The Tiny Dot

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

...and the ones I happen to share with you.....you believe you are entitled to call your own?

I cannot rightly claim I came up with your ideas first, but if I know your ideas, that information is mine just as much as it is yours. It is simple. That is the very nature of information, that you are trying to deny, together with property rights that you are denying in the process.

[Mummycaptain of 1,000]

...and the ones I happen to share with you.....you believe you are entitled to call your own?

I cannot rightly claim I came up with your ideas first, but if I know your ideas, that information is mine just as much as it is yours. It is simple. That is the very nature of information.

OK. And if I share my thoughts based upon an agreement that you do not disclose and a price? Are you then entitled to share or sell my thoughts? Typical Non-disclosure agreement.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

...and the ones I happen to share with you.....you believe you are entitled to call your own?

I cannot rightly claim I came up with your ideas first, but if I know your ideas, that information is mine just as much as it is yours. It is simple. That is the very nature of information.

OK. And if I share my thoughts based upon an agreement that you do not disclose and a price? Are you then entitled to share or sell my thoughts? Typical Non-disclosure agreement.

No. If I properly entered into a contract with you, I am bound to abide by the terms of the contract, inasmuch as those terms are just.

[Mummycaptain of 1,000]

I cannot rightly claim I came up with your ideas first, but if I know your ideas, that information is mine just as much as it is yours. It is simple. That is the very nature of information.

OK. And if I share my thoughts based upon an agreement that you do not disclose and a price? Are you then entitled to share or sell my thoughts? Typical Non-disclosure agreement.

No. If I properly entered into a contract with you, I am bound to abide by the terms of the contract, inasmuch as those terms are just.

If you choose to enter into the contract....you are bound by the terms....just or unjust! Price of agency....

Now what about a third party (for example a publisher) that enters into a contract with me in order to publish my thoughts.....for which they then sell. Are you entitled to those thoughts without paying the publisher?

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

OK. And if I share my thoughts based upon an agreement that you do not disclose and a price? Are you then entitled to share or sell my thoughts? Typical Non-disclosure agreement.

No. If I properly entered into a contract with you, I am bound to abide by the terms of the contract, inasmuch as those terms are just.

If you choose to enter into the contract....you are bound by the terms....just or unjust! Price of agency....

You are wrong. If contract is unjust or entered into under false pretenses you are not bound by it.

I'll give you an example. If some rogue agency of the government binds its employees with contracts and laws that are unconstitutional or immoral, those contracts are null and void in the eyes of the supreme law of the land and in the eyes of God.

For examples of that in Scripture see Numbers 30:3-5. God is our Father, and he disallows us to be bound by anything that is unjust or immoral.

Now what about a third party (for example a publisher) that enters into a contract with me in order to publish my thoughts.....for which they then sell. Are you entitled to those thoughts without paying the publisher?

Everybody is entitled to use any information he has as he pleases, as long as he is under no contract otherwise, and in so doing does not deprive others of the use of their property. I think that should be pretty much self evident.

[Mummycaptain of 1,000]

No. If I properly entered into a contract with you, I am bound to abide by the terms of the contract, inasmuch as those terms are just.

If you choose to enter into the contract....you are bound by the terms....just or unjust! Price of agency....

You are wrong. If contract is unjust or entered into under false pretenses you are not bound by it.

I'll give you an example. If some rogue agency of the government binds its employees with contracts and laws that are unconstitutional or immoral, those contracts are null and void in the eyes of the supreme law of the land and in the eyes of God.

For examples of that in Scripture see Numbers 30:3-5. God is our Father and he disallows us to be bound by anything that is unjust or immoral.

You might look into that a little further....if you don't do the due diligence (like a deal with the devil).....the burden is still on you no matter the conditions of the contract.

Now what about a third party (for example a publisher) that enters into a contract with me in order to publish my thoughts.....for which they then sell. Are you entitled to those thoughts without paying the publisher?

Everybody is entitled to use any information he has as he pleases, as long as he is under nor contract otherwise, and in so doing does not deprive others of the use of their property. I think that should be pretty much self evident.

