Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pirate Party Enters Politics

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 1:56:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's been various Pirate Parties popping up in first world countries lately. They are mostly concerned with the abolition of intellectual property, as well as increasing government transparency and often promoting democracy as well.

They've just won their first government seats. Obviously, in Iceland; badass capitol of the world.

http://torrentfreak.com...
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 1:58:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Woooww.... That blows my mind in the best way.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 2:14:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 2:13:45 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Ice-land also has this:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

hahah I remember that. So awesome.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 2:19:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 2:13:45 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Ice-land also has this:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"It is a member of the International Pirate Party, but is not associated with Pirate Party Iceland."

http://i0.kym-cdn.com...
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 2:22:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The mayor of the capital of Iceland, John Gnarr, is in the Best Party and this is him:
http://www.flother.com...

He's basically the Vermin Supreme who actually got elected.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 5:48:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is kind of why I don't like proportional representation... a bunch of dumb parties form. No offence. They're cool in theory but do you want your country run by people whose main platform is abolition of intellectual property rights? I'll pass.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 10:37:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 5:48:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
This is kind of why I don't like proportional representation... a bunch of dumb parties form. No offence. They're cool in theory but do you want your country run by people whose main platform is abolition of intellectual property rights? I'll pass.

Yes.

In this new age of information, information isn't a scarce good. Why should we try to make it scarce? Technological growth is also accelerating, so why should we stifle this growth with patents? Competition is what makes our system work. People compete to do things better than anyone else. Why should we be propping people up to not have to compete for 20 years just because they were first?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 4:54:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 5:48:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
This is kind of why I don't like proportional representation... a bunch of dumb parties form. No offence. They're cool in theory but do you want your country run by people whose main platform is abolition of intellectual property rights? I'll pass.

If I do, I would vote for them. I would rather my vote be counted.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 5:00:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
An American Pirate Party could effect American elections the way Ron Paul did. By creating a position different from candidates but preferred by voters, candidates will adopt third party views to take their voters.

Consider how much Republican candidates talked about the Federal Reserve in the last election. I doubt it'd have been on the radar if Ron Paul wasn't running.

That creates pressure for politicians to appear consistent, so when they're given legislation, it's more likely they'll side with Pirate Party views without actually "endorsing" the Pirate Party.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 5:01:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 5:00:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
An American Pirate Party could effect American elections the way Ron Paul did. By creating a position different from candidates but preferred by voters, candidates will adopt third party views to take their voters.

Consider how much Republican candidates talked about the Federal Reserve in the last election. I doubt it'd have been on the radar if Ron Paul wasn't running.

That creates pressure for politicians to appear consistent, so when they're given legislation, it's more likely they'll side with Pirate Party views without actually "endorsing" the Pirate Party.

Also, their influence will by almost entirely on the level of Democratic primary runs.

If they're able to figure out a message that appeals also to Republicans, then they may influence general elections.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 5:15:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 5:00:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
An American Pirate Party could effect American elections the way Ron Paul did. By creating a position different from candidates but preferred by voters, candidates will adopt third party views to take their voters.

Consider how much Republican candidates talked about the Federal Reserve in the last election. I doubt it'd have been on the radar if Ron Paul wasn't running.

That creates pressure for politicians to appear consistent, so when they're given legislation, it's more likely they'll side with Pirate Party views without actually "endorsing" the Pirate Party.

Good analysis.

Also, pretty much every one of Iceland's numerous parties are left of center. So this is probably going to have an impact there.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 5:20:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 10:37:56 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:48:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
This is kind of why I don't like proportional representation... a bunch of dumb parties form. No offence. They're cool in theory but do you want your country run by people whose main platform is abolition of intellectual property rights? I'll pass.

Yes.

In this new age of information, information isn't a scarce good. Why should we try to make it scarce? Technological growth is also accelerating, so why should we stifle this growth with patents? Competition is what makes our system work. People compete to do things better than anyone else. Why should we be propping people up to not have to compete for 20 years just because they were first?

Because it's not the information that is scarce, but the time invested to mine for that information. Without intellectual property rights there would be little to no incentive for people to innovate.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 5:46:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 5:20:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/29/2013 10:37:56 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:48:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
This is kind of why I don't like proportional representation... a bunch of dumb parties form. No offence. They're cool in theory but do you want your country run by people whose main platform is abolition of intellectual property rights? I'll pass.

Yes.

