“The whole history of human culture evolves through copying, making tiny transformations (sometimes called “errors”) with each replication. Copying is the engine of cultural progress. It is not “stealing.” It is, in fact, quite beautiful, and leads to a cultural diversity that inspires awe.”

“All Creative Work is Derivative”? Of course everything is derivative. And of course the statists take copyrights to absurd lengths. But that doesn’t change the fact that a person has a right to their creative efforts, and that it is more than merely “derivative”. It is not “copying” that is the “engine of social progress”. It is building off the work of others, not simply repeating what they did. And the “tiny transformations”? Tiny? Well, not so “tiny” to those who aren’t able to do them, are they? And probably not so “tiny” to the creative geniuses who labor for years to make these “tiny” changes.

One would think by the implications of that quote that there is just a natural phenomena of literary and technological progression in the universe, and that the person who adds to it could have been anyone on Earth. After all, it’s just “copying” with “errors” and “tiny transformations”. No big deal. It’s like the lottery, and one day it will be your turn to introduce an “error” or “tiny transformation” into the equations of Einstein, and you’ll be the inventor of the Faster than Light Warp Drive. Just don’t expect payment for your “deriving”, though, as “copying” is “not stealing” in Nina’s world.

Funny how it’s not really like that. Funny how many try to “derive” and fail, never to be heard of. Funny how none of the “errors” most of us introduce don’t improve a thing. Funny how it’s the best and brightest who seem to “derive” the most in their “copying” with “tiny transformations”.

I don’t think Nina ever saw the movie “Flash of Genius”. An intermittent windshield wiper, a minor invention, “derived” from other existing technologies. But the inventor “derived” it, not another. He was owed payment, for his creative effort and his time and trouble. Certainly those who “copied” it charged for it, and did their best to stop any one else from “copying” it from them. Funny how that works. Funny how it didn’t look like an “error” in “copying”, either. Looked like he had an idea, and worked hard to create it.

One wonders how much more progress could have been made sooner, if Pythagoras and his group could have copyrighted their creations. As they could not, they created an elaborate secret society of mathematicians, so secret that most of what they discovered had to be re-discovered centuries later. Delaying the “deriving” of countless other ideas and technologies for the same length of time.

Cameron made something unique, and invested a lot of money to do so in order to make a profit: you are not prepared to pay his dues on it. That’s the only principle of importance.

Your ranting and raving aside, what you said that I responded to was that — quote — every pirate copy of Avator on somebodies else’s disk is potential income Cameron will never see — end quote –. So “some of them wouldn’t have paid to see it” is a perfectly valid response, showing your statement to be false. Now you’re changing your argument to something entirely different! How about stating an argument you’ll actually stand behind, and then see where we get to?

Me: But…but…it’s exactly the situation that you previously argued was theft!!

Mark: Oh sorry, did you say the first restaurant had IP over the pizza baking process?

No, I didn’t say that. I was responding to what you said, which I’ll quote for you again: when Peter Surda asked “What, exactly, was removed from Cameron’s possession?“, you responded “Income from his movie, Peter.”

If “taking income from his movie from his possession” is theft, then surely “taking income from his restaurant from his possession” is also theft? Alternatively, if “taking income from his restaurant from his possession” is not theft, as you’re now arguing, then surely “taking income from his movie from his possession” is not theft, either!

P.S. Peter, do you have a Paypal account where I can send you some money for quoting you? I figure Mark and I can just steal from each other’s posts in even amounts and we’ll be okay, but I don’t recall you ever stealing words from me.

Oh well, here I am stealing your words, so I guess that makes us even too

If the first pizza joint had been able to gain IP on cooking pizzas, the process, for whatever reason, then the second joint could not use that process.

What do you mean, “if”? Do they have to do something specific to be allowed to “gain IP” on something they’re the first to do? (I assume we’re talking here about the first person to cook pizzas–ever–not just in this particular town?) Don’t they just have it by default, in Rand-land?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

You’ll pay for a pizza, not to download a movie?

Pretend I’m the movie rental, tell me in your own words why you’re not going to pay me for this service I’ve bought, and brought to you? Don’t say you didn’t want the service, or I was mad to buy into it: you’ve just downloaded a movie from me: now why won’t you pay for it?

Both exchanges are identical.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

http://blog.mises.org/archives/011674.asp#c671023

You’ll pay for a pizza, why won’t you pay to download a movie?

Both exchanges are identical.

It’s best to enforce private property in a way that guarantees that thieves don’t copy IP. Stealing IP (which is the deliberate instantiation of any pattern that objectively–or subjectively maybe, but I think I’ll go with objectively, cause it sounds better–resembles another pattern) is a violation of property rights because, when we compare a scenario with and without IP rights, the scenario without IP rights means less money to the creator and less IP and the ultimate destruction of capitalism in a blaze of fire and brimstone–Mark said so!