...or depriving someone of the benefit of their property (including intellectual)....like stealing produce off the farm. The benefits of labor to produce something of intellectual value to others....

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

...or depriving someone of the benefit of their property (including intellectual)

By the same logic Chrysler may claim that they are deprived of the benefit of their property because the government did not grant them the exclusive right to produce cars. There profits would've been way higher, if they were a government forced monopoly. I say again, if you have no moral right to use force on your neighbor to prevent him from using any information he has, you cannot delegate that force to your government (the Benson Principle).

....like stealing produce off the farm.

It's been thoroughly established that information is NOT like produce off the farm; it literally CANNOT be stolen, unless you erase the memory of the first owner.

The benefits of labor to produce something of intellectual value to others....

The benefits of that labor should properly be secured by contracts of first use; they are also realized by the authors personal use, and by the donations of the fans. None of these methods violate fundamental principles of liberty, nor private property of others; that is why these methods are proper. Government forced monopoly in the form of a copyright or a patent, on the other hand, is IMMORAL, because it violates fundamental principles of liberty (like Benson Principle), as well as it violates private property of others.

[Mummycaptain of 1,000]

...or depriving someone of the benefit of their property (including intellectual)

By the same logic Chrysler may claim that they are deprived of the benefit of their property because the government did not grant them the exclusive right to produce cars. There profits would've been way higher, if they were a government forced monopoly. I say again, if you have no moral right to use force on your neighbor to prevent him from using any information he has, you cannot delegate that force to your government (the Benson Principle).

Sorry....the analogy doesn't fly. Now if Chrysler spent 2 decades and millions/billions of dollars developing a car.....that the other car companies then reverse engineered in a week and consequently drove Chrysler out of business.....that's essentially what you are saying.

....like stealing produce off the farm.

It's been thoroughly established that information is NOT like produce off the farm; it literally CANNOT be stolen, unless you erase the memory of the first owner.

The benefits of labor can be stolen....which was the whole point which you keep dodging around.....and then stating by some weird logic that people aren't entitled to the benefits of their labor.

The benefits of labor to produce something of intellectual value to others....

The benefits of that labor should properly be secured by contracts of first use; they are also realized by the authors personal use, and by the donations of the fans. None of these methods violate fundamental principles of liberty, nor private property of others; that is why these methods are proper. Government forced monopoly in the form of a copyright or a patent, on the other hand, is IMMORAL, because it violates fundamental principles of liberty (like Benson Principle), as well as it violates private property of others.

....there is very little force involved....just check the millions of hard drives with gigabytes of music people didn't pay for. Its law....people either respect the law or they don't.

You can rationalize theft to your heart's content.....but its still theft!

You can cry for anarchy and repealing laws to your heart's content as well!

[fegunzcaptain of 50]

Of course when you are trying to rationalize theft.....

How many times must I debunk this nonsensical claim?!? Please slow down and read it this time:

again merely copying something does not take the original away. When I copy a book the author still has his to do with as he pleases. He has nothing less and nothing is missing so clearly nothing has been stolen. The idea that the author has been stolen from is a fantasy: imagine calling 911 and saying "I've been robbed but nothing is missing!" That is literally what artists, authors, and inventors are saying.

[fegunzcaptain of 50]

So once I share one of my thoughts with you....you believe you are entitled to call them your own?

I don't claim to be the author of a thought that originated from someone else I do however have every right to act upon and use any information in my head. One cannot dispossess himself of information in his head nor can one can be expected to feign ignorance of such information once it is in his head.

[fegunzcaptain of 50]

And if I share my thoughts based upon an agreement that you do not disclose and a price? Are you then entitled to share or sell my thoughts? Typical Non-disclosure agreement.

No, one is not entitled to break an agreement nor have I advocated anyone do so.

[fegunzcaptain of 50]

If you choose to enter into the contract....you are bound by the terms....just or unjust! Price of agency....

False. For example individuals are not bound by the laws of justice to honor contracts they enter into under duress.

Now what about a third party (for example a publisher) that enters into a contract with me in order to publish my thoughts.....for which they then sell. Are you entitled to those thoughts without paying the publisher?

