The Tiny Dot

[Original_Intent]

This is more than a mere "hypothesis." This is an eternal principle of liberty and truth, of which the Spirit itself bears record, and which was, by the way, forcefully taught by a seer, prophet and revelator of God. (Please see The Benson Principle http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 19&t=12347" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

=)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =))

Yes, very good. No one is disagreeing with you on conclusion, but on your premise.

I say I DO individually have the right to keep you from making unauthorized copies of whatever I write, paint, create musically. Therefore, copyright is not in opposition to the Benson Principle. Now, if you hear me sing a song, or see something I have painted, or read something I have written and it inspires you, with your own talents to try to duplicate what I have created, that is within your rights. But to copy a recording of my voice, my art, my writing, etc. for purposes of monetary gain - I say to do so is wrong, it is self-eveident. And if you two want to continue to justify yourselves in doing something which is so clearly evil, I don't see what there is to gain from both sides just repeating the same points over and over.

I am with Mummy - the only answer will come at the judgement bar.

[Teancum-Old]

I say I DO individually have the right to keep you from making unauthorized copies of whatever I write, paint, create musically. Therefore, copyright is not in opposition to the Benson Principle. Now, if you hear me sing a song, or see something I have painted, or read something I have written and it inspires you, with your own talents to try to duplicate what I have created, that is within your rights. But to copy a recording of my voice, my art, my writing, etc. for purposes of monetary gain - I say to do so is wrong, it is self-eveident. And if you two want to continue to justify yourselves in doing something which is so clearly evil, I don't see what there is to gain from both sides just repeating the same points over and over.

I am with Mummy - the only answer will come at the judgement bar.

Absolutely correct! "Thou shall not steal" sums it up for me. I am with Mummy and OI on this one. I don't believe any of us are disagreeing with the Benson Principle; Love Is Truth and Fegunz have simply twisted it into something completely unrecognizable. :ymsick:

[LoveIsTruth]

Oh so now IP exists.....but is not protected.....but investment will still occur.

IP does exist, I never said otherwise. It is the violation of IP by patent and copyright laws that is the problem, because to know an idea (IP) is to own it. And the proper way to protect IP is via contracts of first use, or by keeping a secret, not by an aggression against the property of others via immoral and improper use of government force in the form of patents and copyrights.

I find it terribly amusing how you just declare that things will happen yet you provide no evidence....and the sole example provided of a movie theater was clearly demonstrated to be a flawed.....yet I'm wrong and you're right! LOL!!!

The evidence that R&D will happen just as well without patents is the fact that competition will still exist, and if you do not improve your product your competitor will, (before you), and put you out of business.

I must say that's the most perverse use I have ever seen of The Benson Principle! He probably turns two shades of red every time you say that.

I have said:

• a) You as individual have no moral right to FORCE your neighbor not to use information in his possession (as long as he is under no contract with you).
  b) Since you have no such moral right you cannot delegate it to your government.

What exactly is wrong, incorrect or "perverse" in these two statements?

[LoveIsTruth]

Yes, very good. No one is disagreeing with you on conclusion, but on your premise.

I say I DO individually have the right to keep you from making unauthorized copies of whatever I write, paint, create musically. Therefore, copyright is not in opposition to the Benson Principle.

Are you saying you have moral right to use FORCE upon your neighbor to prevent him from making a copy of your book he bought, if he is under no contract with you?

Now, if you hear me sing a song, or see something I have painted, or read something I have written and it inspires you, with your own talents to try to duplicate what I have created, that is within your rights.

What about using my copy machine? Do you have moral right to use FORCE on your neighbor to prevent him from using his copy machine?

But to copy a recording of my voice, my art, my writing, etc. for purposes of monetary gain - I say to do so is wrong, it is self-eveident. And if you two want to continue to justify yourselves in doing something which is so clearly evil, I don't see what there is to gain from both sides just repeating the same points over and over.

I am with Mummy - the only answer will come at the judgement bar.

I agree with you that to use the work of another without giving him proper compensation is wrong. But not every wrong is proper to fix with government force.


