it." People pay for value. If they value your work, they will pay for it. If they do not, then you're welcome to enjoy the fruits of your own labor, without demanding the fruits of others'.

So no-one who develops anything useful deserves anything from the fruits of their own labor?  You sound like a commie.

So, if a buyer agrees to certain terms and conditions, you think he can just change his mind in an arbitrary fashion?  That would put an end to much commerce.  Personally, I think that before recording media was invented, an artist had to play before an audience, and a movie had to generate it's revenue in the cinema, and that is good, but, in the case of movies, should not the producer get a year or two of contractually protected ownership?  Some movies take millions to make, and if the producer cannot show a profit, then what is the motivation to make another movie?  I agree that IP rights have been exploited by the owners to a ridiculous degree, I torrent as much as the next guy, but not things that are still in the cinema, as I also feel that the work they do should be recognized in a commercial way.  I also agree that the business model of those greedy bastards like MPPIA and RIAA is broken, but a happy medium must exist, like a one or two year copyright, or, at worst, a copyright that lasts for the life of the author, never to exceed 50 years, or what have you.

I'm getting really sick of hearing this illogical "deserves" argument. No, other people don't deserve to profit from your work. Then again, neither do you:

Just because you spend time on something doesn't mean you deserve anything from it. Words have a meaning.

I can spend a month throwing pencils at ceiling tiles. Does that mean I "deserve" money for creating a beautiful piece of modern art?

No. Of course not. It's a friggin ceiling tile with pencils stuck in it. I deserve nothing, unless someone was commissioning me to make that art for them. Now if people can appreciate my brilliant work and want to donate to support me in throwing more pencils at different surfaces, wonderful! But I have no rightful claim upon anyone else's money just because I worked on something. That's what "deserve" would imply.

Indeed it would. And as it stands, no buyer is bound by any such contract.

It would be up to me to stipulate that in the contract, to ensure that I get a good return for the work I put into it.

But of course.

And if that buyer decides to give it away for free, has he stolen from you?

If I sold it, then the buyer becomes owner, not the public.  Do you not believe in contracts?

Because you sold it. If you sold it cheaply, expecting that you could sell it again, I believe they have a word for that.