But that’s not at all utilitarian, no. See, like KT said, stealing IP is kinda like rape, only the victim doesn’t know that she’s been raped. Also, there’s no risk of STD’s or pregnancy. Also, there’s no actual physical assault or crossing of easily discernible boundaries. It’s kind of like writing a story about raping a real person, and that’s bad too, because most people wouldn’t like it if they were raped even in a story.

(Okay, I’m done. It was fun arguing the other side though

You’re not paying me my dues.

It’s theft, pure and simple.

So?

You’ll pay for a pizza from either joint, why won’t you pay to download a movie?

Get in line, Bub. I’m still waiting for the royalties I DESERVE on his use of the letters “e” and “k.”

Which I own.

I’m saying ‘it’s best to enforce private property rights. That where this principle starts and ends.

You misinterpret the second part: Cameron made something, you’re prepared to use it, but not pay for it.

This stuff’s simple. Why make it complicated? (We know why don’t we: it gets you out of paying him).

Oh sorry, did you say the first restaurant had IP over the pizza baking process?

If so, not to the second one, if not, then fine.

Please elaborate on this.

Rubbish. It’s the anarchists who use the utilitarian excuse.

Let’s get to a point of agreement and go from there. You may see your view as non-utilitarian and we’ll make our way back to that. Do you agree with my assessment that you believe it’s best to enforce private property in a way that guarantees market share?

I’m using this statement of yours as the basis of my conclusion (emphasis mine):

Cameron made something unique, and invested a lot of money to do so in order to make a profit: you are not prepared to pay his dues on it. That’s the only principle of importance.

Oh sorry, did you say the first restaurant had IP over the pizza baking process?

If so, not to the second one, if not, then fine.

Well you should be, but of course we know you’re not.

And that is even more shameful.”

I’m sorry, Mark, I was very bad as an anti-IP thief (all I could ever think about was going online and finding books and music to steal), but I’ll try to do better. I won’t let these Nihlist whim-worshipping Kantians use their voodoo copying-wealth-destroying magic on James Cameron’s bank account. No sir. It’s you and me, noble capitalists against the dirty anti-IP socialist anarchists and their black magic.

“Well, that’s blatant idiocy if ever I saw it.”

No, you don’t get it. Mark’s got the right on this one. Read more Rand.

“What if Cameron, perhaps while on a trip to do an interview about his movie, saw a town without any nearby pizza supplier, and decided to invest some of his money in building a pizza restaurant in the town … Verdict please.”

Of COURSE they are guilty of theft. James Cameron homesteaded the idea of selling of pizza in that town just as surely as he homesteaded the right to reproduce his movie and any future actions that anyone takes after viewing it that could be construed as being directly, causally connected to the movie. I will not tolerate you thieves taking James Cameron’s pizza IP.

Come on, Mark, back me up on this one. You have to stick to your guns and make the case airtight or these guys are going to keep finding holes.

P.S. Peter, do you have a Paypal account where I can send you some money for quoting you? I figure Mark and I can just steal from each other’s posts in even amounts and we’ll be okay, but I don’t recall you ever stealing words from me.

But…but…it’s exactly the situation that you previously argued was theft!!

What a second handers back door that excuse is. What cold calculating bit of you refuses to see that?

Cameron made something unique, and invested a lot of money to do so in order to make a profit: you are not prepared to pay his dues on it. That’s the only principle of importance.

Incredible density of falsehood — I don’t think there’s a single true statement above!

“Every pirate copy of Avator on somebodies else’s disk is potential income Cameron will never see” — Nonsense. On the one hand not every person who downloads Avatar would have been willing to pay the monopoly price to see it (so that represents zero potential income lost to Cameron); on the other hand, some of the people who download it who would not have paid for it, will afterwards pay for it (that’s income Cameron would never have had otherwise!)

“the losses are exponential as the pilfering increases and the movie file is copied and copied and copied” — Nonsense. Nobody would pay the current price of an admittance to Avatar to see Gone With The Wind — even under monopoly conditions, the extractable value falls with time.

“The copy he has left is worthless to him” — Nonsense. He can still do with it anything he could have done with it before (including selling access to it! Yes, people still pay for stuff they can get for free!)

“as his ability to earn the rightful income from selling it has been stolen via the theft of IP” — Nonsense. Question-begging about “theft”, and what is the “rightful income”, pray tell?

I know what is removed by unauthorised copying. Your brain. Obviously you are unable to use it afterwards. The amount of idiocy that you bring into the debate is staggering. I actually thought you would be able to comprehend trivial logical steps. I underestimated your willingness to sacrifice rational thought and the only thing left for me is to pity you.