Why do you keep reverting back to this position in your argument after I have addressed it multiple times?
And R&D is cheaper & easier now than it has ever been. 3d printers are a couple hundred dollars & modeling software is free. It used to require ~$100k machine to rifle a barrel, & twitter 3d printed gun people figured out how to do it perfectly with a few hundred dollars worth of equipment.
Because you ceded the point that intellectual property is real... plagiarism is bad remember... Plagiarism is the theft of another's ideas: their intellectual property.
America alone spent $792 Billion on research and development in 2022 ( https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23320 ). Just because a few open source software programs exist doesn't make all research and innovation cheap
No, you are just dead set on twisting what I said to fit your position so that you don't have to change your mind or see the distinction I made.
You call yourself an Agorist but you reason like an average Communist: believing it is perfectly acceptable to laying claim to others intellectual work and feeling entitled to their property
If you find a recipe do you feel the need to ask permission to use it?
If I figure out how something works it gets added to my knowledge of how to do things & I don't believe anyone has any right to tell anyone else how they can or can't arrange their own property. Food is not different from metal or wood or anything else
IP is a violation of physical property rights. If everything is patented then your ownership of materials would be meaningless. You couldn't make anything with your own stuff without buying permission from a bunch of other people. So the scam is made more believable by creating completely arbitrary time constraints. But it's entirely based on an ends justifying the means sort of argument. "We get to beat you up for using your property a certain way for a certain amount of time because someone needs to be rewarded for this idea." And even independent arrival at an already patented idea doesn't free you from the scam.
The very purpose of property rights is to establish a fair & just way to reduce conflict over scarce & rivalrous things.
The entire basis for the IP scam requires one to confuse copying with stealing in order to create conflict where there otherwise would be none. And that's why I said, if nothing is missing, nothing was stolen.
I'm sure your stance of no intellectual property extends to trademarks as well. What if someone starts producing "Coca Cola" in their garage and includes antifreeze as one of the ingredients? Do you think the actual Coca Cola company has a right to stop them? It will surely kill anyone who drinks it, and it would greatly erode the brand value of Coca Cola causing them to lose substantial amounts of revenue. Or would Coca Cola company be considered "an angry fucking 5 year old scammer" in your eyes?
No, as I said before that is lying (or fraud).
Saying you are someone you aren't, or taking credit for something you didn't do isn't okay.
Physically harming people is a punishable offense & harming people with the intent of also damaging a business is worse.
People need ways to clearly identify & distinguish themselves from others. But I do not believe force funded institutions should exist at all, so I think we are going to need decentralized methods for simple & easily authentication.
So trademarks and branding are 100% intellectual property. They obviously serve a valuable purpose and a company is absolutely within their rights to defend that property. I'm glad we agree.
Also:
Merriam-Webster dictionary, Plagiarism:
(transitive verb): to steal and pass off the ideas or words of another as one's own : use another's production without crediting the source.
(Intransitive verb) : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
Plagiarism is a violation of intellectual property, you can not choose to believe in one without the other, that's asinine.
I think you should read what I said more carefully.
If you can figure out how to defend exclusive control of a particular brand name without using force or violence then I'm all for that.
I think it is fraud to claim to be the originator of a book that was simply copied from someone else. I see nothing wrong with reprinting a copy of a book that is properly attributed to the author & indicating that it was an independent publication (same as any book in the public domain). I also think it is a fraud to produce a copied product & claim it is a respected brand. But there is nothing wrong with Aldidas & Adidas coexisting. I don't know what sort of restitution is owed for violations in either case, I suspect something like libel laws would be the place to look for how restitution should be handled.
Sure... How many hundreds of billions of that is govt & pharam corp corruption?
If R&D is cheaper now than it has ever been for the average person then it is for everyone no matter what sort of BS fiat numbers someone puts up.
I didn't think I would have to defend the basic idea that theft of private property is bad on Nostr... especially with someone who says they have an agorist view point. So to summarize: 1. Intellectual Property is real and has value. 2. Theft is wrong. 3. Stealing another person's property violates the concepts of a free market and leads to bad outcomes.
I thought this place was built on the concept of "value 4 value"? What are we trading on Nostr if not Intellectual Property for money?
Lol you are on open source nostr rn.
Why don’t you try repeating lyn Alden’s posts word for word and see how many zaps and follows/unfollows you get vs her.
If people who want to prevent others from producing can’t do it, maybe they’ll go make sammiches or do something else productive.
If I take pictures of your car & then can go home & feed them into a machine that will "print" me a car eith my materials & electricity as inputs, have I stolen your car? Have I stolen a car from the manufacturer? Is anyone missing anything? Would they even know I had done this?
People confuse copying with stealing, but they are very different things. Theft is subtraction. Copying is addition.
You in particular keep trying to confuse lying with copying, which is also a very different thing.
We are surrounded by low cost ways to copy everything we see. The internet is a giant, nearly free, copy machine.
Property is scarce & rivalrous. Things that are not rivalrous cannot be property.
If you are actually interested in understanding the issue, Stephan Kinsella is an IP lawyer with lots of great video & audio content on the subject.
