The Tiny Dot

[fegunz]

So two wrongs make a right?

Neither of us have advocated stealing, breaking contracts, or any other wrong unlike yourself which is advocating aggressively violating the property rights of countless individuals which is also contrary to a principle contained in canonized scripture. How you can continue to advocate violating the word of God is beyond me...

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.

1. Where is the so-called contract? I have never seen any such contract presented before me before purchasing a CD... How can it be claimed that anyone is entering such a contract when they don't even see this so-called contract before purchase?

2. Where is the proof that the purchaser agreed to such a contract? Did he sign something? Did he verbally agree? How exactly did he give consent cause I sure don't remember doing so myself. In fact if I had the opportunity I would be willing to make sure it's known that I do NOT consent to any such contract.

A person buys the CD then breaks that contract to rip the cd

Show me the contract and then show me the proof any purchaser agreed to the terms BEFORE purchase.

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.

Correct. If something has been stolen from him then I again invite you to explain to me what exactly has been removed from his possession. What is he no longer able to use?

And if my neighbor doesn't like it....he should ask for donations.

Or move on to providing some other valuable good or service.

And to top it off....you claim that he isn't entitled to protection of his property.

Straw man. We have never claimed he is not entitled to protection of his property.

What I am saying is that "intellectual property" is a misnomer. It cannot be treated as if it's tangible property nor can the same rules and rights govern it. There are many reasons for this but the main ones include the fact that it's not scarce, it can be simultaneously controlled by everyone without conflict, and it necessarily conflicts with tangible property.

Let's compare a physical CD with a song: The physical CD is scarce since there isn't an infinite supply of them (which consequently is where it's price arises). The physical CD cannot be simultaneously controlled and used by multiple people; there individual desires for how to use and control the CD would conflict which is why property rights exist to assign an owner: the one with the exclusive right to control it's usage.

A song however, which is an arrangement of notes, isn't scare since that specific arrangement can infinitely be replicated by almost anyone in many ways (which consequently is why the natural price of something digital approaches zero). This particular arrangement of notes CAN be simultaneously controlled and used by multiple people; each and every individual can use his copy of the arrangement of notes as he pleases without conflicting with anyone else's usage of it. So literally there is no need or purpose to property rights in such arrangements: there is no need or legitimate purpose to assigning only person with the exclusive right to control it's usage since ALL can do so independently of each other. Furthermore to assign only one person to have the exclusive right to control it's usage denies everyone else the usage of there tangible property and literally gives the "owner" an aggressive, government forced, monopoly.

You guys are some real peaches!!!

Thanks I am from Georgia!

[fegunz]

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.

The gaping flaw in your reasoning is that good government can protect both yet the entire concept of "intellectual property" necessarily VIOLATES the "right and control" of tangible property.


The ONLY way "intellectual property" can be "protected" from being copied is by aggressively denying the tangible property rights of others. The ONLY way tangible property rights can be protected is if all "intellectual property" law is abolished. The two cannot coexist when there very natures are in conflict with each other.

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

False dichotomy. Doing away with "intellectual property" law does not and will not destroy ideas, songs, arts, and inventions. Man survived and created all such things for centuries without such laws.


Principles in the scriptures cannot contradict themselves so neither can the concept of the "right and control of property". Unless you believe God contradicts himself in scripture this means that property rights cannot conflict and they do not if you toss out the illogical and immoral claim that intangibles are "property."

Orwell For The Win!

Address my rebuttal then we'll see who wins.

[1984Orwellherenow]

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.

The gaping flaw in your reasoning is that good government can protect both yet the entire concept of "intellectual property" necessarily VIOLATES the "right and control" of tangible property.


The ONLY way "intellectual property" can be "protected" from being copied is by aggressively denying the tangible property rights of others. The ONLY way tangible property rights can be protected is if all "intellectual property" law is abolished. The two cannot coexist when there very natures are in conflict with each other.

Dude, I like totally get what you are saying and stuff, but check this out. I created a destruction machine that like, totally wants to destroy, and, like, you're totally violating my rights of destruction by protecting your property by false government. Ya see?

Orwell FTW!

I already owned this stuff. That's on top of the ownage Mummy piled up. Add it all together and you've been owned, burried, reclaimed, and owned again!

But it's all good. I wouldn't have responded if your ideas didn't either make me think quite a bit extra, or, were worthy of sarcastic treatment. Your writings were the former, and I applaud the effort.

Address my rebuttal then we'll see who wins.

You have to rebutify first, homie. Win, win, win!

[fegunz]

Dude, I like totally get what you are saying and stuff, but check this out. I created a destruction machine that like, totally wants to destroy, and, like, you're totally violating my rights of destruction by protecting your property by false government. Ya see?

No I don't. I genuinely don't understand your point... It seems like you are saying I am advocating destroying property yet I never have advocated such a thing. Keep in mind copying something does not destroy or even change the original in anyway. Try again.

[1984Orwellherenow]

No I don't. I genuinely don't understand your point... It seems like you are saying I am advocating destroying property yet I never have advocated such a thing. Keep in mind copying something does not destroy or even change the original in anyway. Try again.

Dudes, you didn't get it dudes. Property is, like, totally property, dudes. It's like, if it's tangible or intangible, like, dudes, you can't like, use it to hurt others, dudes, ya know? Like, my stuff can't be used to hurt your stuff, regardless of how much you want to use your stuff to hurt my stuff, ya know?

Dudes, it's like that question if God is so great, can He, like, create a being greater than Him? Ya know, dudes? It's like, so circular, to, like, get the warped stuff into perspective that ya lose the perspective, ya know? If ya don't, dudes,...

[Jason]

So two wrongs make a right?

Neither of us have advocated stealing, breaking contracts, or any other wrong unlike yourself which is advocating aggressively violating the property rights of countless individuals which is also contrary to a principle contained in canonized scripture. How you can continue to advocate violating the word of God is beyond me...

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.

