1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13431/ip-comix/

IP Comix

July 30, 2010 by

Nina Paley has created a wonderful page of IP-related comics. Here is a sample.

{ 23 comments }

Steven Handel July 30, 2010 at 9:00 am

Hysterical!

Abhilash Nambiar July 30, 2010 at 9:15 am

They are many more in her website. They are all good. I specially like this one

http://ninapaley.com/mimiandeunice/archives/censorship/181

Curt Howland July 30, 2010 at 9:48 am

You got permission before posting that comic, right?

ama-gi July 30, 2010 at 11:21 am

This is the best comic I’ve seen on IP.

Artisan July 30, 2010 at 11:42 am

The best one on her site was that about “love”, I found.
Still: would she be debunking patent instead of copyright… she would get more fame.

Bruce Koerber July 30, 2010 at 12:16 pm

The comics are the only thing I will miss when the newspapers go broke. It is great to have internet access to comics. Again the possibilities are astounding.

Curt Howland July 30, 2010 at 12:26 pm

Bruce, I couldn’t agree more. And what variety, even leaving out the ones that are “not safe for work”!

A few of my favorites,

Sinfest:
http://www.sinfest.net/

User Friendly:
http://www.userfriendly.org/

Dreamland Chronicles:
http://www.thedreamlandchronicles.com/

Freefall: (HIGHLY recommended)
http://freefall.purrsia.com/default.htm

Escape from Terra: (libertarian scifi)
http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft

J. Murray July 30, 2010 at 12:27 pm

Apart from the fact that the average newspaper comic has ceased being entertaining decades ago, there are a number of cellular phone applications (Android, Blackberry, iPhone, etc) that exist which gatheres pretty much every newspaper comic strip in the nation and provides them, without a cost to the end user beyond looking at a small advertisement, straight to your phone. The one I have runs classic cartoons as well such as The Far Side and Calvin and Hobbes.

Further, I’ve found the Internet-only comics to be far more entertaining than the newspaper variety. Internet comics aren’t limited to a three-panel format since they don’t have to worry much about paper real estate. Further, Internet based comics have a larger variety of themes when compared to the home-town paper. A few of my personal favorites are Axe Cop and The Adventures of Dr. McNinja. They’re incredibly creative and I have rarely come across one I didn’t like.

Really, newspapers are dead. Everything they do is done on the Internet, including the daily dose of Garfield.

Bruce Koerber July 30, 2010 at 6:19 pm

Dear J. Murray,

Thanks. From a PC how is the best way to access what you mentioned above?

BioTube July 30, 2010 at 7:49 pm

KDE has a widget that lets you plop a comic right on the desktop.

Kerem Tibuk July 31, 2010 at 1:25 am

Fitting, since all arguments of IP socialists are based on caricatures of straw men they create to beat it down.

Dale Cooper July 31, 2010 at 11:28 pm

Socialists? Wrong. Look in the mirror. Who is the one commanding that I pay for a communized gang to protect the aired secrets of another economic actor? Must I also protect the pipeline which some corporation decided to build in a hostile corner of the globe? How is this supposed constitutional government supposed to fund itself, if not via socialist coercion? If it’s not bad enough that I’m compelled to fund your socialist protection agency, SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that they owe you “no duty to protect” as in Warren vs. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981) h/t Free Talk Live. I loved Atlas Shrugged. Perhaps an Objectivist should learn to take seriously Galt’s Agorism and the non-aggression principle when it comes to the market for justice.

Dale Cooper July 31, 2010 at 11:47 pm

Kerem’s term “IP socialist” befuddles me more after every glance. Could you please define? Perhaps we agree after all. Because libertarian IP theory is swiftly reaching a turning point, that epithet could be used by theorists of either movement. I believe I made it clear whom I believe the true socialists to be.

Kerem Tibuk August 2, 2010 at 8:18 am

If you advocate to socializing of privately produced property you are an IP socialist.

For example, Harry Potter was written by some individual. You claim, the novel can not be the property of Rowling and should belong to the whole society. Hence you are an IP socialist.

