It would be great if you could offer a model or some evidence/background
to back up these facts.
> The fact that you confuse trademarks and licensing with copyrights and
> patents is a symptom of the problem. Look at the objective realities,
> not the propaganda: If I use your name, I commit fraud. That's a
> trademark. If I break a contract with you, that's an enforceable tort.
Not. If you breach a contract you have Contract remedies available to
you, not those from tort law. Fraud is enforceable in Tort.
> If I reprint a chapter from a book you wrote--and which you freely
> chose to publish on the open market with no disclaimers or licenses
> or physical protection of any sort--and not claiming that it's mine,
> I have not committed fraud, I have breached no contract that I signed,
> I have merely used information that I got through non-coercive means
> for my own benefit, and the government will come in--at my expense
> as well as yours--and prosecute me for it. That's a copyright (and
> similarly for patents).
Good point, but you still havn't expressed how IP would be protected
otherwise.
>
> > Your argument is irrational and typical of the hacker ethic that whats
> > mine is mine and whatever I can crack, pry up, steal, or defraud from
> > people is mine.
>
> Tie that slander to reality. I make no claim to anything that is not
> mine and never have. In fact, I have made my honest living for 15 years
> as a computer programmer and writer--a producer of intellectual property.
> I respect that my employers believe in those laws, but I still refuse
> to participate in my own name, because I can see beyond the justifications
> and the propaganda. I don't want to steal or defraud--I simply refuse
> to be an accessory to the government's denying people the right to use
> what I have freely given them. If I want to keep my inventions, I will
> protect them myself, and pay for the technologies and contracts to do it.
> I cannot in good conscience demand the government get out of my life in
> one respect, and then come to my benefit in another. it is dishonest,
> and hypocritical, and I will have none of it.
>
> I choose not to violate the copyrights or patents of others, because
> they have chosen to release works into a system that makes those
> assumptions. But that doesn't mean I won't speak out for a free-market
> non-coercive means of doing business in information, just as I speak
> out for free-market means of doing everything else big brother want
> to do for me.
>
> > When the state derives its authority from that granted by its citizens,
> > as ours is by the constitution, then it is not begging, it is a mutual
> > aid compact.
>
> Yeah, yeah, the social contract, blah, blah. Funny how libertarians
> reject such arguments for protecting real property, but are willing to
> allow it for IP. It's inconsistent. If you want to open a set of
> bookstores where everyone who buys agrees to respect authors' monopoly,
> and you don't sell to anyone who doesn't agree, then I'll be happy for
> you. That might well encourage authors to publish works only in that
> set of stores, giving them a market advantage. I'd be all for it.
What? You're way off buddy. Real property is protected in an identical
fashion. Deeds are your claim to a piece of real property - granted by
the government. Patents/copyrights are your claim/title to a piece of
IP. Where's the distinction?
-- Jeff Coulter http://people.delphi.com/jefcou