The Tiny Dot

[fegunz]

Its stamped on the CD....called copyright! Get it...."copy" "right". I guess you are in need of a harsher and more stringent contract.....

A symbol is stamped on the CD not a contract. One cannot read any legalese terms or conditions within said symbol nor is a purchaser even guaranteed to even notice the symbol before purchase. The notion that a symbol constitutes a valid contract with specific terms is ridiculous. That's like me selling you my car but I etched an O symbol in the door that you find AFTER the sale and when you ask me about it say "that's the contract you agreed to when you bought it which states you now owe me all of your property for the rest of your life." Such a "contract" is just as valid.

[Original_Intent]

Its stamped on the CD....called copyright! Get it...."copy" "right". I guess you are in need of a harsher and more stringent contract.....

A symbol is stamped on the CD not a contract. One cannot read any legalese terms or conditions within said symbol nor is a purchaser even guaranteed to even notice the symbol before purchase. The notion that a symbol constitutes a valid contract with specific terms is ridiculous. That's like me selling you my car but I etched an O symbol in the door that you find AFTER the sale and when you ask me about it say "that's the contract you agreed to when you bought it which states you now owe me all of your property for the rest of your life." Such a "contract" is just as valid.

The difference being is in our society, people of even below average intelligence understand copyrighted material. And even if you get a pirated version with such copyright notice or EULA removed, you are still very much aware that in order for you to obtain such a copy that at some point breach of contract had to occur. To say that you are blameless because you yourself did not breach a contract you are still upholding unjust act.

I feel you are being dishonest because I know that you have the light of Christ, and even though I will admit you make a good "legally sound" argument against IP, I still know it is wrong. In the example Mummy gave, someone coulde spend considerable time and money to create something, such as a computer game. And yet your position is that anyone who can obtain access to a disk and with means to duplicate has EQUAL rights to the fruit of his labor as he has. I have seen how you will stand by this position and you two high five each other as if you really believe what you are saying. If a farmer works a year in a field, you acknowledge he has the right to the fruit of his labor, yet the artist, the musician, the inventor you take the position that the fruit of his labor is in the public domain and that he has no right to any reward for what he produced other than what others may boluntarily give him as charity.

You do have a sophisticated argument favoring doing away with IP rights, and I have done a lot of reading on Lew Rockwell and your thoughts mirror his - and again I won't deny that there is a sound argument in what you say - definitely a good philosophical argument can be made. And yet my conscience tells me you are wrong, that there is indeed a flaw. In my opinion, you are as guilty of circular logic as those who disagree with you. They say "IP rights exist because they exist" and you say "IP rights don;t exist because they don't". Your position is hard to assail because you say (rightly) what did we take from the artist/inventor. And yet I think that you realize that you have obtained something to which you have no right, and that you HAVE indeed deprived them of something, although what that something is may be hard to define. I'll call it a right to profit from his creative talent and effort - you have damaged that.

I have read a lot of the pros and cons of the IP argument in the last couple of days. Bottom line is, I agree that your position is stronger but the light of Christ which is in me rejects it. The reason I said "end of line" before is we are at an impasse. But I would say it is the SAME impasse as the one where the atheist and the believer argue to the point where the atheist says "You can;t prove God exists, therefore I win." You, in my opinion are in the same predicament - you say "If you cannot show me the harm, then I am not guilty of any wrongdoing." Yet the wrong does exist, as God exists.

[fegunz]

loveistruth and fugunz, as an interesting experiment, you should both start copying and distributing church intellectual property such as the old handbook of instruction, the temple vids and so on. Would you call the 12 and the 1st Presidency to repentance for "aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it," as they send their world class litigation team (the ones who have fought many people stealing and distributing like wiki leaks and others) to rip you shreds in a court room?

I personally wouldn't attempt such a thing cause I don't want to start such a fight with them but frankly yes that too would be an aggressive denial of tangible property rights. This "interesting experiment" is frankly nothing more than a "argument from authority" fallacy. It's an attempt to claim that your case is valid merely because someone in authority says it is. Now no disrespect to the 12 and the 1st presidency BUT they are not Gods and are still imperfect men that can and certainly will, at least at times, act on there own personal feelings and thoughts. This does not mean they are not called of God as I have a testimony they are but again they are not perfect so merely saying "they agree with me" doesn't in and of itself make your position valid. There is absolutely no reason to believe there belief and usage of "intellectual property law" is in anyway inspired and from God. Is there any revelation at all in support of this position? I have scripture supporting my position of "right and control of property".

Also if it is wrong to copyright your mental property, are the brethren, who enjoy writing and publishing books, sinning because they stock Desert Book full of protected books that they have as solo monopoly on as the writer, just so they can make a profit on a copy of a copy of a copy?

Not necessarily. I never said that merely copyrighting a work is wrong in and of itself nor do I believe that. I realize that may initially seem like I am contradicting myself but let me explain. Just because a writer copyrights his book does not necessarily mean he will aggressively go after and attack anyone that makes a copy. Because copyright exists it would be completely legitimate to obtain a copyright strictly for defensive purposes meaning you only have it so no one else can copyright the same work and then stop you from producing it. So even if I wrote a book I would in fact copyright it HOWEVER I would never prosecute anyone that makes a copy for himself. I would only have it so no one else could copyright, claim it is there work, and then demand I stop producing it.


Secondly even if an author isn't too keen on aggressively denying others usage of there tangible property the problem is that all publishers will copyright anything they print anyway. So it's not even necessarily up to the author anyway.

In church as you nod off daydreaming of posting your pathetic arguments about ripping people off of truly hard and sometimes heartbreaking work

Except that they have not had anything taken away from them and my argument is based on scripture. I would be careful in calling a sacred principle in holy scripture to be a "pathetic argument."

you may of noticed on all the church manuals a lil circled ‘c’ with the following words ‘all rights reserved.’ I wonder who decided to put that there? The 1st Presidency and the 12? Under who’s direction? We all know who's direction.

And again defensive copyrights are not aggressive violations of anyone's "right and control of property" AND these men are not perfect and there is absolutely NO revelation whatsoever that there usage of copyright is inspired from God.

Copyrights give the author(s) control of their property.

False. A author ALREADY has control of his book under tangible property rights. He can sell that book, change it, add to, or do anything he wants to it. What copyright does is give the author partial control of OTHER PEOPLE's property in conflict with the principle of "right and control of property."

Is this not the true church? Do we not have holy and righteous men called by God running it?

Yes it's the true church but the men running it are not Gods. The DOCTRINE of the church is perfect and sound however it is ridiculous to make the claim that all men in leadership positions never make any mistakes and all statements, actions, and policies are revelations from God.

Why would they "aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it.”

You would have to ask them, I cannot tell you there heart or mind.

Your arguments are so incredibly flawed.

You certainly haven't shown that. The entirety of your argument rests on the silly idea that the leaders of the church are perfect, never act on there own personal thoughts and feelings, and every action they take are inspired from God. Yes many leaders of the Church use copyright laws however they don't even claim such usage is inspired or from God.

I will not waste my time arguing the philosophy of man, when the church, Christ’s kingdom on earth copyrights everything if produces.

1. If you won't waste your time arguing then why are you responding? You are contradicting yourself by arguing with me then...

2. My argument is not based on a philosophy of man but a principle contained in holy scripture; the "right and control of property." Clearly aggressively attacking me for arranging my own property is a violation of this scriptural based principle.
3. The Church is true however the men are not perfect. I suggest you lean more on doctrine contained in scripture than the actions of imperfect men especially when they take actions that are not supported by scripture and are not even claimed to be inspired.

If you can break away from the Ron Paul forum long enough to watch conference in a week or so, you will notice, either before or after the televised conference…………UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THESE BRODCASTS IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS! Or something along those lines. Quit looking beyond the mark. The only circled argument is the false one you two are spinning!

Again I suggest you rely more heavily on principles contained within the scriptures instead of the actions of imperfect men especially an action that is not even claimed to be from God and is contrary to scripture.

