I read all seven of your posts. Apart from the logical fallacies contained in them, they are merely a rehash of long-refuted assumptions. Use of metaphors, labour theory of value, inability to depart from unprofitable business models, admitting current system has problems but offering no explanation about how to fix them, trying to beat logic with emotions and so on. I don’t know whether you have not read the anti-IP arguments or merely didn’t comprehend them, but that’s something you have to solve, not me.

If you are referring only to “copying” of the entirety of the story do you think it’s ok if a story is copied verbatim 99% but not 1%? At what point is copying “too much” for you. You have said what your argument is not, but you haven’t said what your argument is. Your argument even says “No one has the right to an idea of another.” An idea is far far less than a book, so you seem to be arguing that even the concept of the book “zombie apocalypse” is own-able and therefore anyone who writes a similar story should pay the one who wrote the original.

The problem is, you then go on to say… “my actual argument does not lose any merit, just for you assigning an extra argument to me” meaning that your argument presumably has nothing at all to do with ideas, but just whole books.. or.. something. Your argument is muddled by your inability to state it as you mean it. Or perhaps you are being intentionally deceptive by changing it to “defeat” any argument to the contrary.

But a best selling author is. What is that, if not the free market acting to show us all that some ideas/books have value apart from the materiels they are wrote on?

“Value” is not the criteria for what is and is not property. The air has value, you have to breathe it to live. Is it then, also, own-able? In our present state on the surface it isn’t. It is not own-able because it is not scarce. Whether or not something has value has absolutely nothing to do with it being own-able.

If you are going to make this argument that things that are valuable should be own-able you should stop rejecting the ownership of specific words as you did in your response to Paul. You couldn’t make your argument without words, thus those words have value, and so you should go back and pay the descendants of everyone who came up with the English language. If this isn’t your argument at all, why do you bring up the “value” of ideas?

If I believe that a creator has say over his creation, then I must of necessity believe in all the statist silliness about infinite copyrights, right? Of course.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this. Considering you go on to partially state your argument isn’t what he thinks it is, I think you don’t agree with infinite copyright terms.

1) States generally don’t have infinite copyright terms
2) If you don’t believe in infinite copyright terms then your argument based on value and your argument based on copying loses the merit of being a principled argument, and you really should be making a utilitarian argument instead.

Utilitarian arguments are fine, but it’s completely up to you to prove that we need this to forsake all of our freedoms to copy for the sake of our own benefit. You also need to clearly define what we can and can’t copy before that so we know what we are giving up and getting for that.

I get it. If I believe that a creator has say over his creation, then I must of necessity believe in all the statist silliness about infinite copyrights, right? Of course. Then you can come in and make a funny point about how since I didn’t pay a fee to the descendants of the people who first thought of the word “What” or “a” or “sophistries”, my actual argument thus falls to the ground.

But, unfortunately for you, my actual argument does not lose any merit, just for you assigning an extra argument to me and demolishing that. You could as easily have assumed any number of things about me and demolished those unexpressed and unheld ideas of mine.

Dean

What sophistries do I see employed to keep a man from owning his own creation! No one has the right to an idea of another. You rather have the right to do the same work he did to come up with it – or make a deal with him on his own terms.

Sorry Dean, but you can’t say that. This is not your idea. Other people have come up with this idea before and you have not asked their permission.

But then we get back around to the tired argument that “copying isn’t theft” as the author still has his original. I’ve felt it to be a poor jest to pretend to believe that there is no value in a specific idea – for if that were true, then why do people copy some ideas and not others? The 10 year old writing his own fanfic story in crayon is in little danger of being “copied”. But a best selling author is. What is that, if not the free market acting to show us all that some ideas/books have value apart from the materiels they are wrote on?

And how is it that the same person who wrote this article on the “mark” has wrote of how if we forbid copying, it’s controlling another’s ink? Seems to me then that under his proposed system, one could have a “mark” that looked very much like an “author’s mark”/”creator’s mark”, but was not. That would not be fraud then, would it? Caveat emptor, and all that?

