Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents

[LoveIsTruth]

Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents

• Since all legitimate authority of the government is derived by delegation from the governed;
  
  and since no one has moral right to force his neighbor not to use information or ideas,
  
  therefore he cannot delegate such authority to his government.
  
  Hence, all patent and copyright laws are hereby and henceforth abolished.

Explanation:

Ownership and property rights apply only to tangible property, and are completely nonsensical and self-contradictory otherwise. To own information is nothing more or less than to own a tangible COPY of it. Any other ownership of information is nonsensical and self-contradictory, and violates tangible property rights.

In fact, he who claims ownership of information in general, rather than ownership of a physical COPY of information, claims ownership and control over all matter, because all matter can be used to encode the information, and indeed all particles of matter do contain information about all other particles of matter. Such claim of ownership is unjust and self-contradictory, and violates tangible property rights of all, thus violating both justice and liberty of everyone.

Intellectual property is nothing more or less than a COPY of information. Each copy constitutes a separate, and independent intellectual property. This fact can be ascertained by a simple and irrefutable experiment. If there exist multiple copies of the same information, destruction of one copy does not necessarily destroy other copies. These copies exist independent of each-other.

This general independence of physical copies of information is a fundamental nature of information with regards to its ownership, which is only possible in terms of ownership of tangible COPIES of information, and not information in general. To deny this fundamental nature of information results in irreconcilable self-contradictions and leads to violations of tangible property rights, and therefore to violations of both justice and liberty.

Also, patents and copyrights violate a fundamental principle of liberty which I call The Benson Principle (please see the link), which basically says that if you have no moral right to force your neighbor to do or not to do something, you cannot delegate such authority to your government to force him for you, because the only legitimate authority the government can have is what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have. Since patents and copyright laws violate this fundamental principle of liberty they are in fact immoral.

Patents are not only immoral, but also impose huge costs on society as a whole, stifling progress of entire industries.

Copyrights have been historically used, and actually were originated as tools of censorship. As such they are a serious danger to liberty.

For more insights please see this:

Stephan Kinsella: Rethinking IP Completely

The question then can be asked, how is the inventor or artist to benefit by his work? The answer is they can benefit by a wise use of contractual agreements with manufacturers or performers who will enjoy the benefit of FIRST use of the invention or of the art work.

To do anything else is to violate fundamental principles of liberty and thus to inevitably jeopardize the well being, and ultimately the survival of the entire society, and that is unacceptably too high price to pay for an immoral use of government force!


Understanding IP:

Thank you for your efforts to be honest, to do your duty to defend Liberty, and to be a person of integrity. This is why I consider it worth while to share with you my views on IP. I do it with respect for you and with great desire for well-being of our beloved country.

The question of IP is key in preserving liberty. The current prevailing understanding of it is wrong and fundamentally incompatible with true principles of Liberty. If this error is unchecked all free speech (especially on the internet) will eventually be destroyed; as a result, Liberty will be destroyed; and with it, consequently, the society itself will be destroyed. This prompts me to lay out for you the correct understanding of IP, which is in harmony with the eternal principles of Liberty. Here we go:

The fundamental principle of Intellectual Property is this:

To possess information IS to own it, because, by its very nature, every copy of information is a separate intellectual property, that is independently owned by each one who has it, nor less than he owns his mind, his body, or the medium upon which the information is recorded.

This is the very nature of information that can be easily verified by simple observation.

Therefore, the creator of information owns it, but so does anyone who possesses a copy of the same information.

Thus, intellectual property cannot be stolen, unless it is erased from the memory of the owner. Therefore copying information, in principle, cannot be stealing. You still have your copy. What is “stolen” is the ability to corner the market via an immoral grant of government monopoly on the use of information. Now, here is a key, the government has no right to grant such monopoly, because the only legitimate authority it has was delegated to it by the individuals governed, and no individual has moral right to use force on his neighbor to prevent him from using information or ideas, therefore he cannot delegate it to his government to do it in his behalf, because no one can delegate an authority he himself does not have.

You may ask then, how is the creator of information to profit by his labors? The answer is:

• a) to secure a contract of first use, (in case of a movie studio, for example, it can contract with a movie theater chain, to show the movie first),
  
  b) (in case of software) require a paid key to use,
  
  c) In case of performing artist, most successful ones actually make more money by live performances than by CD sales. People come to see them in concert even though they already own their CD’s.
  
  d) In case of inventors: 1) secure contract of first use, 2) be first to market, 3) keep the secret of know-how as longs as you can (which turns out to be much, much lesser impediment to general progress than the patent laws!)
  
  e) use it yourself,
  
  f) rely on donations of grateful users.

Copyrights and patents have their origins in usurpations of kings to impose censorship. The so called “defenders” of intellectual property, are in fact violators of intellectual property of everyone else, because again: to possess information is to own it, just as much as you own your mind, your VCR, your paper, your hard drive or your camera. Since you own all these you have the right to arrange them in any way you wish. To prevent a man from arranging his property in any way he pleases, as long as he is not violating the property of others, is to violate his property (intellectual and tangible). And you are not violating another’s intellectual property by copying it. To argue that by copying it you are preventing him from collecting income he might have had if he was granted monopoly on the use of it, is to argue that by making bread you deprive your neighbor’s bakery from making more money if he had a monopoly. Again, no one can grant such monopoly, because no one has such authority individually, and therefore cannot delegate it to the government to do it in his behalf, because no one can delegate an authority he does not have.

These are fundamental principles of liberty, to violate which will lead to the destruction of Liberty, and if unchecked, to the destruction of the society itself.

The fundamental principles of liberty cannot be made nor unmade by legislators any more than they can legislate away the laws of gravity or of electricity. These are eternal and natural principles, and they exist independent of our understanding of them. Our task, therefore, is to discover them and to live in harmony with them, which will result in maximum Liberty and Prosperity of the people. To ignore them is to gradually succumb to tyranny, and ultimately to destruction of the society itself.

For more information please see The Fundamental Principles of Liberty (it spells out the three fundamental principles without which Liberty, cannot exist, and must unavoidably be destroyed).


Thank you for all you do in the defense of Liberty!


God bless you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is another take:

Quick Summary of Correct Principles of IP

On intellectual property:

This is a very important subject directly connected to the survival and prosperity of this nation, because it is directly connected to Liberty (without which any nation will inevitably self-destruct), which is directly connected to free speech, especially on the internet.

Here are the main points:

Intellectual property has a few major misconceptions in our society:

1) “Information can be stolen even though the author still has his copy.”

That is false because to steal something you must deprive the owner of the use of the thing. To violate a property you must either:

• a) alter it,
  
  b) remove it from the possession of the owner, or
  
  c) materially endanger a) or b)

None of this takes place, when information is copied. What can be “stolen” is perhaps i) a secret, or ii) the ability to profit by having exclusive/controlled access to the information. Neither one of these, however, constitute a violation of the authors property if neither (a), (b), nor (c) occurred with regards to the author’s tangible and intellectual property. And since no violation of property occurred, (and no contract has been broken, because there was no contract that the copier explicitly agreed to with the author), no force is justified by the author against the copier, either directly or via a third party such as government.

Here we will give the true definition of what Intellectual Property is:

Intellectual Property is nothing more or less than a COPY of information in one's possession.

Therefore, each copy of information constitutes a separate and independent intellectual property.
This definition is based in the reality and truth of what information IS.

The natural reality of any and all information is this:

TO HAVE INFORMATION IS TO OWN A COPY OF IT, just as much as you own your mind, your papers or your computer, etc.

The author owns it, but so does anyone who has a copy of the information. The author owns HIS copy, and the copier owns HIS copy. They are separate copies, and constitute TWO separate instances of intellectual property, even if it is the exact copy of the other. They are TWO properties, not one. This is the very nature of information, which can be ascertained by a simple and irrefutable observation: each copy of information exists INDEPENDENT of any other copy; even if you destroy one copy, the other copies do not cease to exist. Therefore, once they exist, they are independent. It is a fact. Each one who has a copy owns it just as much as he owns the medium on which it is recorded; he owns the information just as much as he owns his mind, his papers, his camera, or his computer. This is the very nature of information, to deny which is to deny reality of what information is, and to deny the truth easily established by irrefutable empirical evidence.

TO HAVE INFORMATION IS TO OWN A COPY OF IT.

2) “The creator of information cannot profit by his work without government forced monopoly on the use of the information he created.”

That is false, because there are multiple ways for the author to profit by his work without the immoral use of government force to impose a monopoly. They are (in part):

• a) Secure a contract of first use with a publisher, performer or manufacturer. Example: a movies studio may contract with a theater chain to show their movie first, etc.
  
  b) In case of an invention, keep the secret as long as you can and be first to market and thus gain economic advantage. (Generally it buys the inventor 6 month to 2 years of natural monopoly, before others can figure out how it was done and swing into production).
  
  c) In case of software, a paid key may be required to unlock the code.
  
  d) In case of a performer use your recordings as an advertisement for your live performances. Most famous artists make most of their money in live performances. People come to see them in concert even though they already own all of their CD’s. Also original paintings may cost millions, even though photographic copies of them are readily available for free. etc.
  
  e) Reap the benefits of using it yourself.
  
  f) Rely on donations of grateful users. For example, even if Stephanie Myers did not have a contract of first use with her publisher (which she does have), but even if she didn’t, most of her grateful fans would have gladly donated $1 each or more if she asked for it, which would probably amount to millions of dollars!

The point here is that such a government monopoly is immoral, because no author has a moral right to use FORCE upon his neighbors to prevent them from using information in their possession, even if it is the exact copy of the information he created. And since he has no moral right to use such violence, he cannot delegate it to the government to do it in his behalf.

3) “The author worked hard to create the information, he deserves remuneration if other people use it, and it will be immoral if they use it without compensating him, therefore force can be used to extract the payment.”

First of all, the author can and should benefit by his work. The proper ways to do so without violating the rights and property of others are listed in section (2).

Secondly, and this is key: Not everything that is immoral is right to forbid by government force, and not everything that is morally right is right to FORCE to perform. Giving money to the poor if you can is certainly morally right and good, but it is WRONG to take this money by force, for that would be theft and plunder. It maybe morally right and desirable to give flowers to one’s mother or wife on her birthday, but it is wrong to force such performance by violence. Also it may be morally bad to waste ones talents and to live below ones abilities, but it is WRONG to use violence against such a person, as long as he does not violate the property of others. What is the principle here? I call it The Benson Principle which is also equivalent to the Second Fundamental Principle of Liberty: If you INDIVIDUALLY have no moral right to use FORCE upon your neighbor or to violate his property, you cannot delegate such violence to any third party, including government. If you have no right to violate your neighbor’s property, you cannot rightly ask the government to do it for you either.

4) “Implied contracts, i.e. contracts that do not require an explicit agreement, exist all over in the society; therefore copyrights are implied contracts, and thus can be enforced by government.”

That is false, because by their nature, implied contracts, i.e. contracts that do not have an explicit agreement from all the parties involved, can only be properly imposed upon things that you own, and nothing else. This is because with regards to YOUR own property you do not need an agreement from anyone as to what to do with it. Thus if you own a parking lot you can post a sign “No parking after 10 pm” and you have a right to enforce it without the car owner’s explicit agreement, because you OWN the lot, and you can impose any rules you want UPON IT, and a car owner would be violating YOUR property if he did not use the property as you prescribed. However, if you posted a sign saying: “No parking after 10 pm, but if you do, it will signify that you agree that I own your house, and that you are my slave for 50 years,” and someone leaves his car on your lot after 10pm, can you take his house and make him a slave for 50 years? No! Why? Because you do not own either him nor his house, therefore for such a contract to be binding you have to have an EXPLICIT agreement from him before you can enforce it. Without an explicit agreement, the best you can do is to tow his car, and perhaps charge a fee for your trouble to offset/rectify the violation of your property, and nothing more. Implied contracts do not require explicit agreements precisely because they apply only to the things you own and nothing else.

Copyrights cannot be enforced as an implied contract because you do not own the people who copy your work. You do not own their minds, you do not own their copy machines, you do not own their papers or their computers. Therefore, you cannot impose an implied contract upon these things because you have exactly zero authority/ownership over them. You can only impose an implied contract upon your copy of the information and limit or condition access to IT, because you own THAT COPY; but you have no right or say over the copies owned by others. This is the nature of information. To deny this is to deny reality and to violate both intellectual and tangible property of others, because they own that information no less than you, the author, do, and no less than they own their minds, their papers or their computers. That’s what information is: TO HAVE IT IS TO OWN IT.


This is a brief summary of correct principles of IP, violation of which will lead to the destruction of free speech (especially on the internet), and consequently destruction of Liberty, and consequently the destruction of the society itself.

=============================
This amendment is part of 7. Please see here: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

[Rose Garden]

Understanding copyrights and patents requires understanding the founding father's understanding of ownership, which also requires a belief in God. We have totally different concepts of ownership in today's atheistic society.

According to the philosophy that our founding fathers believed in, all natural materials belonged to God, not to man. Land, trees, plants, animals, and all other of earth's materials were provided to man for their use. No one man could claim ownership of raw materials--until they made them theirs through work. Using raw materials to make something gave the man who made it the right of ownership because he used his own resources to create it. Land that was developed by a person also gave that person ownership for the same reason. So work equaled ownership.

When it comes to intellectual property, work is required to produce it, so the founding fathers supported copyrights and patents to protect it. They aren't trying to protect thoughts or ideas but work and effort. The purpose of these laws as stated by the Constitution is to promote arts and research. They knew that people would have greater power to produce intellectual works if their right to receive renumeration for their work was protected.

Today's copyright and patent laws have been corrupted. They are excessive and unfair, in my opinion. The answer, however, is not to abolish such laws, but to return them to more just conditions. In days past, Americans produced some of the greatest intellectual works, especially in the area of useful inventions. The environment of balanced copyright and patent laws is the ideal, not one that either honors excessive laws or disregards them altogether.

[LoveIsTruth]

When it comes to intellectual property, work is required to produce it, so the founding fathers supported copyrights and patents to protect it. They aren't trying to protect thoughts or ideas but work and effort. The purpose of these laws as stated by the Constitution is to promote arts and research. They knew that people would have greater power to produce intellectual works if their right to receive renumeration for their work was protected.

Today's copyright and patent laws have been corrupted. They are excessive and unfair, in my opinion. The answer, however, is not to abolish such laws, but to return them to more just conditions. In days past, Americans produced some of the greatest intellectual works, especially in the area of useful inventions. The environment of balanced copyright and patent laws is the ideal, not one that either honors excessive laws or disregards them altogether.

No one claims that the creator of intellectual property deserves no remuneration. What I am saying however is that it must be done in a manner that does not violate fundamental principles of Liberty. I listed about 6 different ways a creator can get paid. And it can be very substantial. Note, however, that none of those ways involves immoral use of government force to grant a monopoly, an authority that the government CANNOT properly have, because no individual can delegate such authority to it, because no individual has such authority, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

You cannot "balance copyright and patent laws" like you cannot "balance" rape and plunder: they are inherently evil and immoral, because they violate fundamental principles of liberty and presume to give government authority it can never properly have, since no one can delegate such authority to it. Hence exercise of such improper, non existent authority by the government is an evil usurpation, and is in fact, immoral. Remember, might does not make it right, but truth makes it right.

[mes5464]

I think I agree with you LoveItTruth.

I agree with CalledToServe is correct in that a persons labor makes him owner of the thing. But I disagree with the idea that a person can on the knowledge, as Father as stated that all knowledge/truth comes from Him.

I believe that a person is only entitled to remuneration for their idea in that they manufacture and sell their product (be it a think, a story, what every). A person has not moral right to prevent someone from making the product for themselves. No one has the right to patent the idea of a house, or the idea of a well, anymore than they can patent planting crops, or irrigation.

I guess I equate patenting/copyright to priestcrafts.

[LoveIsTruth]

I think I agree with you LoveItTruth.

I agree with CalledToServe is correct in that a persons labor makes him owner of the thing. But I disagree with the idea that a person can on the knowledge, as Father as stated that all knowledge/truth comes from Him.

I believe that a person is only entitled to remuneration for their idea in that they manufacture and sell their product (be it a think, a story, what every). A person has not moral right to prevent someone from making the product for themselves. No one has the right to patent the idea of a house, or the idea of a well, anymore than they can patent planting crops, or irrigation.

I guess I equate patenting/copyright to priestcrafts.

Good points, M. But I would say that, for the purposes of this world, a person can own knowledge, just as he owns his mind, body, etc. But since to know information is to own it, so does any one else who knows this information owns it just as much. This is the very nature of information, and that's where is its key difference from tangible property, where ownership by one precludes the ownership by the other. With information, my ownership of it does not destroy your ownership of the very SAME information. This is the key difference, and is the very nature of information, making it drastically different, in this regard, to tangible property. Ignoring that key difference has long been use as excuse to violate Fundamental Principles of Liberty, without which any society must unavoidably self-destruct, as we are witnessing right now. Let's embrace the true principles of Liberty and thus save our beloved nation! For Liberty and Prosperity under God!

Good points. Thanks.

[Rensai]

Patents and copyrights violate a fundamental principle of liberty which I call The Benson Principle (please see the link), which basically says that if you have no moral right to force your neighbor to do or not to do something, you cannot delegate such authority to your government to force him for you, because the only legitimate authority the government can have is what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have. Since patents and copyright laws violate this fundamental principle of liberty they are in fact immoral.

This is not the Benson principle you describe. This idea was popularized by Frederic Bastiat in his book, The Law.

That said, I agree with you about copyrights and patents. We just had a meeting about how patent law is being changed. The company I work for employs many researches and usually files a few to upwards of a dozen patents a year. The biggest change is that patents will now strictly be on a first to file basis. Our lawyers said what this now means is that many big companies are putting together teams to scour the internet for ideas and they will just bomb the patent office with requests for patents.

Look at the mess this system has already created. A person cannot create hardly anything as things stand already. because there are so many patents, doubtlessly someone, somewhere, can claim just about anything you do violates some patent and sue. It takes a small fortune in legal fees to get any new product out and its about to get worse. Patents were originally supposed to protect inventors and allow them a chance to make a profit on their ideas. Now, the only thing they protect are the profits of the bloodsucking lawyers.

[LoveIsTruth]

Thanks, Rensai!
(You will notice that I did mention Bastiat in the link.)

Very good points! And since Jefferson is your avatar, here is a quote by him on the subject:

“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 everyone, 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.”

-Thomas Jefferson

A brilliant man he was! Too bad the founders didn't listen to him on this point! But we should do our best to fix this gross error! Hence, my amendment!

[LoveIsTruth]

And here is the proof that this issue is as timely as ever!





Correct understanding of IP is critical to the survival and triumph of Liberty! (See "Understanding IP" at the top of this thread).

[Mackingster]

I would support this. I have come to a strong conclusion and agree. IP law is a goverment enforced monopoly. A form of crony capitalism as it is now used. Will it ever pass? I don't think it will. To many have an vested interest in the current system. Even to the point of abolishing the public domain. Making it eternal. I am sure the power that be would also love to do this with the patents.

Heck when Orphan Works Bill can't even get passed. What chance does this have.

[LoveIsTruth]

Thanks, Mackingster! Remember, power is with the people. If people on mass are disabused from the lies, things will change. No one ever submitted to slavery willingly, but through deception and lies. Truth shall make you free! Educate your neighbors!

[jonesde]

This is not the Benson principle you describe. This idea was popularized by Frederic Bastiat in his book, The Law.

...

Look at the mess this system has already created. A person cannot create hardly anything as things stand already. because there are so many patents, doubtlessly someone, somewhere, can claim just about anything you do violates some patent and sue. It takes a small fortune in legal fees to get any new product out and its about to get worse. Patents were originally supposed to protect inventors and allow them a chance to make a profit on their ideas. Now, the only thing they protect are the profits of the bloodsucking lawyers.

... and since we currently have a government by lawyers (50%-80% depending on the govt body, compared to 0.5% of the general population) and for lawyers (fiercely protects their trade and seeks to grow their power continually), all of this goes directly to increasing the size and power of government and reducing our liberties along the way.

Personally, I make a living producing intellectual property. Actually, most of the IP I create goes into the open source world under liberal licenses such as the Apache Software License v2, or for newer projects I mostly use public domain "licensing" (really a disclaimer of copyright to go along with the now ubiquitous disclaimer of liability). I use that work as a marketing tool, not as a source of income. My income comes from helping companies customize and/or build software to automate their business operations in the way they need (or want...).

As an idea producer, refiner, and applier, I like to think of what the world might be like if people and industries focused their efforts on solving real-world problems and creating useful solutions, all using freely shared ideas and concepts, and investing in marketplace competition instead of violent anti-competitive legal efforts. Current hardware and software solutions would by comparison be difficult to use and solve childish seeming problems.

Even in the open source ERP world where this concept is applied on a rudimentary level (and with basically zero R&D budget) we're able to knock out $10 million commercial ERP installations with a much easier to use and more flexible system on a $1 million budget with a dozen guys working for 6-12 months. I'm not talking about $10M ERP installations from a decade or two ago either, I'm talking about installations from a few years ago that have been hobbling the company since.

A lot of people have hoped to scale this down to the budget of a small business, but this has to be refined and scaled down a lot to fit that... and there are no R&D dollars to do so... even now most of the R&D dollars going into this are individuals doing what they can in their spare time, or if we are lucky getting a contract to build out certain functionality with a design and implementation clean enough to be reusable. Compared to the multi-billion dollar R&D budgets we compete with, it is effectively zero... and yet such a superior approach that hundreds of viable small consulting firms and individuals make a good living with it, and thousands of end-user companies are saving money and operating their businesses in ways that were impossible with conventional commercial ERP systems.

[LoveIsTruth]

Excellent points, jonesde. Thank you!

[Rensai]

Personally, I make a living producing intellectual property. Actually, most of the IP I create goes into the open source world under liberal licenses such as the Apache Software License v2, or for newer projects I mostly use public domain "licensing" (really a disclaimer of copyright to go along with the now ubiquitous disclaimer of liability). I use that work as a marketing tool, not as a source of income. My income comes from helping companies customize and/or build software to automate their business operations in the way they need (or want...).

Keep up the good work. I love open source software. Except for one windows system and a few windows specific apps, everything I do is with open source software. I think its a great example of how people with IP can share that and still make a reasonable profit. Another thing I like about this model is that although you can make a profit and in some cases a very good profit, for the most part, the open source software programmers are pulling a middle class income. I don't think its right that someone writes one song, book, etc and they are set for life. I don't begrudge them a reasonable return on their IP, but I do strongly dislike the artificial monopoly that forces society to pay them (and the companies and lawyers supporting them) for the IP endlessly over and over again; and don't even get me started on paying royalties to children or grand-children of dead artists....

Because of all this, I started a kind of personal boycott years ago. Instead of going to the theater or buying a movie, I will wait to rent or borrow a movie I want to watch. Instead of buying software, I use open source whenever possible. Instead of buying music CDs, I listen to Pandora (free) or download old public domain songs. That said, its all but impossible to completely avoid supporting the patent/copyright system. No doubt there are thousands of patents involved in the computer I am writing this post on; but, I do what I can to avoid it or minimize it where possible. My main focus is on specifically not supporting the RIAA or MPAA because they seem to be leading the charge for the government expanding control in this area. They are behind the DMCA, SOPA, etc.

Just remember, every time you buy a movie or a CD, subscribe to a cable tv service, etc. you are funding the lobbyists that are actively working to bring more governmental control to us all. If that's not reason enough to withhold support to them, think of all the other immoral causes people of these industries generally support with the money we overpay for their IP, like: LGBT causes, abortion, global warming, etc.

[LoveIsTruth]

This was cute:

[LoveIsTruth]

Here is a nice presentation about IP:

The only problem with it is that it does not challenge the principle only the details. The analog to that is this joke:

• 
  "A man asks a woman:
  Will you sleep with me for one million dollars?
  She says, Yes.
  He says, Will you sleep with me for $20?
  She says, Who do you think I am?!
  He says, We already established who you are, we are just arguing about the price."

So this guy is arguing about the price, but still, good to know:

http://www.voteronpaul.com/newsDetail.p ... -Idea-3619

What we need to challenge is the very corrupt principle itself. You either stand on principle or you forever slide into darkness. The choice is ours.

[Rose Garden]

When it comes to intellectual property, work is required to produce it, so the founding fathers supported copyrights and patents to protect it. They aren't trying to protect thoughts or ideas but work and effort. The purpose of these laws as stated by the Constitution is to promote arts and research. They knew that people would have greater power to produce intellectual works if their right to receive renumeration for their work was protected.

Today's copyright and patent laws have been corrupted. They are excessive and unfair, in my opinion. The answer, however, is not to abolish such laws, but to return them to more just conditions. In days past, Americans produced some of the greatest intellectual works, especially in the area of useful inventions. The environment of balanced copyright and patent laws is the ideal, not one that either honors excessive laws or disregards them altogether.

No one claims that the creator of intellectual property deserves no remuneration. What I am saying however is that it must be done in a manner that does not violate fundamental principles of Liberty. I listed about 6 different ways a creator can get paid. And it can be very substantial. Note, however, that none of those ways involves immoral use of government force to grant a monopoly, an authority that the government CANNOT properly have, because no individual can delegate such authority to it, because no individual has such authority, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

You cannot "balance copyright and patent laws" like you cannot "balance" rape and plunder: they are inherently evil and immoral, because they violate fundamental principles of liberty and presume to give government authority it can never properly have, since no one can delegate such authority to it. Hence exercise of such improper, non existent authority by the government is an evil usurpation, and is in fact, immoral. Remember, might does not make it right, but truth makes it right.

Please pardon my slow response to your comments. Let me see if I understand you correctly. Here's what I understand you are saying, put in my own terms:

Applying the Benson Principle, you state that owners of intellectual works do not have the right to protect their work and so they do not have the right to delegate to the government the right to protect their work. This is because their work doesn't really belong to them. It comes from God because all intelligence comes from God.

There are other ways to make money off of intellectual works. Therefore, it is unnecessary to use the force of government to assure that intellectual works be protected.

Copyright and patent laws are the equivalent of intellectual rape and plunder. In other words, they force upon another person immoral acts or they rob another person of something that is rightfully his.

These are the points I understand from your argument. Did I miss anything? Did I misinterpret anything?

[LoveIsTruth]

Please pardon my slow response to your comments. Let me see if I understand you correctly. Here's what I understand you are saying, put in my own terms:

Applying the Benson Principle, you state that owners of intellectual works do not have the right to protect their work and so they do not have the right to delegate to the government the right to protect their work.