[1984Orwellherenow]

No I don't. I genuinely don't understand your point... It seems like you are saying I am advocating destroying property yet I never have advocated such a thing. Keep in mind copying something does not destroy or even change the original in anyway. Try again.

Dudes, you didn't get it dudes. Property is, like, totally property, dudes. It's like, if it's tangible or intangible, like, dudes, you can't like, use it to hurt others, dudes, ya know? Like, my stuff can't be used to hurt your stuff, regardless of how much you want to use your stuff to hurt my stuff, ya know?

Dudes, it's like that question if God is so great, can He, like, create a being greater than Him? Ya know, dudes? It's like, so circular, to, like, get the warped stuff into perspective that ya lose the perspective, ya know? If ya don't, dudes,...

Congratulations, you are making just as much sense as the defenders of copyrights and patents do, which is about ZERO.

Goes to show that your position does not have basis in logic, reason, scripture or truth.

Well, nu huh, right back at ya, I'm rubber and you're glue... Nah, that's not fun, but you can enjoy the "I'm right and you're wrong so neener neener" arguing all you want. I still love you, brother or sister dudes.

[LoveIsTruth]

loveistruth and fugunz, as an interesting experiment, you should both start copying and distributing church intellectual property such as the old handbook of instruction, the temple vids and so on. Would you call the 12 and the 1st Presidency to repentance for "aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it," as they send their world class litigation team (the ones who have fought many people stealing and distributing like wiki leaks and others) to rip you shreds in a court room?

Also if it is wrong to copyright your mental property, are the brethren, who enjoy writing and publishing books, sinning because they stock Desert Book full of protected books that they have as solo monopoly on as the writer, just so they can make a profit on a copy of a copy of a copy?

In church as you nod off daydreaming of posting your pathetic arguments about ripping people off of truly hard and sometimes heartbreaking work, you may of noticed on all the church manuals a lil circled ‘c’ with the following words ‘all rights reserved.’ I wonder who decided to put that there? The 1st Presidency and the 12? Under who’s direction? We all know who's direction.

Copyrights give the author(s) control of their property.

Is this not the true church? Do we not have holy and righteous men called by God running it? Why would they "aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it.” Your arguments are so incredibly flawed. I will not waste my time arguing the philosophy of man, when the church, Christ’s kingdom on earth copyrights everything if produces.

If you can break away from the Ron Paul forum long enough to watch conference in a week or so, you will notice, either before or after the televised conference…………UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THESE BRODCASTS IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS! Or something along those lines. Quit looking beyond the mark. The only circled argument is the false one you two are spinning!

The use of a copyright may be done merely for protection from an enemy copyrighting church stuff. It does not necessarily mean that copyright laws are just, but merely a way to protect the church from being abused by this law.

The Brethren pick their fights very carefully so as to further the work of the Lord in the most effective way. This is why the Church in general, stays away from political issues, while strongly encouraging us, members, to get involved.

The church complied with anti-polygamy laws not because those laws were just, but because it became the law of the land, and that was not the most important fight worth fighting at the time. It is a matter of priorities.

[fegunz]

The difference being is in our society, people of even below average intelligence understand copyrighted material.

Baloney. No one understand this complicated web of legalese that even legions of lawyers disagree about: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

And even if you get a pirated version with such copyright notice or EULA removed, you are still very much aware that in order for you to obtain such a copy that at some point breach of contract had to occur.

That is not true. If you loan me a book and I make a copy no contract is broken since I never agreed to not copy it.

To say that you are blameless because you yourself did not breach a contract you are still upholding unjust act.

No. Not only is it not guaranteed that any contract has been broken but even if one has that action is done and completely independent of me making a copy for myself or not. Whether I make a copy for myself does not affect the previous action that has already taken place of breaking a contract. In other words even if there is an unjust act of breaking a contract that cannot and will not be effected at all if I make a copy for myself or not. The two actions are completely independent of each other.

I feel you are being dishonest because I know that you have the light of Christ, and even though I will admit you make a good "legally sound" argument against IP, I still know it is wrong

And I feel you are being dishonest because I know that you have the light of Christ and even though you read a principle contained in holy scripture you know is true you still advocate violating it which you know is wrong.


The light of Christ will not tell you to violate a principle in scripture so frankly you are not being told this by the light of Christ. It's your own personal thoughts and feelings and they are deceiving you into violating principles in holy scripture.

In the example Mummy gave, someone coulde spend considerable time and money to create something, such as a computer game. And yet your position is that anyone who can obtain access to a disk and with means to duplicate has EQUAL rights to the fruit of his labor as he has.

No, I never claimed anyone has the rights to the fruits of someone else's labor. For example if the creator of this computer game never shares it with anyone and keeps it a secret I fully recognize I have no right to gain unauthorized entry into his brain or his computer to sneak a peak because that would be trespass. Therefore I would have no way of knowing how I could possibly arrange my own property (my own hard drive sectors) in the same pattern.


In reality it is YOU and every other advocate of "intellectual property" that is guilty of claiming a creator has a partial right to the fruits of others labors. Someone could spend considerable time and money to purchase a computer and yet your position is that anyone who arranges there own sectors on there hard drive in a unique patter (such as creating a game) has MORE rights to the fruit of the labor of the computer owner.

I have seen how you will stand by this position and you two high five each other as if you really believe what you are saying.

Same goes for you and your anti-tangible property buddies.

If a farmer works a year in a field, you acknowledge he has the right to the fruit of his labor, yet the artist, the musician, the inventor you take the position that the fruit of his labor is in the public domain and that he has no right to any reward for what he produced other than what others may boluntarily give him as charity.

False. He has every right to his labor and can do with it as he pleases. If he keeps it a secret and never puts it out into the public domain NO ONE has any right to it. He can contract with whomever he wants to and set any price he wants to for the first use of it however once he puts it out there it necessarily enters into the public domain. I believe Thomas Jefferson put it best when he said:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

You do have a sophisticated argument favoring doing away with IP rights, and I have done a lot of reading on Lew Rockwell and your thoughts mirror his - and again I won't deny that there is a sound argument in what you say - definitely a good philosophical argument can be made. And yet my conscience tells me you are wrong, that there is indeed a flaw.

And my conscience tells me you are wrong that there are indeed many flaws in your arguments. I would be careful in claiming to find flaws in Godly principles contained in holy scripture...

In my opinion, you are as guilty of circular logic as those who disagree with you. They say "IP rights exist because they exist" and you say "IP rights don;t exist because they don't".

No, I have never taken such a position. My position is that the very nature of "intellectual property" is in conflict with tangible property thus they cannot coexist in harmony; one must trump the other. Yet I know that God does not contradict himself. So when we read in scripture that there is a "right and control of property" I know such a principle cannot contradict itself; again God does not contradict himself. This means that it cannot be that both tangible items and intangibles are property; again they conflict.


My position is not that IP rights don't exist because they don't exist. My position is that IP rights cannot exist because they necessarily conflict and contradict property rights in tangible things.

Your position is hard to assail because you say (rightly) what did we take from the artist/inventor. And yet I think that you realize that you have obtained something to which you have no right

Nope. I have ever right to arrange my own property as I see fit.

and that you HAVE indeed deprived them of something, although what that something is may be hard to define. I'll call it a right to profit from his creative talent and effort - you have damaged that.

No one has a right to any profit since value is subjective to each individual. If you create something no one values then no one will be willing to pay you a penny. Profit is only legitimately obtained when TWO or more parties agree upon a price yet again value is subjective and no creator has any guarantee anyone values his work at all let alone values it at a price that constitutes a profit.

I have read a lot of the pros and cons of the IP argument in the last couple of days. Bottom line is, I agree that your position is stronger but the light of Christ which is in me rejects it.

I have read a lot of the pros and cons of the IP argument over the years. Bottom line is, the light of Christ which is in me AND scripture which we have from God rejects it.

