/liberty/ - Liberty

Software isn't property, it can't be licensed.

>>79253

No, because software isn't a scarce resource and as such isn't property. At best you could have a copyright agreement between the buyer and the seller, but you wouldn't be able to enforce it on anyone who made a copy of *that* copy, and I don't think such a contract would carry over if the buyer sold his copy to somebody else. Trademarks are the only form of intellectual property that would exist in the free market, because using another entity's trademark under false pretenses or without permission constitutes as fraud.

>>79256

>No, because software isn't a scarce resource and as such isn't property.

What about the labour that went into creating the code? Is that not worth something?

>>79258

Sure. And in order to profit off of it you need to create a scarce good or service that you can sell. An excellent example of this is Steam. Even though pirated games are pretty easily accessible and the real repercussions for torrenting them are minimal, the overwhelming majority choose to get games over Steam instead, because they're willing to pay for the large amount of convenience that Steam offers. Your games and save files are automatically synchronized, any patch that's released is automatically applied to your system, and you can engage in multiplayer without much hassle. But when you pirate a game you're in many ways 'paying' for getting it for free. If the initial release is a buggy pile of shit you can't get the patch applied automatically. If there's a problem between the game and your system specifically you can't get tech support because you have a cracked copy, and if something gets corrupted you're shit out of luck. Further, you've got no guarantee that the crack you've torrented is a good one. And even if the game itself doesn't end up being malware, the sites you're visiting are more infectious than a used up whore after shore leave. In the market, people have indicated that they're willing to pay for the convenience provided by the service of Steam.

>>79259

I don't think there are accurate measurements of piracy, so pirating could be more popular. It depends on how many prefer new games and multiplayer ones with central servers. For others, I think it's better to hide from both malware and Steam, in which case it's hard to determine who paid or not.

>hurr durr property rights are ancap except for muh free anime and vidya

Oh boy, another intellectual property communism and hypocrisy thread.

>>79260

>I don't think there are accurate measurements of piracy, so pirating could be more popular

At any rate, it's unpopular enough that the legitimate vidya market is extremely lucrative for distributors and publishers alike.

>>79261

If you can prove to me that intellectual property is a scarce resource, would be recognized as such in ancap, and would be enforceable in a way that doesn't involve passing legislation, I'm all ears. So far, the the market appears to be showing that IP rights can't exist or be enforced without government fiat, nor does the market appear to be suffering a whole lot from filesharing.

>>79261

With AnCaps it's a problem of defining property. With Leftists there's no real definition as everything is vaguely related to labor, but it's OK because there's no need to think about it, because the unfolding dialectic that leads to Communism and beyond where everything is perfect is inevitable.

>>79262

I wish we could go back in time but have a world state and patents, so someone can patent wheels and fire.

>>79262

>prove to me that intellectual property is a scarce resource

Intellectual property is absolutely a scarce resource, material, time and labour are consumed in it's creation and usage. You can clearly see the scarcity in various intellectual property by the cost bottlenecks that limit their frequency of creation in various industries, for example, the millions in capital involved in engineering limits patents to a hundreds a year, while the thousands in capital involved in writing limits works of fiction to a larger hundred thousands a year. What can be said for capital can also be said for duration, which are concepts shared with physical property, in which manufacturing an item faster or increasing throughput requires greater cost.

Even in it's most abstract form, the idea, intellectual property displays a distinct hierarchy of scarcity. There is a clear greater demand and usefulness for certain ideas over others. If ideas were not scarce, any idea from any simpleton would be as productive and valuable as any from an expert or creative, and would display the exact same level of demand, but that's not the case. The crux of IP communist arguments is always the scarcity issue, which unfortunately for the parasites, is very simple to debunk.

>would be recognized as such

There is a strong consensus amongst creators of intellectual property that their creations are of their own, echoed by a sizable portion of society that does believe in intellectual property rights.You can also easily see so in that many food chains have secret recipes that they invest heavy resources into protecting, despite current laws already protecting them, or artists keeping projects under wraps to prevent theft before publishing, that there is an innate desire amongst intellectual property owners to exert exclusive use to what they own.

All the elements necessary for the undirected creation of a set of rules for intellectual property are already instinctively there, much as rules for altruism and punishment for crime naturally arise.

>would be enforceable in a way that doesn't involve passing legislation

The exact same way property rights would, by contractual agreement, and tort enforced by private armed forces. This isn't an argument, anything that state laws and police authority can impose can be translated to contracts and be privatized, even reprehensible "state" acts such as slavery and murder. It would no longer be ancap necessarily, but all state functions are absolutely enforceable without legislature.

>So far, the the market appears to be showing that IP rights can't exist or be enforced without government fiat, nor does the market appear to be suffering a whole lot from filesharing.

Which is a completely subjective stance no doubt based on confirmation bias, as there are few if any instances in reality differing from the status quo for comparison.

Got numbers? Got examples? It doesn't matter. Much as how a planned economy can excel in certain areas better than a free market if the central planner is extremely proficient, the market success of a system with or without IP may be better or worse off. The true criteria of an ideal system in a libertious sense should not be based on market improvement but the underlying principles, in which disregard for IP is a clear and blatant violation of property rights.

>>79264

You mean the world where there were no laws or agreements penalizing or recognizing physical property rights, murder, rape, slavery, fraud, etc? It's almost as if societal systems are an abstract concept removed from natural savagery.

>>79272

The medium information is contained in can be scarce (a book full of recipes, a CD with music burned onto it, a computer with some games downloaded), but the information itself cannot (the ingredients and such for a given dish, the notes in a song, the ones and zeroes that make a game work).

>>79272

>You mean the world where there were no laws or agreements penalizing or recognizing physical property rights, murder, rape, slavery, fraud, etc? It's almost as if societal systems are an abstract concept removed from natural savagery.

There's no equivalence here. Provide a clear distinction why having IP would bring greater benefit instead of slowing down progress. What makes it definable other than someone filing a patent first and how can any damages ever be proven for a non-scarce good that ideas are.

>Much as how a planned economy can excel in certain areas better than a free market if the central planner is extremely proficient

Who would that superhuman be? Unless you're talking about a small village of no more than 50 people where information is not an issue.

Information deserves to be free, in all its forms. However, the developer can choose to put free-as-in-freedom software licenses on their works (such as GNUGPL rather than MIT/BSD). It would therefore rely on social contract to enforce them, and it would be a iolation of the NAP to go against the creator's wish.

>>79276

> it would be a iolation of the NAP to go against the creator's wish

The NAP covers only physical aggression and breach of property rights. You can't establish a right to information, so the NAP is not involved.

>>79277

It'd still make you a bitch-boy and well-hated

>>79272

>Intellectual property is absolutely a scarce resource, material, time and labour are consumed in it's creation and usage. You can clearly see the scarcity in various intellectual property by the cost bottlenecks that limit their frequency of creation in various industries, for example, the millions in capital involved in engineering limits patents to a hundreds a year, while the thousands in capital involved in writing limits works of fiction to a larger hundred thousands a year. What can be said for capital can also be said for duration, which are concepts shared with physical property, in which manufacturing an item faster or increasing throughput requires greater cost.

As the other guy said, at best the medium of expression is scarce. CDs are a scarce resource. Concert venues use scarce resources to perform a service. You may use the information that results from creative pursuit to monetize any number of things, and sell a wide variety of scare resources. Even bandwidth will qualify as scarce. But the information itself is not. Authorship will be recognized in the free market, sure, and to that end plagiarism would be recognized as a kind of fraud, which is very much a violation NAP.

>There is a strong consensus amongst creators of intellectual property that their creations are of their own, echoed by a sizable portion of society that does believe in intellectual property rights.

And as I said above, to that end property in the form of authorship and giving credit where credit is due would be readily enforced in ancapistan.

>The exact same way property rights would, by contractual agreement, and tort enforced by private armed forces.

But a contract with whom? The seller of a CD could, if he so chose, contractually compel the buyer of his CD to not burn and distribute copies of the disc. But he's made no contract with whoever receives a copy, and has no legal power over them. Even if the owner of the CD doesn't make copies, and just sells the disc to somebody else, that new owner is under no compulsion to not copy the disc, because he never signed any kind of contract with the CD distributor.

There's no act of aggression in making a copy. There is no coercion, no imposition of force by either the person receiving the copy or the one making it. Are you entirely certain that you're supporting copyright legislation on intellectual grounds, or are you merely being contrarian because Stallman was a commie and many lefty NEETS support pirating software without examining the greater market implications?

>>79281

>many lefty NEETS support pirating software without examining the greater market implications?

They either support intellectual property as "personal property" or think it's irrelevant to talk about because when they have their way "property" as a concept will also be irrelevant.

>>79274

Firstly that is false, information has scarcity, I already made a point against that in the post you responded to. Secondly, IP as we consume as a product is a closely intertwined composite of both the information itself and the physical aspect of it's cost. An empty book is less valuable without the writings within, and the junk bits computers constantly generate are worthless without a program directing them. They cannot be separated and maintain the same value. That you acknowledge that the physical aspect has scarcity already validates that the composite IP that arrives to us for consumption has a scarcity.