1. Where is the so-called contract? I have never seen any such contract presented before me before purchasing a CD... How can it be claimed that anyone is entering such a contract when they don't even see this so-called contract before purchase?

2. Where is the proof that the purchaser agreed to such a contract? Did he sign something? Did he verbally agree? How exactly did he give consent cause I sure don't remember doing so myself. In fact if I had the opportunity I would be willing to make sure it's known that I do NOT consent to any such contract.

A person buys the CD then breaks that contract to rip the cd

Show me the contract and then show me the proof any purchaser agreed to the terms BEFORE purchase.

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.

Correct. If something has been stolen from him then I again invite you to explain to me what exactly has been removed from his possession. What is he no longer able to use?

And if my neighbor doesn't like it....he should ask for donations.

Or move on to providing some other valuable good or service.

And to top it off....you claim that he isn't entitled to protection of his property.

Straw man. We have never claimed he is not entitled to protection of his property.

What I am saying is that "intellectual property" is a misnomer. It cannot be treated as if it's tangible property nor can the same rules and rights govern it. There are many reasons for this but the main ones include the fact that it's not scarce, it can be simultaneously controlled by everyone without conflict, and it necessarily conflicts with tangible property.

Let's compare a physical CD with a song: The physical CD is scarce since there isn't an infinite supply of them (which consequently is where it's price arises). The physical CD cannot be simultaneously controlled and used by multiple people; there individual desires for how to use and control the CD would conflict which is why property rights exist to assign an owner: the one with the exclusive right to control it's usage.

A song however, which is an arrangement of notes, isn't scare since that specific arrangement can infinitely be replicated by almost anyone in many ways (which consequently is why the natural price of something digital approaches zero). This particular arrangement of notes CAN be simultaneously controlled and used by multiple people; each and every individual can use his copy of the arrangement of notes as he pleases without conflicting with anyone else's usage of it. So literally there is no need or purpose to property rights in such arrangements: there is no need or legitimate purpose to assigning only person with the exclusive right to control it's usage since ALL can do so independently of each other. Furthermore to assign only one person to have the exclusive right to control it's usage denies everyone else the usage of there tangible property and literally gives the "owner" an aggressive, government forced, monopoly.

You guys are some real peaches!!!

Thanks I am from Georgia!

Its stamped on the CD....called copyright! Get it...."copy" "right". I guess you are in need of a harsher and more stringent contract.....

[LoveIsTruth]

No I don't. I genuinely don't understand your point... It seems like you are saying I am advocating destroying property yet I never have advocated such a thing. Keep in mind copying something does not destroy or even change the original in anyway. Try again.

Dudes, you didn't get it dudes. Property is, like, totally property, dudes. It's like, if it's tangible or intangible, like, dudes, you can't like, use it to hurt others, dudes, ya know? Like, my stuff can't be used to hurt your stuff, regardless of how much you want to use your stuff to hurt my stuff, ya know?

Dudes, it's like that question if God is so great, can He, like, create a being greater than Him? Ya know, dudes? It's like, so circular, to, like, get the warped stuff into perspective that ya lose the perspective, ya know? If ya don't, dudes,...

Congratulations, you are making just as much sense as the defenders of copyrights and patents do, which is about ZERO.

Goes to show that your position does not have basis in logic, reason, scripture or truth.

[LoveIsTruth]

Original_Intent, do chime in, at least your arguments seemed to be more intellectually honest (though flawed). If you feel you cannot respond to fegunz, you can still respond to me. Let's reason this out as honest men, because I sincerely believe you are honest.

Thanks.

[armedtotheteeth]

loveistruth and fugunz, as an interesting experiment, you should both start copying and distributing church intellectual property such as the old handbook of instruction, the temple vids and so on. Would you call the 12 and the 1st Presidency to repentance for "aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it," as they send their world class litigation team (the ones who have fought many people stealing and distributing like wiki leaks and others) to rip you shreds in a court room?

Also if it is wrong to copyright your mental property, are the brethren, who enjoy writing and publishing books, sinning because they stock Desert Book full of protected books that they have as solo monopoly on as the writer, just so they can make a profit on a copy of a copy of a copy?

In church as you nod off daydreaming of posting your pathetic arguments about ripping people off of truly hard and sometimes heartbreaking work, you may of noticed on all the church manuals a lil circled ‘c’ with the following words ‘all rights reserved.’ I wonder who decided to put that there? The 1st Presidency and the 12? Under who’s direction? We all know who's direction.

Copyrights give the author(s) control of their property.

Is this not the true church? Do we not have holy and righteous men called by God running it? Why would they "aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it.” Your arguments are so incredibly flawed. I will not waste my time arguing the philosophy of man, when the church, Christ’s kingdom on earth copyrights everything if produces.

If you can break away from the Ron Paul forum long enough to watch conference in a week or so, you will notice, either before or after the televised conference…………UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THESE BRODCASTS IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS! Or something along those lines. Quit looking beyond the mark. The only circled argument is the false one you two are spinning!

[fegunz]

Dudes, you didn't get it dudes. Property is, like, totally property, dudes. It's like, if it's tangible or intangible, like, dudes, you can't like, use it to hurt others, dudes, ya know? Like, my stuff can't be used to hurt your stuff, regardless of how much you want to use your stuff to hurt my stuff, ya know?

Dudes, it's like that question if God is so great, can He, like, create a being greater than Him? Ya know, dudes? It's like, so circular, to, like, get the warped stuff into perspective that ya lose the perspective, ya know? If ya don't, dudes,...

Your incessant use of "dude" and other distracting grammar and vocabulary makes it's impossible for me to understand you.

[fegunz]

Its stamped on the CD....called copyright! Get it...."copy" "right". I guess you are in need of a harsher and more stringent contract.....

A symbol is stamped on the CD not a contract. One cannot read any legalese terms or conditions within said symbol nor is a purchaser even guaranteed to even notice the symbol before purchase. The notion that a symbol constitutes a valid contract with specific terms is ridiculous. That's like me selling you my car but I etched an O symbol in the door that you find AFTER the sale and when you ask me about it say "that's the contract you agreed to when you bought it which states you now owe me all of your property for the rest of your life." Such a "contract" is just as valid.