The reason I said "end of line" before is we are at an impasse. But I would say it is the SAME impasse as the one where the atheist and the believer argue to the point where the atheist says "You can;t prove God exists, therefore I win." You, in my opinion are in the same predicament - you say "If you cannot show me the harm, then I am not guilty of any wrongdoing." Yet the wrong does exist, as God exists.

No, I never made the claim that only if you can show me harm is there wrong doing. Scripture and the light of Christ is enough for me.

[Jason]

Its stamped on the CD....called copyright! Get it...."copy" "right". I guess you are in need of a harsher and more stringent contract.....

A symbol is stamped on the CD not a contract. One cannot read any legalese terms or conditions within said symbol nor is a purchaser even guaranteed to even notice the symbol before purchase. The notion that a symbol constitutes a valid contract with specific terms is ridiculous. That's like me selling you my car but I etched an O symbol in the door that you find AFTER the sale and when you ask me about it say "that's the contract you agreed to when you bought it which states you now owe me all of your property for the rest of your life." Such a "contract" is just as valid.

Ignorance isn't a justifiable excuse......and after umpteen years of copyrights....highly amazing one could be so ignorant.

Also....why does there have to be a copyright? Why can't people just respect other people's property? Instead you want a lawyer present before you purchase a cd.....go back to the dark ages where musicians didn't become famous until after they died because they couldn't protect their intellectual property.....thus no one was exposed to it until after they died.

[fegunz]

Its stamped on the CD....called copyright! Get it...."copy" "right". I guess you are in need of a harsher and more stringent contract.....

A symbol is stamped on the CD not a contract. One cannot read any legalese terms or conditions within said symbol nor is a purchaser even guaranteed to even notice the symbol before purchase. The notion that a symbol constitutes a valid contract with specific terms is ridiculous. That's like me selling you my car but I etched an O symbol in the door that you find AFTER the sale and when you ask me about it say "that's the contract you agreed to when you bought it which states you now owe me all of your property for the rest of your life." Such a "contract" is just as valid.

Ignorance isn't a justifiable excuse......and after umpteen years of copyrights....highly amazing one could be so ignorant.

1. I'm not claiming I'm ignorant of the concept of copyright. I am claiming I never agreed to the "contract". Voluntary consent is necessary in valid contracts; without it there is no contract. Merely putting a stamp on a book does not automatically mean that everyone agrees to any contract. You can keep on saying I agreed to it but I say again I never have nor is there a shred of evidence that I have.

2. I don't need an excuse to justify arranging and selling my own property. I already have the right to do those things to my own property as stated in scripture.

Also....why does there have to be a copyright? Why can't people just respect other people's property?

Respect for other's property is exactly what I am advocating; please respect my property in tangible things by refraining from aggressively denying me my right to arrange and sell my tangible property. It is YOU that is advocating for disrespecting the tangible property rights of everyone then you have the gall to ask for respect of people's property?!?

Instead you want a lawyer present before you purchase a cd.....

No I don't but even if they did I still wouldn't agree to the terms so I still wouldn't be under any moral obligation to abide by it.

go back to the dark ages where musicians didn't become famous until after they died because they couldn't protect their intellectual property.....thus no one was exposed to it until after they died.

1. You are again making the circular argument that intangible things such as arrangements of notes are property; which cannot coexist with tangible property rights.

2. Think of any masterpiece; was it created under the "protection" of "intellectual property law"? Exactly.

[Teancum-Old]

loveistruth and fugunz, as an interesting experiment, you should both start copying and distributing church intellectual property such as the old handbook of instruction, the temple vids and so on. Would you call the 12 and the 1st Presidency to repentance for "aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it," as they send their world class litigation team (the ones who have fought many people stealing and distributing like wiki leaks and others) to rip you shreds in a court room?

Also if it is wrong to copyright your mental property, are the brethren, who enjoy writing and publishing books, sinning because they stock Desert Book full of protected books that they have as solo monopoly on as the writer, just so they can make a profit on a copy of a copy of a copy?

In church as you nod off daydreaming of posting your pathetic arguments about ripping people off of truly hard and sometimes heartbreaking work, you may of noticed on all the church manuals a lil circled ‘c’ with the following words ‘all rights reserved.’ I wonder who decided to put that there? The 1st Presidency and the 12? Under who’s direction? We all know who's direction.

Copyrights give the author(s) control of their property.

Is this not the true church? Do we not have holy and righteous men called by God running it? Why would they "aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it.” Your arguments are so incredibly flawed. I will not waste my time arguing the philosophy of man, when the church, Christ’s kingdom on earth copyrights everything if produces.

If you can break away from the Ron Paul forum long enough to watch conference in a week or so, you will notice, either before or after the televised conference…………UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THESE BRODCASTS IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS! Or something along those lines. Quit looking beyond the mark. The only circled argument is the false one you two are spinning!

armedtotheteeth has made some great points which I completely agree with.

Tangible or intangible property is the same thing; either one result from the fruit of labor and individuals have the right to control either one. The Church does it all the time as armedtotheteeth has brought up.

loveistruth and fugunz are completely wrong on this one and scriptures do not justify your argument either; satan mingles the philosophy of men with scriptures all the time to serve his own purposes. Therefore, quit proclaiming yourself to be the ultimate Interpretor of Scripture fungunz.

It's your own personal thoughts and feelings and they are deceiving you into violating principles in holy scripture.

As you claim to be this great Interpretor of scripture, I find it strange that you cannot properly interpret "Thou shall not steal" and understand that piracy is also stealing. You fugunz, have admitted that software piracy is fine as long as you are not the first one to steal the software (since it is not tangible). That sir, is theft, clear and simple (and a weak claim to ignorance).

Now I have read that extreme libertarianism agrees with communism on many issues (see anarcho-communism). It appears this is one of those issues. They would like to see the abolition of the state completely (as do extreme libertarians) because according to both groups, "states are inherently aggressive." I like Lew Rockwell on many points, but when he gets to extreme with these abolition of the state ideas, I have to remind myself that anarchy is not the Lord's way, for even Jesus Christ will reign over His government through the Millenium.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

Besides, if we have no copyright laws, then how is technology and society supposed to progress?? In a Zion society, where all are working out of love for one another, I can see progression in all areas growing out of love. But in a debased society as our own, how do you expect to progress as a society without any incentive (profit motive only had by way of copyrights)?? The idea that a debased society can progress without incentive, is also one shared and glorified by communists. Just another aspect where extreme libertarianism agrees with communism.

Joseph Smith said, "The constitution of the United States is a glorious standard. It is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner; it is to all those who are privileged with the sweets of liberty, like the cooling shades and refreshing waters of a great rock in a thirsty and weary land. It is like a great tree under whose branches men from every clime can be shielded from the burning rays of the sun. We say that God is true; that the constitution of the United States is true; that the Bible is true; that the Book of Mormon is true; that the Book of Covenants is true; that Christ is true; that the ministering angels sent forth from God are true, and that we know that we have an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens, whose builder and maker is God."

J. Rueben Clark (Counselor to President McKay) said, “I have about the Constitution that same sort of conviction that I have about the other doctrines that we are taught, for I believe its precepts are among the doctrines of the Church, and I believe that the Lord will change and modify from time to time those details of its provisions which are ancillary to its great principles; he will cause us-those who live under it-to modify it in accordance with our needs; but the fundamental principles of it we may not sacrifice.”