If you advocated the socialization of all the factors of production you would not be just an IP socialist but a Marxist socialist or socialist in the general sense.

Also, claiming IP rights require a state is another straw man.

Kerem Tibuk August 2, 2010 at 8:18 am

Oh, and if you advocated land could not be priate property you would be a Georgist Socialist.

Russ August 2, 2010 at 8:26 am

Kerem Tibuk wrote:
“If you advocate to socializing of privately produced property you are an IP socialist.

For example, Harry Potter was written by some individual. You claim, the novel can not be the property of Rowling and should belong to the whole society. Hence you are an IP socialist.”

No, you’re begging the question. In other words, you’re simply assuming that the novel qualifies as property. If it in fact does, then yes, a person who is anti-IP is an IP socialist. But if the novel doesn’t qualify as property, he’s not. So, given the context that mises.org is a libertarian site, and most people here consider the word “socialist” a pejorative, you’re not being objective. You’re just name-calling. It won’t help convince anyone that you are right.

Kerem Tibuk August 2, 2010 at 9:13 am

Well, one can classify any good or service as not being legitimate property and also call himself libertarian.

What if Kinsella and his gang claimed that apples couldn’t be property because they are not oranges and made compelling case that apples are indeed not oranges?

What if then?

Would I be in the name calling if I called them apple socialists?

Or what if some people claimed factors of production can not be property, thus when you call them nasty names like “socialist” will you be in the business of name calling? I guess not, because those socialists were more honest and they weren’t feeling ashamed of what they were advocating.

In short,

I am assuming IP is property just as Kinsella and the like are assuming IP is not property. Who says Kinsella will define the default definition?

J. Murray August 2, 2010 at 8:42 am

J. K. Rowling couldn’t have written Harry Potter without the following:

1. Prior works for her to steal from. Rowling’s sole source of creativity is making up odd sounding names. But I can do that, too, by banging on the keyboard randomly and filling in vowels where needed. Here, watch: Hiaoiwani, the good Wizard. Lord Vanqup, the evil Wizard. Xylij, some random monster thing. Wow, I just made Harry Potter characters.

2. A huge taxpayer subsidized grant. She wasn’t a poor woman who crawled out of obscurity, she was paid by the British government to write it, so it’s technically already social property in that regard.

The ultimate debate is whether or not something that has no limited supply, no tangible form, can be considered property. I can’t steal Rowling’s lame excuse of an idea becuase she hasn’t lost it. She still has the lame excuse of an idea. My use of the idea has in no way impaired her ability to use it, taken it, made it unusable, or any other such thing. As such, calling it property when it fails to meet any definition of property is a hard sell.

Peter Surda August 2, 2010 at 10:26 am

Theory of Claims on Causality.

Amanojack July 31, 2010 at 3:16 am

Best anti-IP comic ever. Lays the absurdity bare even for the sound-byte addicted crowd. Someone get this on Digg and Reddit.

Bruce Koerber July 31, 2010 at 9:52 am

The Ethics Of Intellectual Property.

There are no property rights of otherworldly ‘things.’ No one owns gravity or love or peace or time or inception or magnetism or grace. The invisible world where ideas come from is infinite and is available for discovery by the pure entrepreneuial spirit that is characteristic of humans.

When the idea is brought into the visible world criminals try to seize control of it by ego-driven interventionism and try to justify their crimes by ego-driven interpretation.

The source is beneficent, the interventionist is greedy. The source is where the potential for the prosperity of humanity comes from, the interventionist is the cause of relative impoverishment.

Per-Olof Samuelsson August 1, 2010 at 4:33 am

Strawman argument! An idea cannot be copyrighted, only the material form it takes (such as a manuscript – or even a blog comment).

I have argued this point in Swedish. If you want an English version, I have to ask to be paid for it; otherwise it is a waste of time.

Copyright © 2010 Per-Olof Samuelsson. Permission to reproduce this is hereby granted, provided I am acknowledged as the source of this comment.

Paul Vahur August 1, 2010 at 9:54 am

It is good to know that you argued for it only in Swedish. Let it rot there.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: