Anarchy

[Doktor Howl]

Probably the same reason you ignore that nobody has been arguing to remove copyright protections completely.  Exaggeration in order to make a point.

Bullshit.  I was arguing that children should be able to inherit ANY form of property from their parents, and that property can be sold, whatever form it's in.  

I think we're done here.  Let me know when you can make your point without lying.

[BabylonHoruv]

A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who"  An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music.  Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this.  The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down.  These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.

Sorry but that just sounds selfish to me.  Yeah, it probably did sound neat to hear Seuss put to Dylan, but so what?  There are two artists in this scenario and ideally both should agree to the marrying of one creation to the other.  As it turns out, one of them is dead so whether or not that happens is decided by his heirs who get part of their living from the proceeds of his works.  If the Seuss gives up IP to all of the Seuss works, then it will be the wild west.  Nobody will need to buy the books anymore and their funds will dry up.

But, at least you get your novel MP3 of Dylan doing Green Eggs and Ham.  

Yep,  after Geisel's death his work should have become public domain IMO.  I'm really not in favor of people making their livelihood off of rent seeking when they themselves are in no way productive.  Inheriting the money Seuss himself made and then reinvesting it in productive ways, absolutely, simply seeking rent on creative endeavors they had no part in creating, no.

[Doktor Howl]

So shitty musicians could rip off his shit, instead of coming up with something new. 

Great plan.   

[Don Coyote]

A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who"  An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music.  Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this.  The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down.  These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.

Sorry but that just sounds selfish to me.  Yeah, it probably did sound neat to hear Seuss put to Dylan, but so what?  There are two artists in this scenario and ideally both should agree to the marrying of one creation to the other.  As it turns out, one of them is dead so whether or not that happens is decided by his heirs who get part of their living from the proceeds of his works.  If the Seuss gives up IP to all of the Seuss works, then it will be the wild west.  Nobody will need to buy the books anymore and their funds will dry up.

But, at least you get your novel MP3 of Dylan doing Green Eggs and Ham.  

Yep,  after Geisel's death his work should have become public domain IMO.  I'm really not in favor of people making their livelihood off of rent seeking when they themselves are in no way productive.  Inheriting the money Seuss himself made and then reinvesting it in productive ways, absolutely, simply seeking rent on creative endeavors they had no part in creating, no.

Ya um, no?
Let's play a little thought experiment. Let us compare IP to manufacturing machines. I publish a novel. I die. In my will I left ALL rights to that novel to my children. If I left it to them then it obvious I want them to do what ever they want with it, that includes making money off of MY IP. I would hope that my children would be creative enough in their own rights to come up with unique non-derivative works of their own, but whatever.
What does this have to do with my machine analogy? Instead of a novel, I made a unique machine than makes an unduplicatable unique product. I sell the product that this machine produces. I die and will it to my children to with as they see fit.
Or to be less weird, it is like I owned a small industrial plant and willed it to my children. I was the one who founded the company and did the majority of the real work, my children weren't even alive and could not be said to have had anything to do with it. Should they not be allowed to inherit my company?

[Doktor Howl]

A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who"  An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music.  Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this.  The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down.  These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.

Sorry but that just sounds selfish to me.  Yeah, it probably did sound neat to hear Seuss put to Dylan, but so what?  There are two artists in this scenario and ideally both should agree to the marrying of one creation to the other.  As it turns out, one of them is dead so whether or not that happens is decided by his heirs who get part of their living from the proceeds of his works.  If the Seuss gives up IP to all of the Seuss works, then it will be the wild west.  Nobody will need to buy the books anymore and their funds will dry up.

But, at least you get your novel MP3 of Dylan doing Green Eggs and Ham.  

Yep,  after Geisel's death his work should have become public domain IMO.  I'm really not in favor of people making their livelihood off of rent seeking when they themselves are in no way productive.  Inheriting the money Seuss himself made and then reinvesting it in productive ways, absolutely, simply seeking rent on creative endeavors they had no part in creating, no.

Ya um, no?
Let's play a little thought experiment. Let us compare IP to manufacturing machines. I publish a novel. I die. In my will I left ALL rights to that novel to my children. If I left it to them then it obvious I want them to do what ever they want with it, that includes making money off of MY IP. I would hope that my children would be creative enough in their own rights to come up with unique non-derivative works of their own, but whatever.
What does this have to do with my machine analogy? Instead of a novel, I made a unique machine than makes an unduplicatable unique product. I sell the product that this machine produces. I die and will it to my children to with as they see fit.
Or to be less weird, it is like I owned a small industrial plant and willed it to my children. I was the one who founded the company and did the majority of the real work, my children weren't even alive and could not be said to have had anything to do with it. Should they not be allowed to inherit my company?

Not if it means that we'll have to pay $0.79/song.

[Don Coyote]

A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who"  An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music.  Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this.  The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down.  These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.

