Drugs or illness! What a choice. You are getting to be quite the hysteric. You must be speaking from personal experience! Still, what you have provided is sufficient to come to some conclusions about your approach to the argument.

You write: “When I say that something is “owned” – I refer to the definition of ownership that was provided by Ludwig von Mises (the standard definition).”

& yet you wrote: “Property is that which is legally owned by an individual or entity.”

Then you proceeded to assert your copyright on the basis of “legal ownership.” [your post of December 28]

You also claimed: “Everyone knows that (sic) “legally owned” means.”

Well, von Mises certainly did.

Prof Mises warns (in Human Action) not to confuse the source of or reason for ownership of property with a legal definition. That is, he made a clear distinction between the concept “legally owned” (ownership determined and subject to some government’s legislation) and real or actual ownership of property. He teaches that the law is not the source of property or its ownership. He goes further and demonstrates that the notion of “legal ownership” is used for socialist ends. It is a socialist construct designed to collectivise private property. [Sasha, you dirty pinko commie you!]

Were you aware of Mises position it is likely you would not have relied on the concept of “legal ownership” in deriving your copyright. You certainly wouldn’t have written about “legal ownership” in the way you did (hence resulting in my pulling you up and asking you questions about it). Therefore it is reasonable to suspect you do not know how Mises treated the definition and derivation of property or how he established ownership thereof. Further, you appear to be using socialist premise and argument to establish your copyright idea. Grave errors, indeed to be avoided.

It is vitally important to understand the first principle derivations of ideas such as copyright. You should by now have started to realise why. In this case it is likely you have not studied the source of the idea you promoted- merely accepted something and elaborated on it, building a tower of rationalisations founded on…. unexamined premise. In other words, your copyright argument was invalid at source (and you never checked).

I sense your frustration at being asked to go back to step one and work on derivation and validation. How tiresome it all must seem, at least until the terrible realisation dawns that it just may be that you can’t successfully undertake the task. Your intellectual honesty and personal integrity is measured on what you do as the result of that realisation.

To evaluate your idea and its legitimacy it is important to examine all those details that you were so determined to evade addressing. It is important to strip away the compartmentalisation, leave the isolated concretes aside for the moment and work directly with the core principles & premise supporting or refuting the proposal (the idea or system you are interested in). Deal with the fundamentals, they are extremely important.

And so where does that leave matters now? Well, for a start it is to be recommended you read some of von Mises’ work and think about it really, really carefully. Secondly, the take home message is that you have not been able to demonstrate a watertight chain of logic from reality to your copyright assertion. You can’t derive it properly as the chain is broken at source (you accepted faulty premise). I suspect there are several other failures of logic inherent in the promotion of your copyright idea but we have not yet examined them in any detail as yet. For example, it is necessary to address and identify what attributes must be exhibited for an entity to be properly regarded as property. And so on.

Lastly. There is that old saying, “Bad in practice. Bad in theory.” You should consider the practical implications and applications of your theory. A number of serious problems present themselves to undermine it.

Sione

: )

: )

Don’t be so retarded. Everyone knows that “legally owned” means. It’s a shame you don’t – so you have to blab about nothing…. I mean – what did you try to say with all that gibberish about ideas? You say: “attempts to practice such nonsense inevitably and consistently result in catastophe, ruin and disaster.”

You’re probably high on drugs, or just ill.

—–

Greg,

Learn difference between a crime and a tort. If you cause a car-accident, it is not a crime, but you will still have to pay for the results of your actions.

As far as ideas go, they can be witten down or turn into physical and ownable. Of course that you can own a piece of paper or some othe hardware that is scarce when it contains some valuable idea (whose demand exceeds supply if price was set to zero). On the other hand, air is not ownable (it’s not scarce). Your economic ignorance prevents you from understanding why common speech is not copyrightable.

Actually, you finally said something right. You aren’t treating them like criminals, you are treating them like your victims. The person intentionally doing harm is you.