>>79275

There's no equivalence because you shifted the goalposts. Your retort is a non sequitar. Property rights, murder, rape, etc are important because of the principles they protect, not because they "bring greater benefit instead of slowing down progress", so why is that the criteria I must defend instead of the innate virtue of respecting property rights that IP shares with physical goods? Slavery and rape can be argued to be progressive and beneficial by some, so why did you lead with such a fucky argument?

Since you ignored my explanation, and simply reiterated the untruth that IP is non scarce, counter what I've already written in the original post before you try to strawman again.

> Who would that superhuman be?

The Soviets were surpassing the only industrialized nation to survive WWII intact in the early space race, despite having clearly incompetent leaders. Central planning and dictator policy can achieve a lot towards a directed goal at the cost of stability and eschewing natural growth. Don't think too much about it, it's just a frame for an analogy.

>>79276

>being an info commie

No, information does not deserve to be free any more than any other amenity. Just as food and shelter costs work and capital to obtain, info does to. To feel entitled to that which you have not earned is parasitism pure and simple.

>>79277

>breach of property rights

Hmm…

>>79281

>As the other guy said

And as I've replied to the other guy, >>79283 IP is a composite, the sum of which is greater than it's parts. You may have a stronger case arguing against scarcity of ideas or information, but IP as is consumed is definitely scarce.

>And as I said above, to that end property in the form of authorship and giving credit where credit is due would be readily enforced in ancapistan.

Which is functionally respect for intellectual property. Could most /liberty/ conflicts really be just semantics?

>But a contract with whom?

That's assuming the contract is written to the CD, instead of the software. The breach of contract is committed by the first person and he will suffer the terms of tort. However, by that nature, all possessors of such pirated material will thus have illegal contraband. Much as physical goods involved in crimes are understood to belong to the original owner even if the current holder acquired them legally, and a are subject to be repossessed (stolen and sold car), such will systems that employ the right measure of dispute resolvement arise with dispute settlement systems.

>There's no act of aggression in making a copy.

If you don't consider fraud or larceny aggression that is. There is no coercion, no imposition of force in these cases either, what's your point? That only overt harm legitimizes civil agreements and enforcement?

>>79283

You didn't prove that. You only proved that ideas can be more or less valuable, which has no bearing at all on a discussion of IP law.

>>79284

Fraud is a form of theft, where you make an agreement and don't follow up on your end of the bargain. If I put a copy of skyrim up on a torrent website, I'm not pretending to be Zenimax Media.

>>79284

>Which is functionally respect for intellectual property. Could most /liberty/ conflicts really be just semantics?

There's a pretty functional difference between wanting to uphold authorship and wanting to uphold both authorship and copyrights. But the answer to your question is yes.

>If you don't consider fraud or larceny aggression that is. There is no coercion, no imposition of force in these cases either, what's your point? That only overt harm legitimizes civil agreements and enforcement?

I don't deny that fraud is an act of aggression (in fact I've argued that very point multiple times), but where exactly is the fraud taking place? The act of copying something isn't in any way misrepresenting what the content is to anyone. If you try to pass off the copied thing as something other than it is, e.g. as your OC when it's someone else's, or as being an original when it's just a copy (counterfeiting), then sure, it's fraud.

>larceny aggression that is

Larceny against whom? Has the creator lost property he wasn't willing to give up by the act of copying? Was something taken from him? You keep bringing up that IP requires work to be done to create it, and that's true. However, that doesn't entitle the creator to receive compensation for anyone, anywhere that might consume some of his work. He is entitled only to whatever the initial agreement between him and his distributor specifies. By your logic, if someone passes by a stadium concert and hears whatever's playing inside, the performer is entitled to some compensation from his passerby. But this isn't true, the performer is only entitled to what his contract specifies, which is x% of the tickets sold.

>>79286

>shifting the goalposts

I was directly disputing the claim that IP is not scarce, and showing that even abstract ideas can be more or less valuable, I have done so. As almost every single claim or argument put forth by IP commies rests on the assumption that IP is not scarce, my point has been proven pretty clearly.

>>79287

And I'm sure you checked the I agree button to the terms of use for that shitty bethesda game, that probably stipulates 5 times over that you can't fucking do that. Which is fraud by your definition.

>>79288

>but where exactly is the fraud taking place? The act of copying something isn't in any way misrepresenting what the content is to anyone.

Fraud was listed because you used a very narrow criteria to define the NAP, and I went for a semantical retort. But there is truth to it in that the first person copying the data has deceived the IP owner by misusing the right to personal use agreed to in exchange for payment, and proceeding to distribute it without permission. Subsequent distributors after the first would also be fraudulent if they voluntarily continue this distribution knowing that the terms with the IP owner were violated(which is almost always the case), and can be considered as to be colluding with the first.

>Has the creator lost property he wasn't willing to give up by the act of copying?

Now here's a good point of contention. Firstly, the reason I used the word larceny instead of theft is because it conveyed what battery is to assault, in which case larceny is touching or moving things without permission. You could say that no one has lost anything in either larceny or battery, but you and I understand that that is a flagrant abuse of personal autonomy, and a violation of ownership even if no debilitating harm occurred. And that applies as well to IP.

The direct answer is: absolutely, in terms of opportunity costs. Upon completion, an IP is an expense for the creator and nothing else, it's worth is entirely realized by it's potential return. Any slight on the potential return is a slight on the IP's value, and I'm sure we agree that defacing property violates the NAP.

>He is entitled only to whatever the initial agreement between him and his distributor specifies.

And if that agreement stipulates that the distributor has no right to ownership and is only tasked with dissemination, while consumers only shall consume, what then? Surely a creator has the right to freely distribute his creation for no compensation, as is the case for freeware, but the crux here is that it is his choice. The creator has the right to decide the outcome of his IP and who gets to use it.

>By your logic, if someone passes by a stadium concert and hears whatever's playing inside, the performer is entitled to some compensation from his passerby. But this isn't true, the performer is only entitled to what his contract specifies, which is x% of the tickets sold.

What's your point? If some bread falls out of a delivery van, and a child consumes it, he isn't entitled to own any of the other bread in the van. Does the passerby suddenly have the right to record and distribute the stadium noise as a result of an accidental breach in control?

>>79289

>showing that even abstract ideas can be more or less valuable

Value being subjective doesn't somehow provide a definition of property. You've shown nothing. Valuing ideas doesn't make them definable property. Ownership of thoughts only ever makes sense to people when there is some specific lucrative gain in mind. You are with the commies on this one. Not one of them so far has been against IP, so the red baiting doesn't work.

>>79289

>showing that even abstract ideas can be more or less valuable, I have done so

Sure thing buddy.

>IP commies

If I'm an IP commie, you're an IP statist.

>rests on the assumption that IP is not scarce

Because it isn't. Property rights exist to prevent conflict over scarce, rivalrous resources by saying who has the right to use what, and serve no function when infinite numbers of people could potentially use a good and not interfere with each other's use. If I pick apples off a tree and eat them for lunch, no one else can use those apples for anything because they're gone. If I use a copyrighted song in the background of a video, I'm not using up some finite number of plays before the song disappears forever.

>>79290

>Subsequent distributors after the first would also be fraudulent if they voluntarily continue this distribution knowing that the terms with the IP owner were violated(which is almost always the case), and can be considered as to be colluding with the first.

But that's irrelevant, because they aren't the ones who signed the contract with the IP owner. They aren't beholden to whatever restrictions are placed upon the original owner because the mere act of copying is not in itself an NAP violation, unless it's explicitly prohibited in a contract that has been signed by the person committing the act.

>in which case larceny is touching or moving things without permission

Why does he need permission? Through what mechanism does the creator of one arrangement of sounds and visual cues have automatic ownership of any very-similar arrangement of sounds and visual cues in existence?

>You could say that no one has lost anything in either larceny or battery

Actually, battery is the physical act and assault is the verbal, you've got it mixed up. Larceny isn't equivalent to IP, because in the case of larceny, something that is very clearly, indisputably yours has been interfered with.

>The direct answer is: absolutely, in terms of opportunity costs. Upon completion, an IP is an expense for the creator and nothing else, it's worth is entirely realized by it's potential return. Any slight on the potential return is a slight on the IP's value, and I'm sure we agree that defacing property violates the NAP

So what? Just because something has a potential value doesn't mean you're entitled to every cent of it. A scathing review of your IP also decreases the value and potential returns, that doesn't make it an act of aggression. Just because the market price of a stock drops unreasonably low because of uninformed speculation, a sudden wave of undeserved bad press (assume that the bad press is entirely subjective and opinionated, and therefore not considered libel, i.e. fraud), or some other force beyond your control causes the price of the stock to go down.