I will give you an example: Is it wrong NOT to give money to the poor if you can? The answer is Yes! It is wrong before God not to help the poor when you can do so. But are you then justified in using force on your neighbor to force him to give to the poor? NO! You are not justified! Because that would violate the Benson Principle, because He who said, "Thou shall help the poor," also said, "Thou shall not steal!" So He can test his children to see what they will do with the things He gave them. Therefore, you cannot ask your government to force your neighbor to give to the poor on your behalf, because you yourself have no such authority, therefore you cannot delegate it to your government.

When charity is forced, it is no longer charity. Not everything that is morally good can or ought to be forced upon the people.

The question is then: What can the government properly force upon the people? The answer is given by the Benson Principle. If you are not justified in using force upon your neighbor, you cannot ask your government to do it for you.

[Jason]

Oh so now IP exists.....but is not protected.....but investment will still occur.

IP does exist, I never said otherwise. It is the violation of IP by patent and copyright laws that is the problem, because to know an idea (IP) is to own it. And the proper way to protect IP is via contracts of first use, or by keeping a secret, not by an aggression against the property of others via immoral and improper use of government force in the form of patents and copyrights.

How does the IP ever get developed if its kept a secret? What's the difference between contract of first use and patents/copyrights?

How does IP that can only be developed by spreading costs across multiple copies get paid for by a "first use"? How does it get protected? Or does it stay a secret forever?

I find it terribly amusing how you just declare that things will happen yet you provide no evidence....and the sole example provided of a movie theater was clearly demonstrated to be a flawed.....yet I'm wrong and you're right! LOL!!!

The evidence that R&D will happen just as well without patents is the fact that competition will still exist, and if you do not improve your product your competitor will, (before you), and put you out of business.

The existence of competition has never been the issue.....marginal improvement is. You won't spend money for something that doesn't pay you back.....or your competition will put YOU out of business by NOT spending on IP!

Where's that evidence that R&D will happen? You are still on the - If I wish it to be case....then it is reality model!

I must say that's the most perverse use I have ever seen of The Benson Principle! He probably turns two shades of red every time you say that.

I have said:

• a) You as individual have no moral right to FORCE your neighbor not to use information in his possession (as long as he is under no contract with you).
  b) Since you have no such moral right you cannot delegate it to your government.

What exactly is wrong, incorrect or "perverse" in these two statements?

a) False If my cousin steals your car and gives it to me (I'm under no contract with you) - Do you have no moral right to FORCE me to relinquish your car? Or is it my car now?

b) See A

I agree with you that to use the work of another without giving him proper compensation is wrong. But not every wrong is proper to fix with government force.

Then how do you propose to fix it???

[Original_Intent]

Mummy it is even worse because they KNOW the "car" is stolen! i.e. if they get software that has had the EULA removed by the "stealing" party then they claim that they never agreed to it and therefore under no obligation (even though in most cases they must know that such a EULA was a condition to use it at one point and that same EULA had to be VIOLATED in order to give them access to the "EULA-removed" software.

It's like buying a book with the "copyright" notice being ripped out and then claiming a right to copy and sell copies of a book! And they claim this under the right to control their own property! It's like claiming a right to abortion under the "right to control my own body!"

Again I assert that I do have the individual right to prohibit you from duplicating my voice, my writings, my invention. And thus have the right to empower government to protect same. An inventor/writer/artist should not be compelled to rely on the benevolence and charity of those who wish to get gain from his creative effort.

[LoveIsTruth]

How does the IP ever get developed if its kept a secret?

It is not always kept secret. Only until proper contract is secured.

What's the difference between contract of first use and patents/copyrights?

A contract of first use is a VOLUNTARY agreement between two parties; (therefore it is just and binding, and does not violate the Benson Principle).

Patents and copyrights, on the other hand, are FORCED by the government upon the people who did NOT agree to a contract. A force that you yourself have no moral right to exercise upon your neighbor. Therefore it is the essence of aggression upon the property and rights of others, and is improper and immoral use of government force, because it violates the Benson Principle.