[Original_Intent]

Its stamped on the CD....called copyright! Get it...."copy" "right". I guess you are in need of a harsher and more stringent contract.....

A symbol is stamped on the CD not a contract. One cannot read any legalese terms or conditions within said symbol nor is a purchaser even guaranteed to even notice the symbol before purchase. The notion that a symbol constitutes a valid contract with specific terms is ridiculous. That's like me selling you my car but I etched an O symbol in the door that you find AFTER the sale and when you ask me about it say "that's the contract you agreed to when you bought it which states you now owe me all of your property for the rest of your life." Such a "contract" is just as valid.

The difference being is in our society, people of even below average intelligence understand copyrighted material. And even if you get a pirated version with such copyright notice or EULA removed, you are still very much aware that in order for you to obtain such a copy that at some point breach of contract had to occur. To say that you are blameless because you yourself did not breach a contract you are still upholding unjust act.

I feel you are being dishonest because I know that you have the light of Christ, and even though I will admit you make a good "legally sound" argument against IP, I still know it is wrong. In the example Mummy gave, someone coulde spend considerable time and money to create something, such as a computer game. And yet your position is that anyone who can obtain access to a disk and with means to duplicate has EQUAL rights to the fruit of his labor as he has. I have seen how you will stand by this position and you two high five each other as if you really believe what you are saying. If a farmer works a year in a field, you acknowledge he has the right to the fruit of his labor, yet the artist, the musician, the inventor you take the position that the fruit of his labor is in the public domain and that he has no right to any reward for what he produced other than what others may boluntarily give him as charity.

You do have a sophisticated argument favoring doing away with IP rights, and I have done a lot of reading on Lew Rockwell and your thoughts mirror his - and again I won't deny that there is a sound argument in what you say - definitely a good philosophical argument can be made. And yet my conscience tells me you are wrong, that there is indeed a flaw. In my opinion, you are as guilty of circular logic as those who disagree with you. They say "IP rights exist because they exist" and you say "IP rights don;t exist because they don't". Your position is hard to assail because you say (rightly) what did we take from the artist/inventor. And yet I think that you realize that you have obtained something to which you have no right, and that you HAVE indeed deprived them of something, although what that something is may be hard to define. I'll call it a right to profit from his creative talent and effort - you have damaged that.

I have read a lot of the pros and cons of the IP argument in the last couple of days. Bottom line is, I agree that your position is stronger but the light of Christ which is in me rejects it. The reason I said "end of line" before is we are at an impasse. But I would say it is the SAME impasse as the one where the atheist and the believer argue to the point where the atheist says "You can;t prove God exists, therefore I win." You, in my opinion are in the same predicament - you say "If you cannot show me the harm, then I am not guilty of any wrongdoing." Yet the wrong does exist, as God exists.

[fegunz]

loveistruth and fugunz, as an interesting experiment, you should both start copying and distributing church intellectual property such as the old handbook of instruction, the temple vids and so on. Would you call the 12 and the 1st Presidency to repentance for "aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it," as they send their world class litigation team (the ones who have fought many people stealing and distributing like wiki leaks and others) to rip you shreds in a court room?

I personally wouldn't attempt such a thing cause I don't want to start such a fight with them but frankly yes that too would be an aggressive denial of tangible property rights. This "interesting experiment" is frankly nothing more than a "argument from authority" fallacy. It's an attempt to claim that your case is valid merely because someone in authority says it is. Now no disrespect to the 12 and the 1st presidency BUT they are not Gods and are still imperfect men that can and certainly will, at least at times, act on there own personal feelings and thoughts. This does not mean they are not called of God as I have a testimony they are but again they are not perfect so merely saying "they agree with me" doesn't in and of itself make your position valid. There is absolutely no reason to believe there belief and usage of "intellectual property law" is in anyway inspired and from God. Is there any revelation at all in support of this position? I have scripture supporting my position of "right and control of property".

Also if it is wrong to copyright your mental property, are the brethren, who enjoy writing and publishing books, sinning because they stock Desert Book full of protected books that they have as solo monopoly on as the writer, just so they can make a profit on a copy of a copy of a copy?

Not necessarily. I never said that merely copyrighting a work is wrong in and of itself nor do I believe that. I realize that may initially seem like I am contradicting myself but let me explain. Just because a writer copyrights his book does not necessarily mean he will aggressively go after and attack anyone that makes a copy. Because copyright exists it would be completely legitimate to obtain a copyright strictly for defensive purposes meaning you only have it so no one else can copyright the same work and then stop you from producing it. So even if I wrote a book I would in fact copyright it HOWEVER I would never prosecute anyone that makes a copy for himself. I would only have it so no one else could copyright, claim it is there work, and then demand I stop producing it.


Secondly even if an author isn't too keen on aggressively denying others usage of there tangible property the problem is that all publishers will copyright anything they print anyway. So it's not even necessarily up to the author anyway.

In church as you nod off daydreaming of posting your pathetic arguments about ripping people off of truly hard and sometimes heartbreaking work

Except that they have not had anything taken away from them and my argument is based on scripture. I would be careful in calling a sacred principle in holy scripture to be a "pathetic argument."

you may of noticed on all the church manuals a lil circled ‘c’ with the following words ‘all rights reserved.’ I wonder who decided to put that there? The 1st Presidency and the 12? Under who’s direction? We all know who's direction.

And again defensive copyrights are not aggressive violations of anyone's "right and control of property" AND these men are not perfect and there is absolutely NO revelation whatsoever that there usage of copyright is inspired from God.

Copyrights give the author(s) control of their property.

False. A author ALREADY has control of his book under tangible property rights. He can sell that book, change it, add to, or do anything he wants to it. What copyright does is give the author partial control of OTHER PEOPLE's property in conflict with the principle of "right and control of property."