I never claimed I'm entitled to any thought however I again am certainly entitled to act upon any thought/information that is in my head regardless of how it got there.

[fegunzcaptain of 50]

...or depriving someone of the benefit of their property (including intellectual)....

1. This is yet again another circular argument that presupposes something intangible can be considered property but that is exactly what I have been questioning and have shown cannot be true since it necessarily conflicts with tangible property.

2. When I copy a work the creator has not been deprived of his original and can still do with it as he pleases.
3. No one is entitled to a specific price as a "benefit of there property".

like stealing produce off the farm.

Except that stealing tangible property removes it from the rightful owner which can no longer use and control it at all. The same cannot be said of "works". When I copy a work this creates MORE of it and does not remove it from the creator and BOTH the copier and the creator can use the "work" simultaneously without conflict.

The benefits of labor to produce something of intellectual value to others....

"Benefits of labor" do not include being entitled to sell your labor for an artificially high price by aggressively attacking any would be competitor that otherwise would sell the very same thing for a lower price.

[fegunzcaptain of 50]

The benefits of labor can be stolen....

Then by all means tell me what the creator no longer has after a mere copy has been made of his work.

...there is very little force involved....

I knew a bully in high school that rarely had to actually resort to beating people up since his threats were generally enough to ensure compliance. I guess since he used only "very little force" that makes it ok right?

Its law....people either respect the law or they don't.

Are you trying to claim that merely because it's a law it should be followed? So Jim Crowe laws should have been followed? How about the anti-polygamy laws the early saints broke?

You can rationalize theft to your heart's content.....but its still theft!

No it's not theft when the "victim" has nothing less and can still use all of his property as he pleases.

You can rationalize aggressive violations of the sacred principle of "right and control of property" to your heart's content... but it's still violations of a sacred principle.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

You can rationalize theft to your heart's content.....but its still theft!

You can cry for anarchy and repealing laws to your heart's content as well!

Nobody is rationalizing theft. You are, however, rationalizing tyranny.

No one is crying for anarchy (i.e. lawless existence), and YOU KNOW IT, which makes you a liar, or a dishonest person at least.

We advocate the true laws of Liberty as defined by scripture and by Benson Principle, and repealing corrupt and IMMORAL use of government force which is tyranny, and which will lead to the destruction of the society itself, if unchecked; because without the fundamental principles we advocate, Liberty cannot EXIST, and must unavoidably perish.

[Mummycaptain of 1,000]

You can rationalize theft to your heart's content.....but its still theft!

You can cry for anarchy and repealing laws to your heart's content as well!

Nobody is rationalizing theft. You are, however, rationalizing tyranny.

No one is crying for anarchy (i.e. lawless existence), and YOU KNOW IT, which makes you a liar, or a dishonest person at least.

We advocate the true laws of Liberty as defined by scripture and by Benson Principle, and repealing corrupt and IMMORAL use of government force which is tyranny, and will lead to the destruction of the society itself, if unchecked; because without the fundamental principles we advocate, Liberty cannot EXIST, and must unavoidably perish.

Love your audacity....talk about Benson Principle which is founded on mutual respect for others.....then try to rationalize the theft of others intellectual property. Just another one of your koolaide pouring rants....

See you at the judgment bar! Let the chips fall where they may....

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Love your audacity....talk about Benson Principle which is founded on mutual respect for others.....then try to rationalize the theft of others intellectual property. Just another one of your koolaide pouring rants....

See you at the judgment bar! Let the chips fall where they may....

There is no theft. Your audacity is even more funny: Talking about "property" and denying people the use of their own property by illegitimate and immoral use of government force.


See you at the judgment bar, then you will see that I was right and you were O, so wrong!

I am giving you "I told you so" ahead of time!

[Mummycaptain of 1,000]

Love your audacity....talk about Benson Principle which is founded on mutual respect for others.....then try to rationalize the theft of others intellectual property. Just another one of your koolaide pouring rants....

See you at the judgment bar! Let the chips fall where they may....