SR> …ideas can be turned into physical object or a part of it. Don’t busy yourself with “non-physical ideas,…”

Ideas are always non-physical, that is exactly the characteristic that makes them infinitely replicable. Ideas are non-scarce in the manner that they don’t have the rivalry problem. That’s why people who have ideas (which they believe are unique) want the state to impose scarcity upon actual physical goods via copyright/patent. The very act of people seeking to have the state impose copyrights and patents upon actual physical goods should tell even the most clouded intelligence that ideas are not rivalrous scarce and thus they are not property. The “infinitely replicable” characteristic is exactly why ideas are nothing like property. The fact that people act on an idea and thus manifest an idea in a physical object is irrelevent to the nature of ideas themselves.

SR> And sorry about lapses like than=then… I write too fast.

That is the least of your problems.

FM> Any sentence which begins “Ideas can be owned when …” (or some variation) is incorrect.

Exactly. It immediately self-contradicts; Not that such a rudimentary logical problem will pose any barrier to the stubborn.

SR> When written down, this content (idea) becomes something ownable.

You need to establish ideas as property. It is rudimentary to your task. You have not done so. And according to you, why not make all speech copyrightable? After all, speech is physical: compressions and rarefactions of the air. Just because spoken speech doesn’t have the same lifetime as a piece of paper, so what (speech is undeniably physical)? Where does the arbitrary lifetime rule kick in?

Your idea about ideas is ludicrous. But I’ll grant you “ownership” of it. I sure want nothing to do with it.

You have now proved that you are unable to answer direct questions put to you (for example, you can’t explain what you mean by “legally owned”). That’s a shame as it means that your ideas and system of thought are baseless- floating abstractions. A system built on nothing (such as yours) is all very well but it can’t be considered valid in dealing with reality. It may seem to you a nice proposition or suposition but in the end it isn’t anything more than that and can’t be taken as truth (that is, as correct), hence it is invalid, worthless. In this regard it is you, Sasha the slav, who share aspects of thinking with communist intellectuals.

What you have is a tower of ideas based on your own assertion. It all looks very twee and nooice. And in isolation or as an abstract theory it may seem to be very tidy and clever but attempts to practice such nonsense inevitably and consistently result in catastophe, ruin and disaster. Tragic. Bad in practice, bad in theory. Your nonsense would be terrible when reduced to practice. What a mess. As bad as the present patent system, maybe worse.

You do have to provide the fundational derivations for YOUR ideas and you do have to answer directly the questions put to you. That’s because it is you who assert the positive. In the absence of your ability to answer, your ideas can’t be shown to be valid. You are the one making the claims and assertions remember.

Now go back, re-read the questions and make an honest attempt to answer. How hard can it be?

Sione

PS you could always concede that you can’t do the derivation. In that case go as far as you can and show where the problem lies. That way that problem could be considered.

1. “Sale” does not have to imply change of ownership title over goods. You forget that services are also sold – and they are not alienable. The copyright contract can state that the owner sells his services, by allowing you to use your book in limited fashion.
2. YOU GOT IT! Copyright ABSOLUTELY has no place in a transaction where ownership is transferred (sale). That’s what I was telling you all along. These kind of (expensive) transactions are usually reserved for publishers, not regular users.
3. YOU GOT IT FINALLY! Copyright is perfectly valid in any rental transaction (sale : ).
4. Copyright proponents are free to advertise their services – and if their contract explains exactly what’s been advertised, there is no fraud.
5. Market is free to abandon copyright right now, but, in most cases, it chooses not to do it. I explained the reasons already.

—-

Fred,

I insist on talking about tort – because that’s all it matters when it comes to lawsuits that unauthorized copies (fruit of the trespass). Opening the book to find an owner, or entering someone’s property to save life… that’s not what we talk about here.

I don’t care about metaphysics of “idea ownership.” It is irrelevant. Idea is content of cognition that can be stored on something that we own (either our brain or our hardware). When written down, this content (idea) becomes something ownable.

ANYWAY,

I’m not introducing any new standards of tort. You’re just not good with that concept. Whether some book is blank or full – mislaid property is someone else’s and unauthorized use is an unauthorized use. Of course that things change when book has some content – the “finder” can use his unauthorized use to produce copies and cause tort to the rightful owner (in loss of earnings). That’s how it is. Give it up.