Which in this case is:

• a) You do not have the moral right to use FORCE upon your neighbor to prevent him from using information in his possession, (if he is under no contract with you).
  b) If you do not have the authority to use force, you cannot delegate it to your government to do it for you.

How does IP that can only be developed by spreading costs across multiple copies get paid for by a "first use"? How does it get protected? Or does it stay a secret forever?

No it does not stay in secret forever. There is a way to protect it without violating the rights and property of others. In this example: The contract of first use can cover multiple performances, etc. For instance, you can contract with a theater or with a rock group, that if they use your songs, or your music, they will give you a cut from all the performances featuring your music. Etc.

The existence of competition has never been the issue.....marginal improvement is. You won't spend money for something that doesn't pay you back.....or your competition will put YOU out of business by NOT spending on IP!

Exactly, so you only invest in things that will pay you back. As for improvement being marginal: most of the time it already is marginal. Huge leaps in technology are not driven by money, but by inspiration, and are prepared for by small incremental “marginal” improvements. So big leaps in technology will still happen, as the “marginal” improvements make those huge leaps cheaper and cheaper.

Where's that evidence that R&D will happen? You are still on the - If I wish it to be case....then it is reality model!

The evidence that R&D will happen is the continuing existence of competition, which, as you yourself agree, will cause “marginal,” incremental changes, much the same as happening now; which aggregated and accumulated “marginal,” incremental changes will set the stage for huge qualitative leaps in technology, which leaps will be so much cheaper, because of the aggregated small changes that preceded it. In fact, this is essentially how R&D is done even today!

a) False If my cousin steals your car and gives it to me (I'm under no contract with you) - Do you have no moral right to FORCE me to relinquish your car? Or is it my car now?

Yes, I have the moral right to use force to prevent you or your cousin from depriving me from the use of my property.
With IP, in case of copying, though, no one is depriving you of the use of your property. You still have it in your possession. And that is the key difference between IP and tangible property: IP can be replicated without destroying your copy and without preventing your use of your copy.

I agree with you that to use the work of another without giving him proper compensation is wrong. But not every wrong is proper to fix with government force.

Then how do you propose to fix it???

The same way how God is going to fix the problem of rich people not helping the poor: at the judgment bar.
Not by you violating the property of others, which God expressly forbade to do when he said: “Thou shall not steal.”

[LoveIsTruth]

Again I assert that I do have the individual right to prohibit you from duplicating my voice, my writings, my invention. And thus have the right to empower government to protect same. An inventor/writer/artist should not be compelled to rely on the benevolence and charity of those who wish to get gain from his creative effort.

So, are you saying, you have a right to break into your neighbor's house and by force prevent him from making copies of your book?


If you think so, you are wrong.

[Original_Intent]

He can make them to his hearts content. And if he tries to sell them, I am going to tell him to cease and desist. And in our current legal system, if he does not then I will definitely go to the government - but if the government were absent, (which is the scenario you present) then yes, I am going to go over to his house...we can have a bishop's court on the matter if we cannot come to an agreement - if he refuses "mediation" then yes, I am justified in using force - i.e. kicking his sorry thieving butt. taking his property, confining him. You disagree? I look forward to discussing it with you and a gospel "mediator" in the next life!

Here's a good example - you are taking a college course. You need to write a paper on a subject. You feel you are jsutified in finding the work of an expert and just writing down what they wrote - "controlling your own property" - and then turning that in as your essay? Why or why not? I am not saying you comprehend and then reform the ideas into your own words - no I am talking a verbatim copy - according to your logic, the words enter your brain and at that point are YOUR PROPERTY and then of course you have the right to arrange YOUR INK on YOUR PAPER...I guess it is YOUR ESSAY, no problem with plagiarism here? At least I assume plagiarism would go away under your "IP=bad" utopia...?

[Jason]

How does the IP ever get developed if its kept a secret?

It is not always kept secret. Only until proper contract is secured.

What's the difference between contract of first use and patents/copyrights?

A contract of first use is a VOLUNTARY agreement between two parties; (therefore it is just and binding, and does not violate the Benson Principle).