There is no theft. Your audacity is even more funny: Talking about "property" and denying people the use of their own property by illegitimate and immoral use of government force.


See you at the judgment bar, then you will see that I was right and you were O, so wrong!

I am giving you "I told you so" ahead of time!

Oh yeah and there's no Holy Ghost because you can't see, touch, or feel him.

Time will tell the story....for better or worse!

[fegunzcaptain of 50]

Love your audacity....talk about Benson Principle which is founded on mutual respect for others.....then try to rationalize the theft of others intellectual property.

Why do you keep on making this claim when I have shown this to be false over and over again?

again merely copying something does not take the original away. When I copy a book the author still has his to do with as he pleases. He has nothing less and nothing is missing so clearly nothing has been stolen. The idea that the author has been stolen from is a fantasy: imagine calling 911 and saying "I've been robbed but nothing is missing!" That is literally what artists, authors, and inventors are saying.

Why do you continue to dodge and evade this point?


Could you please have the courage and respect to address this point before irrationally yelling "You thief!" again?

See you at the judgment bar! Let the chips fall where they may....

Yet you cannot defend your claim that any moral principle has been violated when an individual copies a work of another. You toss out an emotionally charged accusation of "theft" yet when questioned and shown to be nonsense you just continue to lean upon the emotionally charged, illogical accusation...


I on the other hand have clearly shown that any advocate of intellectual property is VIOLATING the sacred principle of the "right and control of property" since the very nature of "intellectual property" necessarily involves aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it.

[fegunzcaptain of 50]

Oh yeah and there's no Holy Ghost because you can't see, touch, or feel him.

Except that you can feel him.

Time will tell the story....for better or worse!

Yeah instead of actually addressing the logical and scriptural basis for our position just toss out empty phrases like this...

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Oh yeah and there's no Holy Ghost because you can't see, touch, or feel him.

Except that you can feel him.

Time will tell the story....for better or worse!

Yeah instead of actually addressing the logical and scriptural basis for our position just toss out empty phrases like this...

fegunz, you rock! Thank you! My God, why can't people just use reason instead of believing lies?!


Thanks again.

[Mummycaptain of 1,000]

Oh yeah and there's no Holy Ghost because you can't see, touch, or feel him.

Except that you can feel him.

Time will tell the story....for better or worse!

Yeah instead of actually addressing the logical and scriptural basis for our position just toss out empty phrases like this...

fegunz, you rock! Thank you! My God, why can't people just use reason instead of believing lies?!


Thanks again.

If you spend a year designing a house....and someone copies the design without permission and without payment....Have you been robbed?

If you spend a year developing a compilation of songs.....and someone copies the songs without permission and without payment.....Have you been robbed?

My interpretation of what you are stating is that this isn't theft therefore the government should not have and enforce laws - Is this correct?

[fegunzcaptain of 50]

If you spend a year designing a house....and someone copies the design without permission and without payment....Have you been robbed?

If you spend a year developing a compilation of songs.....and someone copies the songs without permission and without payment.....Have you been robbed?

I have answered these types of questions in great detail already so instead of explaining yet again that the creator has nothing less when someone copies a work maybe you could explain what exactly has been taken away from him.


If the house designer has been robbed, as you seem to be implying, then please show me what he no longer has.

If the song complier has been robbed then please show me what he no longer has.

Please do yourself a favor and instead of merely saying "that's robbery" SHOW what has been taken thus making your case. Afterall the burden of proof is on the accuser and you are accusing a copier of theft. Make your case already.

My interpretation of what you are stating is that this isn't theft therefore the government should not have and enforce laws - Is this correct?

Not entirely. Yes it's not theft (the creator isn't missing anything) but it does not follow that government should not make and enforce laws. All we are saying is that THIS particular law should be done away with since it's an immoral aggressive law that violates the "right and control of property"'; a principle that any member of the church should honor considering it's written in holy scripture...

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

If you spend a year designing a house....and someone copies the design without permission and without payment....Have you been robbed?

If you spend a year developing a compilation of songs.....and someone copies the songs without permission and without payment.....Have you been robbed?