Is this not the true church? Do we not have holy and righteous men called by God running it?

Yes it's the true church but the men running it are not Gods. The DOCTRINE of the church is perfect and sound however it is ridiculous to make the claim that all men in leadership positions never make any mistakes and all statements, actions, and policies are revelations from God.

Why would they "aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it.”

You would have to ask them, I cannot tell you there heart or mind.

Your arguments are so incredibly flawed.

You certainly haven't shown that. The entirety of your argument rests on the silly idea that the leaders of the church are perfect, never act on there own personal thoughts and feelings, and every action they take are inspired from God. Yes many leaders of the Church use copyright laws however they don't even claim such usage is inspired or from God.

I will not waste my time arguing the philosophy of man, when the church, Christ’s kingdom on earth copyrights everything if produces.

1. If you won't waste your time arguing then why are you responding? You are contradicting yourself by arguing with me then...

2. My argument is not based on a philosophy of man but a principle contained in holy scripture; the "right and control of property." Clearly aggressively attacking me for arranging my own property is a violation of this scriptural based principle.
3. The Church is true however the men are not perfect. I suggest you lean more on doctrine contained in scripture than the actions of imperfect men especially when they take actions that are not supported by scripture and are not even claimed to be inspired.

If you can break away from the Ron Paul forum long enough to watch conference in a week or so, you will notice, either before or after the televised conference…………UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THESE BRODCASTS IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS! Or something along those lines. Quit looking beyond the mark. The only circled argument is the false one you two are spinning!

Again I suggest you rely more heavily on principles contained within the scriptures instead of the actions of imperfect men especially an action that is not even claimed to be from God and is contrary to scripture.

[1984Orwellherenow]

No I don't. I genuinely don't understand your point... It seems like you are saying I am advocating destroying property yet I never have advocated such a thing. Keep in mind copying something does not destroy or even change the original in anyway. Try again.

Dudes, you didn't get it dudes. Property is, like, totally property, dudes. It's like, if it's tangible or intangible, like, dudes, you can't like, use it to hurt others, dudes, ya know? Like, my stuff can't be used to hurt your stuff, regardless of how much you want to use your stuff to hurt my stuff, ya know?

Dudes, it's like that question if God is so great, can He, like, create a being greater than Him? Ya know, dudes? It's like, so circular, to, like, get the warped stuff into perspective that ya lose the perspective, ya know? If ya don't, dudes,...

Congratulations, you are making just as much sense as the defenders of copyrights and patents do, which is about ZERO.

Goes to show that your position does not have basis in logic, reason, scripture or truth.

Well, nu huh, right back at ya, I'm rubber and you're glue... Nah, that's not fun, but you can enjoy the "I'm right and you're wrong so neener neener" arguing all you want. I still love you, brother or sister dudes.

[LoveIsTruth]

loveistruth and fugunz, as an interesting experiment, you should both start copying and distributing church intellectual property such as the old handbook of instruction, the temple vids and so on. Would you call the 12 and the 1st Presidency to repentance for "aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it," as they send their world class litigation team (the ones who have fought many people stealing and distributing like wiki leaks and others) to rip you shreds in a court room?

Also if it is wrong to copyright your mental property, are the brethren, who enjoy writing and publishing books, sinning because they stock Desert Book full of protected books that they have as solo monopoly on as the writer, just so they can make a profit on a copy of a copy of a copy?

In church as you nod off daydreaming of posting your pathetic arguments about ripping people off of truly hard and sometimes heartbreaking work, you may of noticed on all the church manuals a lil circled ‘c’ with the following words ‘all rights reserved.’ I wonder who decided to put that there? The 1st Presidency and the 12? Under who’s direction? We all know who's direction.

Copyrights give the author(s) control of their property.

Is this not the true church? Do we not have holy and righteous men called by God running it? Why would they "aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it.” Your arguments are so incredibly flawed. I will not waste my time arguing the philosophy of man, when the church, Christ’s kingdom on earth copyrights everything if produces.

If you can break away from the Ron Paul forum long enough to watch conference in a week or so, you will notice, either before or after the televised conference…………UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THESE BRODCASTS IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS! Or something along those lines. Quit looking beyond the mark. The only circled argument is the false one you two are spinning!

The use of a copyright may be done merely for protection from an enemy copyrighting church stuff. It does not necessarily mean that copyright laws are just, but merely a way to protect the church from being abused by this law.

The Brethren pick their fights very carefully so as to further the work of the Lord in the most effective way. This is why the Church in general, stays away from political issues, while strongly encouraging us, members, to get involved.

The church complied with anti-polygamy laws not because those laws were just, but because it became the law of the land, and that was not the most important fight worth fighting at the time. It is a matter of priorities.

[fegunz]

The difference being is in our society, people of even below average intelligence understand copyrighted material.

Baloney. No one understand this complicated web of legalese that even legions of lawyers disagree about: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

And even if you get a pirated version with such copyright notice or EULA removed, you are still very much aware that in order for you to obtain such a copy that at some point breach of contract had to occur.

That is not true. If you loan me a book and I make a copy no contract is broken since I never agreed to not copy it.

To say that you are blameless because you yourself did not breach a contract you are still upholding unjust act.

No. Not only is it not guaranteed that any contract has been broken but even if one has that action is done and completely independent of me making a copy for myself or not. Whether I make a copy for myself does not affect the previous action that has already taken place of breaking a contract. In other words even if there is an unjust act of breaking a contract that cannot and will not be effected at all if I make a copy for myself or not. The two actions are completely independent of each other.

I feel you are being dishonest because I know that you have the light of Christ, and even though I will admit you make a good "legally sound" argument against IP, I still know it is wrong

And I feel you are being dishonest because I know that you have the light of Christ and even though you read a principle contained in holy scripture you know is true you still advocate violating it which you know is wrong.