>The creator has the right to decide the outcome of his IP and who gets to use it.

No, he has control of the copies under his ownership and nothing else. Copies of those copies are not under his jurisdiction, because they were never owned by him.

>What's your point? If some bread falls out of a delivery van, and a child consumes it, he isn't entitled to own any of the other bread in the van. Does the passerby suddenly have the right to record and distribute the stadium noise as a result of an accidental breach in control?

The difference is that in your scenario, there is very clear and delineated unwarranted loss and illicit gain. The delivery van has one less roll than it did before. The child has one more. In contrast the performer has not lost anything quantifiable from the passerby hearing the music. He has no fewer audience members in his venue. He has made no fewer ticket sales. He has not demonstrably lost anything. You could, possibly, argue that if stadium was soundproofed better, the passerby might have been curious enough to want to enter the stadium, and may have been willing and able to pay the admission. And in that case, he would have gained a sale. But that's all potentiality and speculation. These things may or may not have happened, had circumstances been different. But that's not thievery or an act of aggression. There is no quantifiable loss. Are you getting why information isn't scarce yet?

>>79291

>hurr durr muh 5 guys on /liberty/ agreeing means ur a commie

An ad populum, ad hom and a strawman? Why don't you call me Hitler while you're at it. If you didn't take things out of context on purpose, you'd see that argument was to define scarcity, which it did.

IP has a creator, IP has capital invested, IP has authorship and allocatable identity, IP can be defined by the form and description the final product takes, IP has scarcity. Everything needed to be property is there. Instead of attacking a strawman like a little bitch, how about you give a retort, IP commie?

>>79294

>Sure thing buddy.

You don't retort, you concede I'm right

>If I'm an IP commie, you're an IP statist.

Property rights are statism now huh? Why not wear the ancom flag?

>Property rights exist to prevent conflict over scarce, rivalrous resources

Which is what IP is, scarce. You refuse to argue against the points I've made, you just ignore them.

>infinite numbers of people could potentially use a good

IP is not infinite, IP cannot be created without consuming resources.

> and not interfere with each other's use

IP can only be used a finite amount of times while remaining profitable enough to be self sustaining(Books have fixed rereads, games have diminishing replays), and the scope in which it can be used is limited by the costs of distribution

>If I use a copyrighted song in the background of a video,

You reduce the need for people to pay money for the song, causing the creator to have less gross. Keep at it and the creator will no longer have the funds and disappear from the industry forever…

>>79296

>Everything needed to be property is

Except the part where I make it with my own resources and then get arrested for it despite you still having yours.

>>79253

why not?

>>79307

They depend on IP laws

>>79296

>you have an idea for a thing

>it is the first thing that does a thing no other thing could do before

>later on I have an idea for a very similar thing

>I build it, test it, improve it, market it and sell it for a profit

>you come over, steal my profits and confiscate my manufacturing facilities and plans

>this is just and fair

This is your brain on IP

>>79295

It looks like we're going off in a cycle of "no, you"s based on your refusal to acknowledge IP as property. So I'm going to tackle this first since all your points seem to use this as a crutch.

What does an entity need to be considered property? Most basically, a way for an object to be identifiable to an owner. Physical commodities are identified and demarcated by their rivalry. You can count them and distribute them. IP is identified and demarcated by authorship. A piece of IP can be attributed to a creator, and such is what demarcates an IP, the identification of the information as coming from a source. You know the studio that made a game, you can identify different songs and posit that they have a creator. As such, ownership for physical commodities is demarcated by unit, but IP by it's identity, because this is the most divisible natural means by which it can be demarcated. The physical portion of an IP allows some degree of rivalry by inhibiting/controlling access channels, but ultimately ownership of an IP demarcates ownership of all instances of that IP accessible.

You might find this concept of broad spanning ownership quite abstract, but the same can be said for physical goods. Rivalry itself is insufficient to specify ownership, while scarcity only specifies demand. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't be able to rent or lend things, because the mere use of the item by another would "transfer" ownership under those criteria. Based on rivalry alone, any friend who takes your shovel owns your shovel, NAP be damned. No, true ownership is enforced by abstract laws and agreements. It is by arbitrary terms that when you rent/lend out a commodity, it's ownership is identified to you. It is by arbitrary terms that you can transfer the ownership identifier for a commodity. As such, it is just as valid that arbitrary terms decide that an individual can own a demarcated unit of IP, that being all instances of it. Now I've shown that IP absolutely can be owned, but should it be owned?

And so we get to your bit here:

>Through what mechanism does the creator of one arrangement of sounds and visual cues have automatic ownership of any very-similar arrangement of sounds and visual cues in existence?

And the answer is yes, creators deserve it. The idea of physical ownership from a homesteading perspective, is that capital/material/labor/skill is put into acquiring/producing an unclaimed product. It is the recognition of the effort invested into this item and the claim put forth on it's demarcated identity hat we agree to grant this person ownership. All beyond is exchange in recognition of ownership. The exact same principles apply to IP. It takes capital/material/labor/skill to develop IP. IP coming from nothing, is unclaimed. There are formal systems to attributing IP ownership just as claims to natural resources. Lets carry on with the rest of your points in the next post.

>>79295

At least you concede that the first distributor is fraudulant

>they aren't the ones who signed the contract with the IP owner. They aren't beholden to whatever restrictions are placed upon the original owner because the mere act of copying is not in itself an NAP violation,

So if there are terms against trespassing on property, and you trespass, you're not beholden to punishments? When did the first distributor acquire ownership of the IP? Breaking the terms agreed on and contributing but a fraction of what the real owner sacrificed for the IP, he now owns it with enough validity to make contracts of his own? You want to support a system in which fraudulence is rewarded and the NAP is a farce?

>So what? Just because something has a potential value doesn't mean you're entitled to every cent of it. A scathing review of your IP also decreases the value and potential returns, that doesn't make it an act of aggression. Just because the market price of a stock drops unreasonably low because of uninformed speculation,

I don't think you understand what actions violate ownership boundaries and which ones do not. On the whole opportunity costs cover a host of things, but each factor only contributes so much to the gross total effect. The IP owner doesn't own other people's reviews, he can't own nor control the market, these effects occur regardless and cannot be construed as violation of his property. What he does own is the right to decide the distribution means of his property, and unpermissed distribution and consumption not only violates his property rights, but incurs opportunity costs. Certainly he can't grab every shekel, but where blatant misuse of what he owns incurs him losses, he has the right to be protected.

>No, he has control of the copies under his ownership and nothing else. Copies of those copies are not under his jurisdiction, because they were never owned by him.

As arbitrary a declaration as a commie demanding gibmedats because "private property isn't real"

>The difference is that in your scenario, there is very clear and delineated unwarranted loss and illicit gain. The delivery van has one less roll than it did before. The child has one more. In contrast the performer has not lost anything quantifiable from the passerby hearing the music. He has no fewer audience members in his venue. He has made no fewer ticket sales. He has not demonstrably lost anything.

You completely missed the point. The point was that poor security can allow property to be taken and used without consent, but this does not transfer ownership to them. Both scenarios harm the owners little, but you believe the passerby now has equal claim to the music, and yet hypocritically don't agree the child is entitled to the rest of the bread.

>But that's all potentiality and speculation. These things may or may not have happened, had circumstances been different. But that's not thievery or an act of aggression. There is no quantifiable loss.

There is a clear quantifiable loss if the gross is lower than the investment cost for the creation of the IP. True there are successful free distribution schemes, but that is up to the owner to decide as per his rights. Sans his consent it is thievery and aggression.

>Are you getting why information isn't scarce yet?

Costs, losses, unique identity, variation in demand and usefulness, each point valid enough to indicate scarcity on its own. Can you do no more than regurgitate rhetoric?

>>79299

You didn't put in the resources to get that information. You couldn't have made it without the guy's information. You refused to pay the guy you got the information from and got it without his consent. Getting arrested may be too harsh, but you are absolutely liable to fines and compensating the guy you stole from.

>>79312

>This is your brain on IP

Logical, fair and principally consistent with other libertine beliefs?

Can you call yourself an ancap without knowing shit about supply and demand? There is an infinitesimally small chance something worth raiding your bootleg factory for was your independent idea, funding a raid and investigation costs money. Only a high cost IP would be worth it, for which you having put nothing into making it only serves to evidence you sourced it without consent. This is a low supply IP with a high demand. Strawmans like fire and wheels are simple and so prevalent that no one would challenge or enforce their claim, because it's a waste of money. The very definition of a high supply low demand resource. Over time, IP's become economically infeasible to protect as they constantly decrease in scarcity as their general idea is disseminated into the public. This is same the reason no one functionally owns or sues for air, because there's zero enforcability of your claim.

>>79319

>You completely missed the point. The point was that poor security can allow property to be taken and used without consent, but this does not transfer ownership to them. Both scenarios harm the owners little, but you believe the passerby now has equal claim to the music, and yet hypocritically don't agree the child is entitled to the rest of the bread.