Patents and copyrights, on the other hand, are FORCED by the government upon the people who did NOT agree to a contract. A force that you yourself have no moral right to exercise upon your neighbor. Therefore it is the essence of aggression upon the property and rights of others, and is improper and immoral use of government force, because it violates the Benson Principle.

Which in this case is:

• a) You do not have the moral right to use FORCE upon your neighbor to prevent him from using information in his possession, (if he is under no contract with you).
  b) If you do not have the authority to use force, you cannot delegate it to your government to do it for you.

How does IP that can only be developed by spreading costs across multiple copies get paid for by a "first use"? How does it get protected? Or does it stay a secret forever?

No it does not stay in secret forever. There is a way to protect it without violating the rights and property of others. In this example: The contract of first use can cover multiple performances, etc. For instance, you can contract with a theater or with a rock group, that if they use your songs, or your music, they will give you a cut from all the performances featuring your music. Etc.

The existence of competition has never been the issue.....marginal improvement is. You won't spend money for something that doesn't pay you back.....or your competition will put YOU out of business by NOT spending on IP!

Exactly, so you only invest in things that will pay you back. As for improvement being marginal: most of the time it already is marginal. Huge leaps in technology are not driven by money, but by inspiration, and are prepared for by small incremental “marginal” improvements. So big leaps in technology will still happen, as the “marginal” improvements make those huge leaps cheaper and cheaper.

Where's that evidence that R&D will happen? You are still on the - If I wish it to be case....then it is reality model!

The evidence that R&D will happen is the continuing existence of competition, which, as you yourself agree, will cause “marginal,” incremental changes, much the same as happening now; which aggregated and accumulated “marginal,” incremental changes will set the stage for huge qualitative leaps in technology, which leaps will be so much cheaper, because of the aggregated small changes that preceded it. In fact, this is essentially how R&D is done even today!

a) False If my cousin steals your car and gives it to me (I'm under no contract with you) - Do you have no moral right to FORCE me to relinquish your car? Or is it my car now?

Yes, I have the moral right to use force to prevent you or your cousin from depriving me from the use of my property.
With IP, in case of copying, though, no one is depriving you of the use of your property. You still have it in your possession. And that is the key difference between IP and tangible property: IP can be replicated without destroying your copy and without preventing your use of your copy.

I agree with you that to use the work of another without giving him proper compensation is wrong. But not every wrong is proper to fix with government force.

Then how do you propose to fix it???

The same way how God is going to fix the problem of rich people not helping the poor: at the judgment bar.
Not by you violating the property of others, which God expressly forbade to do when he said: “Thou shall not steal.”

LOL....that is the most twisted convoluted version of "Thou shall not steal" that I have ever heard. See ya at the judgement bar!!!

[LoveIsTruth]

He can make them to his hearts content. And if he tries to sell them, I am going to tell him to cease and desist. And in our current legal system, if he does not then I will definitely go to the government - but if the government were absent, (which is the scenario you present) then yes, I am going to go over to his house...we can have a bishop's court on the matter if we cannot come to an agreement - if he refuses "mediation" then yes, I am justified in using force - i.e. kicking his sorry thieving butt. taking his property, confining him. You disagree? I look forward to discussing it with you and a gospel "mediator" in the next life!

I don't think you have that right. You will be violating his property, just as you would be violating the property of a rich man who refuses to give to the poor, if you break into his house and take his goods by force and give to the poor. You are not justified here, for he has not deprived you of the use of your property, and therefore, you are not justified.

Here's a good example - you are taking a college course. You need to write a paper on a subject. You feel you are jsutified in finding the work of an expert and just writing down what they wrote - "controlling your own property" - and then turning that in as your essay? Why or why not? I am not saying you comprehend and then reform the ideas into your own words - no I am talking a verbatim copy - according to your logic, the words enter your brain and at that point are YOUR PROPERTY and then of course you have the right to arrange YOUR INK on YOUR PAPER...I guess it is YOUR ESSAY, no problem with plagiarism here? At least I assume plagiarism would go away under your "IP=bad" utopia...?

