As a professional programmer, it would thrill me to no end if I was out of a career tomorrow (unrealistic, but let's suppose) because copyrights and patents on software were abolished. That would be such a tremendous boon to the world that I would be a jackass to complain about it.

Just my 2c.

Just out of curiosity, what would this boon be? Would the out of work programmers have enough energy to keep innovating after washing dishes all day?

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

As long as that number of energetic people is bigger than one (the patent owner), then we are fine.

PS: I'm a programmer myself.

Regarding programs, there is a big difference between patents and copyright. The movement against software patents has quite a bit of support (while many such supporters--probably the vast majority--would still support copyright).

That's because Apple has a large influence in China.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12 ... erest.html

Hmm, we know that Proview definitely sold something called 'iPad' first, but it would just be too tough for the country to respect that!

http://www.latimes.com/business/technol ... ?track=rss

Oh... ok!

The greatest factor in these laws are corporations with lobbyists or other influencing parties... not what is actually correct or logical. I read that Robert knew who was distributing his books. Did he go after them? I would doubt it... the money needed for such a thing would far outpace what he earns anyway. Its set up that way on purpose.

Well, as I said before, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is immoral, since the laws that you mention restrict other people's use of their property.

Once upon a time, if a Northern abolitionist would speak to a Southern slave-owner, the latter would also get upset. He would say that he didn't care about a bunch of philosophical ideas and some wigheads in their ivory tower talking about liberty and equality; for him, the bottom line was that his property that he'd paid to acquire (and that someone else had worked hard to bring to the US) escaped or was helped to escape. And the people who helped it to escape were villains.

When I buy a book from you, I don't just buy a bunch of paper and ink. I buy the information on the book as well (I may also pay a little extra for the particular medium/carrier of information, for instance, hardback vs. softback vs. epub, but most of my money goes to the purchase of information). After I have bought it, I should be free to use it as I see fit. Otherwise, it's like arguing that after I bought a cookie-cutter from you, I only paid for the metal, not for the shape. And when I produced a bunch of cookies of that shape for free (or for pay) and distributed them among my friends, I have violated your rights to the shape.

The "pirates" merely create public libraries of the created work... after they have bought it from the original seller. Those people who want to buy the original seller's work to support him (or because they want a hard copy) are certainly free to do so.

Furthermore, as I have mentioned before, information is non-scarce. Property rights exist for the purpose or eliminating conflict (by that I mean not the physical argument, but conflicting claims) over property. They assign ownership to property based on the validity of claim, usually through homesteading.

But in the case when there is no scarcity, there is no conflict. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, if I light my taper from yours, you have not lost anything. So, what's the justification to use force to prevent me from lighting my taper? In fact, copyright creates scarcity when there was none to begin with, and that is another reason why it is immoral.

There is a much more detailed discussion about all of this (including a discussion of pro-IP arguments) in this monograph by Stephen Kinsella: http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

It seems to me that the key question is whether or not piracy reduces the incentive to produce material. My personal opinion is that it does, so it's beneficial to restrict it.

However, even if it doesn't, I think the rights of the creators should be respected - if they don't want their work to be distributed for free, it seems just to allow them the option rather than to force them to choose not publishing at all or having no control afterwards.

That's not at all the key question. This is a version of utilitarian pro-IP argument. To quote Stephen Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property" (http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf ),



Actually, if you read the monograph, Stephen Kinsella continues to show that it is not at all evident that IP increases wealth of the society. There are numerous transaction costs (whole legal departments devoted to copyright attack and defense), etc., which produce an enormous drain on the society. Then there is the fact that IP reduces creativity output by restricting people from using other's copyrighted ideas. Then there is the argument that writers who know they will continue to benefit from one-time sale of their book for the next 70 years are going to be less inclined to write more. In the times when music and art were not copyrighted, there were more works produced in these two areas than ever. Bach knew that he would get a one-time payment for each fugue he produced. Mozart knew that he would get paid for each concert of his work that he personally oversaw, but after a while, his profit would dwindle, requiring him to produce more works.