What sophistries do I see employed to keep a man from owning his own creation! No one has the right to an idea of another. You rather have the right to do the same work he did to come up with it – or make a deal with him on his own terms.

1. Sea life is constantly on the move, that means that the property would be worthless unless by some sheer dumb luck their are fishes in the property line. I mean your basically treating sea life like they where cows.

2. If you sold to the fisherman than you would lose billions of dollars in revenue from the oil

3. Even if you did try to sell to the oil companies, you would be forced to sell it below the actual value, as the oil companies don’t have billions of dollars lying around. B.P has been forced into a selling a lot of assets to cover the cost of the disaster

MMS has no legitimate claim to the land and therefore no right to sell it to the oil companies. Legitimate claim is the fisherman, and yes, the oil companies too on the parts of it that they have been using.

By legitimate I am referring to Lockean property theory, perhaps not fully developed in context of ocean ownership, but certainly more valid than the government monopolizing the ocean.

Now, once you’ve established rights to the oceans, yes it’s true some fishermen might let themselves get bought out by oil companies, but not all of them would do this, and the oil companies wouldn’t be able to pay enough to do that for everyone.In any case, once you have ownership you have self-interested stewards. Sure, some fishermen might be involved with the oil business, but if the oil screwed up their livelihood they are now out of business, and a better steward comes into play. With MMS, there is no better steward coming.

We are going to complain, write new regulations, etc. but once the political cycle is over and interest from the public wanes you’ll see MMS go back to the same old thing because it has no self interest.

This is all basically about economic calculation. The government can’t do it. A good place to read on this is here: http://mises.org/econcalc/ch2.asp

And as far as the current fishing companies, they suffer from exactly the same lack of property, so no reason to take care of what they are using. The ocean’s are truly a case of “tragedy of the commons.” The solution is to eliminate the commons and institute property rights. Anything else is destined to fail.

“I would never, have never given a dime to anyone that I knew was selling a bootlegged anything. I think that’s a pretty common attitude and could be even more so in the future.”

Most of what we are talking about is free rather than horribly made copies produced for a fee.

I’m not talking about fraudulent copies, which I agree with you is absolutely still a crime, and I agree with you that much of bootlegging is that. The customer has no idea what he’s getting is not the same as the real thing. And I agree with you entirely that anyone doing that is 100% wrong for doing so.

The whole point of the creator endorsed mark is to promote those who are doing something on behalf of the author/artist/what-not. This said, certainly you are going to find that there are those who make copies available (just as now) for free, for a significantly lesser fee, etc.

Now if this person who is making copies available isn’t violating a contract with the author/artist/etc. then they aren’t doing anything wrong. They may simply be sharing something with a friend or even perceive themselves as helping advertise for the author/artist/etc.

Now I’d argue if they are making copies available specifically to undercut the person or to hurt them, that’s definitely not ok, but this isn’t what I’m referring to at all.

(A good example of what I’m referring to in physical objects is fake Rolex’s. If the buyer knows he’s getting a fake one, I don’t see anything at all wrong with him buying a cheaper “Rolex” if that’s what he’s into and he doesn’t have the money for the real thing. It’s not what I’d do, it sounds like it’s not what you’d do, but some people will do that and I don’t see anything wrong with it).

My point is this: I was pretending I was you and believed that might makes right.

All relations not including assault, theft (of actual property, not of your ideas, not of your job, not of your imagined right to make a living in any way you can think of), and fraud can all be carried out on a completely voluntary basis. One is only “compelled” to not commit these crimes. And you use “compel” in a strained and dishonest fashion. I remember you before using “coerce” in this way. You are one sad little amateur propaganda artist. Give it up, or find some more little league.

To risk hearing the overused: “No True Scotsman!”: An “anarcho-capitalist court” that decided such a thing would not be a court made up of anarcho-capitalists.

Anyway, brothers, please stop with all this Commie crap. No one here wants to devise a system to make all profit equally from your creations. If that were the case and you were say a musician, we’d take for redistribution all of the gate at your concerts. That’s your supposed protectors that take a healthy share of it for that Bolshy reason (when you can’t hide from them).