The light of Christ will not tell you to violate a principle in scripture so frankly you are not being told this by the light of Christ. It's your own personal thoughts and feelings and they are deceiving you into violating principles in holy scripture.

In the example Mummy gave, someone coulde spend considerable time and money to create something, such as a computer game. And yet your position is that anyone who can obtain access to a disk and with means to duplicate has EQUAL rights to the fruit of his labor as he has.

No, I never claimed anyone has the rights to the fruits of someone else's labor. For example if the creator of this computer game never shares it with anyone and keeps it a secret I fully recognize I have no right to gain unauthorized entry into his brain or his computer to sneak a peak because that would be trespass. Therefore I would have no way of knowing how I could possibly arrange my own property (my own hard drive sectors) in the same pattern.


In reality it is YOU and every other advocate of "intellectual property" that is guilty of claiming a creator has a partial right to the fruits of others labors. Someone could spend considerable time and money to purchase a computer and yet your position is that anyone who arranges there own sectors on there hard drive in a unique patter (such as creating a game) has MORE rights to the fruit of the labor of the computer owner.

I have seen how you will stand by this position and you two high five each other as if you really believe what you are saying.

Same goes for you and your anti-tangible property buddies.

If a farmer works a year in a field, you acknowledge he has the right to the fruit of his labor, yet the artist, the musician, the inventor you take the position that the fruit of his labor is in the public domain and that he has no right to any reward for what he produced other than what others may boluntarily give him as charity.

False. He has every right to his labor and can do with it as he pleases. If he keeps it a secret and never puts it out into the public domain NO ONE has any right to it. He can contract with whomever he wants to and set any price he wants to for the first use of it however once he puts it out there it necessarily enters into the public domain. I believe Thomas Jefferson put it best when he said:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

You do have a sophisticated argument favoring doing away with IP rights, and I have done a lot of reading on Lew Rockwell and your thoughts mirror his - and again I won't deny that there is a sound argument in what you say - definitely a good philosophical argument can be made. And yet my conscience tells me you are wrong, that there is indeed a flaw.

And my conscience tells me you are wrong that there are indeed many flaws in your arguments. I would be careful in claiming to find flaws in Godly principles contained in holy scripture...

In my opinion, you are as guilty of circular logic as those who disagree with you. They say "IP rights exist because they exist" and you say "IP rights don;t exist because they don't".

No, I have never taken such a position. My position is that the very nature of "intellectual property" is in conflict with tangible property thus they cannot coexist in harmony; one must trump the other. Yet I know that God does not contradict himself. So when we read in scripture that there is a "right and control of property" I know such a principle cannot contradict itself; again God does not contradict himself. This means that it cannot be that both tangible items and intangibles are property; again they conflict.


My position is not that IP rights don't exist because they don't exist. My position is that IP rights cannot exist because they necessarily conflict and contradict property rights in tangible things.

Your position is hard to assail because you say (rightly) what did we take from the artist/inventor. And yet I think that you realize that you have obtained something to which you have no right

Nope. I have ever right to arrange my own property as I see fit.

and that you HAVE indeed deprived them of something, although what that something is may be hard to define. I'll call it a right to profit from his creative talent and effort - you have damaged that.

No one has a right to any profit since value is subjective to each individual. If you create something no one values then no one will be willing to pay you a penny. Profit is only legitimately obtained when TWO or more parties agree upon a price yet again value is subjective and no creator has any guarantee anyone values his work at all let alone values it at a price that constitutes a profit.

I have read a lot of the pros and cons of the IP argument in the last couple of days. Bottom line is, I agree that your position is stronger but the light of Christ which is in me rejects it.

I have read a lot of the pros and cons of the IP argument over the years. Bottom line is, the light of Christ which is in me AND scripture which we have from God rejects it.

The reason I said "end of line" before is we are at an impasse. But I would say it is the SAME impasse as the one where the atheist and the believer argue to the point where the atheist says "You can;t prove God exists, therefore I win." You, in my opinion are in the same predicament - you say "If you cannot show me the harm, then I am not guilty of any wrongdoing." Yet the wrong does exist, as God exists.

No, I never made the claim that only if you can show me harm is there wrong doing. Scripture and the light of Christ is enough for me.

[Jason]

Its stamped on the CD....called copyright! Get it...."copy" "right". I guess you are in need of a harsher and more stringent contract.....

A symbol is stamped on the CD not a contract. One cannot read any legalese terms or conditions within said symbol nor is a purchaser even guaranteed to even notice the symbol before purchase. The notion that a symbol constitutes a valid contract with specific terms is ridiculous. That's like me selling you my car but I etched an O symbol in the door that you find AFTER the sale and when you ask me about it say "that's the contract you agreed to when you bought it which states you now owe me all of your property for the rest of your life." Such a "contract" is just as valid.

Ignorance isn't a justifiable excuse......and after umpteen years of copyrights....highly amazing one could be so ignorant.

Also....why does there have to be a copyright? Why can't people just respect other people's property? Instead you want a lawyer present before you purchase a cd.....go back to the dark ages where musicians didn't become famous until after they died because they couldn't protect their intellectual property.....thus no one was exposed to it until after they died.

[fegunz]

Its stamped on the CD....called copyright! Get it...."copy" "right". I guess you are in need of a harsher and more stringent contract.....

A symbol is stamped on the CD not a contract. One cannot read any legalese terms or conditions within said symbol nor is a purchaser even guaranteed to even notice the symbol before purchase. The notion that a symbol constitutes a valid contract with specific terms is ridiculous. That's like me selling you my car but I etched an O symbol in the door that you find AFTER the sale and when you ask me about it say "that's the contract you agreed to when you bought it which states you now owe me all of your property for the rest of your life." Such a "contract" is just as valid.

Ignorance isn't a justifiable excuse......and after umpteen years of copyrights....highly amazing one could be so ignorant.