In this new age of information, information isn't a scarce good. Why should we try to make it scarce? Technological growth is also accelerating, so why should we stifle this growth with patents? Competition is what makes our system work. People compete to do things better than anyone else. Why should we be propping people up to not have to compete for 20 years just because they were first?

Because it's not the information that is scarce, but the time invested to mine for that information. Without intellectual property rights there would be little to no incentive for people to innovate.

'cos there was no innovation before the statute of Anne and Monopolies, amiright?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 7:02:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 5:46:09 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:20:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/29/2013 10:37:56 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:48:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
This is kind of why I don't like proportional representation... a bunch of dumb parties form. No offence. They're cool in theory but do you want your country run by people whose main platform is abolition of intellectual property rights? I'll pass.

Yes.

In this new age of information, information isn't a scarce good. Why should we try to make it scarce? Technological growth is also accelerating, so why should we stifle this growth with patents? Competition is what makes our system work. People compete to do things better than anyone else. Why should we be propping people up to not have to compete for 20 years just because they were first?

Because it's not the information that is scarce, but the time invested to mine for that information. Without intellectual property rights there would be little to no incentive for people to innovate.

'cos there was no innovation before the statute of Anne and Monopolies, amiright?

Yeah, except you're ignoring the effects of industrialization and mass production.

If something is hand-crafted and can only be produced by artisans, of course you don't need property rights.

But when commodities because easily copied and distributed, the "artisan" loses all powerful once he has innovated.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 8:12:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 5:15:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:00:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
An American Pirate Party could effect American elections the way Ron Paul did. By creating a position different from candidates but preferred by voters, candidates will adopt third party views to take their voters.

Consider how much Republican candidates talked about the Federal Reserve in the last election. I doubt it'd have been on the radar if Ron Paul wasn't running.

That creates pressure for politicians to appear consistent, so when they're given legislation, it's more likely they'll side with Pirate Party views without actually "endorsing" the Pirate Party.

Good analysis.

Also, pretty much every one of Iceland's numerous parties are left of center. So this is probably going to have an impact there.

Yeah but Iceland just voted in Independents and right of center parties by a landslide. The left wing parties lost nearly half of their seats.

http://www.economist.com...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 9:08:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You are losing sight of the fact that innovation isn't done simply for direct profit. All that really needs to be recognized is who the true originator is. Bands that get dubbed a million times without a cent are going to have THAT much more advertising and be able to get paid to tour. Programmers can be hired by companies that need software development for internal use. Intellectual property is complete sh!t, because copying your data is proof that your skills are genuine and that goes right on your resume to be seen by companies who need your skills. As long as one registers his or her intellectual property before they set it loose online, they are protected in this sense.

To quote a line I used to dismantle my electronic communications professor about seven years ago in class (he was an adamant IP proponent), did Beethoven need IP laws to be successful? He was recognized and hired for his talent and made money off of performances. Will any of that ever change? People are always going to value the performances of the original artists more than cover-bands. Are you going to spend $50 to go see a Metallica cover-band? Of course not! You will to see the real one though! And this has a more natural feel to it as well, because it makes no sense that a band like Metallica is worth $100s of millions of dollars just for playing rock music - it's not that valuable in reality! They made all that money because of the UNNATURAL ability to sell off infinite copies of their music and profit on each one (before dubbing became so easy). This unnatural ability didn't last long, and while some consider the ability to copy unnatural and immoral, the reality is that copying is the natural balance to being able to produce infinite copies of a work you have made. It makes no sense that a band could make a rock song and sell millions of copies of it over and over again without continuing to expend effort - we should have predicted this ability would not persist forever!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 9:40:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 7:02:57 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:46:09 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:20:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/29/2013 10:37:56 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:48:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
This is kind of why I don't like proportional representation... a bunch of dumb parties form. No offence. They're cool in theory but do you want your country run by people whose main platform is abolition of intellectual property rights? I'll pass.

Yes.

In this new age of information, information isn't a scarce good. Why should we try to make it scarce? Technological growth is also accelerating, so why should we stifle this growth with patents? Competition is what makes our system work. People compete to do things better than anyone else. Why should we be propping people up to not have to compete for 20 years just because they were first?

Because it's not the information that is scarce, but the time invested to mine for that information. Without intellectual property rights there would be little to no incentive for people to innovate.

'cos there was no innovation before the statute of Anne and Monopolies, amiright?

Yeah, except you're ignoring the effects of industrialization and mass production.

If something is hand-crafted and can only be produced by artisans, of course you don't need property rights.

