“I believe IP exist, it is real, it is produced by man, valued by different men and can not be treated as nature given free goods like air and water.”

What do you mean by “IP???”
Digital media, songs and movies, are tangible. Your brain is tangible. Air is tangible. Water is tangible. Tangible goods are already covered by physical property rights. So what, pray tell, do your proposed IP rights cover but the intangible?

Please read those and you can quote and ask questions if you like about those posts.

In short I believe in copyrights but nor patents, and defend the same position as Murray Rothbard.

I believe IP exist, it is real, it is produced by man, valued by different men and can not be treated as nature given free goods like air and water.

I wish that was the case bu it is not. See George agrees on one post, and denies the same thing on another post.

And if breaking a valid property contract is not an agression against property and crime I dont know what is?

You said no one would agree to it, but in the case of DRM proptected IP and harddisk of your computer it is being done today.

In hte future the asme thing may be possible with human brains. DRM doesnt hurt rest of your computer, and erasing of certain memories wouldnt hurt rest of you brain. So where is the problem? Physal or alteration of electricity in your brain or computer, these are really moot points.

When you own IP you own a unique manmade way of mind alteration. Not all mind alterations are the same, some are nature given some are manmade.

If they are man made the mad who made it has a claim over it. Is it that hard. I tried to explain the whole thing but you guys only chose and pick sentences you like. NO coherency in you arguments.

But you can make killing once you tape it copy it and sell it.

How so?

I’m not sure what you mean by “IP” anymore. Now it sounds as if you mean voluntary contracts, as Anthony pointed out.

“So you wouldn’t buy (or lease) a DRM protected song or a movie. Ok, but millions of people do it.”

Those songs and movies are physical property. So, what do they have to do with IP?

Honestly, you’ve gone from saying something like “Mark Twain has rights to the intangible aspects of Huckleberry Finn” to “people should be held to the restrictions they agree to before downloading music.” That’s a complete 180. IP —> RP

We deny property rights in other human beings. Not all property rights are legitimate – only those established via first-comer homesteading.

Incidentally, I think this debate is moving nowhere. Ktibuk, from what I can tell by IP you mean contractual agreements between buyers and sellers not to reproduce the good sold, violate the terms of ownership etc. Fair enough, no libertarian disagrees that such copyright protection would occur in a free society. Anti-IP libertarians are against IP laws and rights though, not against such voluntary agreements.

No, it’s not a crime. It’s AT MOST a violation of a contract, or perhaps a violation of the terms of use of the property where the movie is exhibited, or a violation of the terms of the agreement between the book/CD seller and his customer.

If I am on someone else’s premises, then they have the property right to control my behavior while I am voluntarily there. But for someone to record something is not, in itself, a crime.

Not all property or contract violations are crimes. Not at all.

Now, we get to the third parties — once you get beyond the first property/contract violator, the down-stream users of the movie, book or song have no contractual or non-IP-property relationship with the author. None. Only IP — a contrived, artificial, unjustified theory — can be used to control those people.

That’s why IP was invented, of course: LEGITIMATE property and contract rules don’t cover that sort of thing.

So you wouldn’t buy (or lease) a DRM protected song or a movie. Ok, but millions of people do it.

They buy the song or the movie knowing they can’t move it to some other media, that they can’t play on certain players and sometimes can only use for a certain time.

The song or the movie might get hacked, the contract broken by hackers and pirates but that just shows there are criminals in the IP domain just as there are criminals on tangible property domain.

Firstly the song exists whether you hear, meaning your ears and brain get involved or not. So no original doesnt pretend anything.

“Even if the first link in the chain of “piracy” as you call it (a term I reject completely, by the way) is 100% illegal — somebody violates some explicit agreement not to reveal the contents of some book or song — the people down the line who hear it next have made no such agreement. No contract claim can be made against them. ”

Forget the third parties for now, do you consider violating the original contract is a crime or not?
And if you reject it on what grounds can a person like you that regards contracts highly can do so?

“IP” is only ‘intellectual endeavor’ ( i can appreciate some of that, not property. until it is attatched to some form of RP (fashioned into usable tangible goods by man) and given a label of ‘IP’….and even then its really only altered RP.