1. I'm not claiming I'm ignorant of the concept of copyright. I am claiming I never agreed to the "contract". Voluntary consent is necessary in valid contracts; without it there is no contract. Merely putting a stamp on a book does not automatically mean that everyone agrees to any contract. You can keep on saying I agreed to it but I say again I never have nor is there a shred of evidence that I have.

2. I don't need an excuse to justify arranging and selling my own property. I already have the right to do those things to my own property as stated in scripture.

Also....why does there have to be a copyright? Why can't people just respect other people's property?

Respect for other's property is exactly what I am advocating; please respect my property in tangible things by refraining from aggressively denying me my right to arrange and sell my tangible property. It is YOU that is advocating for disrespecting the tangible property rights of everyone then you have the gall to ask for respect of people's property?!?

Instead you want a lawyer present before you purchase a cd.....

No I don't but even if they did I still wouldn't agree to the terms so I still wouldn't be under any moral obligation to abide by it.

go back to the dark ages where musicians didn't become famous until after they died because they couldn't protect their intellectual property.....thus no one was exposed to it until after they died.

1. You are again making the circular argument that intangible things such as arrangements of notes are property; which cannot coexist with tangible property rights.

2. Think of any masterpiece; was it created under the "protection" of "intellectual property law"? Exactly.

[Teancum-Old]

loveistruth and fugunz, as an interesting experiment, you should both start copying and distributing church intellectual property such as the old handbook of instruction, the temple vids and so on. Would you call the 12 and the 1st Presidency to repentance for "aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it," as they send their world class litigation team (the ones who have fought many people stealing and distributing like wiki leaks and others) to rip you shreds in a court room?

Also if it is wrong to copyright your mental property, are the brethren, who enjoy writing and publishing books, sinning because they stock Desert Book full of protected books that they have as solo monopoly on as the writer, just so they can make a profit on a copy of a copy of a copy?

In church as you nod off daydreaming of posting your pathetic arguments about ripping people off of truly hard and sometimes heartbreaking work, you may of noticed on all the church manuals a lil circled ‘c’ with the following words ‘all rights reserved.’ I wonder who decided to put that there? The 1st Presidency and the 12? Under who’s direction? We all know who's direction.

Copyrights give the author(s) control of their property.

Is this not the true church? Do we not have holy and righteous men called by God running it? Why would they "aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it.” Your arguments are so incredibly flawed. I will not waste my time arguing the philosophy of man, when the church, Christ’s kingdom on earth copyrights everything if produces.

If you can break away from the Ron Paul forum long enough to watch conference in a week or so, you will notice, either before or after the televised conference…………UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THESE BRODCASTS IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS! Or something along those lines. Quit looking beyond the mark. The only circled argument is the false one you two are spinning!

armedtotheteeth has made some great points which I completely agree with.

Tangible or intangible property is the same thing; either one result from the fruit of labor and individuals have the right to control either one. The Church does it all the time as armedtotheteeth has brought up.

loveistruth and fugunz are completely wrong on this one and scriptures do not justify your argument either; satan mingles the philosophy of men with scriptures all the time to serve his own purposes. Therefore, quit proclaiming yourself to be the ultimate Interpretor of Scripture fungunz.

It's your own personal thoughts and feelings and they are deceiving you into violating principles in holy scripture.

As you claim to be this great Interpretor of scripture, I find it strange that you cannot properly interpret "Thou shall not steal" and understand that piracy is also stealing. You fugunz, have admitted that software piracy is fine as long as you are not the first one to steal the software (since it is not tangible). That sir, is theft, clear and simple (and a weak claim to ignorance).

Now I have read that extreme libertarianism agrees with communism on many issues (see anarcho-communism). It appears this is one of those issues. They would like to see the abolition of the state completely (as do extreme libertarians) because according to both groups, "states are inherently aggressive." I like Lew Rockwell on many points, but when he gets to extreme with these abolition of the state ideas, I have to remind myself that anarchy is not the Lord's way, for even Jesus Christ will reign over His government through the Millenium.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

Besides, if we have no copyright laws, then how is technology and society supposed to progress?? In a Zion society, where all are working out of love for one another, I can see progression in all areas growing out of love. But in a debased society as our own, how do you expect to progress as a society without any incentive (profit motive only had by way of copyrights)?? The idea that a debased society can progress without incentive, is also one shared and glorified by communists. Just another aspect where extreme libertarianism agrees with communism.

Joseph Smith said, "The constitution of the United States is a glorious standard. It is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner; it is to all those who are privileged with the sweets of liberty, like the cooling shades and refreshing waters of a great rock in a thirsty and weary land. It is like a great tree under whose branches men from every clime can be shielded from the burning rays of the sun. We say that God is true; that the constitution of the United States is true; that the Bible is true; that the Book of Mormon is true; that the Book of Covenants is true; that Christ is true; that the ministering angels sent forth from God are true, and that we know that we have an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens, whose builder and maker is God."

J. Rueben Clark (Counselor to President McKay) said, “I have about the Constitution that same sort of conviction that I have about the other doctrines that we are taught, for I believe its precepts are among the doctrines of the Church, and I believe that the Lord will change and modify from time to time those details of its provisions which are ancillary to its great principles; he will cause us-those who live under it-to modify it in accordance with our needs; but the fundamental principles of it we may not sacrifice.”

Now I like Ron Paul, but Ron Paul does not seem to go so far as to agree with the idea that "states are inherently aggressive." He believes in the Constitution as do I. Never have I heard him denigrate its precepts as I have seen loveistruth and fugunz do here. I agree with many all latter-day prophets, that the Constitution is inspired--see Joseph Smith quote above--and it is the best thing we have right now (but of course not absolutely perfect). Some prophets (J. Rueben Clark --see quote above-- and Ezra Taft Benson) even went as far as to say that they held the Constitution in very high regard, almost to the level of scripture. So when it comes down to the original Constitution, we should not take lightly to tearing it down, as loveistruth and fugunz have done. Aside from the compromise on slavery (but even that went as far as could be possible at that time), there is not a whole lot more we can clearly and decisively point out as wrong in that original document (constitution and 12 amendments). To waste our time in locating its errors, is in my view, pulling at straws, poorly prioritizing and completely the wrong thing to do at this time (else we fall in line with everyone else currently demonizing the document as and outdated, ancient relic). Arguing about its flaws at this point is meaningless: how can we as a nation live up to a higher law as a whole (like consecration) when we cannot even abide by the Constitution? Let's get back to the Constitution. I am with all the Prophets and Ron Paul on this. Yet it seems that extreme libertarians would do away with the whole thing. Once our government is back to abiding by the precepts of the original Constitution, then please, and only then, tell me about how we can improve it. But for now, I don't want to hear it.