Sorry but that just sounds selfish to me.  Yeah, it probably did sound neat to hear Seuss put to Dylan, but so what?  There are two artists in this scenario and ideally both should agree to the marrying of one creation to the other.  As it turns out, one of them is dead so whether or not that happens is decided by his heirs who get part of their living from the proceeds of his works.  If the Seuss gives up IP to all of the Seuss works, then it will be the wild west.  Nobody will need to buy the books anymore and their funds will dry up.

But, at least you get your novel MP3 of Dylan doing Green Eggs and Ham.  

Yep,  after Geisel's death his work should have become public domain IMO.  I'm really not in favor of people making their livelihood off of rent seeking when they themselves are in no way productive.  Inheriting the money Seuss himself made and then reinvesting it in productive ways, absolutely, simply seeking rent on creative endeavors they had no part in creating, no.

Ya um, no?
Let's play a little thought experiment. Let us compare IP to manufacturing machines. I publish a novel. I die. In my will I left ALL rights to that novel to my children. If I left it to them then it obvious I want them to do what ever they want with it, that includes making money off of MY IP. I would hope that my children would be creative enough in their own rights to come up with unique non-derivative works of their own, but whatever.
What does this have to do with my machine analogy? Instead of a novel, I made a unique machine than makes an unduplicatable unique product. I sell the product that this machine produces. I die and will it to my children to with as they see fit.
Or to be less weird, it is like I owned a small industrial plant and willed it to my children. I was the one who founded the company and did the majority of the real work, my children weren't even alive and could not be said to have had anything to do with it. Should they not be allowed to inherit my company?

Not if it means that we'll have to pay $0.79/song.

So totally right. Fuck the children. Let's have free music instead, and have free shit that claims to be music but is really just remixes of other music and Dr Suess and Lambchop.

[BabylonHoruv]

A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who"  An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music.  Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this.  The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down.  These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.

Sorry but that just sounds selfish to me.  Yeah, it probably did sound neat to hear Seuss put to Dylan, but so what?  There are two artists in this scenario and ideally both should agree to the marrying of one creation to the other.  As it turns out, one of them is dead so whether or not that happens is decided by his heirs who get part of their living from the proceeds of his works.  If the Seuss gives up IP to all of the Seuss works, then it will be the wild west.  Nobody will need to buy the books anymore and their funds will dry up.

But, at least you get your novel MP3 of Dylan doing Green Eggs and Ham.  

Yep,  after Geisel's death his work should have become public domain IMO.  I'm really not in favor of people making their livelihood off of rent seeking when they themselves are in no way productive.  Inheriting the money Seuss himself made and then reinvesting it in productive ways, absolutely, simply seeking rent on creative endeavors they had no part in creating, no.

Ya um, no?
Let's play a little thought experiment. Let us compare IP to manufacturing machines. I publish a novel. I die. In my will I left ALL rights to that novel to my children. If I left it to them then it obvious I want them to do what ever they want with it, that includes making money off of MY IP. I would hope that my children would be creative enough in their own rights to come up with unique non-derivative works of their own, but whatever.
What does this have to do with my machine analogy? Instead of a novel, I made a unique machine than makes an unduplicatable unique product. I sell the product that this machine produces. I die and will it to my children to with as they see fit.
Or to be less weird, it is like I owned a small industrial plant and willed it to my children. I was the one who founded the company and did the majority of the real work, my children weren't even alive and could not be said to have had anything to do with it. Should they not be allowed to inherit my company?

If you created a unique product you have the option of patenting it.  Which allows you to exclusively make money off of it for a limited amount of time.  After that time it enters the public domain.

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. 

[the last yatto]

Copyright law is a bad law.  

Yes, because the worker is not worth his wages, and personal property is for statists.

Example for writting we went from two year terms to seventy years after death
Books should be twenty years from published date and anything to do with dna should be kopy left ALONE

[Doktor Howl]

Copyright law is a bad law.  

Yes, because the worker is not worth his wages, and personal property is for statists.

Example for writting we went from two year terms to seventy years after death
Books should be twenty years from published date and anything to do with dna should be kopy left ALONE

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

[BadBeast]

Copyright law is a bad law.  

Yes, because the worker is not worth his wages, and personal property is for statists.

Bloody Libertarian!

[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.

[Doktor Howl]

So totally right. Fuck the children. Let's have free music instead, and have free shit that claims to be music but is really just remixes of other music and Dr Suess and Lambchop.

Why do you hate pretentious derivative shit creativity?

[BabylonHoruv]

Copyright law is a bad law.  

Yes, because the worker is not worth his wages, and personal property is for statists.

Example for writting we went from two year terms to seventy years after death
Books should be twenty years from published date and anything to do with dna should be kopy left ALONE

A book (or music or film, or whatever) should not have to be published to be copywritten.  Proof of creation just needs to be established.

And to Dok on DNA, the problem with patenting modified DNA is that if it spreads into someone else's crops, as has happened, that person become guilty of replicating patended material without the proper license.  Monsanto has successfully sued farmers of Canola over this.

[Don Coyote]

So totally right. Fuck the children. Let's have free music instead, and have free shit that claims to be music but is really just remixes of other music and Dr Suess and Lambchop.

Why do you hate pretentious derivative shit creativity?

I hate America.

[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)