“I told you, opening a book under those circumstances is not a tort and that’s what matters. ”

If you reread my post, you will see I never even mentioned tort.
I am just trying to establish if you think opening a book is GROUNDS for a tort. Remember a tort has two components — damage AND wrongdoing — i.e violation of some statute, law, duty, responsiblity, etc..
Anyway, it appears that the answer is “yes”.
Now on to idea ownership …
Ideas are NEVER ownable. Period. Ideas only exist in the mind. We can attempt to convey the ideas through spoken words/written symbols or create physical objects which resemble the things in our mind’s eye, but these physical things are not the ideas themselves. They are not ideas which have been “turned into physical objects”, as you say. Any sentence which begins “Ideas can be owned when …” (or some variation) is incorrect.
Your confusion here may be leading you to believe that book ownership means something more than the ownership of paper and ink. But it does not. But if you believe it does, then you might be justified in saying that I was guilty of some wrongdoing by opening and/or reading the book. But I am not.
To illustrate, imagine that the book was just comprised of bound pieces of blank paper (for writing or whatever). I could not conceivably be accused of violating any duty/law/civic responsibility/etc. by opening the book left on MY property (an “unauthorized use” of my property, no less — ha ha.). But, according to you, as soon as we put some writing on these pages, things change. We now have, as a society, a duty to not open a lost or mislaid book. But why? How can you justify this without referring to some general IP standard which applies to the society as a whole?
Since you are trying to create some special new duty/law/standard as grounds for a tort, you would need to provide justification for that. Remember, MY standard — return the item to the owner in the condition it was when it was found — works for EVERYTHING … except your scheme. So to put it another way, you would have to show why my standard is not reasonable/consistent with private property rights.

This may be pointless, but let me explain my position:
1. Sale is the transaction where ownership is transfered.
2. Copyright has no place in a transaction where ownership is transfered (sale).
3. Copyright is perfectly valid in any rental transaction.
4. Proponents of copyrights are free to advertise that they have products for rent. They can’t trick (fraud) costumers by saying their products are for sale.
5. Then, let the market decide which type of transaction will perdure (or if both coexist).
What’s wrong with that?

No one cares what “sale” means to you in a particular context, if there are expressed terms that specify what is exactly sold there.

After all those insane attempts to justify contract violations with “third…, fourth…, fifth…” parties – as well as Cosmin’s “crossed fingers” – it has all now come down to a subjective interpretation of word “sale” in communication with sellers – meaning that the validity of copyright contract is no longer in question.

I will refer to any of your postings – not just new ones (until you clearly reject the old ones and say that they were incorrect)…

By the way, there is no need for that “FINALLY” charade – I kept saying the same things, over and over again. I’m not the one who asks people to refer only to my newest posting.

TO GET TO THE POINT:
“Sale” does not have to imply exchanges of the ownership title over some particular good. You can sell your services, like allowing someone to use your book in contractually specified manner. If your written copyright disclaimer states that you are NOT purchasing the ownership title over that product and that you have specific terms of use – you will have to respect those. Is that so hard?

“- there are transactions in which ownership title over some seller’s good is transferred to the buyer. Since this buyer is now the legal owner over that good, that means that he is now in “full control of the services that can be derived from a good”". That’s what is called a sale.

“UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, copyright does not refer to these kinds of transactions.”
FINALLY! In other words, when you sell something, you can’t impose copyright restrictions. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you since last year!

“Show me how you would find “invalid” clause in any copyright product!” Easy. If the shopkeeper says the product is for sale, what that automatically means is that you acquire “full control of the services that can be derived from a good”. Hence, no copyright can exist on said product. For a copyright to exist, the shopkeeper would simply have to say the product is for rent. Is that so hard?

By “invalid clauses in contracts”

You actually mean this (these are your words): “Person B dismissively promises to abide by M in order to avoid wasting time arguing…”

That is nothing but a fraud and theft. SALE includes exchanges of both goods and services – and you cannot unilaterally dismiss someone’s price (asked goods and services from you), but keep his good and treat it as your property.