But when commodities because easily copied and distributed, the "artisan" loses all powerful once he has innovated.

Only because the entry barrier is lowered to almost nothing. That is a good thing. Anyone can produce and distribute a work of art now. It's not exactly something that needs too much of a unique skill set anymore. Of course, some will be better than others, though. It doesn't make them entitled to other people's money, though. If they want money, they have to give people a reason to buy.

*waits for someone to make an ignorant remark comparing unauthorized downloading to theft of a physical object*
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 5:00:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 9:08:36 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
You are losing sight of the fact that innovation isn't done simply for direct profit. All that really needs to be recognized is who the true originator is. Bands that get dubbed a million times without a cent are going to have THAT much more advertising and be able to get paid to tour. Programmers can be hired by companies that need software development for internal use. Intellectual property is complete sh!t, because copying your data is proof that your skills are genuine and that goes right on your resume to be seen by companies who need your skills. As long as one registers his or her intellectual property before they set it loose online, they are protected in this sense.

To quote a line I used to dismantle my electronic communications professor about seven years ago in class (he was an adamant IP proponent), did Beethoven need IP laws to be successful? He was recognized and hired for his talent and made money off of performances. Will any of that ever change? People are always going to value the performances of the original artists more than cover-bands. Are you going to spend $50 to go see a Metallica cover-band? Of course not! You will to see the real one though! And this has a more natural feel to it as well, because it makes no sense that a band like Metallica is worth $100s of millions of dollars just for playing rock music - it's not that valuable in reality! They made all that money because of the UNNATURAL ability to sell off infinite copies of their music and profit on each one (before dubbing became so easy). This unnatural ability didn't last long, and while some consider the ability to copy unnatural and immoral, the reality is that copying is the natural balance to being able to produce infinite copies of a work you have made. It makes no sense that a band could make a rock song and sell millions of copies of it over and over again without continuing to expend effort - we should have predicted this ability would not persist forever!

The music bubble lol!

...well it killed michael jackson and whitney houston. Before the music bubble, good artists would perform and create well into their old age. Perhaps IP laws also inadvertantly stifle creativity through overcompensation?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 5:27:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 9:08:36 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
You are losing sight of the fact that innovation isn't done simply for direct profit. All that really needs to be recognized is who the true originator is. Bands that get dubbed a million times without a cent are going to have THAT much more advertising and be able to get paid to tour. Programmers can be hired by companies that need software development for internal use. Intellectual property is complete sh!t, because copying your data is proof that your skills are genuine and that goes right on your resume to be seen by companies who need your skills. As long as one registers his or her intellectual property before they set it loose online, they are protected in this sense.

To quote a line I used to dismantle my electronic communications professor about seven years ago in class (he was an adamant IP proponent), did Beethoven need IP laws to be successful? He was recognized and hired for his talent and made money off of performances. Will any of that ever change? People are always going to value the performances of the original artists more than cover-bands. Are you going to spend $50 to go see a Metallica cover-band? Of course not! You will to see the real one though! And this has a more natural feel to it as well, because it makes no sense that a band like Metallica is worth $100s of millions of dollars just for playing rock music - it's not that valuable in reality! They made all that money because of the UNNATURAL ability to sell off infinite copies of their music and profit on each one (before dubbing became so easy). This unnatural ability didn't last long, and while some consider the ability to copy unnatural and immoral, the reality is that copying is the natural balance to being able to produce infinite copies of a work you have made. It makes no sense that a band could make a rock song and sell millions of copies of it over and over again without continuing to expend effort - we should have predicted this ability would not persist forever!

Beethoven was able to survive due to patronage. He didn't make enough money from his works directly to even feed himself on a daily basis.

Innovation isn't done JUST for profit but without the ability to cover your costs you destroy incentives towards investing into R and D.

It doesn't take thousands of dollars to develop a musical piece, but it does take that to develop new drugs and products.

Without IP, businesses could not innovate without allowing total free-riding from all other businesses.

Consider a screenwriter. He spends a few months writing a script.

If you had your way, the first person who saw the script could steal it and make a film without paying the screenwriter a cent. The screenwriter has no legal recourse under you deranged sense of "ownership."

Likewise, a production company could spend a hundred million dollars on making a film, but if you had your way the distributors could simply digitally copy the product and sell it themselves.

