Anarchy

[Doktor Howl]

As far as a factory, we're dealing with physical vs. ideological goods again.  They aren't the same.  Not just because ideological goods are far easier to duplicate, also because they can be combined and altered in ways that are not possible with physical goods. 

So your argument is that an arms manufacturer should have more rights than an artist?  Okay.

Yes,  Manufacturing requires continual effort and input. It is not purely rent seeking.  I read that initially as any manufacturer, not an arms manufacturer, but as I am completely in favor of the right to bear(and manufacture) arms that doesn't have much bearing on what sort of rights the manufacturer should have.

I'm really more in favor of worker ownership of production, but that's a whole other can of worms (although admittedly perhaps more closely related to the original topic of Anarchy than Copyright is)

Holy shit. 

NO, ART DOES NOT TAKE ANY EFFORT.



Well, fuck it.  Now Anarchism is the utilitarian state ala 1984.  You have everything you NEED, why do you WANT art?

[Don Coyote]

As far as a factory, we're dealing with physical vs. ideological goods again.  They aren't the same.  Not just because ideological goods are far easier to duplicate, also because they can be combined and altered in ways that are not possible with physical goods. 

So your argument is that an arms manufacturer should have more rights than an artist?  Okay.

Yes,  Manufacturing requires continual effort and input. It is not purely rent seeking.  I read that initially as any manufacturer, not an arms manufacturer, but as I am completely in favor of the right to bear(and manufacture) arms that doesn't have much bearing on what sort of rights the manufacturer should have.

I'm really more in favor of worker ownership of production, but that's a whole other can of worms (although admittedly perhaps more closely related to the original topic of Anarchy than Copyright is)

Holy shit. 

NO, ART DOES NOT TAKE ANY EFFORT.



Well, fuck it.  Now Anarchism is the utilitarian state ala 1984.  You have everything you NEED, why do you WANT art?

Didn't you know that anyone can create art by downloading stuff from the internet and pushing random buttons.

[Doktor Howl]

As far as a factory, we're dealing with physical vs. ideological goods again.  They aren't the same.  Not just because ideological goods are far easier to duplicate, also because they can be combined and altered in ways that are not possible with physical goods. 

So your argument is that an arms manufacturer should have more rights than an artist?  Okay.

Yes,  Manufacturing requires continual effort and input. It is not purely rent seeking.  I read that initially as any manufacturer, not an arms manufacturer, but as I am completely in favor of the right to bear(and manufacture) arms that doesn't have much bearing on what sort of rights the manufacturer should have.

I'm really more in favor of worker ownership of production, but that's a whole other can of worms (although admittedly perhaps more closely related to the original topic of Anarchy than Copyright is)

Holy shit. 

NO, ART DOES NOT TAKE ANY EFFORT.



Well, fuck it.  Now Anarchism is the utilitarian state ala 1984.  You have everything you NEED, why do you WANT art?

Didn't you know that anyone can create art by downloading stuff from the internet and pushing random buttons.

I'm going to set Kipling to Ethel Merman tunes.  I am the next Don McLean.

[BabylonHoruv]

As far as a factory, we're dealing with physical vs. ideological goods again.  They aren't the same.  Not just because ideological goods are far easier to duplicate, also because they can be combined and altered in ways that are not possible with physical goods. 

So your argument is that an arms manufacturer should have more rights than an artist?  Okay.

Yes,  Manufacturing requires continual effort and input. It is not purely rent seeking.  I read that initially as any manufacturer, not an arms manufacturer, but as I am completely in favor of the right to bear(and manufacture) arms that doesn't have much bearing on what sort of rights the manufacturer should have.

I'm really more in favor of worker ownership of production, but that's a whole other can of worms (although admittedly perhaps more closely related to the original topic of Anarchy than Copyright is)

Holy shit. 

NO, ART DOES NOT TAKE ANY EFFORT.



Well, fuck it.  Now Anarchism is the utilitarian state ala 1984.  You have everything you NEED, why do you WANT art?

Art requires effort and input.  More than manufacturing I'd say.  Enough that people should get an absolute right to control distribution and reproduction of their creation for a lifetime.  That's actually considerably more rights than a manufacturer gets.  Once a product is sold it belongs to the person who bought it.  This is not true of intellectual property.

[BabylonHoruv]

As far as a factory, we're dealing with physical vs. ideological goods again.  They aren't the same.  Not just because ideological goods are far easier to duplicate, also because they can be combined and altered in ways that are not possible with physical goods. 

So your argument is that an arms manufacturer should have more rights than an artist?  Okay.

Yes,  Manufacturing requires continual effort and input. It is not purely rent seeking.  I read that initially as any manufacturer, not an arms manufacturer, but as I am completely in favor of the right to bear(and manufacture) arms that doesn't have much bearing on what sort of rights the manufacturer should have.

I'm really more in favor of worker ownership of production, but that's a whole other can of worms (although admittedly perhaps more closely related to the original topic of Anarchy than Copyright is)

Holy shit. 

NO, ART DOES NOT TAKE ANY EFFORT.



Well, fuck it.  Now Anarchism is the utilitarian state ala 1984.  You have everything you NEED, why do you WANT art?

Didn't you know that anyone can create art by downloading stuff from the internet and pushing random buttons.