Now I like Ron Paul, but Ron Paul does not seem to go so far as to agree with the idea that "states are inherently aggressive." He believes in the Constitution as do I. Never have I heard him denigrate its precepts as I have seen loveistruth and fugunz do here. I agree with many all latter-day prophets, that the Constitution is inspired--see Joseph Smith quote above--and it is the best thing we have right now (but of course not absolutely perfect). Some prophets (J. Rueben Clark --see quote above-- and Ezra Taft Benson) even went as far as to say that they held the Constitution in very high regard, almost to the level of scripture. So when it comes down to the original Constitution, we should not take lightly to tearing it down, as loveistruth and fugunz have done. Aside from the compromise on slavery (but even that went as far as could be possible at that time), there is not a whole lot more we can clearly and decisively point out as wrong in that original document (constitution and 12 amendments). To waste our time in locating its errors, is in my view, pulling at straws, poorly prioritizing and completely the wrong thing to do at this time (else we fall in line with everyone else currently demonizing the document as and outdated, ancient relic). Arguing about its flaws at this point is meaningless: how can we as a nation live up to a higher law as a whole (like consecration) when we cannot even abide by the Constitution? Let's get back to the Constitution. I am with all the Prophets and Ron Paul on this. Yet it seems that extreme libertarians would do away with the whole thing. Once our government is back to abiding by the precepts of the original Constitution, then please, and only then, tell me about how we can improve it. But for now, I don't want to hear it.

[Jason]

Its stamped on the CD....called copyright! Get it...."copy" "right". I guess you are in need of a harsher and more stringent contract.....

A symbol is stamped on the CD not a contract. One cannot read any legalese terms or conditions within said symbol nor is a purchaser even guaranteed to even notice the symbol before purchase. The notion that a symbol constitutes a valid contract with specific terms is ridiculous. That's like me selling you my car but I etched an O symbol in the door that you find AFTER the sale and when you ask me about it say "that's the contract you agreed to when you bought it which states you now owe me all of your property for the rest of your life." Such a "contract" is just as valid.

Ignorance isn't a justifiable excuse......and after umpteen years of copyrights....highly amazing one could be so ignorant.

1. I'm not claiming I'm ignorant of the concept of copyright. I am claiming I never agreed to the "contract". Voluntary consent is necessary in valid contracts; without it there is no contract. Merely putting a stamp on a book does not automatically mean that everyone agrees to any contract. You can keep on saying I agreed to it but I say again I never have nor is there a shred of evidence that I have.

2. I don't need an excuse to justify arranging and selling my own property. I already have the right to do those things to my own property as stated in scripture.

Also....why does there have to be a copyright? Why can't people just respect other people's property?

Respect for other's property is exactly what I am advocating; please respect my property in tangible things by refraining from aggressively denying me my right to arrange and sell my tangible property. It is YOU that is advocating for disrespecting the tangible property rights of everyone then you have the gall to ask for respect of people's property?!?

Instead you want a lawyer present before you purchase a cd.....

No I don't but even if they did I still wouldn't agree to the terms so I still wouldn't be under any moral obligation to abide by it.

go back to the dark ages where musicians didn't become famous until after they died because they couldn't protect their intellectual property.....thus no one was exposed to it until after they died.

1. You are again making the circular argument that intangible things such as arrangements of notes are property; which cannot coexist with tangible property rights.

2. Think of any masterpiece; was it created under the "protection" of "intellectual property law"? Exactly.

You can keep claiming ignorance....but the copyright is stamped right on it......and easily seen prior to making your voluntary purchase of a copyrighted item. How did that rationalization statement go again.....

Oh yeah please respect your tangible property while you violate intangible property....just brilliant! Go watch the flick again....

...and you would never get the property to begin with without theft.....otherwise consent for use of intellectual property would never be given. Again just absolutely brilliant!!!

Those masterpieces were created as contract work! Michelangelo didn't work for free.....which opens up an entirely different set of constraints. Back to my previous statement....you are going backwards....not forwards. You are asking for more regimented and enforced contracts - i.e. harsher task masters....due to wickedness and unwillingness to respect intellectual property!

[armedtotheteeth]

Fugunz: So it’s the old the brethren are great, but not always correct argument is it? So you don’t believe when the 1st and 12 act unanimously it clarifies scripture? And yes, because I agree with them, it does make my point valid.
I find it interesting you are trying to tell us the brethren are not perfect and are only men, but you want so badly for us to see your point of view; my question is, who are you then? You say the decision to copyright all of the churches material is incorrect, therefore the brethren are. The Churches name is a trademark; you don’t think that is a heaven sent directive to the Brethren?

Not necessarily. I never said that merely copyrighting a work is wrong in and of itself nor do I believe that. I realize that may initially seem like I am contradicting myself but let me explain. Just because a writer copyrights his book does not necessarily mean he will aggressively go after and attack anyone that makes a copy. Because copyright exists it would be completely legitimate to obtain a copyright strictly for defensive purposes meaning you only have it so no one else can copyright the same work and then stop you from producing it. So even if I wrote a book I would in fact copyright it HOWEVER I would never prosecute anyone that makes a copy for himself. I would only have it so no one else could copyright, claim it is there work, and then demand I stop producing it.

It doesn’t seem like you are contradicting yourself...you are. Under your premise, If I copyright a book, then you take it, copy it, say it’s your creation, I could then provide my copyright to say, look its mine, here is the copyright BUT what would be the point? You could take it and copy and sell it all the same, without calling it yours, because if I tried to stop you I would be infringing your rights.

When the disgusting movie orgasmo came to be, (missionaries become porn stars) the producers wanted to make missionary badges just like the churches, but because of CR and TM they could not. Was the church taking the producers rights away? You agree that copyright can be used for defense; I think this is a good case, but you would defend the producers?

And again defensive copyrights are not aggressive violations of anyone's "right and control of property" AND these men are not perfect and there is absolutely NO revelation whatsoever that there usage of copyright is inspired from God.

How could you even know this? So you are submitting when the brethren act unanimously to do something, it is not under heavenly directive?

Yes it's the true church but the men running it are not Gods. The DOCTRINE of the church is perfect and sound however it is ridiculous to make the claim that all men in leadership positions never make any mistakes and all statements, actions, and policies are revelations from God.

So they got it wrong together when the decision was made to TM the church's full mane?

You certainly haven't shown that. The entirety of your argument rests on the silly idea that the leaders of the church are perfect, never act on there own personal thoughts and feelings, and every action they take are inspired from God. Yes many leaders of the Church use copyright laws however they don't even claim such usage is inspired or from God.

You are already doing a good job by yourself. Again, you are saying the brethrens decision to CR and TM the churches materials in not of God?

1. If you won't waste your time arguing then why are you responding? You are contradicting yourself by arguing with me then...

2. My argument is not based on a philosophy of man but a principle contained in holy scripture; the "right and control of property." Clearly aggressively attacking me for arranging my own property is a violation of this scriptural based principle.
3. The Church is true however the men are not perfect. I suggest you lean more on doctrine contained in scripture than the actions of imperfect men especially when they take actions that are not supported by scripture and are not even claimed to be inspired.

1. So you do understand you are using the philosophy of man?
2. Mingled with scripture.
3. Again how would you know that? Also are you saying the brethren where not correct in CR and TM'ing all church materials, including the church's full name?

From the church website:

LICENSES AND RESTRICTIONS
This site is owned and operated by Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All material found at this site (including visuals, text, icons, displays, databases, media, and general information), is owned or licensed by us. You may view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use unless otherwise indicated. In addition, materials may be reproduced by media personnel for use in traditional public news forums unless otherwise indicated. You may not post material from this site on another web site or on a computer network without our permission. You may not transmit or distribute material from this site to other sites. You may not use this site or information found at this site (including the names and addresses of those who submitted information) for selling or promoting products or services, soliciting clients, or any other commercial purpose.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we reserve sole discretion and right to deny, revoke, or limit use of this site, including reproduction. It is not our responsibility, however, to determine what "Fair Use" means for persons wishing to use materials from this site. That remains wholly a responsibility of the user. Further, we are not required to give additional source citations, nor to guarantee that the materials are cleared for alternate uses. Such ultimately remains the responsibility of the user. However, the Church maintains the right to prevent infringement of its materials and to interpret "Fair Use" as it understands the law.

This is also a good read:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7002 ... right.html

[Teancum-Old]

This is also a good read:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7002 ... right.html

Definitely a must read.

