Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: michael noble <looplog@...>
Cc: Linux Audio User <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Friday, February 15, 2013 - 10:43 am

--20cf301d420e5c2a6104d5c10a6e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Fellas!
I am also not against going off-list with this.

Libertarian property theory is not wishful thinking. It is deductive
reasoning,
based on some self-evident axioms. I would suggest reading Hoppe on that.

Like this book: http://mises.org/document/431
First chapter logically shows why physical property is justified. This is
not
arbitrary.

My short article goes in the same direction, but in a more primitive manner,
perhaps:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=philosophy&a=phil...

So the argument that IP is not property has nothing to do with wishful
thinking,
it has to do with what is property and why do we need such a concept.
You might not agree with the argumentation, of course, but I left links so
that, if you
would want, you can go through them.

"I see plenty of arguments for abolishing copyright on the grounds that it
restricts fulfillment of desires - why not abolish desire on the grounds
that it restricts true freedom of choice. The two seem about as plausible
as each other to me right now."

My argument has nothing to do with desires, though. My argument is that IP
is not genuine
property and that "ideas" cannot be property at all. (I give reasons in the
article,
ideas are no scarce, they do not posses the property of rivalrousness).

And that any IP always ends up violating physical property rights of others.
In the end, I argue, it always comes down to someone taking away or trying
to control
physical property that belongs to you.

L.V.

--20cf301d420e5c2a6104d5c10a6e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Fellas!I am also not against going off-list with this.Libertari=
an property theory is not wishful thinking. It is deductive reasoning,b=
ased on some self-evident axioms. I would suggest reading Hoppe on that.
Like this book: http://mises.=
org/document/431
First chapter logically shows why physical property=
is justified. This is notarbitrary.My short article goes in th=
e same direction, but in a more primitive manner,
perhaps:http://www.louigiv=
erona.ru/?page=3Dprojects&s=3Dwritings&t=3Dphilosophy&a=3Dphilo=
sophy_property

So the argument that IP is not property has nothing to do with wishful =
thinking,it has to do with what is property and why do we need such a c=
oncept.You might not agree with the argumentation, of course, but I lef=
t links so that, if you
would want, you can go through them."I see plenty of arguments=
for abolishing copyright on the grounds that=20
it restricts=A0fulfillment=A0of desires - why not abolish desire on the=20
grounds that it restricts true freedom of choice. The two seem about as=20
plausible as each other to me right now."My argument has nothi=
ng to do with desires, though. My argument is that IP is not genuinepro=
perty and that "ideas" cannot be property at all. (I give reasons=
in the article,
ideas are no scarce, they do not posses the property of rivalrousness).=
And that any IP always ends up violating physical property rights of ot=
hers.In the end, I argue, it always comes down to someone taking away o=
r trying to control
physical property that belongs to you.L.V.

--20cf301d420e5c2a6104d5c10a6e--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, James Harkins, (Thu Feb 14, 2:28 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Sun Feb 17, 10:13 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Louigi Verona, (Thu Feb 14, 9:44 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, michael noble, (Fri Feb 15, 12:25 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Fri Feb 15, 2:19 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, michael noble, (Fri Feb 15, 3:12 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Rustom Mody, (Fri Feb 15, 5:06 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Louigi Verona, (Fri Feb 15, 6:58 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, michael noble, (Fri Feb 15, 9:04 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Fri Feb 15, 2:35 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, michael noble, (Fri Feb 15, 3:18 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Sun Feb 17, 11:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Louigi Verona, (Fri Feb 15, 10:43 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Louigi Verona, (Fri Feb 15, 10:44 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Simon Wise, (Fri Feb 15, 7:42 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Louigi Verona, (Fri Feb 15, 7:45 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Al Thompson, (Fri Feb 15, 7:13 am)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, drew Roberts, (Sun Feb 17, 10:26 pm)
Re: [LAU] Changed: Copyright laws and such, Louigi Verona, (Fri Feb 15, 7:31 am)