I have answered these types of questions in great detail already so instead of explaining yet again that the creator has nothing less when someone copies a work maybe you could explain what exactly has been taken away from him.


If the house designer has been robbed, as you seem to be implying, then please show me what he no longer has.

If the song complier has been robbed then please show me what he no longer has.

Please do yourself a favor and instead of merely saying "that's robbery" SHOW what has been taken thus making your case. Afterall the burden of proof is on the accuser and you are accusing a copier of theft. Make your case already.

My interpretation of what you are stating is that this isn't theft therefore the government should not have and enforce laws - Is this correct?

Not entirely. Yes it's not theft (the creator isn't missing anything) but it does not follow that government should not make and enforce laws. All we are saying is that THIS particular law should be done away with since it's an immoral aggressive law that violates the "right and control of property"'; a principle that any member of the church should honor considering it's written in holy scripture...

I'd love to respond, but due to previous commitments I need permission to do so... (does this count as a response? It's not intended to be, it is just a request for permission to respond...)

[Mummycaptain of 1,000]

If you spend a year designing a house....and someone copies the design without permission and without payment....Have you been robbed?

If you spend a year developing a compilation of songs.....and someone copies the songs without permission and without payment.....Have you been robbed?

My interpretation of what you are stating is that this isn't theft therefore the government should not have and enforce laws - Is this correct?

Not entirely. Yes it's not theft but it does not follow that government should not make and enforce laws. All we are saying is that THIS particular law should be done away with since it's an immoral aggressive law that violates the "right and control of property" that should be honored.

Well I had found it pointless in continuing to speak with you but since you keep intervening.....I think its theft!

If I spend a year of my time and talents making a music compilation that someone then takes from me against my will and against legal contract....or yet worse distributes over the internet to a billion people who feel the same as you do....that they are entitled to the results of my labor without rewarding me according to my terms (via a free market).....its theft plain and simple!

You can rationalize it all you want with talk of dots on a paper or bytes on a hard drive....but its theft!

Best of luck to you both!

[fegunzcaptain of 50]

I'd love to respond, but due to previous commitments I need permission to do so... (does this count as a response? It's not intended to be, it is just a request for permission to respond...)

You don't need my permission to respond but if you do you will be blatantly contradicting yourself since you were so sure before that it was the "end of line" and "we really have nothing more to say to each other."


That being said I welcome further debate myself. I never wanted to drop it to begin with.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

...

Well I had found it pointless in continuing to speak with you but since you keep intervening.....I think its theft!

If I spend a year of my time and talents making a music compilation that someone then takes from me against my will and against legal contract....or yet worse distributes over the internet to a billion people who feel the same as you do....that they are entitled to the results of my labor without rewarding me according to my terms (via a free market).....its theft plain and simple!

You can rationalize it all you want with talk of dots on a paper or bytes on a hard drive....but its theft!

Best of luck to you both!

No one is taking anything from you. You still have your songs. If you wish to receive reward for your work, the proper way to do so is:

1) by using your work yourself
2) through contracts of first use of your work
3) by asking for donations.

Not by using aggression against the property of others via immoral and improper use of government force.

You still have failed to answer what you have LESS of by someone copying your work. Your answer is: "I have less ability to collect money from people who use my work." True. But that is the nature of information: to know it IS to own it. The only proper way to benefit from the information you produced is to follow the three points I just outlined: 1) use it yourself, 2) secure contracts of first use, 3) ask for donations. To use government force to prevent people from using your information (if they are under no contract with you) is IMMORAL because:

a) You do not have moral right to use force on your neighbor to prevent him from using your info.
b) Since you do not have that right you cannot delegate it to your government.

Case closed.

[fegunzcaptain of 50]

Well I had found it pointless in continuing to speak with you but since you keep intervening.....I think its theft!

And merely "thinking" it's theft does not make it so.

If I spend a year of my time and talents making a music compilation that someone then takes from me against my will

False. Copying music doesn't remove the original from your possession. If I copy your music compilation you STILL HAVE your music compilation to do with as you please. That's what copying does: it creates ANOTHER instance of that very thing so TWO DIFFERENT people can have and use it simultaneously without conflict. Again you have had NOTHING taken away from you if only a copy has been made.

and against legal contract

Not necessarily. If you loan me a book I have not agreed to any contract preventing me from copying it and thus am not breaking any such contract in making a copy.

or yet worse distributes over the internet to a billion people who feel the same as you do....that they are entitled to the results of my labor

As I already said I do NOT feel I am entitled to anyone's labor. I am however entitled to arrange my own property in any manner I please. Unfortunately you however feel that you are entitled to partial control and therefore partial ownership of MY tangible property in violation of the sacred principle of "right and control of property."

without rewarding me according to my terms (via a free market)

Terms with which I do not agree to. Again I am under no legitimate obligation to abide by terms you make up but I do NOT agree to.

.....its theft plain and simple!

And yet you still cannot show that you have had anything taken away from you. You claim music is taken from you yet YOU STILL HAVE IT and can do anything you want with it.


I can see you calling 9-11 now...
9-11 operator: 9-11 what is your emergency?
Mummy: I've been robbed!
9-11 operator: what did they take?
Mummy: nothing
9-11 operator: what's missing?
Mummy: nothing
9-11 operator: I don't understand sir, you claimed you've been robbed but you still have all of your property accounted for?
Mummy: yes but someone else arranged there own property in the same way I arranged mine!
9-11 operator: But nothing is missing? Nothing is gone? Nothing was taken?
Mummy: well yes but still someone else arranged there own property the same way I arranged mine!
9-11 operator: Sir please don't waste our time...

You can rationalize it all you want with talk of dots on a paper or bytes on a hard drive....but its theft!

And maybe if you say it enough times that will make it so right?! lol...


Again you can rationalize threatening violence upon peaceful people that are only arranging and selling there OWN tangible property but that will not change the fact that you are violating a holy principle written in scripture.

Did you get permission to copy this video clip or are you guilty of what you denounce as theft?

[Mummycaptain of 1,000]

Well I had found it pointless in continuing to speak with you but since you keep intervening.....I think its theft!

If I spend a year of my time and talents making a music compilation that someone then takes from me against my will and against legal contract....or yet worse distributes over the internet to a billion people who feel the same as you do....that they are entitled to the results of my labor without rewarding me according to my terms (via a free market).....its theft plain and simple!

You can rationalize it all you want with talk of dots on a paper or bytes on a hard drive....but its theft!

Best of luck to you both!

No one is taking anything from you. You still have your songs. If you wish to receive reward for your work, the proper way to do so is:

1) by using your work yourself
2) through contracts of first use of your work
3) by asking for donations.

Not by using aggression against the property of others via immoral and improper use of government force.

You still have failed to answer what you have LESS of by someone copying your work. Your answer is: "I have less ability to collect money from people who use my work." True. But that is the nature of information: to know it IS to own it. The only proper way to benefit from the information you produced is to follow the three points I just outlined: 1) use it yourself, 2) secure contracts of first use, 3) ask for donations. To use government force to prevent people from using your information (if they are under no contract with you) is IMMORAL because:

a) You do not have moral right to use force on your neighbor to prevent him from using your info.
b) Since you do not have that right you cannot delegate it to your government.

Case closed.

So two wrongs make a right?

A guy in my ward and neighbor, is a musician. He spends a year and $20k in recording studio fees to produce a cd (his property which he has worked for and paid for) which he then sells copies of under the contract stipulation that no reproduction is authorized. A person buys the CD then breaks that contract to rip the cd and put the information on the internet. Then you and your fan club come along and download the cd claiming that you have the right to organize the bytes on your hard drive however you like......and you say that isn't stealing. And if my neighbor doesn't like it....he should ask for donations. And to top it off....you claim that he isn't entitled to protection of his property.

You guys are some real peaches!!!

[1984Orwellherenowcaptain of 100]

This entire argument relies on the premise that good government can protect tangible things but not intangible things. Sounds like a case of selective application to me.

FYI, intangibles can be carried into heaven and tangibles are left behind. Which do you think are more important to protect.

Orwell For The Win!