IP is what allows innovators to spend their time innovating. Otherwise, R and D becomes nothing but a side-hobby for rich scientists.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 5:29:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 9:40:16 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/29/2013 7:02:57 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:46:09 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:20:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/29/2013 10:37:56 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:48:28 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
This is kind of why I don't like proportional representation... a bunch of dumb parties form. No offence. They're cool in theory but do you want your country run by people whose main platform is abolition of intellectual property rights? I'll pass.

Yes.

In this new age of information, information isn't a scarce good. Why should we try to make it scarce? Technological growth is also accelerating, so why should we stifle this growth with patents? Competition is what makes our system work. People compete to do things better than anyone else. Why should we be propping people up to not have to compete for 20 years just because they were first?

Because it's not the information that is scarce, but the time invested to mine for that information. Without intellectual property rights there would be little to no incentive for people to innovate.

'cos there was no innovation before the statute of Anne and Monopolies, amiright?

Yeah, except you're ignoring the effects of industrialization and mass production.

If something is hand-crafted and can only be produced by artisans, of course you don't need property rights.

But when commodities because easily copied and distributed, the "artisan" loses all powerful once he has innovated.

Only because the entry barrier is lowered to almost nothing. That is a good thing. Anyone can produce and distribute a work of art now. It's not exactly something that needs too much of a unique skill set anymore. Of course, some will be better than others, though. It doesn't make them entitled to other people's money, though. If they want money, they have to give people a reason to buy.

*waits for someone to make an ignorant remark comparing unauthorized downloading to theft of a physical object*

Lowered barriers to entry for creation of products: Good

Destroying all monetary incentive towards creating new products with front-loaded research costs: Bad

Guess which one involves throwing out IP law?
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 6:51:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 5:27:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/30/2013 9:08:36 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
You are losing sight of the fact that innovation isn't done simply for direct profit. All that really needs to be recognized is who the true originator is. Bands that get dubbed a million times without a cent are going to have THAT much more advertising and be able to get paid to tour. Programmers can be hired by companies that need software development for internal use. Intellectual property is complete sh!t, because copying your data is proof that your skills are genuine and that goes right on your resume to be seen by companies who need your skills. As long as one registers his or her intellectual property before they set it loose online, they are protected in this sense.

To quote a line I used to dismantle my electronic communications professor about seven years ago in class (he was an adamant IP proponent), did Beethoven need IP laws to be successful? He was recognized and hired for his talent and made money off of performances. Will any of that ever change? People are always going to value the performances of the original artists more than cover-bands. Are you going to spend $50 to go see a Metallica cover-band? Of course not! You will to see the real one though! And this has a more natural feel to it as well, because it makes no sense that a band like Metallica is worth $100s of millions of dollars just for playing rock music - it's not that valuable in reality! They made all that money because of the UNNATURAL ability to sell off infinite copies of their music and profit on each one (before dubbing became so easy). This unnatural ability didn't last long, and while some consider the ability to copy unnatural and immoral, the reality is that copying is the natural balance to being able to produce infinite copies of a work you have made. It makes no sense that a band could make a rock song and sell millions of copies of it over and over again without continuing to expend effort - we should have predicted this ability would not persist forever!

Beethoven was able to survive due to patronage. He didn't make enough money from his works directly to even feed himself on a daily basis.

And it looks like things worked out for him because of that. The point stands. He did not need IP law to survive.

Innovation isn't done JUST for profit but without the ability to cover your costs you destroy incentives towards investing into R and D.

How about being the first company to do something? By the time your competitors get to where you were initially, you'll already be ahead of them.

It doesn't take thousands of dollars to develop a musical piece, but it does take that to develop new drugs and products.

And you seem to forget the many instances where businesses patent ideas and proceed not to develop them. Or people who buy patents as litigation cudgels (patent trolls).

Without IP, businesses could not innovate without allowing total free-riding from all other businesses.

God forbid that we actually have some competition.

Consider a screenwriter. He spends a few months writing a script.

If you had your way, the first person who saw the script could steal it and make a film without paying the screenwriter a cent. The screenwriter has no legal recourse under you deranged sense of "ownership."

That is plagiarism, which is an entirely different issue.

Likewise, a production company could spend a hundred million dollars on making a film, but if you had your way the distributors could simply digitally copy the product and sell it themselves.

Isn't this more or less what publishers do? I'm talking about all kinds, not just book publishers. Companies like EA, for example.

IP is what allows innovators to spend their time innovating. Otherwise, R and D becomes nothing but a side-hobby for rich scientists.

