[ExI] New IP thread

Ryan Rawson ryanobjc at gmail.com
Tue Jul 27 00:27:38 UTC 2010


Rafal, you might want to consider if your rhetoric is potentially
offending people who might have been possibly sympathetic to your
viewpoint.

In the end, not everyone believes that "efficiency" is the best
option, and that there are other possible middle and end states that
are important to consider. So people who disagree with you aren't just
"IP-deniers" (that sounds like an emotional rhetorical device to me)
or stupid as you are constantly implying.



On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki
<rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list