It is wrong to misrepresent as to who came up with ideas or a work first. That would be lying, and you do not have a right to lie.

[LoveIsTruth]

LOL....that is the most twisted convoluted version of "Thou shall not steal" that I have ever heard. See ya at the judgement bar!!!

There you will learn that I was right, and you were wrong.

[Jason]

LOL....that is the most twisted convoluted version of "Thou shall not steal" that I have ever heard. See ya at the judgement bar!!!

There you will learn that I was right, and you were wrong.

I highly doubt that....but let the chips fall where they may! Only in Utopia would God allow one person to steal the distribution rights of another person's property!

[LoveIsTruth]

LOL....that is the most twisted convoluted version of "Thou shall not steal" that I have ever heard. See ya at the judgement bar!!!

There you will learn that I was right, and you were wrong.

I highly doubt that....but let the chips fall where they may! Only in Utopia would God allow one person to steal the distribution rights of another person's property!

In a free society there is no such thing as "distribution rights," (i.e. distribution limitations), or in other words, all have distribution rights.

[Jason]

There you will learn that I was right, and you were wrong.

I highly doubt that....but let the chips fall where they may! Only in Utopia would God allow one person to steal the distribution rights of another person's property!

In a free society there is no such thing as "distribution rights," (i.e. distribution limitations), or in other words, all have distribution rights.

Oh...so you have a right to property....but no right to control it??? LOL I'm sick of hearing about Utopia! I'm going to borrow your car for a couple of years.....I'll let you know when I'm ready to return it!

[LoveIsTruth]

I highly doubt that....but let the chips fall where they may! Only in Utopia would God allow one person to steal the distribution rights of another person's property!

In a free society there is no such thing as "distribution rights," (i.e. distribution limitations), or in other words, all have distribution rights.

Oh...so you have a right to property....but no right to control it??? LOL

You probably have problem with English. I said ALL have distribution rights. So ALL have the right to control their property. Well, at least your inability to read causes you a few laughs, otherwise it would've been just dumb on your part, without the added benefit of making you smile.

I'm sick of hearing about Utopia!

Nobody is offering you a Utopia, only rule of law based on correct principles of Liberty. The only Utopia is in your head, and frankly I am not a fan of it either.

I'm going to borrow your car for a couple of years.....I'll let you know when I'm ready to return it!

Your borrowing my car for "a couple of years" would deprive me of the use of my car. That is key difference between IP and tangible property. "Borrowing" IP for "a couple of years" does not deprive the first owner of its use. This is key difference, which constantly escapes you, but which will be more obvious to you when I show you my gun collection when you try to "borrow" my car .

Cheers!

[Scarecrow]

Deleted

[LoveIsTruth]

It is wrong to misrepresent as to who came up with ideas or a work first. That would be lying, and you do not have a right to lie.

OI's analogy didn't say anything about representing yourself as being the originator of the essay, just claiming, that it since the information is now in your brain, it has become is your property, and therefore you have the right to arrange your ink and paper as you see fit. Isn't that what you have been arguing all along? It's a great analogy and shows where your argument falls apart.

It is your property, but you cannot lie as to who came up with it first, or who the source of it is. So you can copy the article into your paper, but you can not lie to your professor that you are the one who came up with this info, you have to tell him where you got it, because he is testing your analytical skills not those of the author. That's all I am saying. How my "argument falls apart" really escapes me, because it does not. I'll give you another example, you go to a cooking school, and they ask you to bake a cake to test your skill. You can go to a store and buy a cake; it is now your property; you can even eat it if you like, but you have no right to lie as to who actually baked the cake. So this is the same analogy as with the professor and a paper. The info is your property, but you cannot lie about who came up with it first. I hope that makes sense to you.

Frankly, I always thought there was a gray area when it came to IP, but now, after reading your arguments, it's clear there isn't, and all your appeals to logic and claims of eternal principles have done is convinced me you are doing nothing more than justifying stealing. For that, I thank you.