And you missed my point, which is that if you can't point to a definitive thing that has been taken no theft has occurred.

>There is a clear quantifiable loss if the gross is lower than the investment cost for the creation of the IP.

Yeah, your gross revenue is quantifiable. Good job. That doesn't mean shit though, because the quantifiability of your revenue was never called into question. The claim that you're the victim of theft just because you didn't make back your revenue is ridiculous. What, do you follow the Labor Theory of value? That you're entitled to get back whatever you put in? No, that's a stupid thing to say. You're not entitled to make back your investment just because you put work in. If you're not happy with your returns, then put on a more aggressive marketing campaign. If "free-riders" are a problem for your precious IP then put in better DRM. Don't go crying to daddy government just because you can't be bothered to deal with a couple free riders.

>Costs, losses, unique identity, variation in demand and usefulness, each point valid enough to indicate scarcity on its own.

All right, let's break this down

<costs, losses

There's a cost for making the initial IP. Once the information is created there's nothing lost from replicating it. You are conflating the creative process (which is a service rendered, and thus scarce) and the resultant information. IP-creation being a rivalrous process has no effect on the fact that the stored information is not scarce.

<unique identity

At best all this entitles you to is demanding that your name be associated with the information. This doesn't make the freely replicatable information scarce anymore than a trademark is scarce.

<variation in demand and usefulness

Again, you're conflating rivalrous services with nonrivalrous information in an attempt to present the latter as scarce.

>>79296

>you were sarcastic at me, so I win

>wanting the continuation of government granted monopolies isn't statist

>maybe if I say it again I'll win the argument

>one person listening to a song interferes with everyone else's use and enjoyment of that particular series of tones

>>79322

>a definitive thing that has been taken no theft has occurred.

See, this is the only point IP commies ever have. They all go back to "hurr durr property must be physical because I say so", and provide nothing to indicate why that is. I've already ascribed to you that IP is property and can be stolen multiple times in many different ways, but instead of challenging those points, you just reiterate your little memorized doctrine.

>The claim that you're the victim of theft just because you didn't make back your revenue is ridiculous.

>What, do you follow the Labor Theory of value?

What kind of stupid strawman is this, I've explicitly mentioned that capital, time and resources, in addition to labour are invested, exactly as is the case for the recognition of physical ownership. These are terms ancaps universally agree on for homesteading or claim of unclaimed resources, where is your hypocrisy coming from? Commies refuse to acknowledge the other three, IP commies do the same for things they want to leech from.

If you seriously believe that a party wronged by a breach of the NAP on his property is not entitled to compensation and protection from aggressors, then you can just as well say that physical property owners deserve no protection from thievery, robbery or fraud, just because they don't make back their revenue. The entire concept of property damage is based on either the lowered value of the defaced property or the lack of consent in use between the aggressor and the owner. I have laid it out very clearly for you why unwarranted distribution challenges consent just as larceny and thievery, and has a noticeable lowering of value of the IP, why do you deny this? It doesn't matter if the final effect of the slight on IP is difficult to calculate, because due to the subjectiveness of value, a slight on physical property also effects it's opportunity costs in unpredictable ways. So the more definitive metric is the violation of consent, which is prevalent in unpermissed distribution of IP.

> If "free-riders" are a problem for your precious IP then put in better DRM. Don't go crying to daddy government just because you can't be bothered to deal with a couple free riders.

>>If theives break into your property and steal your things, just buy more guns and locks. Don't go crying to daddy government just because you can't be bothered to deal with a couple free riders.

Another, "not property because I say so" argument.

>>79322

>There's a cost for making the initial IP.

Thus, you have conceded that there is scarcity to IP.

>Once the information is created there's nothing lost from replicating it

Varies based on medium, but additional costs can be significant. I'll concede this point to protect the economically insignificant copy instances as well as the numerous instances of IP that have significant costs of replication.

>You are conflating the creative process (which is a service rendered, and thus scarce) and the resultant information.

What is the basis for this claim? Because you deem it a service? Can the service provider not also retain ownership of the creation depending on contractual agreements, as is the case of farmers owning their product while farmhands do not? What decrees this ownership other than abstract agreement? Or does this return to the "not property because I say so" bit, where in it's just your arbitrary declaration? If the resultant information can be identified to an owner in agreement, it can be owned. It's that simple.

>IP-creation being a rivalrous process has no effect on the fact that the stored information is not scarce.

A self contradictory stance, with no logical basis. If rivalry is not the criteria enhancing scarcity, why do you make it such a point of contention for physical goods? How many dozens of IP commies here have muttered something along the lines of "because someone takes it then its gone"? What basis then, do you differentiate physical property from IP?

>At best all this entitles you to is demanding that your name be associated with the information. This doesn't make the freely replicatable information scarce anymore than a trademark is scarce.

And ascribing the identifier allows this information to be quantified. Quantification bears scarcity. You can count how much and how little of a commodity is present. That's scarcity. The prevalence of this information as is known before the trademark can confer it's scarcity. There is a marked difference in value between public domain knowledge and a unique engineered patent, that's scarcity.

>Again, you're conflating rivalrous services with nonrivalrous information in an attempt to present the latter as scarce.

Above, you conceded IP as possessing rivalry. Here, your only retort is a "because I say so". Is there consistency in your points?

>>79324

>make shitpost tier argument

>get shat on

>>y-you can't shit on me!

>hurr durr we shouldn't punish thieves/murderers because statist government granted monopolies punish them now

>hurr durr one person stealing a car doesn't affect bike owners enjoyment of riding down the freeway

I'll declare I won the argument again, to see if it can trigger you into putting in more effort.

>>79330

>doesn't know what non sequitar means

>uses it to pretend he's smart

>sub 80 iq, can't write more than 10 word sentences

>hurr durr fraud/theft/robbery/rape isn't as bad as murder so it's not a real crime

>admitting he'd steal a car like a commie nigger if he could get away with it

Me: 3

You: 0

>>79333

>goes for the cheap semantic shot

>kikepedia

>pulls the fallacy fallacy

>stopped bothering with topic points

>shitposting for real now

My mistake, you're definitely sub 60 iq

>>79335

>complains about win declaration

>declares he's won

>sub 60 iq only allows him to quantify victory in shitposting terms

>doubles down on shitposting

>zero on topic followup

Apparently the notion of not winning a shitpost bout is more important to you than the fact you lost an on topic argument.

>>79336

>I am entitled to other people's property

>Identity theft and fraud are a-okay

>>79341

What matters is whether someone tries to impersonate, not whether a trademark is used or not. That trademarks are often used in fraud is incidental.

>>79338

>things that never happened

>more things that never happened

>u r rely dum lol

>lets himself get dragged down to my level

You lost the argument the moment you failed to justify your basic assertion that information is scarce.

>>79348

>What matters is whether someone tries to impersonate, not whether a trademark is used or not. That trademarks are often used in fraud is incidental

Well, yes. The act of aggression is fraud, and the trademark misuse is merely an expression of fraud. I'm not suggesting trademarks should get a bunch of arbitrary protectionism placed around them just because they're "intellectual property" or anything like that. They'd only be protected in their general use as a stamp of authenticity or similar.

>>79349

Here are ==6== posts explaining in detail from various angles why IP is scarce

>>79272

>>79283

>>79290

>>79296

>>79318

>>79327

You won't give a proper retort to a single one because you're a shitposter and an idiot. You want to give me an opening to completely crush you, so be it, autist.

>>79353

See

>>79322

IP isn't scarce because the information is non rivalrous and the only cost associated with copying is from the medium. It costs just as much to print out a book as it does to print out random gibberish of equal length.

>>79355

>half assed self defeating response

That entire stolen post was addressed here, >>79327

It was in the very post you responded to, which you clearly didn't read.

>It costs just as much to print out a book as it does to print out random gibberish of equal length.

Which is completely bullshit, the authorship that went into the book with the story cost much more than the garbage in the waste of ink. Not only that, the product of a book of nonsense versus a written story is completely different in value and demand. The variation in scarcity is right in your face, broad as daylight, understandable by children.

>>79355

I'm going to add that the other 5 posts explained to varying degrees how IP is rivalrous, and you just ignored it like a little bitch trying to get the last shitpost in. You basically gave a non-reply, that was already addressed and discredited multiple times. That's scummy IP communism for you.

>>79356

>>79358

The closest you came was an attempt to associate scarcity brought on by the medium of information with scarcity of information itself, and the claim that subjective value in information=scarcity.

>>79370

>The closest you came

ie "There were a lot of other points but I'm going to puss out of addressing them"

If all you're going to do is handwave the argument, you've demonstrated your inability to retort, and conceded to the legitimacy of those points. Now for what you barely tried to counter:

>associate scarcity brought on by the medium of information with scarcity of information itself

Already mentioned in one of the 6 posts >>79283

IP is a composite of both the physical aspects in it's creation and distribution and the parts it is composed of. If an author's info doesn't have a book to reach you with it's useless. An empty book is also useless to you. You can't separate them and maintain the same value. If the physical aspect of IP has scarcity, the whole package has scarcity.