No. The owners of intellectual property do have a right to protect their work. But in that protection they have no right to violate the property of others. Example: you have a right to protect your home, but you have no right to level the homes of your neighbors, under the pretext of protecting your home, so you can have more open space around your home, so you can better see the intruder coming, for instance. There are proper ways to protect intellectual property without violating the rights and property of others, and without violating the Benson Principle, and thus, without immoral use of government force. (I listed those ways at the top of the thread. Feel free to read them over again.)

This is because their work doesn't really belong to them.

I never said that. I said that to possess information IS to own it.

There are other ways to make money off of intellectual works. Therefore, it is unnecessary to use the force of government to assure that intellectual works be protected.

Depending what force we are talking about. If you have a right, individually, to use such force, then you can delegate it to the government. Example: If you made a contract with someone, in which they promised not to use your information or to pay for the use, then you can ask the government to enforce it for you, because YOU have a right to enforce it. But if no such contract exist, then you cannot delegate such enforcement to any third party, because you yourself have no such right, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

Copyright and patent laws are the equivalent of intellectual rape and plunder. In other words, they force upon another person immoral acts or they rob another person of something that is rightfully his.

Yes. Except the plunder is not only "intellectual" but also tangible, as you have to violate tangible property in order to prevent the use of intellectual property. Again to possess information is to own it, just as much as you own your mind, your papers, your hard-drive or your camera. To know an idea IS to own it. etc.

[Rose Garden]

Please pardon my slow response to your comments. Let me see if I understand you correctly. Here's what I understand you are saying, put in my own terms:

Applying the Benson Principle, you state that owners of intellectual works do not have the right to protect their work and so they do not have the right to delegate to the government the right to protect their work.

No. The owners of intellectual property do have a right to protect their work. But in that protection they have no right to violate the property of others. Example: you have a right to protect your home, but you have no right to level the homes of your neighbors, under the pretext of protecting your home, so you can have more open space around your home, so you can better see the intruder coming, for instance. There are proper ways to protect intellectual property without violating the rights and property of others, and without violating the Benson Principle, and thus, without immoral use of government force. (I listed those ways at the top of the thread. Feel free to read them over again.)

This is because their work doesn't really belong to them.

I never said that. I said that to possess information IS to own it.

There are other ways to make money off of intellectual works. Therefore, it is unnecessary to use the force of government to assure that intellectual works be protected.

Depending what force we are talking about. If you have a right, individually, to use such force, then you can delegate it to the government. Example: If you made a contract with someone, in which they promised not to use your information or to pay for the use, then you can ask the government to enforce it for you, because YOU have a right to enforce it. But if no such contract exist, then you cannot delegate such enforcement to any third party, because you yourself have no such right, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

Copyright and patent laws are the equivalent of intellectual rape and plunder. In other words, they force upon another person immoral acts or they rob another person of something that is rightfully his.

Yes. Except the plunder is not only "intellectual" but also tangible, as you have to violate tangible property in order to prevent the use of intellectual property. Again to possess information is to own it, just as much as you own your mind, your papers, your hard-drive or your camera. To know an idea IS to own it. etc.

Thanks for the clarification. I see what you are saying now. Basically, by eliminating the current copyright and patent laws you leave the matter in the hands of the individuals to take the steps necessary to protect and get gain from their works. The government is used only to enforce the steps the individual takes himself. Right?

Here's my primary concern with your philosophy. I do the work to create a poem. But then someone else copies it and uses it to get gain. Frankly, I have to write down a poem in order to retain it. I'm not that great at remembering things. I may try to keep that copy safe from prying eyes so I can use it first, but if someone discovers it and makes their own copy and uses it themselves to first get it out on the market, aren't they violating my rights? I had to do a great deal more work to produce the poem than they did to simply copy it. I've done all I can to secure it, but someone takes away my ability to make the most money anyway. Is there a way to get justice for this sort of thing without copyright laws?

Can you explain what you see is the current prevailing understanding of the question of IP that you spoke of in your first post? And can you also explain how it is fundamentally incompatible with the true principles of liberty?

Thanks for your help.

[LoveIsTruth]

Thanks for the clarification. I see what you are saying now. Basically, by eliminating the current copyright and patent laws you leave the matter in the hands of the individuals to take the steps necessary to protect and get gain from their works. The government is used only to enforce the steps the individual takes himself. Right?

Right! And for very good reason too, because under the Benson Principle, the government properly can have no authority, except what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

Here's my primary concern with your philosophy. I do the work to create a poem. But then someone else copies it and uses it to get gain. Frankly, I have to write down a poem in order to retain it. I'm not that great at remembering things. I may try to keep that copy safe from prying eyes so I can use it first, but if someone discovers it and makes their own copy and uses it themselves to first get it out on the market, aren't they violating my rights? I had to do a great deal more work to produce the poem than they did to simply copy it. I've done all I can to secure it, but someone takes away my ability to make the most money anyway. Is there a way to get justice for this sort of thing without copyright laws?

Yes. If they broke into your house and stole your poem, you can use force in retribution, therefore you can delegate that authority to a third party to use force, and to punish the thief not only for violating your tangible property, but for the consequences of their violating your tangible property, i.e. your ability to be first to market with your poem.

Can you explain what you see is the current prevailing understanding of the question of IP that you spoke of in your first post?

The prevalent wrong understanding is that once information is known, force can be used to prevent it's use, even against those who made no contract with you not to use the information. That is wrong because YOU do not have the right to use FORCE in such a way, therefore you cannot delegate such authority to the government to do it in your behalf, because you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

And can you also explain how it is fundamentally incompatible with the true principles of liberty?

