[ExI] New IP thread

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Mon Jul 26 16:56:04 UTC 2010


On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Damien Sullivan
<phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 03:26:19PM -0700, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
>> What IP-deniers say boils down to claiming that any act of disclosure
>> of information automatically authorizes copying, even if the
>> disclosure is explicitly accompanied by restrictions on use of the
>> information. They deny that voluntary participation in the exchange of
>> information may be accompanied by legitimate limitations on some
>> further uses of that informantion - but only when it suits them. When
>
> Wrong again.

### Right all the time.
----------------------------

>
> Of course Bob may consent to duplication restrictions on some
> information, as a condition of being told that information by Alice.
> NDAs.  No one denies that.
>
> But if Bob breaks the NDA and tells Carol, Carol has not consented to
> any such restriction.  IP-deniers deny that Alice has a right to impose
> restrictions on what Carol can do with what are now her thoughts.
> Copyright, backed up by a government, gives Alice that power anyway.  As
> do privacy laws, also backed up by a government.
>
### Copyright is a form of NDA. Under a legal regime that permits
copyright (for example, for the purposes of long-term efficiency in
improving the welfare of mankind) you accede to this NDA whenever you
knowingly and actively interact (i.e. embark on a course of action
meant to interact) with a copyrighted work. The only difference
between an NDA and a copyright is that the latter is general public
knowledge - and of course this cannot be the distinction that could
make copyright invalid. If you accept the former, you must accept the
latter (unless you provide additional efficiency-related arguments) -
but, as I correctly observed, IP-deniers start out with a feeling of
entitlement, and make up justifications on the fly. I know, I used to
be one.

You keep trying to muddy the waters by claiming that copyright is
given by the government, as if this was per se a reasonable argument
against it. Firstly, government tends to be lousy at everything it
does but this is not a general argument against the existence of
services provided by it (you don't reject the idea of a the autobahn
simply because Nazis built a few). Secondly, copyright does not need
to be provided by governments, although because of the existence of
governments the alternatives (private copyright providers) are
suppressed. You are taking a contingent association for a necessary
attribute.

If you can't point towards increased efficiency in furthering human
welfare afforded by Carol's "right" to use illegitimately obtained
information, you are just blowing hot air. Don't tell me about your
feelings about "rights", tell me how the world will be improved by
your proposal to have it without IP.

Rafal




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list