[Jason]

Its stamped on the CD....called copyright! Get it...."copy" "right". I guess you are in need of a harsher and more stringent contract.....

A symbol is stamped on the CD not a contract. One cannot read any legalese terms or conditions within said symbol nor is a purchaser even guaranteed to even notice the symbol before purchase. The notion that a symbol constitutes a valid contract with specific terms is ridiculous. That's like me selling you my car but I etched an O symbol in the door that you find AFTER the sale and when you ask me about it say "that's the contract you agreed to when you bought it which states you now owe me all of your property for the rest of your life." Such a "contract" is just as valid.

Ignorance isn't a justifiable excuse......and after umpteen years of copyrights....highly amazing one could be so ignorant.

1. I'm not claiming I'm ignorant of the concept of copyright. I am claiming I never agreed to the "contract". Voluntary consent is necessary in valid contracts; without it there is no contract. Merely putting a stamp on a book does not automatically mean that everyone agrees to any contract. You can keep on saying I agreed to it but I say again I never have nor is there a shred of evidence that I have.

2. I don't need an excuse to justify arranging and selling my own property. I already have the right to do those things to my own property as stated in scripture.

Also....why does there have to be a copyright? Why can't people just respect other people's property?

Respect for other's property is exactly what I am advocating; please respect my property in tangible things by refraining from aggressively denying me my right to arrange and sell my tangible property. It is YOU that is advocating for disrespecting the tangible property rights of everyone then you have the gall to ask for respect of people's property?!?

Instead you want a lawyer present before you purchase a cd.....

No I don't but even if they did I still wouldn't agree to the terms so I still wouldn't be under any moral obligation to abide by it.

go back to the dark ages where musicians didn't become famous until after they died because they couldn't protect their intellectual property.....thus no one was exposed to it until after they died.

1. You are again making the circular argument that intangible things such as arrangements of notes are property; which cannot coexist with tangible property rights.

2. Think of any masterpiece; was it created under the "protection" of "intellectual property law"? Exactly.

You can keep claiming ignorance....but the copyright is stamped right on it......and easily seen prior to making your voluntary purchase of a copyrighted item. How did that rationalization statement go again.....

Oh yeah please respect your tangible property while you violate intangible property....just brilliant! Go watch the flick again....

...and you would never get the property to begin with without theft.....otherwise consent for use of intellectual property would never be given. Again just absolutely brilliant!!!

Those masterpieces were created as contract work! Michelangelo didn't work for free.....which opens up an entirely different set of constraints. Back to my previous statement....you are going backwards....not forwards. You are asking for more regimented and enforced contracts - i.e. harsher task masters....due to wickedness and unwillingness to respect intellectual property!

[armedtotheteeth]

Fugunz: So it’s the old the brethren are great, but not always correct argument is it? So you don’t believe when the 1st and 12 act unanimously it clarifies scripture? And yes, because I agree with them, it does make my point valid.
I find it interesting you are trying to tell us the brethren are not perfect and are only men, but you want so badly for us to see your point of view; my question is, who are you then? You say the decision to copyright all of the churches material is incorrect, therefore the brethren are. The Churches name is a trademark; you don’t think that is a heaven sent directive to the Brethren?

Not necessarily. I never said that merely copyrighting a work is wrong in and of itself nor do I believe that. I realize that may initially seem like I am contradicting myself but let me explain. Just because a writer copyrights his book does not necessarily mean he will aggressively go after and attack anyone that makes a copy. Because copyright exists it would be completely legitimate to obtain a copyright strictly for defensive purposes meaning you only have it so no one else can copyright the same work and then stop you from producing it. So even if I wrote a book I would in fact copyright it HOWEVER I would never prosecute anyone that makes a copy for himself. I would only have it so no one else could copyright, claim it is there work, and then demand I stop producing it.

It doesn’t seem like you are contradicting yourself...you are. Under your premise, If I copyright a book, then you take it, copy it, say it’s your creation, I could then provide my copyright to say, look its mine, here is the copyright BUT what would be the point? You could take it and copy and sell it all the same, without calling it yours, because if I tried to stop you I would be infringing your rights.

When the disgusting movie orgasmo came to be, (missionaries become porn stars) the producers wanted to make missionary badges just like the churches, but because of CR and TM they could not. Was the church taking the producers rights away? You agree that copyright can be used for defense; I think this is a good case, but you would defend the producers?

And again defensive copyrights are not aggressive violations of anyone's "right and control of property" AND these men are not perfect and there is absolutely NO revelation whatsoever that there usage of copyright is inspired from God.

How could you even know this? So you are submitting when the brethren act unanimously to do something, it is not under heavenly directive?

Yes it's the true church but the men running it are not Gods. The DOCTRINE of the church is perfect and sound however it is ridiculous to make the claim that all men in leadership positions never make any mistakes and all statements, actions, and policies are revelations from God.

So they got it wrong together when the decision was made to TM the church's full mane?

You certainly haven't shown that. The entirety of your argument rests on the silly idea that the leaders of the church are perfect, never act on there own personal thoughts and feelings, and every action they take are inspired from God. Yes many leaders of the Church use copyright laws however they don't even claim such usage is inspired or from God.

You are already doing a good job by yourself. Again, you are saying the brethrens decision to CR and TM the churches materials in not of God?