>claim that subjective value in information=scarcity

Which is objectively true. All value is subjective, all value is measured in fluctuating demand. Demand is a product of scarcity. What is not scarce is not in demand, as it is infinitely available. There is a clear and obvious demand for IP. It is finite, it is scarce.

Why isn't it so? You make a claim but offer no logic to back it up. You whine about non sequitur, but use it egregiously. I'm giving you proper retorts, where are yours?

>>79377

>If the physical aspect of IP has scarcity, the whole package has scarcity

You can easily copy it into a new medium, and the information within is what people really care about. The information without a book is more valuable than the book without information.

>Why isn't it so

>>79355

>the only cost associated with copying is from the medium

>It costs just as much to print out a book as it does to print out random gibberish of equal length

>>79379

>circular reasoning

>hurr durr because I say so

You can't even evoke the fallacy when I've addressed and shut down every link in your circular chain, yet you haven't made a single different retort.

>information within is what people really care about

Which proves my point, that the value of IP is not purely in the medium of transfer. You acknowledge that the info is what is scarce and in demand, and yet you attribute ownership to the less scarce medium of transfer? That's hypocritical.

>The information without a book is more valuable than the book without information.

What's your point? Both on their own are less worth than combined regardless. Without a book the info is abstract, it cannot reach your brain. The info has to accompany a medium, and that medium bears scarcity.

>>79390

>when I've addressed and shut down

Nope.

>Which proves my point

No it doesn't. Scarcity only comes from the medium, which is distinct from the information it contains. Potentially infinite copies of a story or song can be made, and potentially infinite people can make use of it without interfering with each other.

>Both on their own are less worth than combined regardless

You can still separate and draw a line between the tangible good and the intangible idea.

>>79392

>Nope.

You literally dodged responses for a few replies then linked back to an earlier part of the deflection chain, you know the scummy shit you're pulling. No proper response, no right to claim you were anything but shutdown.

>Scarcity only comes from the medium, which is distinct from the information it contains.

>>literally debunked in the post replied to

Because you say so? Because you declare? This isn't a counter, it's garbage rhetoric. Plugging your ears is not a retort, present the logic or fuck off.

>Potentially infinite copies of a story or song can be made,

Only if you assume resources are infinite. Copying takes physical resources, distribution takes even more. The amount of consumable stories or songs is finite.

>and potentially infinite people can make use of it without interfering with each other. \

Just like land, and other less rivalrous physical commodities. It has no bearing on the right to their ownership.

>You can still separate and draw a line between the tangible good and the intangible idea.

Which is besides the point and completely irrelevant.

>>79320

>You couldn't have made it without the guy's information.

First off, IP law bans me using the information, even if I made it with my own resources. Second off, if he does not want people using his information, then he needs to contract with them before giving it to them.

>>79393

>Just like land, and other less rivalrous physical commodities. It has no bearing on the right to their ownership.

If I print out a car, you still have your car.

>>79398

>I only acknowledge that it's the thing being demanded

But because you didn't address the last 2 paragraphs of >>79377

you thereby concede that it has scarcity, because that point links demand and scarcity quite clearly

>Because I could carve this post into a stone tablet and it would still convey the same information.

And what is your point? There's a limit to how far you can spread the info, the scarcity of making this info into a consumable entity is still there.

>Which is why I said potentially.

So it's a non argument? What is your point?

>The resources and effort that are used to copy something are separate from the original creation. That's happened, it's over and done with.

How so? Even in physical goods, the final value of a good is a reflection of the scarcity and costs of the processes that went into it. What basis do you use to make that distinction in IP?

>>79398

>That image

>it's not scarce because I so

Classic IP commie fuckery. There is no logic or explanation presented to explain his basis as to why the process of IP creation invalidates the claim of the resultant good, when the process of physical resource acquisition uses the same basis. He declares it so and holds it as gospel, as many posters here have done.

>once the infomation or ideas are created copies of that data are in infinite supply

Why post creation? Why make this arbitrary cut off point for gauging scarcity? You can very clearly see that copies of gibberish have lower value than novels. It is very obvious that the creation phase is an integral part of the value and composite of the resultant IP, and that the creation phase has clear costs that imbue scarcity to the final composite.

>muh "artificial" scarcity because state monopolies enforce it

IP laws are artificial and abstract because laws and agreements are artificial and abstract. A law doesn't stop people from stabbing you, the physical societal structure adhering to that law that penalizes that does. Attacking IP laws based on their superficiality and enforcement by the state, is attacking the very concept of laws and agreements.

>muh information age

This is literally a (((current year))) argument, practically the reverse equivalent of fags who want to ban automation. Principles apply regardless of technological prowess. It's why rights to arms are equally valid now as in blade and musket ages, and DRM gets better as piracy gets better. Technology is no more an excuse to be entitled to free IP as it is to ban automation.

>a labour job does labour

He then brings up fucking mechanics as if it has fuck all to do with his argument. Mechanics are purely contractual laborers, they create nothing, own nothing they work on, and demand only payment for their labor. Mechanics are in their pit because that is what they agreed on, else they'd be engineers. This is a literal non point, he could have mentioned janitors or dirt shovelers and it'd be just as relevant.

>sit on your ass after making a discovery

Which is about as relevant as a commie whining about capital owners sitting on their ass after inheriting a factory. It really shows where these parasites come from and where their morals lie.

>specific example of why x is more profitable than y in one scenario

>pure conjecture on why the alternative is better

Which is complete bullshit, commercial success can be achieved across the spectrum from patent enforcement all the way to public domain. He can cherrypick 10 examples of either side and it wouldn't fucking matter, because IP laws should protect principles, not profit.

Most people screenshot posts that really kick a point in. This was garbage that you might as well delete. There are posts in this thread that present better points.

>>79396

The only reason you'd be banned from using the info is if he had a contract in the first place and you stole it without his consent.

>>79397

That's as relevant as saying, "if I steal your car, you'll still have a bike". You're not stealing from fellow car owners to make a knockoff.

>>79449

>Just like the picture says, the scarce thing is the creation. Once it exists, it's no longer scarce.

He declares it. Like how a commie can declare "lel labor is the only value". It's not an argument without logic to back it up. No one in this thread has bothered trying to explain this declaration. I also already shot it down:

Why post creation? Why make this arbitrary cut off point for gauging scarcity? You can very clearly see that copies of gibberish have lower value than novels. It is very obvious that the creation phase is an integral part of the value and composite of the resultant IP, and that the creation phase has clear costs that imbue scarcity to the final composite.

You concede that scarcity must be taken as a composite of the physical aspect and the info if you cannot challenge this.

>That's not what he was saying.

Explain what he said then. It's time to stop stealing posts, parasite.

>The medium doesn't matter.

>Why should the original creation be lumped in?

What's your fucking point? Where's your argument? Are you too retarded to type more than 10 word sentences?

>>near infinite supply

>If I say it again it's true

I've completely discredited that IP is infinite, you're inability to challenge that concedes any points you make based on your denial.

>But I'm the commie?

Shout murder is illegal at some nigger trying to shoot you and see how well your social construct protects you without it's physical aspects, faggot. Unlike the free hand of market forces, laws enforcing crimes under specific principles, like your version of IP communism, are not natural systems.

>He explained why it's relevant, but you chose to gloss over it to strengthen your argument

He explained shit, it was a non argument. Laborers agree to not claim ownership of their creation, what's important is they consent to their arrangement. "Wow laborers exist" does not invalidate the right of a creator to own his IP and refuse work that prevents him from doing so.

>Even if he hands off other duties to other people, he's still the one who would lose the most if the factory goes under.

Same thing with someone who owns an IP. Even if he hands off other duties to other people, he's still the one who would lose the most if the IP goes under.

>You can say that's how it should work, but that's not how it works in the real world.

That's exactly what it does, hinders parasites from using your stuff without permission. That some people fuck up and sell their IP's like dumbasses is their fault, no one pities the guy who sells his gold for silver prices.

>But what about the patents I ignored to print out a copy?

That's the point dumbass, the fellow car owners don't own the patents, you don't fuck them over, you fuck over the patent owners.

>>still has to try and compare ip infringement to real crimes

It s a real crime. You can go to fucking jail longer than murderers. Want to play more stupid hyperbole?

>>79454

>It's non rivalrous because any number of people can use a given piece of information without depleting it.

This is false, a novel is only read once to know the story, successive game plays are less fun as they increase. The value of the IP decreases with successive use. Depletion in objects is nothing more than the lowering of their value by consumption. IP can be depleted just as much as physical goods can.

>It's not scarce because the only cost of copying it comes from the medium (and we've established that people don't care about the medium anywhere near as much as they do about the info).