Why would the Church have sued Wikileaks and the Anti-Mormon Tanners for copyright violation? If we followed fugunz' "anointed" interpretation of Holy Scripture on this we would have to believe the Church was violating the Tanners' and Wikileaks property rights!

[LoveIsTruth]

Besides, if we have no copyright laws, then how is technology and society supposed to progress?? In a Zion society, where all are working out of love for one another, I can see progression in all areas growing out of love. But in a debased society as our own, how do you expect to progress as a society without any incentive (profit motive only had by way of copyrights)?? The idea that a debased society can progress without incentive, is also one shared and glorified by communists. Just another aspect where extreme libertarianism agrees with communism.

1) I never said there should be anarchy (i.e. lawlessness). I said there must be just laws as defined by fundamental principles of liberty, including the Benson Principle, which, by the way, agree perfectly with scripture. For you to claim that I advocate anarchy is simply not honest.

2) I never said that creator of information should have no compensation. I said that there are proper and improper ways to achieve that compensation. Again, the proper way, consistent with fundamental principles of liberty and with scripture is: a) Use the information yourself; b) Secure contract of first use; c) ask for donations. The improper way is to use force upon your neighbor who violated no contract, neither deprived you of your property.

3) Science and inventions will move forward even better without patents because the primary intensive of all useful science is improving the human condition, not creating government forced monopolies.

[Jason]

Besides, if we have no copyright laws, then how is technology and society supposed to progress?? In a Zion society, where all are working out of love for one another, I can see progression in all areas growing out of love. But in a debased society as our own, how do you expect to progress as a society without any incentive (profit motive only had by way of copyrights)?? The idea that a debased society can progress without incentive, is also one shared and glorified by communists. Just another aspect where extreme libertarianism agrees with communism.

1) I never said there should be anarchy (i.e. lawlessness). I said there must be just laws as defined by fundamental principles of liberty, including the Benson Principle, which, by the way, agree perfectly with scripture. For you to claim that I advocate anarchy is simply not honest.

2) I never said that creator of information should have no compensation. I said that there are proper and improper ways to achieve that compensation. Again, the proper way, consistent with fundamental principles of liberty and with scripture is: 1) Use the information yourself; 2) Secure contract of first use; 3) ask for donations. The improper way is to use force upon your neighbor.

3) Science and inventions will move forward even better without patents because the primary intensive of all useful science is improving the human condition, not creating government forced monopolies.

How exactly can you accomplish #3 when you fail at #2?

If no one respects IP then you go back to the dark ages because you can't adequately secure contract of first use because you can't get adequately compensated for it......which means you don't eat and your family doesn't eat.....which means you work on something else that will put food on the table.....which means the IP never gets invented.....which means nobody benefits from it!

Put a price on the 1st music cd sale if that buyer then makes a copy and distributes to the world for free.....and then try to get someone to purchase that cd for that price!

[LoveIsTruth]

How exactly can you accomplish #3 when you fail at #2?

If no one respects IP then you go back to the dark ages because you can't adequately secure contract of first use because you can't get adequately compensated for it......which means you don't eat and your family doesn't eat.....which means you work on something else that will put food on the table.....which means the IP never gets invented.....which means nobody benefits from it!

Put a price on the 1st music cd sale if that buyer then makes a copy and distributes to the world for free.....and then try to get someone to purchase that cd for that price!

- I agree that in case of books the primary compensation will be voluntary donations. And if the book is popular those donations could be VERY substantial. Just think of all the fan sites that exist for popular authors, musicians and movie stars!
- In case of movies you could secure a contract of first use with a movie theater chain, which could secure multiple weeks of exclusive showings in hi-def, which could be VERY lucrative.
- Similar thing can be achieved in theatrical performances or concerts. People still go to concerts despite the fact that they already have the CD's of the artists they love.
- In case of inventions, contracts of first use can be EXTREMELY profitable, because very often being first to market is all the advantage a company needs!
- In case of software, security measures could be applied, as demonstrated well by Microsoft, that can render the software inoperable without a payment received.

As you can see there is A LOT of profit to be made in intellectual property, without copyrights and patents, which violate the Benson Principle, and tangible property rights of others, which are the very foundations of Liberty itself!

[Jason]

How exactly can you accomplish #3 when you fail at #2?

If no one respects IP then you go back to the dark ages because you can't adequately secure contract of first use because you can't get adequately compensated for it......which means you don't eat and your family doesn't eat.....which means you work on something else that will put food on the table.....which means the IP never gets invented.....which means nobody benefits from it!

Put a price on the 1st music cd sale if that buyer then makes a copy and distributes to the world for free.....and then try to get someone to purchase that cd for that price!

- I agree that in case of books the primary compensation will be voluntary donations. And if the book is popular those donations could be VERY substantial. Just think of all the fan sites that exist for popular authors, musicians and movie stars!
- In case of movies you could secure a contract of first use with a movie theater chain, which could secure multiple weeks of exclusive showings in hi-def, which could be VERY lucrative.
- Similar thing can be achieved in theatrical performances of concerts. People still go to concerts despite the fact that they already have the CD's of the artists they love.
- In case of inventions, contracts of first use can be EXTREMELY profitable, because very often being first to market is all the advantage a company needs!
- In case of software, security measures could be applied, as demonstrated well by Microsoft, that can render the software inoperable without a payment received.

As you can see there is A LOT of profit to be made in intellectual property, without copyrights and patents, which violate the Benson Principle, and tangible property rights of others, which are the very foundations of Liberty itself!

Any example outside of the church that produces books and survives on donations alone????

Why must we "force" an author to survive on donations?

Yeah the dark ages were "live concerts".....compare sales revenue of cd sales versus live performances.....and profit margins....

Please demonstrate how Microsoft has prevented theft....and please specify the additional cost that comes with such security.......to the initial purchaser - who then subsidizes the cost of providing to everyone else....How does the Benson Principle square with that one????

Any personal evidence????

[LoveIsTruth]

Any example outside of the church that produces books and survives on donations alone????

I heard Dickens received donations, and did live readings of his books for money. With internet, receiving donations from hundreds of thousands, if not millions of avid fans is easier than ever!

Why must we "force" an author to survive on donations?

Because, Why must we justify the immoral use of FORCE? You have no moral right to use force on your neighbor to prevent him from using information; THEREFORE you cannot delegate it to your government. It is a FUNDAMENTAL principle of Liberty, without which Liberty must perish, and as a consequence, society itself destroyed!

Yeah the dark ages were "live concerts".....compare sales revenue of cd sales versus live performances.....and profit margins....

I have heard that majority of income of most famous artist comes from live concerts.

Please demonstrate how Microsoft has prevented theft....and please specify the additional cost that comes with such security...

Multiple Microsoft software titles require unique registration with a live server. It is extremely effective in preventing unauthorized use. Even if you obtain a copy, without a unique key, the copy will not work. Additional cost to the company is minimal, effectiveness is nearly 100% percent! It is much smaller cost than destroying the foundation of Liberty of the country itself!

....to the initial purchaser - who then subsidizes the cost of providing to everyone else..

As I said, without a unique key a copy is unusable.

..How does the Benson Principle square with that one????

What I am saying, agrees perfectly with Benson Principle and with rights of property. What you are saying violates both.

[Jason]

Any example outside of the church that produces books and survives on donations alone????

I heard Dickens received donations, and did live readings of his books for money. With internet, receiving donations from hundreds of thousands, if not millions of avid fans is easier than ever!

Why must we "force" an author to survive on donations?

Because, Why must we justify the immoral use of FORCE? You have no moral right to use force on your neighbor to prevent him from using information; THEREFORE you cannot delegate it to your government. It is a FUNDAMENTAL principle of Liberty, without which Liberty must perish, and as a consequence, society itself destroyed!

Yeah the dark ages were "live concerts".....compare sales revenue of cd sales versus live performances.....and profit margins....

