Why so many bleeding-hearts?

[AdamCrock]

Man You are so wrong ! Man is totally innocent (created at a whim of a higher power) in all that fcuking god-angel power play it makes me sick Would You rather choose : A- Yourself, B-Satan. C- God, D- Any other Angel ?

 

[Traitorfish]

No, I'm preventing people from stealing other people's work.

You're attempting to regulate what thoughts people may or may not have. It may also be the case that you're "preventing theft", but you are also attempting to regulate people's thoughts. As someone who calls themselves a "libertarian", however property-enamoured, you should ask yourself if this is a reasonable trade-off.

 

[Leoreth]

Obviously knowledge should never be a crime.

So only using knowledge should be a crime?

 

[GhostWriter16]

You're attempting to regulate what thoughts people may or may not have. It may also be the case that you're "preventing theft", but you are also attempting to regulate people's thoughts. As someone who calls themselves a "libertarian", however property-enamoured, you should ask yourself if this is a reasonable trade-off.

So only using knowledge should be a crime?

This has crossed my mind. Its tricky, I admit.

Its not regulating thoughts, however. At best, its regulating how you can use certain thoughts. Not merely having them.

There are some things you simply should not be able to do, however. Yeah, I think that's a reasonable tradeoff not to steal intellectual property. For a certain period.

Sometimes they go out of whack though. Like when CleanFilms was shut down even though they actually purchased every single copy they edited.

 

[Leoreth]

This has crossed my mind. Its tricky, I admit.

Its not regulating thoughts, however. At best, its regulating how you can use certain thoughts. Not merely having them.

You can't regulate thoughts anyway, it's simply impossible. I don't see how regulating actions is suddenly permissible in libertarian ideology when corporate interests are involved.

Let's talk about a more specific example here: Apple recently tried to secure the copyrights to their iPads, specifically their geometric form (which is nothing more than a rectangle in the end). Is this their "intellectual property"?

 

[GhostWriter16]

No, that's a little absurd.

I'm not so much thinking about corporations as I am thinking about creators here. There's a reason I said intellectual property should eventually expire.

Copyrighting a shape is just an absurd abuse.

 

[JollyRoger]

There's a reason I said intellectual property should eventually expire.

Why limit it to intellectual property? Why should other property rights not expire?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Why limit it to intellectual property? Why should other property rights not expire?

There is definitely a difference, mainly the finite nature of physical property. Take away my right to own my car and as a consequence someone takes the car, well I simply cannot use it. Sure, when my intellectual property rights expire so does my exclusive ability to profit from them, but the intellectual property can be shared amongst the community without limit.

 

[JollyRoger]

What if the property right expired at death? You aren't taking it with you.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

What if the property right expired at death? You aren't taking it with you.

That I can certainly support (but my opinion is heavily biased. I have no kids and fully intend to withdraw my last $1000 from the ATM and die coked to the eyeballs in the arms of three hookers)

 

[WindFish]

What if the property right expired at death? You aren't taking it with you.

Elvis has made more money dead then he ever could alive

 

[Formaldehyde]

That I can certainly support (but my opinion is heavily biased. I have no kids and fully intend to withdraw my last $1000 from the ATM and die coked to the eyeballs in the arms of three hookers)

Who can possibly ask for more?

 

[Quackers]

That I can certainly support (but my opinion is heavily biased. I have no kids and fully intend to withdraw my last $1000 from the ATM and die coked to the eyeballs in the arms of three hookers)

You're starting Heaven early

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Who can possibly ask for more?

You're starting Heaven early

Exactly. And no "rich man/camel through the eye of a needle" issues to additionally impede my progress.

 

[Crezth]

I'm not so much thinking about corporations as I am thinking about creators here. There's a reason I said intellectual property should eventually expire.

Copyrighting a shape is just an absurd abuse.

You have to consider both "creators" and the eventual copyright holders, whomever they may be. And you have to consider abuses.

If I as a creator can obtain a legal protection for *whatever* I've devised, and if it follows that so long as it is a legally transmittable property, then I can sell that protection to someone else, or to a corporation. And thus you end up in the current interesting predicament.

You might call copyrighting a shape to be an absurd abuse, but where do you draw the line? Sometimes simple solutions come from inordinately brilliant frames of mind.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't really have a good answer. I don't think you should be protected if you try to prevent anyone else from creating an electronic devise in a certain shape. On the other hand, I don't think I should be able to rewrite Star Wars and sell it for a profit. That's a form of stealing.

 

[Crezth]

Yes, you've given two examples, but unfortunately I don't see what distinction you're drawing between a rectangle of certain proportions and Star Wars.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't really have a good answer. I don't think you should be protected if you try to prevent anyone else from creating an electronic devise in a certain shape. On the other hand, I don't think I should be able to rewrite Star Wars and sell it for a profit. That's a form of stealing.

It certainly kinda is. We all get how it's stealing (kinda). It's not truly stealing, though, not with stricter definitions.

There's a reason why most libertarian philosophers don't respect copyright or patent law; it just doesn't work, especially when it's broken down to become math. Societally, we accept patent laws because we've been promised beneficial meta-effects, but this is a matter of convenience. There are other instances of rent-seeking where we assume social profits will trickle down: coal mining or oil mining spring to mind most readily

 

[MagisterCultuum]

i dont know, but maybe this infographic i found on google can somehow help you.

Spoiler :

Even the one about reproduction being impossible through homosexual sex acts is arguably not completely true. There is a species of lizard whose males have gone extinct, and whose females have managed to propagate their species through parthenogenesis. All of the offspring's genes come from the mother, but apparently she cannot conceive unless another female mounts her and performances a role in the mating dance which is very similar to that of related species hat still depend on normal sexual reproduction.

 

[Rashiminos]

OP banninated, thread set adrift.