You're ignoring the cost of creating the information. Looking just at the cost of the copying stage is like looking at the delivery stage for a chair and a table, and then claiming that because the delivery costs were the same, they are both worth the same. Some info is scarcer than others, more useful, and has more invested into it, becoming more valuable as a result. We've gone over the novel vs gibberish copy many times. Info has scarcity.

>So you're saying labor is the source of value in IP?

No, that's your retarded strawman. I've mentioned many times that capital and resources go into the creation of the IP as well. It's the exact same basis for how physical ownership works, your capital and terms, you own your product, same for IP.

>The cost of copying information is near zero, therefore the price of that information should be near zero.

You're missing an "if" in front of that. Copying info has costs, and a tangible price as a result.

>can't make a retort without shitty handwaves

>whine about it

>If someone torrents a game, the dev might lose a potential customer. That's fucking it.

It tallies to the tab he put into making that game and was done without his consent. He loses just as much in capital ratio as if he was a farmer who got a unit of crop stolen. You're trivializing it like a commie who thinks taking 100$ from a millionaire loses him nothing.

>It bottlenecks supply and jacks up prices.

About as valid as a commie claiming property rights bottles up supply and jacks up prices. You can't buy land for 1000$ if the owner does not consent to it. It doesn't matter if hundreds are homeless, and how unreasonable buying the land is, the land owner must consent to terms before his property is used. You're making a socialist argument presuming you deserve to overstep ownership rights for your fee fees.

>A patent has an expiration date. What natural right has a cutoff point where it no longer applies?

Varies by the social agreements in place. I don't mind expiring patents as long as there is recognition of IP rights in the society. But even in arrangements of eternal IP ownership there's this >>79321

>You should just take off the ancap flag at this point.

>make stupid hyperbolic declaration

>whine when hyperbole comes back in return

autist

>>79456

>The value of the IP decreases with successive use

Other people using information decreases my subjective valuation of it?

>You're ignoring the cost of creating the information

because it's a separate event.

>looking at the delivery stage for a chair and a table

You don't need to completely recreate the information in a book to sell another copy. You do need to make another chair if you want to sell another chair.

>and a tangible price as a result

An extremely low cost in the modern age, and one that's constantly shrinking.

>He loses just as much in capital ratio as if he was a farmer who got a unit of crop stolen

No he doesn't. With that you can look at what portion of his yield was lost and say in pretty definitive terms how much worse off he is. Looking at the number of downloads on a torrent site only gets you so far. How many of those people went back and bought the game for real? How many of those people wanted to see how it runs on their system and would have ended up asking for refunds?

>About as valid as a commie claiming property rights bottles up supply and jacks up prices

You're basing this argument on something you have yet to prove.

>stop laughing at me for letting my statist colors slip through

>y-you're just autistic

>>79458

>Other people using information decreases my subjective valuation of it?

As irrelevant as saying other people stealing apple's from farmers lowers the value of yours. The slight is on the owner of the IP, not you. Also, distribution is a lot worse than personal consumption, a commie stealing apples and redistributing them lowers the demand for apples.

>because it's a separate event.

And your only basis for that is that you declare it so.

>You don't need to completely recreate the information in a book to sell another copy. You do need to make another chair if you want to sell another chair.

You don't have to make another mould to cast a plastic toy. Neither do you need to plant another tree to gain another apple. Though less significant, making a copy of a book does consume resources. Getting an additional unit of a product differs in costs and methods, but the end result is still a valuation of it's composite whole, be it intellectual or physical. You've made it so much of a point that parts of processes are separate, and yet you quantify physical commodities by their composite processes, but hypocritically not for IP.

>An extremely low cost in the modern age, and one that's constantly shrinking.

This is the same logic used by luddites against automation and gun grabbers against full auto rifles. Principles hold true regardless of technological progress.

>With that you can look at what portion of his yield was lost and say in pretty definitive terms how much worse off he is.

This is false, value is subjective and based on opportunity costs, you don't know how that unit of crop could have improved his livelihood due to the fluctuating demand of the market and conditions. It could be that stealing from him got him in the news and brought him increased publicity and sales, or more straightforward it lowered the yield he could sell. Maybe he sold less than his yield that season, and the loss of that unit had no effect. What you do know is that stealing his crop definitely went against his consent and authority over his property. The same principles apply to IP.

>How many of those people went back and bought the game for real? How many of those people wanted to see how it runs on their system and would have ended up asking for refunds?

You could apply this trivialization of property right violation to physical property owners. Is stealing apples justified because it lets a consumer decide if he wants to buy a dozen? Is stealing cars to test out their controls justified, just because there are consumers who would have refunded them?

>You're basing this argument on something you have yet to prove.

Or something proven from many facets that you deny? What is it?

>>stop laughing at me for letting my statist colors slip through

>>y-you're just autistic

To think one uncapitalized mention of "autist" could trigger you this much.

autist

>>79442

>if he had a contract in

Thats not how IP law works

>You're not stealing from fellow car owners to make a knockoff.

I'm not stealing anything. You have your property.

If you don't want people to use your information don't give it to them. Don't publish it publicly. Contract with who you want to license it to. You don't need this big bullshit IP system.

>>79461

>Thats not how IP law works

This board is all about larping about the thousands of different ancapistan versions not the status quo. I'm making a case for IP as deserving protection as property, nothing more nothing less.

>I'm not stealing anything. You have your property.

You're stealing from the car designers if you didn't get the rights to use their printing schemes with their consent.

>If you don't want people to use your information don't give it to them. Don't publish it publicly. Contract with who you want to license it to. You don't need this big bullshit IP system.

Licensing and contracts are an IP system, they ensure respect for creator consent. The main issue is that pirates think they are entitled to property theft and make self-serving excuses to justify parasitism.

>>79464

>You're stealing from the car designers

Do they still have the design? Yes? Then it's not stealing.

>>79465

If you take a guy's car without permission drive around with it and put it back, it's still a violation of his property rights even if you fill the gas tank back up. You can't use their stuff without permission, that's NAP 101.

>>79466

And if it's not their stuff being used but a copy of it, nobody's property rights are being violated.

>>79466

I'm not taking his design. I never even touched his design. That's in his brain you idiot. You can't steal from a brain.

>>79460

>Also, distribution is a lot worse than personal consumption

All they're losing is potential sales. Saying that distribution makes it worse is like saying that your business competition is violating the NAP by stealing possible customers. Theft is theft, and it doesn't matter whether the thief eats your apples or gives them away.

>And your only basis for that is that you declare it so

Is that not a logical place to draw the line?

>Principles hold true regardless of technological progress

Alright, you've convinced me. Let's go back to the mises institute video I posted earlier, specifically the part where he talks about how IP was historically seen. They didn't view it as an extension of property rights, it was rightfully seen as a monopoly granted through government fiat. "I have the sole right to produce this good because the government says so". about 7 and a half minutes, timestamps don't work with embeds

>This is false

Nope. You can easily look at where he was going to sell it and the prices there, and figure out how much worse off he is in monetary terms. You don't even have to measure it in money, just saying "farmer joe is one pound of apples poorer" will suffice.

>You could apply this trivialization of property right violation to physical property owners

No you couldn't. With a physical good that's stolen, you have been deprived of something tangible that you might otherwise have sold.

>What is it

The first one.

>autist

ur moms gay lel

>>79470

>All they're losing is potential sales.

And all a robbed store loses is potential sales as well.

>Saying that distribution makes it worse is like saying that your business competition is violating the NAP by stealing possible customers.

They're not competition, they're thieves, they're not harming business by creating a competing product with their own resources, they stole property and peddle it as their own or use it as they wish. As you say, theft is theft. You are justifying thievery as mere competition.

>Is that not a logical place to draw the line?

It's completely arbitrary on your part and specifically picked to pretend your argument bears coherency

>muh appeal to antiquity

>associating principles with origins

I bet you think the NAP only applies to 25 13th century English barons as stated in the Magna Carta, or the right to bear arms as a concept didn't exist until the 17th century. You completely missed the point. Most of the principles /liberty/ gives a shit about are horribly deformed and completely different from the practices they originated from and many have never been implemented before in real life. Touting some etymological footnote from pre sewage system periods as equivalent to libertine property rights is a blatant strawman.

>Nope. You can easily look at where he was going to sell it and the prices there, and figure out how much worse off he is in monetary terms. You don't even have to measure it in money, just saying "farmer joe is one pound of apples poorer" will suffice.

I bet you think you can time the market too, just a tangent off from commies who think they can plant the economy. First off, that's bull, at best you'd get a range of possible price estimations, but even then, you can't predict opportunity costs and outcomes. Second, if a farmer can be one pound of apples poorer, an IP owner can be 500 sales poorer. The concept is the same, a certain amount of sellable good was taken without consent. Thirdly, if you've got issue with concrete means to quantify lost sales, you should have just as much issue with physical property violations that can't be clearly quantified. How do you quantify what a shovel or land used without permission has lost? You can't.