Current IP laws violate the Benson Principle. That conclusion is inescapable. If you cannot see the obvious truth, it does not make the truth without effect. I feel sorry for you, my friend.

[Jason]

I highly doubt that....but let the chips fall where they may! Only in Utopia would God allow one person to steal the distribution rights of another person's property!

In a free society there is no such thing as "distribution rights," (i.e. distribution limitations), or in other words, all have distribution rights.

Oh...so you have a right to property....but no right to control it??? LOL

You probably have problem with English. I said ALL have distribution rights. So ALL have the right to control their property. Well, at least your inability to read causes you a few laughs, otherwise it would've been just dumb on your part, without the added benefit of making you smile.

LOL....yeah

no such thing as "distribution rights,"

...and

all have distribution rights

... makes perfect sense!
[dripping sarcasm off]

I'm sick of hearing about Utopia!

Nobody is offering you a Utopia, only rule of law based on correct principles of Liberty. The only Utopia is in your head, and frankly I am not a fan of it either.

...and you say -

Nobody is offering you a Utopia, only rule of law based on correct principles of Liberty.

after previously stating....

I agree with you that to use the work of another without giving him proper compensation is wrong.

I'm going to borrow your car for a couple of years.....I'll let you know when I'm ready to return it!

Your borrowing my car for "a couple of years" would deprive me of the use of my car. That is key difference between IP and tangible property. "Borrowing" IP for "a couple of years" does not deprive the first owner of its use. This is key difference, which constantly escapes you, but which will be more obvious to you when I show you my gun collection when you try to "borrow" my car .

Cheers!

Trying to constrain tangible and intangible to the same rules is quite funny. Could you get your measuring tape out and measure this idea I have in my head? LOL

The reality is IP exists, it can be copied or stolen (taken without authorization), and it should be protected from unauthorized use or theft as its the creator/inventor's personal property. But not in Utopia.

IP does exist, I never said otherwise. It is the violation of IP by patent and copyright laws that is the problem, because to know an idea (IP) is to own it.

....so you can own it...but not protect it.....and basically just keep it a secret or beg for donations on the street corner. Yet the world will magically continue to operate at full speed due to the fact that there is "competition". LOL.....U-T-O-P-I-A!!!

[LoveIsTruth]

... makes perfect sense!
[dripping sarcasm off]

I said: "In a free society there is no such thing as "distribution rights," (i.e. distribution limitations), or in other words, all have distribution rights."

This means that YOUR use of phrase "distribution rights" really meant "distribution limitations" for everyone else, and it should not be the case in a free society.

But I said: "all have distribution rights", in other words, there should be NO "distribution limitations" in a free society.

IP does exist, I never said otherwise. It is the violation of IP by patent and copyright laws that is the problem, because to know an idea (IP) is to own it.

....so you can own it...but not protect it.....and basically just keep it a secret or beg for donations on the street corner.

You forgot contracts of first use. That is the proper way to protect IP. Any other way involving government coercion violates the Benson Principle.

[Jason]

... makes perfect sense!
[dripping sarcasm off]

I said: "In a free society there is no such thing as "distribution rights," (i.e. distribution limitations), or in other words, all have distribution rights."

What good is a right without constraints or limitations to protect that right? i.e. - How can everyone have distribution rights....but society has no distribution limitations? You still don't get the hypocrisy in your own statement....ponder it! I'll be borrowing your car for the next couple of years while you dwell on the results of anarchy......

This means that YOUR use of phrase "distribution rights" really meant "distribution limitations" for everyone else, and it should not be the case in a free society.

Are you God? Who gets to say who has the rights and who doesn't? Either the individual has rights....or the group does in your Utopia (think communism)....can't have it both ways!

But I said: "all have distribution rights", in other words, there should be NO "distribution limitations" in a free society.

If there is NO distribution limitations....then there are no rights!

IP does exist, I never said otherwise. It is the violation of IP by patent and copyright laws that is the problem, because to know an idea (IP) is to own it.

....so you can own it...but not protect it.....and basically just keep it a secret or beg for donations on the street corner.