“You can’t make a living telling about a movie you saw to people around you.”

i dont think anyone should. but i wouldnt stop’em from trying

I’m trying to get my point across, not set a trap for you.

“Is consiousness physical, is it covered by the pysical part of the brain?”

Yes.

“What if I could erase a certain part of your memory on previous agreement. Meaning you keep owning your brain but that bit of info I gave you can be deleted after sometime or someuse?”

That would be a physical property right.

“Doesn’t that imply even thought the spesific info is in your brain for a period of time, you dont actually own it but merely rent it?”

If agreed to beforehand as such, then yes. As I said before, the only thing close to real intellectual property is what is known as the brain.

“If so, is IP merely a technological thus practical problem for you?”

IP is a redundant claim on physical property. There is no issue until you use IP to claim physical property already belonging to someone else, such as their brain. If you want them to sign a contract that rents out that part of their brain that knows something in particular, then..well..I think the right to the use of one’s brain is inalienable, is it not? Still, I can’t foresee anyone signing such a contract. At least I wouldn’t.

Regardless, leasing of one’s mind isn’t the basis for IP..and even if so then IP wouldn’t be necessary anyway because such a contract would be covered by physical property rights.

if you can distinguish it as a man made thing, is it difficult to assume it has a creator thus an owner?

I deny that the sound is even capable of having an owner. Do the original musicians pretend to own the vibrations of my eardrums, too? The synapses in my brain?

Even if the first link in the chain of “piracy” as you call it (a term I reject completely, by the way) is 100% illegal — somebody violates some explicit agreement not to reveal the contents of some book or song — the people down the line who hear it next have made no such agreement. No contract claim can be made against them.

But IP pretends to follow the pattern wherever it may go.

“Words must be on paper…songs must be on tape, etc, Broadcasts must be agreed too.”

No it doesnt. But it helps.

You may tell a story, sing a song etc etc. It doesn’t have to be on some tangible thing.

There is a market for both.

But since it is harder for people to remember and copy after they just hear it, copyright violations happen to complex IP on some tangible medium.

You can’t make a living telling about a movie you saw to people around you.

But you can make killing once you tape it copy it and sell it.

To appreciate IP you must first realize it is not the same thing as nature given abundant free goods. It is created by man.

Mind alteraiton and stuf are just words.

And you dont really need to set a trap for me.

Is consiousness physical, is it covered by the pysical part of the brain?

What if I could erase a certain part of your memory on previous agreement. Meaning you keep owning your brain but that bit of info I gave you can be deleted after sometime or someuse?

Doesn’t that imply even thought the spesific info is in your brain for a period of time, you dont actually own it but merely rent it?

If so, is IP merely a technological thus practical problem for you?

…”protecting the property.”

Still…something called ‘IP’ as i seem to understand it here requires some form of or attatchemnt to ‘Real Property’ and/or some form of agreement on the use of the ‘IP/RP’ mix that results.

Otherwise IP is nothing. But RP is still RP.

Words must be on paper…songs must be on tape, etc, Broadcasts must be agreed too.

GG – “Yes, I deny IP. There is no such thing as IP. A copyright is no more a genuine form of property than the social contract is a genuine form of contract.”

Could IP just be called ‘altered RP’?

‘I own a plane Corell plate and I also own a Corell plate with custom artwork by (artist)?’

Fantastic! You went there.

What is commonly considered as IP is actually mind alteration. But the mind is already owned and covered by physical property rights. Any other rights (such as IP) must cover dubious non-physical property rights.

But you yourself acknowledge that “IP” is really PP (Physical Property), the mind. So IP claims are redundant, at best, but conflictory when usually applied.

Now you bring an obscure example to deny IP. I dont even want to bring up social contract analogy which has nothing to do with this.

If you hear a sound on the street, is it difficult for you to extinguish a sound made by man and a sound made by nature?

And if you can distinguish it as a man made thing, is it difficult to assume it has a creator thus an owner?

Please stop with these weird examples and talk about real life issues like movie, song, book and software piracy.

Are these piracies and consuming pirated goods accidental incidences? Or is it deliberate undermining of property rights?

Please lets get real.

What you are doing is the same thing as talking about life boat situations in property rights debate all the time. It is not as complicated as you seem to think.