>>79467

They own and created the info, all copies could have only come from them. The only way you could have taken the copies without stealing is with their permission.

>>79469

>use his design

>hurr durr I'm not using his design

You're fucking retarded.

>>79476

>And all a robbed store loses is potential sales as well

>They're not competition, they're thieves

Your argument was that distributing stolen goods is worse than just stealing them for personal use. This is obviously ridiculous, as I've shown.

>It's completely arbitrary

Wrong. We both know damn well that the information is what people care about, so it makes perfect sense to isolate the creation or discovery from the process of copying it into various mediums.

>Touting some etymological footnote

It's not a footnote. This was how IP was viewed from antiquity up until a few centuries ago, and to say that how something was defined and viewed for most of recorded civilization doesn't matter only showcases how disingenuous you really are.

>a certain amount of sellable good was taken without consent

Nothing was taken. You're treating intangible ideas and concepts like physical objects, in defiance of how it distorts the market and violates real rights.

>>79479

>Your argument was that distributing stolen goods is worse than just stealing them for personal use. This is obviously ridiculous, as I've shown.

Shown what? You've made no argument. And I'm not saying you've made a non argument, you haven't written anything on this point at all.

>Wrong. We both know damn well that the information is what people care about, so it makes perfect sense to isolate the creation or discovery from the process of copying it into various mediums.

It's completely arbitrary because there is no reason to make this distinction at all. You make arguments based on physical goods using their composite value, but suddenly make a bait and switch and break up IP for nitpicking. Like some cuck who let's anyone fuck his wife but then gets all uppity when the bull isn't black.

> This was how IP was viewed from antiquity up until a few centuries ago

This is false, the concept of securing information and protecting it as a commodity dates back to antiquity. Both the ancient greeks and chinese had precursor policies for manufacturing processes and performances. Most of the ideologies we buy into today only hold their state as far back as world war II, if you want to bullshit the strawman that IP is literally the same today as the 17th century version, you might as well say people don't deserve human rights because it was only available to non-serfs for most of history and argue against that.

Your entire point here is complete horseshit.

>Nothing was taken. You're treating intangible ideas and concepts like physical objects, in defiance of how it distorts the market and violates real rights.

So your final point is another declaration with no argument. Failing completely to reason for IP communism, you throw a whiny no true scotsman. Not surprising.

>>79483

>You've made no argument

I pointed the logical conclusion of your claim.

>You make arguments based on physical goods using their composite value, but suddenly make a bait and switch and break up IP for nitpicking

Please point out the post where I said the process of designing a chair should be lumped in with the process of making it.

>if you want to bullshit the strawman that IP is literally the same today as the 17th century version

Then where was the change?

>you might as well say people don't deserve human rights because it was only available to non-serfs for most of history

Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

>>79484

>the sore loser's desperate adhom

I don't know which psuedointellectual fucked you in the ass, but if you think you're entitled to other's property just because it's in an arbitrary category, you're a fucking commie and parasite, plain as day.

>>79485

>I pointed the logical conclusion of your claim.

The logical conclusion of my claim did not involve portraying thievery as competition.

>Please point out the post where I said the process of designing a chair should be lumped in with the process of making it.

A chair is the final product, it's value reflects both it's material and the processes that went into it. Same thing for a novel, the final product is a composite. You've treated physical commodities as a composite the entire time.

>Then where was the change?

If you can infer that human rights today are different from the Magna Carta and changed at some point, you can infer the same for the creator and private industry protecting IP outlook today with the 17th century precursor. The better question is, why is this important?

>Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

You're making the same logical argument if you're trying to sham the concept of IP property rights with the 17th century etymology with doesn't share the same principles.

>>79494

>>>not applying property rights to an intangible, nonscarce good is arbitrary

All debunked. Your denial does not change the fact that IP is quantifiable and scarce.

>Yes it did. If it's just fine for competitors to sell similar products and take part of the market for themselves, then what makes distributing stolen goods worse than personal use? Your claim was that it's worse because the distribution lowers the price of your remaining goods, which is the exact same effect competition has.

Are you fucking retarded? Are you seriously calling theft and competition equivalent because they share the trait of profit loss? I don't know if you're twisting my point or completely delusional about yours, but what you're basically arguing here in physical property terms, is that a chair manufacturer losing money when his chairs are stolen from him and then sold without a cent going towards him, is equivalent to a scenario where he loses money to a rival chair manufacturer fairly competing with his own personally invested chairs for customers.

>Designing a chair and planning out its construction is roughly analogous to writing the novel.

And that's reflected in the final price. If no one designed the chair it would just be a wood pile. Completely different value, completely different scarcity, completely different object. The final product is a composite of it's processes and should be taken as such.

>I can specifically point to the Salamanca School in Renaissance Spain and say "this is where people started saying that everyone gets natural rights". You're refusing to do the same for IP law

Because it's irrelevant, because it's a red herring bringing nothing to your argument. Because I don't need to do pull out this info and my case still holds water. You haven't brought a single explanation as to why this topic is significant, and at this point it's nothing but an autistic ramble coupled with a tantrum demanding I satisfy your demands.

>No I'm not.

But of course, you can't explain your argument. Because you don't have one.

>>79498

>Wrong.

No counterargument from you, thus debunked.

>intangible=!unquantifiable.

False

>I'm not saying this. It was your argument

You must have the reading comprehension of a microcephallic toddler, because both sentences have completely different meanings. Did you fucking fail out of school?

>If it started out as a government granted monopoly and nothing came about and changed that, it's still a government granted monopoly.

And human rights started out as government enforced privilege, and still is a government enforced privilege. Can your arguments get even more stupid?

>>79500

>Instead of denying past statements

How about you stop pulling shit out your ass and learn to fucking read. Neither of those points contradict each other outside of your delusional headcannon and subhuman iq.

>the first people to talk about natural rights thought of them as something everyone gets, independent of whether any government acknowledges them. And that's what the term "natural rights" means. Rights that everyone gets by virtue of being human

And that's what I meant when I first brought up principles fucknut, they predate etymological relation and transcend legislature. You're the dumbass that pulled the strawman tying things to their historical etymological predecessors and legislation with completely different principles. Which was literally as stupid as saying human rights don't work for serfs because that wasn't in the Magna Carta.

>>79502

>How about you stop pulling shit out your ass and learn to fucking read

It's literally what you said. don't get assmad just because I quoted you.

>fucknut

It's alright anon, you won't get in trouble for saying faggot here.

>Which was literally as stupid as saying human rights don't work for serfs because that wasn't in the Magna Carta

I can look through history and point out the people who first started to change that idea. You're still refusing to do so.

>>79505

>It's literally what you said.

And neither point contradicts each other. I'm not denying anything, I'm mocking your stupid insistence that two completely different sentences imply the same meaning.

>It's alright anon, you won't get in trouble for saying faggot here.

Fag is soft, overused, fucknut has more insulting variety.

>You're still refusing to do so.

Because it's an irrelevant attack on terminology. The reason I brought up human rights as government enforced privilege, is because that's the status quo. The concept of natural rights exists outside of legislature, but functionally is enforced by states today. Your insistence that I defend the current state backed IP management to justify property rights, is as stupid as declaring human rights are wrong because the state enforces them today.

>>79506

>I'm mocking your stupid insistence that two completely different sentences imply the same meaning

Please prove me wrong by explaining why theft and distribution is worse than theft and personal use. The only justification you've offered so far is that potential sales are lost because of the unauthorized distribution, but that falls through when you realize that legitimate competition does the same fucking thing.

>but functionally is enforced by states today

A coherent case for natural rights can be made. Compare Locke's Second Treatise on Government or For a New Liberty to some of the retarded claims you've made, such as: other people knowing things decreases your subjective valuation of that knowledge (>>79456), or that theft and distribution is worse than theft and personal use (>>79460).

>>79509

>Please prove me wrong by explaining why theft and distribution is worse than theft and personal use

Theft and distribution also lowers demand in addition to loss in product. Theft for personal use just loses product. You do much more harm, dumbass. A child could get this.

>but that falls through when you realize that legitimate competition does the same fucking thing.

No you fucking retard, legitimate competition lowers demand in a just manor, distributing stolen goods is a violation of property rights. You're claiming the logical equivalent of "self defense killing is literally as bad as murder'.

>A coherent case for natural rights can be made.

Unless you're up against a retard who denies every point in your coherent case, and can't fucking read highschool level English.

>other people knowing things decreases your subjective valuation of that knowledge

Where the fuck did I claim that, you babbling idiot? Are you quoting posts at random now?

>>79510

>You do much more harm

Now explain why lowering demand is morally wrong and why it only applies here.

>distributing stolen goods is a violation of property rights

The theft has already occurred, and that's the bit where property rights were violated.

>Unless you're up against a retard who denies every point in your coherent case, and can't fucking read highschool level English

I can say first hand that it's a major headache, but doesn't stop you from laying out the facts of the matter.

>Where the fuck did I claim that, you babbling idiot

I provided a link to the post in question, even if it isn't working due to a formatting screwup on my part. But just because I'm such a nice guy, I'll link it again, post the quote in question, and give a detailed breakdown.

>>79456

>The value of the IP decreases with successive use

It only decreases for the person using it. Person A reading a book doesn't make person B less interested in the story. Because you cannot affect other people's use or enjoyment of information by using it yourself, IP is nonrivalrous.

>>79511

>Now explain why lowering demand is morally wrong and why it only applies here.

That's bullshit, it applies for physical goods as well. In fact, I lead with a physical good analogy. You steal food and distribute or sell it, it fucks over not only because he's down on product, but because there's less demand for food now.

>The theft has already occurred, and that's the bit where property rights were violated.

If you buy a stolen car, the cops will repossess it if they find out. Use of stolen property violates property rights, doubly so if done knowingly.

>I can say first hand that it's a major headache, but doesn't stop you from laying out the facts of the matter.

Then cut it out, and actually concede when you fall flat on retorts, shitter. I'm about done spoonfeeding you.

>>The value of the IP decreases with successive use

That's not what you claimed I said in the last post, you were twisting my words intentionally. Fucking dishonest.

>It only decreases for the person using it. Person A reading a book doesn't make person B less interested in the story. Because you cannot affect other people's use or enjoyment of information by using it yourself, IP is nonrivalrous.

Looks like someone fucked up on reading comprehension again. Let's look at the context of the post. That was a reply to your criteria that rivalry=depletability. I then wrote a very clear explanation that IP is depletable:

The value of the IP decreases with successive use. Depletion in objects is nothing more than the lowering of their value by consumption. IP can be depleted just as much as physical goods can.

And thus it is rivalrous, under your criteria.

Clearly your confusion here is from nitpicking at the word successive. It doesn't just mean repeated instances of use, but also dissemination into the populace. If anyone's a hypocrite here, it's the retard who first defined rivalry as requiring depletability, and is now shifting the goal posts for rivalry with a completely different argument.

>>79513

>but because there's less demand for food now

So why is it okay in your view for competition to lower prices?

>actually concede when you fall flat on retorts

Asking your opponent to give up is even more pathetic than declaring victory.

>That's not what you claimed I said in the last post

You said the value decreases with use. I pointed out that for information, that only applies to your personal valuation and not anyone else's.

>And thus it is rivalrous, under your criteria

Wrong.

>So why is it okay in your view for competition to lower prices?

Because they acquired their goods using their own resources and not illegally through aggressive practice?

>Asking your opponent to give up is even more pathetic than declaring victory.

I'm asking you to own it when you fuck up instead of going for fallacies.

>You said the value decreases with use. I pointed out that for information, that only applies to your personal valuation and not anyone else's.

I've no qualm tacking your shifted goalposts. You're basing this on your frame of mind that the personal copy wholly contains the "IP", when an IP owner owns rights to all instances of the info. Thus the value of the IP to the owner doesn't hold to a single copy. Each IP has finite number of uses and thus value. A person who's played a game is unlikely to buy it again. At the same time, security breaches unenforceable by current means also increase as dissemination increases, putting copies with increasing numbers of pirates. Pirates further contribute to increasing use, and lowering demand. The IP over time loses value as the potential number of uses decreases, until it is economically infeasible to distribute.officially.

>Wrong.

Debunked.

>>79518

> Each IP has finite number of uses and thus value

wtf

>>79519

Care to explain otherwise?

>>79520

uh yea I can think a thought any number of times only limited by the longevity and quality of my brain

other people can think that thought to completely independent of me with the same lack of restriction

ideas are not property dude there is no way to build a fence around them

>>79521

>there is no way to build a fence around them

This isn't true, if not we wouldn't be able to keep secrets and hide/control information flow.

>other people can think that thought to completely independent of me with the same lack of restriction

Then it's a high supply idea that is not economically viable to enforce protection, the equivalent of claiming ownership of air. Much of IP is unique to an author or takes a lot of resources to produce, there is near zero probability that all IP will be independently thought of.

>>79523

a system as complex as algebra was developed independantly

>>79518

>Because they acquired their goods using their own resources and not illegally through aggressive practice The theft has already happened. It's a separate event.

>Each IP has finite number of uses

That's entirely personal. If someone else is listening to a song, that doesn't do anything at all to my interest in it.

>>79524

Then it is less scarce. And now that it has disseminated globally, it is economically infeasible to enforce claim to.

>>79553

>The theft has already happened. It's a separate event.

So possession of stolen property is not an act of aggression if done knowingly?

>That's entirely personal. If someone else is listening to a song, that doesn't do anything at all to my interest in it.

IP is owned by it's identity, not it's copies. The act of someone else listening to a song, takes out a finite use of what is owned. It's not entirely personal when there are no protections from unauthorized distribution. The presence of unauthorized sources does affect your interest in buying from the original source.

>>79554

>So possession of stolen property is not an act of aggression if done knowingly

It's no worse than passing it off to someone else. Theft is theft.

>The presence of unauthorized sources does affect your interest in buying from the original source

So does how much of a fag the artist in question is.

>>79560

>It's no worse than passing it off to someone else. Theft is theft.

It's collusion with a thief. Which part of knowing possession of stolen property being an act of aggression do you not get?

>So does how much of a fag the artist in question is.

The difference is that one involves a property violation and the other just involves low demand. Both a store owner who's been robbed, and shitty store owner lose money, only commies think they both deserve it.

>>79574

>It's collusion with a thief

Why are you bringing another knowing participant into this hypothetical?

>The difference is that one involves a property violation

According to you.

>>79575

>Why are you bringing another knowing participant into this hypothetical?

Because that is often the case for illegal distribution of IP and also purchase of stolen physical commodities. Why are you defending a violation of the NAP?

>According to you.

According to just principles that do not arbitrarily use no true scotsmen to justify situational communism

>>79583

>Why are you defending a violation of the NAP

Because it doesn't violate the NAP.

>muh no true scotsmen

It's only no true scotsmen if you fail to offer a justification. I and several other people have all explained why IP isn't capitalist, and you've repeatedly ignored us.

>>79587

Fuck off. You've lost the argument. No other person here has given a more thorough explanation for his case than I have.I have addressed every single counterpoint. I have explained every single piece of logic to legitimize my case. I have taken up every challenge to my point and debunked it. It's been enough for a few IP commies to concede and trail off.

The only one here who's been repeatedly using no true scotsmen, and completely ignoring reason, is you. Your entire case at this point is just shouting "nu-uh" and repeating debunked claims as if they were fact. Colluding with theft doesn't violate the NAP? Prove it. Explain it. Once again, you'll flutter and fail. You're nothing more than a shitposter.

>>79595

>get called a shitposter

>get served a challenge to prove otherwise with a proper response

>shitposts and loses the argument

Nice projection, congratulations on giving up and humiliating yourself first, shitposter.

>>79619

Scared, shitposter? So rectally ravaged that you had to cover both the condition in which you accept your were completely BTFO, and the condition you had to face me again as pathetic?

Projecting a lot with your accusations of win declaration there, shitter.

>>79254

anything can be your property if you try hard enough

>>79253

Yes, FOSS is allowed. Anything is allowed, faggot.

>>81191

Read the thread, retard, your stupid strawman was already addressed here >>79321

>>81245

Ah, I see. It's only stealing when one person does it. When many people do it, your divine right to an IP magically evaporates.

>>81253

>strawmaning this hard

Where does it say you can't punish many people if it's economically practical? It was about enforceability and natural release of ownership, which just as well applies to physical property. Trespassing and claiming a house is an NAP violation up to the point the house is abandoned, which is almost certainly from it becoming economically infeasible to protect.

>>81257

>Intellectual property, like physical property, is merely a spook.

Well memed my property. Now get back in the coal mine before I spook you to death.

>>81257

>personal property is spook

/leftypol/ has such inconsistency

>>81257

I was somewhat impressed by that meme until I saw it was a thumbnail.

>>79259

Without intellectual property, similarly convenient alternatives would emerge, without any return to the creator. Also, maybe more people would get software from other sources if it was legal.

>>92184

>similarly convenient alternatives would emerge

From whom? The only reason piracy has any allure at all is because it's free. Someone who goes through the trouble of setting up a "convenient" service would expect compensation for his work, and anyone that's willing to pay for media is already buying it legitimately. It's a market that doesn't exist.

>>92186

>The only reason piracy has any allure at all is because it's free. Someone who goes through the trouble of setting up a "convenient" service would expect compensation for his work, and anyone that's willing to pay for media is already buying it legitimately.

Right now the services need to give money to the creators. The alternatives won't (and the original won't either).

>>79261

Best you can do is blockchain, probably. That, or sponsorship/funding/patronage. A van Gogh is worth many millions of times more than its copies, so there is a possibility for money through verifiable originality through blockchain, though of course not for most producers.