And there was innovation long before IP was even conceived. Obviously other things allow it, too.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 8:32:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 6:51:15 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/30/2013 5:27:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/30/2013 9:08:36 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
You are losing sight of the fact that innovation isn't done simply for direct profit. All that really needs to be recognized is who the true originator is. Bands that get dubbed a million times without a cent are going to have THAT much more advertising and be able to get paid to tour. Programmers can be hired by companies that need software development for internal use. Intellectual property is complete sh!t, because copying your data is proof that your skills are genuine and that goes right on your resume to be seen by companies who need your skills. As long as one registers his or her intellectual property before they set it loose online, they are protected in this sense.

To quote a line I used to dismantle my electronic communications professor about seven years ago in class (he was an adamant IP proponent), did Beethoven need IP laws to be successful? He was recognized and hired for his talent and made money off of performances. Will any of that ever change? People are always going to value the performances of the original artists more than cover-bands. Are you going to spend $50 to go see a Metallica cover-band? Of course not! You will to see the real one though! And this has a more natural feel to it as well, because it makes no sense that a band like Metallica is worth $100s of millions of dollars just for playing rock music - it's not that valuable in reality! They made all that money because of the UNNATURAL ability to sell off infinite copies of their music and profit on each one (before dubbing became so easy). This unnatural ability didn't last long, and while some consider the ability to copy unnatural and immoral, the reality is that copying is the natural balance to being able to produce infinite copies of a work you have made. It makes no sense that a band could make a rock song and sell millions of copies of it over and over again without continuing to expend effort - we should have predicted this ability would not persist forever!

Beethoven was able to survive due to patronage. He didn't make enough money from his works directly to even feed himself on a daily basis.

And it looks like things worked out for him because of that. The point stands. He did not need IP law to survive.

Innovation isn't done JUST for profit but without the ability to cover your costs you destroy incentives towards investing into R and D.

How about being the first company to do something? By the time your competitors get to where you were initially, you'll already be ahead of them.

It doesn't take thousands of dollars to develop a musical piece, but it does take that to develop new drugs and products.

And you seem to forget the many instances where businesses patent ideas and proceed not to develop them. Or people who buy patents as litigation cudgels (patent trolls).

Without IP, businesses could not innovate without allowing total free-riding from all other businesses.

God forbid that we actually have some competition.

Consider a screenwriter. He spends a few months writing a script.

If you had your way, the first person who saw the script could steal it and make a film without paying the screenwriter a cent. The screenwriter has no legal recourse under you deranged sense of "ownership."

That is plagiarism, which is an entirely different issue.

Likewise, a production company could spend a hundred million dollars on making a film, but if you had your way the distributors could simply digitally copy the product and sell it themselves.

Isn't this more or less what publishers do? I'm talking about all kinds, not just book publishers. Companies like EA, for example.

IP is what allows innovators to spend their time innovating. Otherwise, R and D becomes nothing but a side-hobby for rich scientists.

And there was innovation long before IP was even conceived. Obviously other things allow it, too.

How does the point stand? The Patron system is WHY IP is so important.

Under the patron system, art, music, literature, and basically any other "luxury career" was DICTATED by the super-rich. It's what leads to museums full of nothing but portraits of rich families. Most art historians blame the patronage system for holding back the evolution of painting that wasn't involved in portrait work.

IP frees artists from patrons by allowing them to draw income from their own work. They don't have to depend on being hired by some rich art freak.

Btw, what on earth do you think plagiarism is? One individual views the ideas/concepts/expressions/work of the artist, says "well, you have no IP rights over that" and write his own identical version.

How can you possibly claim plagiarism is bad but IP theft is not? Would you be fine if the screenplay is stolen and the screenwriter not paid a cent as long as he is given a movie credit?

"Isn't this more or less what publishers do? I'm talking about all kinds, not just book publishers. Companies like EA, for example."

Publishers distribute and copy but must PAY the content originator for this act. This creates monetary incentive for producers.

I've already addressed why innovation in pre-industrialized areas does not necessitate the kind of IP laws needed. Artistic "innovation" of the past was funded by rich people who told artists what they wanted.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 9:36:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I get the whole logical argument behind IP law and how it is supposed to encourage; however, the quality of art has been declining steadily....
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 9:50:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 9:36:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I get the whole logical argument behind IP law and how it is supposed to encourage; however, the quality of art has been declining steadily....



No doubt.

