Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: WSJ a useless copyright privilege

Expand Messages
  • walto
    I m too tired, bored, and cognizant of the pointlessness of trying to change anybody s minds here about anything, to go on with this, but I just wanted to
    Message 1 of 233 , Apr 23, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm too tired, bored, and cognizant of the pointlessness of trying to change anybody's "minds" here about anything, to go on with this, but I just wanted to point out that nearly all of Roy's post below depends on an absurdly slim notion of what fraud is (as do several other posts he's made on this matter). Actually, fraud is very simply this:

      "In criminal law, fraud is intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual."

      (Wikipedia)

      W


      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
      >
      > > If I put my name on something Stephen King has written, as if I am responsible for it, I am committing fraud.
      >
      > No, you are committing plagiarism. No one will arrest you for fraud -- though they might well bring an action for copyright violation.
      >
      > > > If you publish something with my name, you are committing fraud.
      > >
      > > If you publish something you haven't actually written with your name, you are committing fraud.
      >
      > No, you are not. You are committing plagiarism. No one will charge you with fraud. Learn the difference.
      >
      > > > Why you should bother is a mystery to me.
      > >
      > > A sensible thief might look elsewhere, actually.
      >
      > True, as theft is not involved.
      >
      > > Suppose Rowling is a friend of mine and kindly sends me a pdf of her newest work. I then receive a substantial sum for sending it off to someone else (note that there is nothing laborious about this). This person uploads it onto the internet. The money I've received seems to me a type of theft, and the cost to Rowling would be enormous--presumably much more than I gain.
      >
      > No, she loses nothing she would otherwise have, except what a government-issued and -enforced copyright privilege might have enabled her to obtain.
      >
      > > Now, if I had put my name on the book, I probably couldn't have received as much right away from this third party by this theft.
      >
      > Putting your name on something you didn't produce isn't theft. It's plagiarism.
      >
      > > But I perhaps could make my own name as a popular writer through my fraud.
      >
      > It's not fraud.
      >
      > > Either way, there's theft.
      >
      > No, there's just you claiming a theft that has not in fact occurred.
      >
      > > One there's immediate monetary gain, the other there's attempt at a fraudulent enhancement of my reputation.
      >
      > That's plagiarism, not fraud. Learn the difference.
      >
      > > Both are currently prevented by copyright law.
      >
      > True, but what is being prevented is neither theft nor fraud, as proved by the fact that if the work were in the public domain legally as well as actually, there would be no legal repercussions at all, merely presumable damage to your reputation when your plagiarism is discovered.
      >
      > -- Roy Langston
      >
    • David Reed
      @TJAlthough my remarks about some opponents of copyright being, perhaps, happier with Communism were in the nature of a wind-up, there is a splendid
      Message 233 of 233 , Apr 28, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
         @TJ
        Although my remarks about some  opponents of copyright being, perhaps, happier with Communism were in the nature of a wind-up, there is a splendid dotCommunist Manifesto by Professor Eben Moglen 2003 first sentence "There is a Spectre haunting multinational capitalism -the Spectre of free information ."The whole thing is spun as a homage  to the Communist Manifesto, couched in class terms, with no little wit. As such, it is a good deal more appealing than some of the more right-wing arguments normally adduced in support of copyright abolition. However the affinity of anti-intellectual property arguments to Communism is stressed throughout.
        P.S I am having trouble with the sentence below "All other monopolies in it's are entirely law made." I would also be grateful for some more quotes from the classical economists you mention -or even their names .Have drawn a blank with Smith and Hume who see monopolies as things granted (Smith) or sold (Hume) by governments.

        To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
        From: kjetil.r.johansen@...
        Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:18:14 +0000
        Subject: [LandCafe] Re: WSJ a useless copyright privilege

         


        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
        >
        >If they think they should get computer whatevers on the cheap the same way large families are supposed to get accommodation on the cheap via super- lite LVT then I would imagine that their beef is really with laissez -faire capitalism and its Achilles heel of inevitable monopoly.<

        Exactly not. Classical economists have been concerned with monopolies since the beginning, and the Georgist section of classic economists ever much more so. That's why these things get discussed here. It's not uneasiness about markets at all. With regards to land, as long as we are to have private property in land, and we are, monopoly rents has to be adressed, including the natural monopolies that follow from conditions of location and scarcity. All other monopolies in it's are entirely law-made. Creating these monopolies may or may not be a positive, but the burden of proof lies on those who defend these rights, not vice versa.

        >So great is this sense of political distress, that you have to wonder if they would n't be happier with Communism, that recognises no inventor is bigger than the culture s/he was informed by ,so should not receive any financial gain from being born along by the development of the culture in general.Also when any monopoly develops it would be used in the public interest. Quite possibly this would involve operating at a "commercial loss". And what's the problem as Chamberlain said when taking the Birmingham Water Works into public control in 1876 (private sources of water were poisoning everybody) "Our profit will be the health of the people!" Or increased production by computer operatives!!<

        Where exactly are you going? Sure, public waterworks works, I'm very much in favour of public operation/regulation of most natural monopolies, some sort of regulation of some types of market failure, pro-redistribution, and generally in favour of liberalisation of everything else, why would I be more comfortable with communism? States who follow liberal market policies, uphold property rights, regulates and adresses natural monopolies and have some sort of redistribution mechanisms (as compensation for not adressing land enough), are generally richer and freer compared to anywhere anytime in history, why would I want communism instead?

        Kj


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.