I'm going to set Kipling to Ethel Merman tunes.  I am the next Don McLean.

I believe Kipling is in the public domain, so this is allowed.  I know I have enjoyed hearing Poe's works set to music and I don't think the fact that the words were not written by the person who did the production changes the fact that the works were still creative works of art.

Interpretive art, including acting, dancing, musical performance, and production of audio or visual material (I mean the actual production, not the organizational work done by someone with the title "Producer") is still art, and it is still creative.

[Doktor Howl]

Art requires effort and input.  More than manufacturing I'd say.  Enough that people should get an absolute right to control distribution and reproduction of their creation for a lifetime.  That's actually considerably more rights than a manufacturer gets.  Once a product is sold it belongs to the person who bought it.  This is not true of intellectual property.

Sure it is.  If I sell the rights to my music to Sony, they own those rights.

When you buy an album, those rights are not part of the purchasing agreement.  It says so right on the package.

But, hey, what the fuck are terms and conditions, when stacked up against our need for free music?

[Doktor Howl]

Interpretive art, including acting, dancing, musical performance, and production of audio or visual material (I mean the actual production, not the organizational work done by someone with the title "Producer") is still art, and it is still creative.

Interpretive dances?   

No sweat.  License the right to use the music and go nuts, Moonflower.

[the last yatto]

I agree that DNA, etc, shouldn't be patentable unless it's a modified form.

Sorry Emperor, Haliburton says you can't make anymore space marines

[Don Coyote]

I agree that DNA, etc, shouldn't be patentable unless it's a modified form.

Sorry Emperor, Haliburton says you can't make anymore space marines

[BabylonHoruv]

Art requires effort and input.  More than manufacturing I'd say.  Enough that people should get an absolute right to control distribution and reproduction of their creation for a lifetime.  That's actually considerably more rights than a manufacturer gets.  Once a product is sold it belongs to the person who bought it.  This is not true of intellectual property.

Sure it is.  If I sell the rights to my music to Sony, they own those rights.

When you buy an album, those rights are not part of the purchasing agreement.  It says so right on the package.

But, hey, what the fuck are terms and conditions, when stacked up against our need for free music?

You didn't sell the music, you sold the rights.

And you have the right to do as you wish with the Album itself.  You can make it into a coaster, you can smash it, you can also sell it someone else.  Just why selling the physical album is not illegal redistribution of the music on the album I am not sure, but apparently it isn't.

[Doktor Howl]

I agree that DNA, etc, shouldn't be patentable unless it's a modified form.

Sorry Emperor, Haliburton says you can't make anymore space marines

Holy fucking upsets, Batman...Yatto just won PD.  

[BabylonHoruv]

Interpretive art, including acting, dancing, musical performance, and production of audio or visual material (I mean the actual production, not the organizational work done by someone with the title "Producer") is still art, and it is still creative.

Interpretive dances?   

No sweat.  License the right to use the music and go nuts, Moonflower.

I meant dance which has been choreographed (created) by someone else.  Both the choreographer and the dancer are engaged in creative art.

[Doktor Howl]

Art requires effort and input.  More than manufacturing I'd say.  Enough that people should get an absolute right to control distribution and reproduction of their creation for a lifetime.  That's actually considerably more rights than a manufacturer gets.  Once a product is sold it belongs to the person who bought it.  This is not true of intellectual property.

Sure it is.  If I sell the rights to my music to Sony, they own those rights.

When you buy an album, those rights are not part of the purchasing agreement.  It says so right on the package.

But, hey, what the fuck are terms and conditions, when stacked up against our need for free music?

You didn't sell the music, you sold the rights.

And you have the right to do as you wish with the Album itself.  You can make it into a coaster, you can smash it, you can also sell it someone else.  Just why selling the physical album is not illegal redistribution of the music on the album I am not sure, but apparently it isn't.

Because you aren't copying it.

I fail to see why this is so difficult to comprehend.  I mean, are you one of those guys that thinks we can pay off the national debt by printing more money?

[Doktor Howl]

Interpretive art, including acting, dancing, musical performance, and production of audio or visual material (I mean the actual production, not the organizational work done by someone with the title "Producer") is still art, and it is still creative.

Interpretive dances?   

No sweat.  License the right to use the music and go nuts, Moonflower.

I meant dance which has been choreographed (created) by someone else.  Both the choreographer and the dancer are engaged in creative art.

That's nice.  Now all they have to do is get permission to use the music.

Not seeing a problem, here.

[BabylonHoruv]

Interpretive art, including acting, dancing, musical performance, and production of audio or visual material (I mean the actual production, not the organizational work done by someone with the title "Producer") is still art, and it is still creative.

Interpretive dances?   

No sweat.  License the right to use the music and go nuts, Moonflower.

I meant dance which has been choreographed (created) by someone else.  Both the choreographer and the dancer are engaged in creative art.

That's nice.  Now all they have to do is get permission to use the music.

Not seeing a problem, here.

And permission to use the choreography.  As intellectual property that is also subject to Copyright.  Establishing creation of a particular dance style is more difficult than establishing creation of a novel or song, certainly, but it can be done.  It could also, potentially, become very messy since dance is even more obviously a remix of previous dance than other creative endeavors.