“ethical right” “ethical question” “ethical issue” “ethical choice” “ethically the right thing to do” “act ethically” “behaved ethically”

All that “ethics” sure looks funny amidst his favorite bit of lying propaganda:

“IP socialist”

When I say,

“So lets say respecting the ownership rights of the IP owners property rights is ethically the right thing to do. Let us assume this at this point.

Could every human in this world act ethically without causing a contradiction?”

I am only talking about the stages of production where one individual uses the product of another, not independent discovery.

Also when I said,

“But I know the argument again will go back to the argument from scarcity. As I pointed out many times, there is no other argument that is valid, but the argument from scarcity.”

I didn’t mean argument from scarcity is valid, but the other so called reasons and arguments given are not unique to IP but are also true for tangible goods, thus they can not be used to justify this IP socialism but only work to distract.

“If a person has a right to the fruits of their labors, then shouldn’t a person who takes an existing work or works and turns out new work also be entitled to the fruits of their labors? Society and culture in general have largely benefitted from the previous works and history of others so that each new generation does not have to start all over again from scratch–this is true in science, education, industry, etc., so why shouldn’t it also be true in culture and arts?”

Yes, but why not give the owners of the preexisting work his due?

Who, takes one raw material and makes finished product, all from the scratch?

What you are describing is “stages of production” and that is true for almost all goods and services that are being produced.

The difference when it comes to IP, is you claim you do not need the consent of the owner of the property that is used in this stage of production.

I concede to the fact that when it comes to stages of production of IP, the “semi raw material” that will be used may not be owned by someone at that time. Or maybe the owner is very hard to identify, and mistakes can be made.

But that is nothing like denying an ethical right.

If you use an existing work either you are aware of the existing work or you were subconsciously influenced by it.

If you are aware, either you can identify an owner or you can not.

If you can identify the owner, you either take his consent or not.

The ethical question regarding property here only comes into play on the third step. You either acknowledge the property owners right, or you deny it.

What IP socialist claim is that the owner doesnt have a property right over his property, when it comes to IP. This is an ethical issue.

Also all the practical real life problems of the world regarding IP is related on the ethical choice presented in the third step.

So lets say respecting the ownership rights of the IP owners property rights is ethically the right thing to do. Let us assume this at this point.

Could every human in this world act ethically without causing a contradiction?

Yes.

If everyone behaved ethically as formulated above, the problems or disagreements would be very very rare (only limited to the mistakes described in the steps above), as in the case of accidental trespass regarding land and can be handled in a very civil matter.

But I know the argument again will go back to the argument from scarcity. As I pointed out many times, there is no other argument that is valid, but the argument from scarcity.

With ip law it allows an inventor to as you say “protect” his effort. But what it also allows him to do is prevent competition. Which will ultimately mean higher prices and a less quality product.

Removing IP law will force the inventor to not only invent his good, but to invent with the most viable economic means available and offer the best deal to the customer.

Then you might think to argue, well then eventually you will have one place that sells the best products at the best prices. I would say to you that i look forward to it.

Keep writing, I find your articles interesting. Anna

Well, OK, sometimes you do lie me into a stupor, but I recover.

- – - –

Jock Coates: Wrong! “Obviously, it’s not meant to be taken literally, but refers to any manufacturer of dairy products.”

Are you saying that those who don’t agree with your fascist scheme wish to have a collective body assume “ownership” of everyone’s ideas? That is not true. We aren’t collectivists, you are: if you and Hubbard can’t lie the world into a stupor (and you can’t), you want us all to be robbed for policing to prop up your outmoded business model.

Tibuk inventing and then running away from another ridiculous analogy:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/011689.asp#c670711

Great when you point out the stupidity of one argument,

“hey if you are giving some free that means you didn’t have the right to own it in the first place”

They turn to the

“But one is scarce the other is not” argument.

My point is, there is one and only one argument for the IP socialist.

And that is the argument from scarcity.

The other so called arguments, like the ones I mentioned in my first posts, are nothing but distractions. Tools for the insecure IP socialist, who can not defend the original argument from scarcity but needs to show somehow that there are many many more reasons for IP socialism.

Well, there actually aren’t. And you are all right to feel insecure. Because the original argument from scarcity is not a valid argument either.

I believe would be forgers who do not manufacture their wares within a gnat’s whisker of the said geographical locations have to call their products things like “Greek style cubed cheese” or “Italianate hard stuff you grate over pasta that smells funny but tastes yum”.

We also offer the same privilege to certain sausage, or “northern English compacted pigs meat tubes”, makers and sparkling (probably even more faithful to the original recipe of Widow Cliquot and Dom Perignon) wines.

But at least the Yurrp Patent Office did not protect the cat exercising light…though I have submitted an application now!

So if there are any cheques being put in the post…

We did like the irony that immediately after reading the title, I had to read a copyright notice! Of course it needs to be done in order to stop someone else from claiming the copyright and preventing Mises and Stephan from then distributing it however they want to!

Jock

epicures, just sit back and eagerly await the wonderful world of government cheese.

that would be the freedom-lover’s model for sure.

next dud metaphor, please.

“Mr Kinsella you shouldn’t give away stuff for free, what incentive would you have to produce more of this kind of stuff.”

“Walking the talk.”

Juvenile arguments like these are actually the great way to undermine this IP socialism nonsense. W,th intellectual allies like these who would need opponents.

I wonder if there were socialists who point out that people sometimes give away their property thus they didn’t actually have any rights over private property at the first place.

Did a socialist ever go to the cheese section at the super market and said,

“But, but I thought private property was important. You shouldn’t give away anything for free, and if you do this proves private property is not necessary and evil”

Yes, but only sometimes… just as copyright abolition would “sometimes” kill true creativity (or its author).

What you need – according to Montesquieu – is a counter-incentive to the IP lobbying abuses in legislation.

If you’d bind copyright (no patent please) strictly to the author with no possibility for a third party like publishers, to ever acquire exclusivity to those rights (so in fact it’s a small restriction of copyright with potentially great effects: a publisher will not invest so much to artificially “make” an author as he cannot bind him legally – instead, publishers will tend to diversify more and offer better service that bind them “morally” to authors).

It gets more complex with cooperation works like movies, where many authors are working.
Basically, the composer would be able to market the movie score with a different label…
Most interesting: the script team would be able to sell – during production – its idea to another more talented director!

I’m confident most copyright abuses – as regularly criticized and illustrated by Mr Tucker – would vanish soon … while creativity would not likely be curbed, and most important: you’d have the whole artist community supporting that change of legislation!