You forgot contracts of first use. That is the proper way to protect it. Any other way involving government coercion violates the Benson Principle.

I thought you said there were NO distribution limitations???? No matter.....what good is the contract of first use if it can't be enforced? Or if you intend to violate what you've already said....in which case.....Who enforces the contract of first use?

[LoveIsTruth]

Are you God? Who gets to say who has the rights and who doesn't? Either the individual has rights....or the group does in your Utopia (think communism)....can't have it both ways!

You seriously have a screw missing somewhere in your logic! Who said anything about group? I always spoke of the rights of individual to do what he will with his own property as long as he does not deprive others of the use of their property.

If there is NO distribution limitations....then there are no rights!

The only limit to the rights of the use of your property, are the equal rights of others to the use of their property.

what good is the contract of first use if it can't be enforced? Or if you intend to violate what you've already said.....Who enforces the contract of first use?

You have the right to enforce contracts you entered into, and you can certainly delegate that force to your government, because you yourself, properly and morally have that right (thus you can delegate it).

[Jason]

Are you God? Who gets to say who has the rights and who doesn't? Either the individual has rights....or the group does in your Utopia (think communism)....can't have it both ways!

You seriously have a screw missing somewhere in your logic! Who said anything about group? I always spoke of the rights of individual to do what he will with his own property as long as he does not deprive others of the use of their property.

speaking of missing screws....why did you skip the first comment where that was exactly what you said?

If there is NO distribution limitations....then there are no rights!

The only limit to the rights of the use of your property, are the equal rights of others to the use of their property.

could you get specific?

what good is the contract of first use if it can't be enforced? Or if you intend to violate what you've already said.....Who enforces the contract of first use?

You have the right to enforce contracts you entered into, and you can certainly delegate that force to your government, because you yourself, properly and morally have that right (thus you can delegate it).

So then what's the problem with copyrights and patents? I enter into a contract with a record company to distribute my IP.....they and only they are authorized (contracted) by me to do so. They sell the CDs under a purchase agreement with the buyer not to replicate the material (w/o copyright it would naturally be a more intensive legal process to access the IP - thus more costly).....or in other words....no one can take the IP or replicate it without paying for it (which you have already previously stated was WRONG).

[LoveIsTruth]

So then what's the problem with copyrights and patents? I enter into a contract with a record company to distribute my IP.....they and only they are authorized (contracted) by me to do so. They sell the CDs under a purchase agreement with the buyer not to replicate the material (w/o copyright it would naturally be a more intensive legal process to access the IP - thus more costly).....or in other words....no one can take the IP or replicate it without paying for it (which you have already previously stated was WRONG).

The problem is that with patents and copyright you will be enforcing your contract on the people who did NOT agree to it. That is the key difference. And that is immoral.

[Jason]

So then what's the problem with copyrights and patents? I enter into a contract with a record company to distribute my IP.....they and only they are authorized (contracted) by me to do so. They sell the CDs under a purchase agreement with the buyer not to replicate the material (w/o copyright it would naturally be a more intensive legal process to access the IP - thus more costly).....or in other words....no one can take the IP or replicate it without paying for it (which you have already previously stated was WRONG).

The problem is that with patents and copyright you will be enforcing your contract on the people who did NOT agree to it. That is the key difference. And that is immoral.

They agree to it when they voluntarily buy it with the copyright stamped on it.....and the basic understanding and common respect concerning the fact they didn't create/develop it.....and are thus purchasing it - paying the inventor such that the inventor/creator can continue to add additional value (more IP).

Instead of something simple and easy (but requiring common decency and respect of the masses) you would prefer a lawyer present at every transaction to ensure that the person acquiring the IP fully understands the ramifications and legal force that could be utilized against them if they disregard the signed contract necessary to conclude the deal in Utopia. Then of course you still have to enforce the agreement if you have a population that doesn't have common decency and respect of the masses.

But in your Utopia the lawyers and cops would rule and very little transactions would occur!

Best Buy, Ultimate Electronics, etc - instead of 10 salesmen you have 5 salesmen and 5 lawyers!