Enforcing copyrights and patents requires the government to have an authority that no one could have delegated to it, because no individual has such authority.
When government begins to manufacture and exercise authority that no one could have delegated to it, it is no longer a representative government by and for the people, and it becomes a usurper and a tyrant, and if unchecked it will lead to total destruction of liberty, and as a consequence, to the destruction of the society itself. Too high a price to pay for an immoral use of government force.

[jnjnelson]

While I completely agree that our friendly government bureaucrats have taken intellectual property to an unwise, unhealthy, and self-defeating extreme, I am convinced that intellectual property should be protected. I disagree that copyrights and patents should be completely abolished, for that would be going to the opposite extreme on the matter. I am also confident that my position is in compliance with the doctrine of the Church.

Jesus taught, “Thou shalt not steal” (Matthew 19:18). Stealing is taking something that does not belong to us. When we take what belongs to someone else or to a store or to the community without permission, we are stealing. Taking merchandise or supplies from an employer is stealing. Copying music, movies, pictures, or written text without the permission of the copyright owners is dishonest and is a form of theft. Accepting more change or goods than one should is dishonest. Taking more than our share of anything is stealing.

Deceitful acts supposedly veiled in secrecy, such as illegally downloading music from the Internet or copying CDs or DVDs for distribution to friends and families, are nonetheless deceitful.

[jonesde]

Here's my primary concern with your philosophy. I do the work to create a poem. But then someone else copies it and uses it to get gain. Frankly, I have to write down a poem in order to retain it. I'm not that great at remembering things. I may try to keep that copy safe from prying eyes so I can use it first, but if someone discovers it and makes their own copy and uses it themselves to first get it out on the market, aren't they violating my rights? I had to do a great deal more work to produce the poem than they did to simply copy it. I've done all I can to secure it, but someone takes away my ability to make the most money anyway. Is there a way to get justice for this sort of thing without copyright laws?

If I write down a sequence of words on a piece of paper or in electronic form that I believe to be my own creation, and then find out that you have those same words written somewhere, what should I have the right to do to you?

Should I be able to pin you to the ground and take money from you that I think my words are worth? Should I be able to hire someone else to pin you down and take money for you to cover my words plus what I would pay that person? What if I form a huge organization that goes after people like you, should I be able to violently take enough money from you to cover the expenses for the entire organization?

That's about where we are now... if you copy a $10 movie or a $1 song, you may get a penalty of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to cover the expenses of the system that is thousands of times as heavy as the system to produce the content.

And yet, is it even moral to forcibly take from someone because they were to copy your idea?

There are other circumstances like representing yourself as an author of something, which would be fraud. Even copying or distributing something when you agreed not to would be a breach of contract, and could be punished just fine under contract law.

There just doesn't seem to be any reason or benefit to anyone, other than lawyers and courts, with the crazy system of law and enforcement we have now.

[jonesde]

While I completely agree that our friendly government bureaucrats have taken intellectual property to an unwise, unhealthy, and self-defeating extreme, I am convinced that intellectual property should be protected. I disagree that copyrights and patents should be completely abolished, for that would be going to the opposite extreme on the matter. I am also confident that my position is in compliance with the doctrine of the Church.

Jesus taught, “Thou shalt not steal” (Matthew 19:18). Stealing is taking something that does not belong to us. When we take what belongs to someone else or to a store or to the community without permission, we are stealing. Taking merchandise or supplies from an employer is stealing. Copying music, movies, pictures, or written text without the permission of the copyright owners is dishonest and is a form of theft. Accepting more change or goods than one should is dishonest. Taking more than our share of anything is stealing.

Deceitful acts supposedly veiled in secrecy, such as illegally downloading music from the Internet or copying CDs or DVDs for distribution to friends and families, are nonetheless deceitful.

Notice that these refer specifically to information "products" as opposed to ideas, and specifically to information products where the producer or distributor has requested that people not copy them. In that case someone along the line is breaking a contract, and if represented as a licensed copy would be deceitful (or fraudulent)... but that doesn't mean we need government to use violence to react to such behavior. If someone lies is it okay to enslave them for a year?

It also doesn't mean that all ideas or even information "products" need to be restricted in such ways, or that it is even helpful for society... especially for ideas. These quotes make it clear to use that our moral behavior should be to not copy things that people ask us not to, or outside terms specified by the producer or distributor. They don't say anything about whether or not it is moral for those companies or the government to respond to such behavior the way it does, and that is what this thread is primarily about.

[Rensai]

What if I live in the cayman islands or another country that does not recognize us copyright laws? In places like that it is perfectly legal to copy whatever I want. Is it still deceitful or stealing to copy something? Is making a copy really theft under any circumstance? I tend to agree with the video that copying something is not theft. Its certainly copyright violation in this country. It is certainly illegal, but only because we have made laws that say so. Other countries get by just fine without such laws.

Sure, we follow the laws of the land and the correct response is therefore to either pay for the item in question or go without. But, is that because that is right, or because we have been conditioned to think so? Benjamin Franklin sure didn't support the greedy copyright system. Also, how come when a new DVD comes out in America, I am expected to pay 20-30 dollars if I want a copy, but that same DVD will be legally released in China for only a $1.25? Presumably the movie studio still makes a profit in china or they wouldn't bother. Does that seem like a good system to you?