I have heard that majority of income of most famous artist comes from live concerts.

Please demonstrate how Microsoft has prevented theft....and please specify the additional cost that comes with such security...

Multiple Microsoft software titles require unique registration with a live server. It is extremely effective in preventing unauthorized use. Even if you obtain a copy, without a unique key, the copy will not work. Additional cost to the company is minimal, effectiveness is nearly 100% percent! It is much smaller cost than destroying the foundation of Liberty of the country itself!

....to the initial purchaser - who then subsidizes the cost of providing to everyone else..

As I said, without a unique key a copy is unusable.

..How does the Benson Principle square with that one????

What I am saying, agrees perfectly with Benson Principle and with rights of property. What you are saying violates both.

Sorry but your utopian ideal just doesn't square with reality. Try living on donations for a year at whatever you do for employment (with the assumption that you are in the position of having no ability to retain due reward for your labor or to protect your labor from the theft/"copy" by others)....

You talk about preventing people from obtaining information......nothing is preventing them except the purchase price as dictated by the creator of the IP (which is what the market will bear or the IP isn't sold)......so what you are really saying is that for the benefit of the majority (wolves)....the sheep (inventor/creator) better dress up for dinner. The worst part is you try to cloak it in Liberty and Truth.

Due to the volume....Microsoft reactivates the numbers every 6 months. Its not fool proof.....nothing is when people as a whole have no respect for your property (tangible and intangible).

[LoveIsTruth]

Sorry but your utopian ideal just doesn't square with reality. Try living on donations for a year at whatever you do for employment (with the assumption that you are in the position of having no ability to retain due reward for your labor or to protect your labor from the theft/"copy" by others)....

Reality squares very well with what I am saying. In fact much of the IP is approaching this model already. As for "living on donations" if you work is unpopular, even with copyrights in place you will not survive. If it is really popular, donations from hundreds of thousands of fans could be VERY rewarding! So if you are not a very good writer, you are better off finding another line of work.

You talk about preventing people from obtaining information......nothing is preventing them except the purchase price as dictated by the creator of the IP......so what you are really saying is that for the benefit of the majority (wolves)....the sheep better dress up for dinner. The worst part is you try to cloak it in Liberty and Truth.

Proponents of copyrights and patents are the wolfs, because they violate property rights of others. So you got it in reverse.

Due to the volume....Microsoft reactivates the numbers every 6 months. Its not fool proof.....nothing is when people as a whole have no respect for your property (tangible and intangible).

Numbers are cheep. Try using a used activation code, and see if it works. Nothing is foolproof, but is that reason enough to violate the fundamental principles of Liberty?

[Jason]

Sorry but your utopian ideal just doesn't square with reality. Try living on donations for a year at whatever you do for employment (with the assumption that you are in the position of having no ability to retain due reward for your labor or to protect your labor from the theft/"copy" by others)....

Reality squares very well with what I am saying. In fact much of the IP is approaching this model already. As for "living on donations" if you work is unpopular, even with copyrights in place you will not survive. If it is really popular, donations from hundreds of thousands of fans could be VERY rewarding! So if you are not a very good writer, you are better off finding another line of work.

You talk about preventing people from obtaining information......nothing is preventing them except the purchase price as dictated by the creator of the IP......so what you are really saying is that for the benefit of the majority (wolves)....the sheep better dress up for dinner. The worst part is you try to cloak it in Liberty and Truth.

Proponents of copyrights and patents are the wolfs, because they violate property rights of others. So you got it in reverse.

Due to the volume....Microsoft reactivates the numbers every 6 months. Its not fool proof.....nothing is when people as a whole have no respect for your property (tangible and intangible).

Numbers are cheep. Try using a used activation code, and see if it works. Nothing is foolproof, but is that reason enough to violate the fundamental principles of Liberty?

What IP currently works on the donation model??? I've repeatedly asked for evidence to support your rants and you provide none!

As far as popularity (or need) for the IP - duh! You keep talking about popularity.....so it becomes a popularity contest for IP??? And the popularity of the intermittent windshield wiper patent developer was what? And even with patents it took how long for him to get paid for his labors by Ford and others....who were more content to just steal it?

If you aren't a very good writer....you won't make a living writing no matter what the rules of the game are. Your point is????

Yeah sure....and pigs fly! Obviously you have never created anything of use....

My company survives because of its IP. If it weren't for the legal protections of patents.....no one could afford the first job (price of the technology completely wrapped up in initial sale....with no demonstrations)....thus it would not be shared.....and the whole freakin' world could pay more for exploration and its final products (your gold/silver, oil, natural gas, uranium, water, etc etc etc). Makes zero sense....maybe in retard world communism where everyone lives off the efforts of a few but never rewards them.....of course until those people quit producing and everyone starves.

You are lost in your own twisted utopia.....please tell me about these musicians, writers, scientists, etc.....that are living off of donations.....I've personally seen quite a few on the corners of Tijuana, Bangkok, LA, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Dubai, etc.....and I must tell you - their world sucks!

[LoveIsTruth]

What IP currently works on the donation model??? I've repeatedly asked for evidence to support your rants and you provide none!

A lot of shareware and freeware programs, as well as many internet books ask for donations.

As far as popularity (or need) for the IP - duh! You keep talking about popularity.....so it becomes a popularity contest for IP???

You bet ya! Just like it is popularity contest in cars, cheesecakes or electronics, or any other product in a free market. "Popularity contest" is the engine of a free market. May not that shock you!

And the popularity of the intermittent windshield wiper patent developer was what? And even with patents it took how long for him to get paid for his labors by Ford and others....who were more content to just steal it?

He should have used a contract of first use with them.

If you aren't a very good writer....you won't make a living writing no matter what the rules of the game are. Your point is????

My point is if your writing is popular you will get a lot of donations. If your writing is not popular, even with copyrights you will not subsist.

Yeah sure....and pigs fly! Obviously you have never created anything of use....

Your assumption, as usual, is wrong. But I don't have to prove that to you.

My company survives because of its IP. If it weren't for the legal protections of patents.....no one could afford the first job (price of the technology completely wrapped up in initial sale....with no demonstrations)....thus it would not be shared..

Most often it is possible to do demonstrations without divulging the know how, but if not, you can have initial contracts saying "If x is delivered, y will be paid" etc. x and y can be spelled out in detail, before hand.

..thus it would not be shared.....and the whole freakin' world could pay more for exploration and its final products (your gold/silver, oil, natural gas, uranium, water, etc etc etc).

The progress of industry would have been much more rapid without patents. And invention would still happen, because of the benefits of the improvements themselves, rather than because of a hope of a government forced monopoly.

Makes zero sense....

On the contrary it makes perfect sense, and is just.

You are lost in your own twisted utopia.....

You are lost in government brainwashing and do not have respect neither for liberty nor for property, which are essentially the same.

please tell me about these musicians, writers, scientists, etc.....that are living off of donations.....

Not everyone has to live off donations. As I stated, scientists can live off contracts of first use, because of the benefit that companies receive in bing first to market. Musicians can live off of concerts in addition to donations, as well of contracts of first use for a play or a movie etc. Writers can have NDA's and non-compete agreements with studios before presenting movie scripts, etc. (which is already the case).

I've personally seen quite a few on the corners of Tijuana, Bangkok, LA, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Dubai, etc.....and I must tell you - their world sucks!

Because their stuff is not very good... They better find another line of work then. It's free market at work.

[Jason]

What IP currently works on the donation model??? I've repeatedly asked for evidence to support your rants and you provide none!

A lot of shareware and freeware programs, as well as many internet books ask for donations.

Who cares what they ask for.....how do they survive (pay the bills)? Is it off donations....or advertising....or spy ware (CIA subsidiaries)....or something else (bundling, demo version, etc)?

As far as popularity (or need) for the IP - duh! You keep talking about popularity.....so it becomes a popularity contest for IP???