The goal is justice? What is just? Not allowing creators control over how their work is distributed? I think it's just for the creator (if desired) to get some profit whenever his/her works are enjoyed or used.

Ideas usually cannot be copyrighted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright# ... r_doctrine), and in the case of piracy there is no issue with using the ideas - I'm don't see why you are using that as an argument for piracy. The possible stopper effect on progress is certainly very interesting and complex (I'm not well-informed enough to have a solid stance on it yet), but I don't think it's relevant here.

The point you brought up regarding music and art is certainly interesting (though a giant "citation needed" for the claim that more works were produced - I'm inclined to just call BS). Piracy would likely still be detrimental even in the case of one-time payments because there would be less incentive to pay the same amount.

Absolutely; working 8+ hours a day programming consumes a kind of mental programming stamina that other kinds of labor do not. I know that when I was a student or working other jobs, all I wanted to do was get home and program, whereas nowadays, I hardly have any side projects anymore. So I know I would be producing vastly more free work if I weren't doing it for money. This is also the feeling of other programmers I know, although of course many of them work on more side projects than me regardless. I have always sort of figured other creative professionals have a similar experience, although I don't know whether or not that's the case.



That's certainly true. I happen to be fairly well against both, but a majority definitely favor some kind of software copyrights (maybe not a vast majority; the FSF is certainly popular enough.) In any case, copyright is more pertinent to the discussion.

Not once they sold it to someone for profit. After you sold me a pair of shoes, I can do whatever I want with them. I should be able to wear them, give them to someone as a present, or make copies of them and distribute the copies for free, even if that will diminish your future shoe sales. The shoes you sold me are mine. Saying that you sold me the shoes but not their shape, color, smell, texture (and taste?) is ridiculous. What did you sell me then -- a bunch of property-less cow skin?

So, if I am allowed to take a picture of the shoes you sold me and distribute it, why shouldn't I be allowed to take a picture of the book you gave me and distribute it? If you sold me a DVD with a song, and I memorized the song, do you now own the circuits in my brain where this song is stored?

Justice is protecting people's rights. I own something that I have bought from you. Unless you subscribe to the concept of property that Harry Potter's goblins seemed to have -- that any sale is really only rent.

First of all, organizations like Tolkien estate go with vengeance against someone who uses without their permission the world that Tolkien has created. Second, if you don't own the idea in the copy of the book that I bought from you and you don't own the paper and ink, what's the justification for stopping me from doing what I want with the book?

See here: http://mises.org/daily/4008

Also here:
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intelle ... gainst.htm
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201110 ... main.shtml

The burden of proving that piracy would be detrimental in reality is on you. There is no difference between making a one-time sale of an idea and one-time sale of anything else.

Not that it matters.

As someone seeking to change the status quo, I believe the onus is on you. The links you provided seem to be "I believe this is true, and here are some observations that may support my point" - I fail to see how these are any more trustworthy than my own observations (primarily with Chinese online novels piracy).

Prices would be much much higher if you expect to purchase the right to a work - creators are paid more than just the selling price of one copy :p

is intellectual property different to physical property?

_________________
North Lecale

Yes, absolutely. It is like apples and oranges really.

Physical item, you create it, it is yours. In your possession.

Intellectual property is a lot more complicated. If somebody has developed an idea, but they tell you, if you file before them there is a good chance you will become owner of that idea. It is more complicated than that of course. It is viciously complicated. It is complicated because companies lives are staked on it. Not just small companies, but ones that pull many billions in profits each year. A very long time ago it used to be about protecting individuals. Each time Disney's IP is about to lapse, the length of protection on the copy right law is extended. It used to be about protecting an individuals idea for a few years so he had exclusive rights, but the Disney lawyers are very powerful.

I am not an IP lawyer, but I do work closely with them... I file many IPs with the gov't per year. There are a lot of shenanigans.

There are companies that exist that make no product. They go to technical conferences and submit IP based on the talks given there. Then they contact the author of the talks with an ultimatum: license idea from us or we sue. It is all to common.

