Another posting entirely dedicated to my persona (as you see it), with some disturbing fantasies about my sex that say more about you that anyone cared to know – but you haven’t said a single thing that would contradict me.

You also have no clue about 40 million sold items in terms of revenue and power (if market for law enforcement was privatized). Plus, there is no reason why would privatized copyright be less efficient than government’s monopoly.

Plus, before Dr. Kinsella can talk about “the distinction between scarce and non-scarce things,” he should first start considering the economic definition of scarcity, where it comes from and how it is applied. http://blog.mises.org/archives/006035.asp#comments

Anyway, everyone here knows that copyright pertains to terms of use of real, ownable goods and not something “non-scarce” as you maliciously state.

Sasha says:

If I have a supermarket chain that is annually visited by millions of people, and then someone starts shoplifting, who am I going to sue?
Who is sued now, for any tort, in this country?

Sasha is utterly clueless. S/he does not realize the distinction between scarce and non-scarce things. Sasha does not or cannot see that s/he is begging the question.

: )

Of course not, I’m just kidding.

What kind of silly question is that?

If I have a supermarket chain that is annually visited by millions of people, and then someone starts shoplifting, who am I going to sue?
Who is sued now, for any tort, in this country?

You think that with 40 million copies sold I will not have an incentive and resources to invest into protection of my vast property? Think again. If copyright was completely privatized, you would have much more efficient and competitive market in firms that would provide better investigations and enforcement.

Nothing that humans do is perfect – and our current government’s copyright business is just like any other government’s business. Nevertheless, anarcho-communism that anti-IP clowns advocate (freedom to commit tort and breaches of contracts based on personal “needs”) is not an option.

——-

I responded to this many times before.

Something that can be produced “similarly,” when someone only “gets to know about it” (without actually handling the product) – is not a reproduction and cannot be called copyright violation. That is all part of independent discovery and not unauthorized use of someone’s product.

On the other hand – if third party does, beyond reasonable doubt, reproduce my distinctive product (such as my book) I will then hold my buyer accountable according to our contract that prevents “any unauthorized use.” Contracts don’t ever excuse you for allowing some third party to cause your violation of terms; otherwise, there would be no private property rights (third parties would have a license to trespass). You cannot accept a limited use of my product – and than offer your son (third party) the unlimited use of it.

If the third party obtained my product by theft from the buyer – it’s a tort issue (someone’s unauthorized use of my product caused financial injury) – not a breach of contract.

Only by the buyer. If a third party gets to know about it, he can produce a similar product.

I argued that when someone’s product (physical creation) is owned:
a) the owner has the right to sell only the limited use of that product, which would restrict any unauthorized replication of it
b) if someone steals this person’s creation – trespassers will have to pay for their unauthorized use and tort they cause (such as loss of earnings in the amount of unauthorized copies that otherwise/legally would have been purchased from the author, etc.)

You see that there is an argument against your meaningless statements. It’s a matter of simple demonstration which shows that you lied about my position – and that you still have to make-up some fake arguments that nobody here even mentioned – just so you can “refute” them.

Regards.

How nice.

Anyway, why would I want to distinguish >>”right-based ideas” from “non-right based ideas” as ideas are related to means of production.<

Serious question: Are you well? There is no reason for me to argue that a process is “owned,” or that idea (per se) is owned. I explained that at the beginning of my discussion with Stephan Kinsella.

I argued that when someone’s product (physical creation) is owned:
a) the owner has the right to sell only the limited use of that product, which would restrict any unauthorized replication of it
b) if someone steals this person’s creation – trespassers will have to pay for their unauthorized use and tort they cause (such as loss of earnings in the amount of unauthorized copies that otherwise/legally would have been purchased from the author, etc.)

You see that there is an argument against your meaningless statements. It’s a matter of simple demonstration which shows that you lied about my position – and that you still have to make-up some fake arguments that nobody here even mentioned – just so you can “refute” them.

Regards.

How nice.

Anyway, why would I want to distinguish >>”right-based ideas” from “non-right based ideas” as ideas are related to means of production.<

Serious question: Are you out of your mind? There is no reason for me to argue that a process is “owned,” or that idea (per se) is owned. I explained that at the beginning of my discussion with Stephan Kinsella.

I argued that when someone’s product (physical creation) is owned:
a) the owner has the right to sell only the limited use of that product, which would restrict any unauthorized replication of it
b) if someone steals this person’s creation – trespassers will have to pay for their unauthorized use and tort they cause (such as loss of earnings in the amount of unauthorized copies that otherwise/legally would have been purchased from the author, etc.)

You see that there is an argument against your meaningless statements. It’s a matter of simple demonstration which shows that you lied about my position – and that you still have to make-up some fake arguments that nobody here even mentioned – just so you can “refute” them.

Regards.