You bet ya! Just like it is popularity contest in cars, cheesecakes or electronics, or any other product in a free market. "Popularity contest" is the engine of a free market. May not that shock you!

I lean towards value added instead. Popularity is related to whims....and I wouldn't think is a long term success model (hence structure of the Constitution to avoid popularity swings). Here today....gone tomorrow. You could compare popularity to speculation....those two probably go together pretty good!

And the popularity of the intermittent windshield wiper patent developer was what? And even with patents it took how long for him to get paid for his labors by Ford and others....who were more content to just steal it?

He should have used a contract of first use with them.

LOL....could have should have......of course if they flagrantly disobeyed one law.....what good will another do??? That's like calling for more gun control laws when criminals are already violating several in the process of committing current acts. Rather mute point and completely unproductive in terms of resolving the core issue.

If you aren't a very good writer....you won't make a living writing no matter what the rules of the game are. Your point is????

My point is if your writing is popular you will get a lot of donations. If your writing is not popular, even with copyrights you will not subsist.

I think that's been make pretty clear several times now.....copyrights only protect the value of the IP (prevents diminishing returns) at whatever value the market establishes. If people think the music cd is worth $10 at most.....you'll never sell a copy for $20k. The copyright is to prevent the value from declining to the value of the physical good (blank cd - .10 cents). The copyright protects the value of the material on the cd....or at least it's intended to if everyone is honest and respects the IP. Impossible to enforce ethics!

Of course if no one respects the IP.....then the creator/inventor will not subsist period as the value will be destroyed upon public release. Thus that will never happen!

Yeah sure....and pigs fly! Obviously you have never created anything of use....

Your assumption, as usual, is wrong. But I don't have to prove that to you.

LOL...not surprised!

My company survives because of its IP. If it weren't for the legal protections of patents.....no one could afford the first job (price of the technology completely wrapped up in initial sale....with no demonstrations)....thus it would not be shared..

Most often it is possible to do demonstrations without divulging the know how, but if not, you can have initial contracts saying "If x is delivered, y will be paid" etc. x and y can be spelled out in detail, before hand.

Obviously you did not read and understand. No initial buyer is going to pay for the technology all by themselves. The buyer will not see return on investment.....thus they do not invest. My neighbor can contract out for a music cd he produced.....but who's going to pay $50k for one music cd......especially for a cd that will shortly be worthless due to flagrant copying that changes the inherent value to the cost of a blank cd and the time to make the copy. No one will pay him and no one will pay anyone (company) who is willing to pay him.

In my particular case - no single mining/drilling/exploration company is going to pay the company the millions of dollars of development costs (plus a small profit)....for one single project or even a single company. Without IP protection no one would invest and the IP would never get developed. And everyone in the world would pay more for those commodities.....if they could get them at all. Basically puts you back in the dark ages....

If the inherent value (labor and development costs) goes to zero or nearly zero after the 1st transaction......all of the costs must be born by the 1st transaction. Why would anyone pay that value when that value will go to zero or nearly zero shortly after that transaction?

Therefore it doesn't happen!!! It doesn't happen and no one benefits from the IP because its either never developed or never enters the market place. Why spend years doing research if there is never a pay off? Why go to school period? If my MBA is only worth the cost of ink and paper......why get one?

Would you buy a car for $30k that as soon as you drive it off the lot is worth $1.50 (rough cost for reproducing a music cd)? And not only is it worth a $1.50 but you will never obtain more than $1.50 in value for its use? - i.e. can't sell it to anyone else for more than $1.50.

Ain't gonna happen!

Patents and copyrights protect the value of the IP....thus preserving the potential return on investment such that the investment can be spread over multiple buyers versus one single buyer.

Think utilities....if you could only sell electricity to the 1st customer in the line....and had to recoup the investment for the dam and reservoir from that initial buyer.....and all subsequent buyers got the electricity for the cost of power line from initial customer to themselves.....Would your dam ever get built? Who's going to step up to the plate to be the initial buyer?

..thus it would not be shared.....and the whole freakin' world could pay more for exploration and its final products (your gold/silver, oil, natural gas, uranium, water, etc etc etc).

The progress of industry would have been much more rapid without patents. And invention would still happen, because of the benefits of the improvements themselves, rather than because of a hope of a government forced monopoly.

How in the world can it progress if no one invests??? Show me an investor that invests to lose money for the masses......besides the government (which you now support despite your statements to the contrary as it is the only means possible to make the investment - by force). But that's pretty much what you are pushing - communism.

Any examples of societies that have prospered faster without protection of intellectual property? China doesn't count since its artificially pumped up by the bankers - and they just steal technology rather than develop it themselves. Always playing catch-up.....

Makes zero sense....

On the contrary it makes perfect sense, and is just.

I sure can't fathom you perceive that but....To each their own!

You are lost in your own twisted utopia.....

You are lost in government brainwashing and do not have respect neither for liberty nor for property, which are essentially the same.

LOL.....oh sure now its the government brainwashing.....how about just some plain ol common sense! Flip a light switch recently? Think of anything that you use that doesn't involve some IP? A way that something would come to exist without investment? Or if you are willing to step up to the plate and be the initial investor?

please tell me about these musicians, writers, scientists, etc.....that are living off of donations.....

Not everyone has to live off donations. As I stated, scientists can live off contracts of first use, because of the benefit that companies receive in bing first to market. Musicians can live off of concerts in addition to donations, as well of contracts of first use for a play or a movie etc. Writers can have NDA's and non-compete agreements with studios before presenting movie scripts, etc. (which is already the case).

First to market is worthless if day 2 your competitive advantage is wiped out and you can never recoup your initial investment. Therefore the investment will never occur.

Why would the studio pay the writer if they won't make any money off the production due to flagrant copying??? Why would someone pay for something that after they buy it is worthless due to lack of protection of property rights????

My neighbor will gladly sell his music cd's to you for $50k a piece....and you can then distribute the music on the internet to the masses to your heart's content!

I've personally seen quite a few on the corners of Tijuana, Bangkok, LA, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Dubai, etc.....and I must tell you - their world sucks!

Because their stuff is not very good... They better find another line of work then. It's free market at work.

Look in the mirror and repeat that to yourself......because your stuff isn't looking so hot either! Better pray you never have to work for donations....or have to live on any intellectual property you developed in your utopia.

FYI - there isn't a truly free market left on this planet. That is why those people are where they are......and about 90% of that is due to the US taxpayer! IMF, WTO, GATA, World Bank, UN, etc etc etc....

Count yourself lucky that you got in the lucky sperm bank and haven't had to play an instrument on the corner or sell packages of gum (or worse) to survive....

[LoveIsTruth]

No....its value added. Popularity is related to whims....and isn't a long term success model. Here today....gone tomorrow. You could compare popularity to speculation....those two probably go together pretty good!

Popularity is the engine of free market. It is irrelevant mainly only when government force gets involved, which destroys free market.

LOL....could have should have......of course if they flagrantly disobeyed one law.....what good will another do???

And your point is?

Hello McFly.....

It probably escapes you that this phrase was made famous by a dimwitted, stupid bully, who thought he was wise, but in reality was an idiot.

No initial buyer is going to pay for the technology all by themselves.

If a car company discovers a new process or feature that all the customers will love, being first to market means A LOT. Even if their competitors reverse engineer it, it will take perhaps another year before they can bring the same to market. That is how honest profit is made. Plus, if they don’t implement the new feature, their competitors will, and thus wipe them out, and thus the competition will drive innovation, without any patents!

Under your little utopia they will not see return on investment.....thus they do not invest.

I just showed to you that you are wrong on that. If they don't invest in R&D they will be wiped out by the competition (without any patents at that)!

My neighbor can contract out for a music cd he produced.....but who's going to pay $50k for one music cd......especially for that cd that will shortly be worthless due to flagrant copying that changes the inherent value to the cost of a blank cd and the time to make the copy.