If I build a house, my children can live in it, pass it to their children, and on forever. Unless it is sold, my descendants will retain the exclusive right to its use for eternity. With few exceptions (including Mark Twain, I believe), no one thinks that intellectual property should work that way.

In that sense, we can reply to Mlund that we're all the beneficiaries of legally sanctioned piracy, and we're quite smug about it.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Not everybody thinks that land should work that way, either.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

It is different because it is not scarce.

You can ask: what is the point of property anyway? Why is it moral for me to restrict someone from using my property? The answer is that we desire to live in a non-violent society and minimize the amount of conflict. That is the goal of the law. That is why it makes sense to assign property rights -- to figure out whose claim on a piece of property is better, so that if a conflict arises, we can clearly see who the "winner" is.

This makes sense to do for scarce objects. For non-scarce objects, however, there is no conflict of use -- if you use my idea, it in no way precludes me from using it. So, what's the justification for me to prevent you from using it? (Especially since what I am doing is preventing you from using your physical objects, on which the idea is stored.)

The argument about sales, etc., is irrelevant, because you don't own potential future sales. Even if your sales drop as a result of my use of your idea, I did not steal anything that you owned.


The other problem is that ideas are simply properties of physical objects. They never exist without physical objects "holding them". To sell a book without selling information contained within is like to sell a rose without selling its red color, its smell, the softness of its petals.

So, if I listen to a DVD that you produced and memorized a song on the DVD, does it mean that you own a piece of my brain where this song is stored? Do I have to pretend I don't know the song?

No, since the status quo is that I own my hard drive. If you want to tell me that you own it, since I have a copy of your book on it, you have to prove that one follows the other.

It's like saying: "I own the TV in your bedroom." Who has the burden of proof?

As someone who has been the victim of piracy. I feel prompted to try to enter a little sanity here. I work on the GoGoD database, which also feeds into John Fairbairn's books, because he is able to use the data to back up his narratives. John creates unique information about the historical matches in Go and, naturally, feels aggrieved if that information is appropriated by others for their profit and his loss. I help to create a unique database from a number of sources, adding my expertise and knowledge to edit games to go into the database (I also buy a number of books and magazines for this purpose). All that I do is known to the Nihon Ki-in, the Kansai Ki-in, the Hanguk Kiweon and the China Qi-Yuan and I have been doing this for the past 19 years, first as a hobby and for the past 6 years full-time.

So what happens if someone comes along and successfully steals my work? Everybody probably loses, because I stop, John Fairbairn stops, SmartGo in the US stops updating databases (I may gain more time to read books and listen to music, but that is an unforeseen byproduct). The general user finds that any database he/she can get has loads of errors, is missing all the material John and I add and bad money drives out the good. We persist because we love the game and the scumbags who steal our product don't; they love the money they think they can make. When there are no new updates being produced, they will move onto some other market they can taint. If the Go books market was big enough or the database market the same, there would be enough money to protect it, but at the moment there is not. What there is is a general copyright protection of books and databases which allows us to work with some measure of reassurance. Both John and I complain about the constant appeals for free information (I often have to act as a buffer zone so that John is not constantly bothered for free translation work) but the Internet generation feels that everything should be given for nothing and the people who work to provide it should obtain their recompense by advertising or some form of charity. Unfortunately, that does not work in a niche market of a niche market. For the moment, the books and the databases and the equipment and the lessons that you get have to be paid for. When there is a better system in place, please let me know. Until then, we need to work in the real world.

Best wishes.

_________________
No aji, keshi, kifu or kikashi has been harmed in the compiling of this post.
http://www.gogod.co.uk

I don't know if you're joking in what you write here, or not. If I write a book, and somebody comes along, and takes the same book and sells it as there own, they can do this as it is now their intellectual property. If I buy an apple, and a man comes by, takes it, and sells it to another man passing, he can do this as it was his physical property. You are saying that intellectual labour is different to physical labour. Frankly that sounds like a kind of derivative, ridiculous bar room philosophy.

_________________
North Lecale