The one issue with getting rid of the patron system is that any form of complex media (i.e. takes lots of expensive equipment/labor to make/produce/sell) must find some way to make the venture profitable or at least break even. That means appealing to what executives think Americans want. That is done by generally "averaging" the opinions of American demographics and creating ad hoc responses to market data.

An artist who only needs paints, a canvas, and a floor space large enough to host a gallery showing has infinitely more control over his work.

On the other hand, the lowered barriers to accessing media (i.e. you can literally make an award winning short film using an iPad) increases artists ability to control their work. The double edge is the lower the barrier,the more artistic talent becomes the more representative of the general population (i.e. sucking).
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 9:52:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I do think there is an important role in reforming and scaling back IP. For instance, I am quite open to arguments scaling back the number of years companies can hold patents or movies can be kept out of the public domain or other such factors.

But you need an IP infastructure in order to carry out complex art-related processes. The question is how much power IP has locally and internationally.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 9:54:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 9:50:51 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/30/2013 9:36:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I get the whole logical argument behind IP law and how it is supposed to encourage; however, the quality of art has been declining steadily....



No doubt.

The one issue with getting rid of the patron system is that any form of complex media (i.e. takes lots of expensive equipment/labor to make/produce/sell) must find some way to make the venture profitable or at least break even. That means appealing to what executives think Americans want. That is done by generally "averaging" the opinions of American demographics and creating ad hoc responses to market data.

An artist who only needs paints, a canvas, and a floor space large enough to host a gallery showing has infinitely more control over his work.

On the other hand, the lowered barriers to accessing media (i.e. you can literally make an award winning short film using an iPad) increases artists ability to control their work. The double edge is the lower the barrier,the more artistic talent becomes the more representative of the general population (i.e. sucking).

Thus you then have an environment where culture shapes the art, not the other way around. This enlightens nobody, and takes the great purpose of an artist and turns it into meatballs.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 9:54:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 8:32:43 PM, Wnope wrote:
How does the point stand? The Patron system is WHY IP is so important.

Under the patron system, art, music, literature, and basically any other "luxury career" was DICTATED by the super-rich. It's what leads to museums full of nothing but portraits of rich families. Most art historians blame the patronage system for holding back the evolution of painting that wasn't involved in portrait work.

IP frees artists from patrons by allowing them to draw income from their own work. They don't have to depend on being hired by some rich art freak.

And obviously the super-rich were their market that they sold to. They still made an income.

Now, you see, the reason they made money is because their product was unique. And the Internet means that works of art are effectively in a post-scarcity environment. Are we going to fight this, or embrace this?

Btw, what on earth do you think plagiarism is? One individual views the ideas/concepts/expressions/work of the artist, says "well, you have no IP rights over that" and write his own identical version.

How can you possibly claim plagiarism is bad but IP theft is not? Would you be fine if the screenplay is stolen and the screenwriter not paid a cent as long as he is given a movie credit?

Ah, there's that fallacy I was waiting for. Theft involves the original owner being deprived of the stolen item. Piracy makes a copy. What you're saying, though, doesn't happen. Are you talking about someone taking a script and using it to create a movie of their own? If so, please name one instance of this actually happening.

"Isn't this more or less what publishers do? I'm talking about all kinds, not just book publishers. Companies like EA, for example."

Publishers distribute and copy but must PAY the content originator for this act. This creates monetary incentive for producers.

"the distributors could simply digitally copy the product and sell it themselves."

This is your quote. Publishers, when selling digitally, perform two actions:
1) they digitally copy the product
2) they sell it themselves
Of course, they often do pay artists - sometimes through royalties, other times they effectively buy out the rights to the song via lump sums. And those big houses you see on MTV Cribs where all the popular musicians live? They're basically on lease with their label - once the band loses their popularity, they take it away. Publishers do have a tendency to serve their own ends before the artist.

I've already addressed why innovation in pre-industrialized areas does not necessitate the kind of IP laws needed. Artistic "innovation" of the past was funded by rich people who told artists what they wanted.

And you have yet to prove that it is best, or even necessary, to do this through creating artificial market conditions to support this industry's existence.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 9:55:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 9:52:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
I do think there is an important role in reforming and scaling back IP. For instance, I am quite open to arguments scaling back the number of years companies can hold patents or movies can be kept out of the public domain or other such factors.

But you need an IP infastructure in order to carry out complex art-related processes. The question is how much power IP has locally and internationally.

Entertainment may need it.

But can art really be made for profit rather than for simply sharing?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord