The Tiny Dot

[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.

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!

By the same logic, if Benson Principle is not important, lets streamline charity too; it's more efficient that way. Lets have men with guns come to every house and take people's property for the poor; or better yet, lets deduct the money right from the paycheck, and give it to the government who enforces this, and who will distribute (whatever's left) to the poor....O, wait! We are already doing it! It's called "withholding!"

This is your logic, and it protects the status quo which is WRONG, and immoral. Therefore, I guess you deserve the tyranny that you get, because you have no respect for the fundamental principles of liberty, of which Benson Principle is one of the most important ones!

Good luck in your self-created government hell, that you support and love so much! You truly deserve it!
It is blind people like you, who are the best support for government tyranny, because the best way to herd the sheep, is to brainwash them through greed and dis-info, and through sheer stupidity, to herd themselves! This is what you are doing, unfortunately. But again, then you deserve the tyranny that you get as a just retribution for your lack of respect for the true principles of liberty, i.e. the Benson Principle.

Good luck.

[LoveIsTruth]

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.

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.

Your position is woefully inconsistent! Current copyright laws forbid copying even if you do not sell the copies. So apparently, at lease you agree, that that part of copyright law is wrong. But if you believe that "he can make them [copies] to his hearts content," as you said, on what moral principle do you believe that? The Benson Principle? If so you are correct. It is his property, he can arrange it how he wants, and you have no moral right to force him in his house not to use the copy machine. But then your logic breaks down. If he is free to make the copies in his house (because it is his property), why does it stop being his property when he tries to sell it? You will say, Well, if he tries to sell it he cuts into my potential revenue. But if everyone makes a copy in their house, does it not cut into your potential revenue?


So again, I ask, on what moral principle do you allow that "He can make them [copies] to his hearts content" (which is correct enough)?

That very principle, whatever it is, allows him also to sell those copies.

[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!

By the same logic, if Benson Principle is not important, lets streamline charity too; it's more efficient that way. Lets have men with guns come to every house and take people's property for the poor; or better yet, lets deduct the money right from the paycheck, and give it to the government who enforces this, and who will distribute (whatever's left) to the poor....O, wait! We are already doing it! It's called "withholding!"

This is your logic, and it protects the status quo which is WRONG, and immoral. Therefore, I guess you deserve the tyranny that you get, because you have no respect for the fundamental principles of liberty, of which Benson Principle is one of the most important ones!

Good luck in your self-created government hell, that you support and love so much! You truly deserve it!
It is blind people like you, who are the best support for government tyranny, because the best way to herd the sheep, is to brainwash them through greed and dis-info, and through sheer stupidity, to herd themselves! This is what you are doing, unfortunately. But again, then you deserve the tyranny that you get as a just retribution for your lack of respect for the true principles of liberty, i.e. the Benson Principle.

Good luck.

And now we have the emotional rant when confronted with logic. How many men with guns are busting in people's homes and inspecting their hard drives?

Good luck in your anarchy that would shortly become tyranny!

The wicked are in need of harsher task masters.....

[Jason]

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.

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.

Your position is woefully inconsistent! Current copyright laws forbid copying even if you do not sell the copies. So apparently, at lease you agree, that that part of copyright law is wrong. But if you believe that "he can make them [copies] to his hearts content," as you said, on what moral principle do you believe that? The Benson Principle? If so you are correct. It is his property, he can arrange it how he wants, and you have no moral right to force him in his house not to use the copy machine. But then your logic breaks down. If he is free to make the copies in his house (because it is his property), why does it stop being his property when he tries to sell it? You will say, Well, if he tries to sell it he cuts into my potential revenue. But if everyone makes a copy in their house, does it not cut into your potential revenue?


So again, I ask, on what moral principle do you allow that "He can make them [copies] to his hearts content" (which is correct enough)?

That very principle, whatever it is, allows him also to sell those copies.

Copyright is just what it says.....you can't copy without the owner's permission. You have already stated that it is wrong to take something that you didn't create or develop.

I reprint stuff all the time....standard courtesy to ask the creator for permission.....or at the very least give credit where credit is due. But no you want to steal (take without asking/permission/payment) and justify it via malignant use of the Benson Principle. Well ya ain't gonna feel good about it.....ain't gonna happen!

[Jason]

By the same logic, if Benson Principle is not important, lets streamline charity too; it's more efficient that way. Lets have men with guns come to every house and take people's property for the poor; or better yet, lets deduct the money right from the paycheck, and give it to the government who enforces this, and who will distribute (whatever's left) to the poor....O, wait! We are already doing it! It's called "withholding!"

This is your logic, and it protects the status quo which is WRONG, and immoral. Therefore, I guess you deserve the tyranny that you get, because you have no respect for the fundamental principles of liberty, of which Benson Principle is one of the most important ones!

Good luck in your self-created government hell, that you support and love so much! You truly deserve it!
It is blind people like you, who are the best support for government tyranny, because the best way to herd the sheep, is to brainwash them through greed and dis-info, and through sheer stupidity, to herd themselves! This is what you are doing, unfortunately. But again, then you deserve the tyranny that you get as a just retribution for your lack of respect for the true principles of liberty, i.e. the Benson Principle.

Good luck.

Look the reason you are kicking against the bricks and nashing your teeth is because you have already convicted your logic.

You admitted that the IP developed by someone was their property. You admitted it was wrong to take or copy that property without permission.

God asks you one simple question - "Did you get permission?"

Who cares if that permission is a c with a circle around it, clicking the yes box when installing software, right of first refusal, non-disclosure agreement, sales receipt,......or whatever legal contract or tool is used to represent permission from the inventor/creator/developer or their authorized representative through legal arrangement.

Did you get permission?

The only trump to that....that I am aware of....is permission from God (for example the Israelites were permitted/commanded to take others property since those people had refused to honor God and turned away from Him to their own wicked pursuits). The reason this is legal is because God created the world, us, and gave us talents and abilities.....and it all ultimately belongs to Him.

If you have gotten carte blanche go ahead from God to take another's property without permission.....so be it. If not I highly doubt President Benson would condone your behavior or your logic.....including the 300 gig of music/movies/etc. on your hard drive that you didn't obtain permission for!

[LoveIsTruth]

Look the reason you are kicking against the bricks and nashing your teeth is because you have already convicted your logic.

You admitted that the IP developed by someone was their property. You admitted it was wrong to take or copy that property without permission.

God asks you one simple question - "Did you get permission?"

Who cares if that permission is a c with a circle around it, clicking the yes box when installing software, right of first refusal, non-disclosure agreement, sales receipt,......or whatever legal contract or tool is used to represent permission from the inventor/creator/developer or their authorized representative through legal arrangement.

Did you get permission?

The only trump to that....that I am aware of....is permission from God (for example the Israelites were permitted/commanded to take others property since those people had refused to honor God and turned away from Him to their own wicked pursuits). The reason this is legal is because God created the world, us, and gave us talents and abilities.....and it all ultimately belongs to Him.

If you have gotten carte blanche go ahead from God to take another's property without permission.....so be it. If not I highly doubt President Benson would condone your behavior or your logic.....including the 300 gig of music/movies/etc. on your hard drive that you didn't obtain permission for!

And of course you are wrong again.

The question is not "Did you get permission?" But "Do you have the moral right to use FORCE on your neighbor, when he uses his copy machine to make a copy of your book if he made no contract with you, neither deprived you of the use of your property?"

The answer is resounding NO.

Therefore, you cannot delegate the authority to your government.

It is similar to these two questions: "Is it good to give charity to the poor?" The answer in most cases is yes. But "Is it right to FORCE your neighbor to give to the poor?" The answer is resounding NO; because you do not have moral right to do this, therefore you cannot ask your government to do it for you.

This is key principle, without which Liberty CANNOT survive and must be unavoidably destroyed. It is the Benson Principle. And current IP laws CLEARLY violate it. Therefore they are just as immoral as "forced charity" to the poor skims. It is IMMORAL, wrong, and destructive of the Liberty itself.

[Jason]

Look the reason you are kicking against the bricks and nashing your teeth is because you have already convicted your logic.

You admitted that the IP developed by someone was their property. You admitted it was wrong to take or copy that property without permission.

God asks you one simple question - "Did you get permission?"

Who cares if that permission is a c with a circle around it, clicking the yes box when installing software, right of first refusal, non-disclosure agreement, sales receipt,......or whatever legal contract or tool is used to represent permission from the inventor/creator/developer or their authorized representative through legal arrangement.

Did you get permission?

The only trump to that....that I am aware of....is permission from God (for example the Israelites were permitted/commanded to take others property since those people had refused to honor God and turned away from Him to their own wicked pursuits). The reason this is legal is because God created the world, us, and gave us talents and abilities.....and it all ultimately belongs to Him.

If you have gotten carte blanche go ahead from God to take another's property without permission.....so be it. If not I highly doubt President Benson would condone your behavior or your logic.....including the 300 gig of music/movies/etc. on your hard drive that you didn't obtain permission for!

And of course you are wrong again.

The question is not "Did you get permission?" But "Do you have the moral right to use FORCE on your neighbor, when he uses his copy machine to make a copy of your book if he made no contract with you, neither deprived you of the use of your property?"

The answer is resounding NO.

Therefore, you cannot delegate the authority to your government.

It is similar to these two questions: "Is it good to give charity to the poor?" The answer in most cases is yes. But "Is it right to FORCE your neighbor to give to the poor?" The answer is resounding NO; because you do not have moral right to do this, therefore you cannot ask your government to do it for you.

This is key principle, without which Liberty CANNOT survive and must be unavoidably destroyed. It is the Benson Principle. And current IP laws CLEARLY violate it. Therefore they are just as immoral as "forced charity" to the poor skims. It is IMMORAL, wrong, and destructive of the Liberty itself.

Well I reckon agree to disagree! We'll see how it shakes out at the judgment bar! I look forward to you answer to the question - "Did he/she give you permission to copy their property?"

You've already stated it was wrong.....so it shouldn't be hard to guess what the answer will be in the full blazing piercing Light of Christ!

I must thank you though as you have convinced me to destroy all the property on my hard drive that I didn't get permission from the owners for......and I must say it feels really good to repent! Thank you!

[LoveIsTruth]

love is lies,

In this case L in BrentL(ies).

your logic is so twisted. by the same reasoning, you should be able to drive your car across someone's land, because to deny you this right would be to tell you HOW you can use your car.

Land is tangible property. It is impossible to drive over it without depriving the owner of the simultaneous use of it. Therefore, driving over it without permission would be violating his property. Information is different, as been stated before.

the FACT is, that without the original, you cannot reproduce it. you cannot sit down and write a copy of THE LORD OF THE RINGS without reading it, or having a copy to begin with. that is the virtual landscape you are driving your car on. make up your own virtual land!

And your point is? Tangible and intangible property obeys the same laws? That is simply false.

the analogy of giving charity to the poor does not apply,

Because you say so? It applies perfectly!

a proper analogy would be, do you have a right to FORCE your neighbor to pay restitution for theft. go look that one up and see what the Benson Principle says.

What exactly was stolen? Are you saying you have the moral right to break your neighbor's door and by force prevent him from using his copy machine?

stop twisting the gospel to fit your preconceived philosophy of men.

Don't confuse "philosophy of men" with truth taught by an apostle.

[LoveIsTruth]

Well I reckon agree to disagree! We'll see how it shakes out at the judgment bar! I look forward to you answer to the question - "Did he/she give you permission to copy their property?"

You've already stated it was wrong.....so it shouldn't be hard to guess what the answer will be in the full blazing piercing Light of Christ!

I must thank you though as you have convinced me to destroy all the property on my hard drive that I didn't get permission from the owners for......and I must say it feels really good to repent! Thank you!

I am glad I could be of help!