Anyway, that still has nothing to do with copyright (only with your ignorance). How would you apply your insane notion of “invalid clauses” copyright?
- Someone says that he does not give up his property title over some product and that he will only allow you to use that product in certain ways for specified compensation (in money and damages in cases of contract violation)… but you decide to assume you are the owner of that good and that you get to pay only a part of the price that you find “reasonable.” I mean, how else would you apply your nonsensical “final sale” ramblings to copyright??? I’m just asking here, don’t attack me… Just give me an example!

Show me how you would find “invalid” clause in any copyright product! (This is really refreshing after anarcho-communists failed to justify tort as a mean to bring down the copyright).

You are even more ignorant than I thought. You said:

—-
“there exists a certain type of transaction that is final and accepts no condition to be placed on the use of the product involved in the exchange.”
—-

You poor soul, there can be a final transaction on rent as well (some people get stuck with their rent contracts)… but that’s not even important…

What you probably meant to say is following:
- there are transactions in which ownership title over some seller’s good is transferred to the buyer. Since this buyer is now the legal owner over that good, that means that he is now in “full control of the services that can be derived from a good” (L. v. Mises, H.A.).
OF COURSE THERE ARE TRANSACTIONS LIKE THAT! Didn’t we talk about it when we mentioned co-ownership or full ownership, in which a publisher (unlike a common user) has the full control over his good.

UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, copyright does not refer to these kinds of transactions. The ownership title over copyrighted item is kept by the author or publisher in this case. The purchaser only buys the service that can be derived from the personal use of that product. It’s like any rent. The owner has a right to ask for the price for the specific use of his item, and he has the ownership right to restrict some unwanted uses.

IS THAT CLEAR NOW? Well, probably not to you.

“You advocate breaking contracts by declaring (unilaterally) that some conditions that were perfectly good for you at the time of purchase”
What I said: “What I do advocate is identifying invalid clauses in contracts”

“are no longer “valid”"
What I said: “there exists a certain type of transaction that is final and accepts no condition to be placed on the use of the product involved in the exchange.”
The condition was never valid, since it was written on a SALE contract.

Answer me this simple question:
Why is it so hard for you to put the Sale contract back in the drawer and pull out a Rental contract if you want to put conditions?

Honestly, do even know how to read? Would you have written your last message if I hadn’t written mine? I would think not. Hence, you wrote in reply to it. Why is it then that you don’t address anything in it, but rather resurrect long-spent arguments that have since been explained and clarified? You’re turning in circles, man! I would stop wasting my time with you, but it’s just too damn funny. It’s like a trainwreck that one can not avoid staring at.

And sorry about lapses like than=then… I write too fast.

——

Anyway Cosmin, don’t you think it’s time to stop with those crazy insinuations about my positions? Just admit that you cannot invalidate some market exchange contract, by changing your mind about the price you’re going to pay, but still insisting on taking someone else’s good or service. State any definition of enforceable contracts and I will justify the copyright as such. It would perfectly hold in common law, so just give it up.

You are so ridiculous. If both parties voluntarily accept a free market contract (terms of exchange) only someone as daft and dense as you would call this “unilateral modification”. Hey Einstein, I don’t accept any one-sided modifications of contract after both parties terms in which they exchange property titles.

And now you have problem with rent and conditions that some owner can ask from their property’s users (who are free to decline or accept these terms). You ask WHY. Well, because people are free to do with their property whatever they want (as long as they don’t violate someone else’s property with that) and they can exchange their property, goods and services, however they see proper.

Anyone can read what you wrote. You advocate breaking contracts by declaring (unilaterally) that some conditions that were perfectly good for you at the time of purchase (you accepted them) are no longer “valid” – but your control over their product is perfectly “valid” for you. That is called FRAUD.

You can’t rent a car, and than decide you own it. You can’t promise to pay one price, get the product, and than run-away with paying only one part. You even stated that you would accept some terms of exchange just to “to avoid wasting time arguing…” and than feel free that you can change them however you see fit. Only someone completely out of their mind would even say something like that.