Your comment did not distinguish “right-based ideas” from “non-right based ideas” as ideas are related to means of production. That made it a meaningless statement for the purpose of your argument. Until you can establish the rudiment — that a process is “owned” (an idea is owned) then there is no way of even saying there are two distinct methods of process.

SR> You’re basically telling us that you are so challenged that you have to make-up some fake arguments that nobody here even mentioned – just so you can “refute” them.

You sure are wordy. Why not say “strawman?” There is no “argument” against meaningless statements.

======

That’s not true Mr. Kinsella. You are also imputing some ridiculous statements that no one here ever claimed. But if that’s the only way you argue with me, I’ll take it as a compliment.

I never assumed “it’s a trespass when a third party uses an idea.”

I said: If a third party steals my book from the buyer and his trespass causes him some huge financial injury – that’s a tort! There can be no dispute about it. When third party takes my book without any authorization – that’s a trespass! In our book theft example, this “third party” commits a clear trespass, and since injury caused by his actions is far greater than the price of that book – he will get sued for a total injury (liability of poor buyer).

If some third party never steals my book from the buyer, but his causes violations of copyright, the buyer is solely responsible for the violation of contract and all the damages. I will assume that the third party acted on buyer’s behalf – or that the buyer was negligent.

ON THE OTHER HAND…

In your irrelevant example, we have a gambling contract in which I never committed any trespass. Therefore, you cannot argue that my nonexistent trespass caused you any liability – but your own stupidity. I recently lost some money on Orlando Magic, but that does not mean that I can sue Washington Wizards who beat them by a point. But Wizards cannot be compared to someone whose clear and undisputable theft causes my financial injury. And this does not “bound” any third party to any contract- just like suing someone for “loss of earnings” is not bounding anyone to a labor contract (it’s all tort).

If your trespass causes someone a $10 million dollar liability (injury) you claim that this is not a tort? Do you think that suing someone for loss of earnings is “bounding” this third party to a labor contract? … I never claimed that this contract applies to some third party, although Stephan would want me to say something like that (than he would finally have a counter-argument, instead of his childish attempts to insult me). If third party causes a tort to my buyer – that is not bounding him to any contract.

Sasha you keep assuming it’s a trespass when a third party uses an idea. You seem to think that if two parties enter into a contract whereby one of them is liable to the other in the event that some third party get the idea, then the third party is causing harm in an actionable sense. This is bad reasoning, and it may result from an amateur understanding of law, tort, and libertarian rights theory.

Suppose I agree with Dave that I’ll pay him a million bucks if Sasha goes jogging tomorrow. Now, when you do go jogging, you “cause” me to have contractual liability to Dave. But you are not commmitting a tort. I am just stupid for having agreed to such a contract.

Likewise, as a buyer of a book, I would never agree to unlimited liability in the event I lose the book or fail to have every guest in my house sign an NDA before entering. And even if I did, third parties who gain access to information from the licensed book copy i have, are not committing a tort at all.

What you do not understand is that contract binds only the parties. This is why it is referred to sometimes as the law of the contract or the law of the parties–it’s like a private set of law among the participants (see, e.g., for further discussion, p. 47 of my book International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution). Your clumsy attempt to get around this by saying outsiders are not parties to the contract but merely trespassers liable in tort is disingenuous; the label does not really matter. The point is that the set of contractual rules internal to the parties to the agreement do not bind or affect outsiders, no matter what you call it.

If no one here claimed that “a single item produced that does not have ideas behind it” – why are you “replying” to such ridiculous claim (while responding to my completely different statement)????

You’re basically telling us that you are so challenged that you have to make-up some fake arguments that nobody here even mentioned – just so you can “refute” them. That’s why I said: I hope you’re drunk and not permanently like that.

Well, at least you’re aware that you have no capabilities of providing counter-argument to something I really said. Speaking of “trivial level…”

: )

If no one here claimed that “a single item produced that does not have ideas behind it” – why are “replying” to such ridiculous claim????

You’re basically telling us that you are so challenged that you have to make-up some fake arguments that nobody here even mentioned – just so you can “refute” them. That’s why I said: I hope you’re drunk and not permanently like that.

Well, at least you’re aware that you have capabilities of providing counter-argument to something I really said. Speaking of “trivial level…”

: )

Gosh gee golly. No one here claimed that you claimed so. The point was that you have a propensity for making meaningless statements. And you wonder why few take you seriously enough to engage at anything beyond the trivial level.

No one here claimed that “a single item produced that does not have ideas behind it” – so I don’t know what you hallucinate about.

Copyright is about the owner’s property rights to allow certain uses of his product, while restricting others. I never claimed that this contract applies to some third party, although Stephan would want me to say something like that (than he would finally have a counter-argument, instead of his childish attempts to insult me). If third party causes a tort to my buyer – that is not bounding him to any contract. Look at the common law “loss of earnings” example – is it “libertarian” to let someone cause it without any consequences.

Sober-up.