1. If you won't waste your time arguing then why are you responding? You are contradicting yourself by arguing with me then...

2. My argument is not based on a philosophy of man but a principle contained in holy scripture; the "right and control of property." Clearly aggressively attacking me for arranging my own property is a violation of this scriptural based principle.
3. The Church is true however the men are not perfect. I suggest you lean more on doctrine contained in scripture than the actions of imperfect men especially when they take actions that are not supported by scripture and are not even claimed to be inspired.

1. So you do understand you are using the philosophy of man?
2. Mingled with scripture.
3. Again how would you know that? Also are you saying the brethren where not correct in CR and TM'ing all church materials, including the church's full name?

From the church website:

LICENSES AND RESTRICTIONS
This site is owned and operated by Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All material found at this site (including visuals, text, icons, displays, databases, media, and general information), is owned or licensed by us. You may view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use unless otherwise indicated. In addition, materials may be reproduced by media personnel for use in traditional public news forums unless otherwise indicated. You may not post material from this site on another web site or on a computer network without our permission. You may not transmit or distribute material from this site to other sites. You may not use this site or information found at this site (including the names and addresses of those who submitted information) for selling or promoting products or services, soliciting clients, or any other commercial purpose.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we reserve sole discretion and right to deny, revoke, or limit use of this site, including reproduction. It is not our responsibility, however, to determine what "Fair Use" means for persons wishing to use materials from this site. That remains wholly a responsibility of the user. Further, we are not required to give additional source citations, nor to guarantee that the materials are cleared for alternate uses. Such ultimately remains the responsibility of the user. However, the Church maintains the right to prevent infringement of its materials and to interpret "Fair Use" as it understands the law.

This is also a good read:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7002 ... right.html

[Teancum-Old]

This is also a good read:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7002 ... right.html

Definitely a must read.

Why would the Church have sued Wikileaks and the Anti-Mormon Tanners for copyright violation? If we followed fugunz' "anointed" interpretation of Holy Scripture on this we would have to believe the Church was violating the Tanners' and Wikileaks property rights!

[LoveIsTruth]

Besides, if we have no copyright laws, then how is technology and society supposed to progress?? In a Zion society, where all are working out of love for one another, I can see progression in all areas growing out of love. But in a debased society as our own, how do you expect to progress as a society without any incentive (profit motive only had by way of copyrights)?? The idea that a debased society can progress without incentive, is also one shared and glorified by communists. Just another aspect where extreme libertarianism agrees with communism.

1) I never said there should be anarchy (i.e. lawlessness). I said there must be just laws as defined by fundamental principles of liberty, including the Benson Principle, which, by the way, agree perfectly with scripture. For you to claim that I advocate anarchy is simply not honest.

2) I never said that creator of information should have no compensation. I said that there are proper and improper ways to achieve that compensation. Again, the proper way, consistent with fundamental principles of liberty and with scripture is: a) Use the information yourself; b) Secure contract of first use; c) ask for donations. The improper way is to use force upon your neighbor who violated no contract, neither deprived you of your property.

3) Science and inventions will move forward even better without patents because the primary intensive of all useful science is improving the human condition, not creating government forced monopolies.

[Jason]

Besides, if we have no copyright laws, then how is technology and society supposed to progress?? In a Zion society, where all are working out of love for one another, I can see progression in all areas growing out of love. But in a debased society as our own, how do you expect to progress as a society without any incentive (profit motive only had by way of copyrights)?? The idea that a debased society can progress without incentive, is also one shared and glorified by communists. Just another aspect where extreme libertarianism agrees with communism.

1) I never said there should be anarchy (i.e. lawlessness). I said there must be just laws as defined by fundamental principles of liberty, including the Benson Principle, which, by the way, agree perfectly with scripture. For you to claim that I advocate anarchy is simply not honest.

2) I never said that creator of information should have no compensation. I said that there are proper and improper ways to achieve that compensation. Again, the proper way, consistent with fundamental principles of liberty and with scripture is: 1) Use the information yourself; 2) Secure contract of first use; 3) ask for donations. The improper way is to use force upon your neighbor.

3) Science and inventions will move forward even better without patents because the primary intensive of all useful science is improving the human condition, not creating government forced monopolies.

How exactly can you accomplish #3 when you fail at #2?

If no one respects IP then you go back to the dark ages because you can't adequately secure contract of first use because you can't get adequately compensated for it......which means you don't eat and your family doesn't eat.....which means you work on something else that will put food on the table.....which means the IP never gets invented.....which means nobody benefits from it!

Put a price on the 1st music cd sale if that buyer then makes a copy and distributes to the world for free.....and then try to get someone to purchase that cd for that price!

[LoveIsTruth]

How exactly can you accomplish #3 when you fail at #2?

If no one respects IP then you go back to the dark ages because you can't adequately secure contract of first use because you can't get adequately compensated for it......which means you don't eat and your family doesn't eat.....which means you work on something else that will put food on the table.....which means the IP never gets invented.....which means nobody benefits from it!

Put a price on the 1st music cd sale if that buyer then makes a copy and distributes to the world for free.....and then try to get someone to purchase that cd for that price!

- I agree that in case of books the primary compensation will be voluntary donations. And if the book is popular those donations could be VERY substantial. Just think of all the fan sites that exist for popular authors, musicians and movie stars!
- In case of movies you could secure a contract of first use with a movie theater chain, which could secure multiple weeks of exclusive showings in hi-def, which could be VERY lucrative.
- Similar thing can be achieved in theatrical performances or concerts. People still go to concerts despite the fact that they already have the CD's of the artists they love.
- In case of inventions, contracts of first use can be EXTREMELY profitable, because very often being first to market is all the advantage a company needs!
- In case of software, security measures could be applied, as demonstrated well by Microsoft, that can render the software inoperable without a payment received.

As you can see there is A LOT of profit to be made in intellectual property, without copyrights and patents, which violate the Benson Principle, and tangible property rights of others, which are the very foundations of Liberty itself!