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2006/11/8207.ars" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Twentieth Century Fox plans to be the second movie studio to start selling cheap DVDs in an attempt to beat piracy to the punch in China. Piracy in China, which has a long and sordid history, is costing movie studios an estimated $244 million a year in lost DVD and ticket sales, according to the MPAA.

The first studio to announce such a strategy was Time Warner, which said in August that it planned to start releasing cheap DVDs in China in an attempt to fight piracy. The movies were to be released on DVD soon after their theatrical release for about 10 yuan (approximately $1.25) apiece. 10 yuan is close to the typical price for a pirated movie in China. Time Warner hoped that the move would lure customers to buy their DVDs instead of illegal alternatives. The short amount of time between theatrical and DVD release in China was also meant to try to beat pirates in getting the DVDs out as quickly as possible.

So 20th century fox can make a profit on a DVD for $1.25 in china AND release it very quickly after the theater, but thanks to our wonderful copyright system, I must wait months (in hopes I'll go to a theater and pay even more) and pay 20 times the price. Who's really the thief here?? Never mind that that only gets me 1 DVD designed, yes designed on purpose, to scratch easily and with DRM software designed to make it difficult for me to make backup copies so that I will then be forced to pay full price again and again. Plus of course I get to pay for each format I want. Want it on the IPOD? pay again.

Finally, how come back in the 80's during the VHS era, it was fine to copy movies. Everyone did it and no one said it was theft, yet now it is not? Did God reveal that making a copy of something is in fact theft or was that revelation from the greedy fat cats at the MPAA and RIAA? Is it justice to slap someone with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for the harmless "theft" of copying a DVD? Is it right to spy on the internet usage of ALL Americans and pass laws requiring ISP's to keep records of everything we do online in the name of fighting this oh so heinous crime? Is it ok to arrest old ladies and drain their retirement funds in legal fees because someone used their wifi to download a few mp3s? Where does it end? Maybe we should all be monitored 24x7 and treated like criminals just to make sure we don't let any one sneak a free copy of some movie. X(

[LoveIsTruth]

While I completely agree that our friendly government bureaucrats have taken intellectual property to an unwise, unhealthy, and self-defeating extreme, I am convinced that intellectual property should be protected.

Nobody says it shouldn't.

I disagree that copyrights and patents should be completely abolished, for that would be going to the opposite extreme on the matter.

Where is the principle? It is either right or wrong, but not both. Where is the principle that determines what should and should not be done by government? It is the Benson Principle. And under it, copyrights and patents have no right to exist.

I am also confident that my position is in compliance with the doctrine of the Church.

Jesus taught, “Thou shalt not steal” (Matthew 19:18). Stealing is taking something that does not belong to us. When we take what belongs to someone else or to a store or to the community without permission, we are stealing. Taking merchandise or supplies from an employer is stealing. Copying music, movies, pictures, or written text without the permission of the copyright owners is dishonest and is a form of theft. Accepting more change or goods than one should is dishonest. Taking more than our share of anything is stealing.

Deceitful acts supposedly veiled in secrecy, such as illegally downloading music from the Internet or copying CDs or DVDs for distribution to friends and families, are nonetheless deceitful.

Not everything that is bad is right to forbid by government force. For instance, it is immoral not to help the poor if you can. But it is also immoral to FORCE people to help the poor. In the same vein, even though it may be immoral to use someone's intellectual property without proper pay, it is also IMMORAL to FORCE people to pay for intellectual property once it is in their possession and they are under no contract with you to pay. You have no moral right to use such force, THEREFORE you cannot delegate it to your government to do it in your behalf, because you cannot delegate an authority you do NOT have. It is an application of the Benson Principle. And it is a true principle, without which society will unavoidably be destroyed.

[Fairminded]

So 20th century fox can make a profit on a DVD for $1.25 in china AND release it very quickly after the theater, but thanks to our wonderful copyright system, I must wait months (in hopes I'll go to a theater and pay even more) and pay 20 times the price. Who's really the thief here?? Never mind that that only gets me 1 DVD designed, yes designed on purpose, to scratch easily and with DRM software designed to make it difficult for me to make backup copies so that I will then be forced to pay full price again and again. Plus of course I get to pay for each format I want. Want it on the IPOD? pay again.

Finally, how come back in the 80's during the VHS era, it was fine to copy movies. Everyone did it and no one said it was theft, yet now it is not? Did God reveal that making a copy of something is in fact theft or was that revelation from the greedy fat cats at the MPAA and RIAA? Is it justice to slap someone with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for the harmless "theft" of copying a DVD? Is it right to spy on the internet usage of ALL Americans and pass laws requiring ISP's to keep records of everything we do online in the name of fighting this oh so heinous crime? Is it ok to arrest old ladies and drain their retirement funds in legal fees because someone used their wifi to download a few mp3s? Where does it end? Maybe we should all be monitored 24x7 and treated like criminals just to make sure we don't let any one sneak a free copy of some movie. X(

Unfortunately this is modus operandi for the government these days, and a behavior the populace has given them carte blanche to do with little or no excuse. In the name of "protecting", "keeping safe" or "preventing crime", the government treats the entire population like criminals in order to mildly inconvenience a relative minority of criminals.

And it is usually a mild inconvenience. Criminals knowledgeable about a few basic things can easily get around most measures government implements, leaving the populace as the sole victims of these government policies. Basically it's the government saying everyone is guilty until proven innocent, and should not only be suspected of being guilty, but treated as such.

You'd think the people would violently protest this sort of wholesale intrusion into their private lives, but hey, at the airports they don't even protest the wholesale intrusion into their private parts.