He should either a) cut the cost of production, b) secure a contract of first use with a performer or movie studio, c) have his stuff to be so popular that people will WANT to donate to him, or d) quit the business and do something else.

If the inherent value (labor and development costs) goes to zero or nearly zero after the 1st transaction......all of the costs must be born by the 1st transaction. Why would anyone pay that value when that value will go to zero or nearly zero shortly after that transaction?

I already told you that a movie producer can contract with a movie theater chain a contract of first use, which can give them weeks of exclusive access, during which time a lot of money can be made!

Would you buy a car for $30k that as soon as you drive it off the lot is worth $1.50 (rough cost for reproducing a music cd)? And not only is it worth a $1.50 but you will never obtain more than $1.50 in value for its use?

That’s a very bad car.

how in the world can it progress if no one invests???

Already answered that: there will be investors because of a) the benefit of the invention vs. threat of competition b) benefit of being first to market.

Show me an investor that invests to lose money for the masses...

They will loose money if the DON’T invest, because their competition will make that improvement and wipe them out in a free market.

..besides the government (which you now support despite your statements to the contrary as its the only means possible to make the investment - by force). But that's pretty much what you are leaning towards - communism.

I undeniably showed you the irresistible incentive for companies to invest in R&D WITHOUT ANY patents whatsoever (threat of competition).
Therefore you are making a straw-man argument. I never advocated communism. In fact, I advocate the opposite. Therefore your conclusion is patently wrong (pardon the pun ).

McFly....anyone home?????

Watch that movie again, you sound like the idiot who first uttered those words!

LOL.....oh sure now its the government brainwashing.....how about just some plain ol common sense!

Your common sense is wrong. It is only “common” because of sentries of government abuse. I remind you that copyright and patents have their root in usurpations and censorships imposed by kings upon the people.

So funny and ironic how you contradict yourself in the same sentence.
Thanks for the laughing fit! Had my wife worried for a few minutes there.....

I am glad that your stupidity (in this point) and misunderstanding of what is plainly spoken, at least amuses you, otherwise it would’ve been just stupid on your part, without the added benefit of making you smile

(I’m just kidding you. I respect you for your fervor, however misguided.)

First to market is worthless if day 2 your competitive advantage is wiped out. Therefore investment will not occur.

Again, first to market in, say, car industry can translate into many months of advantage! Plus if they don't invest they will be wiped out by the competition. So these are TWO very good reasons to invest in R&D, that will exist WITHOUT any patents.

Why would the studio pay the writer if they won't make any money off the production due to flagrant copying??? Why would someone pay for something that after they buy it is worthless due to lack of protection of property rights???? You are nuts!

I explained that the studio can contract with movie theater chains the contract of first use, which can translate into many weeks of exclusive Hi-def access, which can translate in huge profits (but perhaps not as large as now).

Look in the mirror and repeat that to yourself......because your stuff isn't so hot either!

I am promoting correct principles based on eternal truth.

[Jason]

No....its value added. Popularity is related to whims....and isn't a long term success model. Here today....gone tomorrow. You could compare popularity to speculation....those two probably go together pretty good!

Popularity is the engine of free market. It is irrelevant mainly only when government force gets involved, which destroys free market.

LOL....could have should have......of course if they flagrantly disobeyed one law.....what good will another do???

And your point is?

Hello McFly.....

It probably escapes you that this phrase was made famous by a dimwitted, stupid bully, who thought he was wise, but in reality was an idiot.

No initial buyer is going to pay for the technology all by themselves.

If a car company discovers a new process or feature that all the customers will love, being first to market means A LOT. Even if their competitors reverse engineer it, it will take perhaps another year before they can bring the same to market. That is how honest profit is made. Plus if they don’t implement the new feature, their competitors will, and that will drive innovation, even without patents.

Under your little utopia they will not see return on investment.....thus they do not invest.

I just showed to you that you are wrong on that.

My neighbor can contract out for a music cd he produced.....but who's going to pay $50k for one music cd......especially for that cd that will shortly be worthless due to flagrant copying that changes the inherent value to the cost of a blank cd and the time to make the copy.

He should either a) cut the cost of production, b) secure a contract of first use with a performer or movie studio, c) have his stuff to be so popular that people will WANT to donate to him, or d) quit the business and do something else.

If the inherent value (labor and development costs) goes to zero or nearly zero after the 1st transaction......all of the costs must be born by the 1st transaction. Why would anyone pay that value when that value will go to zero or nearly zero shortly after that transaction?

I already told you that a movie producer can contract with a movie theater chain a contract of first use, which can give them weeks of exclusive access, during which time a lot of money can be made!

Would you buy a car for $30k that as soon as you drive it off the lot is worth $1.50 (rough cost for reproducing a music cd)? And not only is it worth a $1.50 but you will never obtain more than $1.50 in value for its use?

That’s a very bad car.

how in the world can it progress if no one invests???

Already answered that: there will be investors because of a) the benefit of the invention vs. threat of competition b) benefit of being first to market.

Show me an investor that invests to lose money for the masses...

They will loose money if the DON’T invest, because their competition will make that improvement and wipe them out in a free market.

..besides the government (which you now support despite your statements to the contrary as its the only means possible to make the investment - by force). But that's pretty much what you are leaning towards - communism.

I undeniably showed you the irresistible incentive for companies to invest in R&D WITHOUT ANY patents whatsoever (threat of competition).
Therefore you are making a straw-man argument. I never advocated communism. In fact I advocate the opposite. Therefore your conclusion is wrong.

McFly....anyone home?????

Watch that movie again, you sound like the idiot who first uttered those words!

LOL.....oh sure now its the government brainwashing.....how about just some plain ol common sense!

Your common sense is wrong. It is only “common” because of sentries of government abuse. I remind you that copyright and patents have their root in usurpations and censorships imposed by kings upon the people.

So funny and ironic how you contradict yourself in the same sentence.
Thanks for the laughing fit! Had my wife worried for a few minutes there.....

I am glad that your stupidity (in this point) and misunderstanding of what is plainly spoken, at least amuses you, otherwise it would’ve been just stupid on your part, without the added benefit of making you smile

(I’m just kidding you. I respect you for your fervor, however misguided.)

First to market is worthless if day 2 your competitive advantage is wiped out. Therefore investment will not occur.

Again, first to market in, say, car industry can translate into many months of advantage! Plus if they don't invest they will be wiped out by the competition. So these are TWO very good reasons to invest in R&D, that will exist WITHOUT any patents.

Why would the studio pay the writer if they won't make any money off the production due to flagrant copying??? Why would someone pay for something that after they buy it is worthless due to lack of protection of property rights???? You are nuts!

I explained that the studio can contract with movie theater chains the contract of first use, which can translate into many weeks of exclusive Hi-def access, which can translate in huge profits (but perhaps not as large as now).

Look in the mirror and repeat that to yourself......because your stuff isn't so hot either!

I am promoting correct principles based on eternal truth.

Well I reckon that about sums it up.....good luck in your Utopia! Nothing like $50 movie tickets.....of course the technology would never get developed to view the high res movies in your magical theater.....but let's pretend it did.....and now you have your fanclub Fegunz there with his video camera he slipped in to put it out on the internet for free....LOL! Hope you make the business work on the 1st night's viewing.....

[LoveIsTruth]

Well I reckon that about sums it up.....good luck in your Utopia! Nothing like $50 movie tickets...

The price of tickets in a free market is determined by demand.

..of course the technology would never get developed to view the high res movies in your magical theater...

You are wrong. People will still buy and use cameras. If camera makers do not invest in R&D they will be wiped out by their competitors. This is a very powerful incentive to improve your product, without any patents.

..but let's pretend it did.....and now you have your fanclub Fegunz there with his video camera he slipped in to put it out on the internet for free....LOL! Hope you make the business work on the 1st night's viewing.....

You can prevent people from bringing cameras to the theater. Besides, have you seen a hi-def, high quality, crystal clear sound boot-leg shot in a movie theater?