Intellectual Property IS VALID

>American English teacher teaching in Japan is troubled by correct and concise English use.

Attached: xerxes.jpg (279x181, 11K)

>attacks the work mostly done by Whites
>thinks he's fighting the system
This. Those attacking IP are cucks who, not satisfied with open borders in a welfare state, want to give up even more property.

Kinsella and Jordan Peterson are both anti-White.

Attached: pinichetHeli.jpg (125x125, 3K)

kek

i dont care i pirate all day every day just so you mutts and ur jewish masters cant benefit from me consuming ur media

>pirating Jew media
It's one thing to not respect those who don't respect you, but pirating Hollywood is different from pirating AutoCAD software- which is developed by Asians and Whites.

What if I'm a poor student and wouldn't be buying your stuff anyway if I hadn't """""stolen""""" it? How does that impair your ability to make a profit? If it's software related to my field, I could even be enhancing your ability to sell it, if I'm learning it and will be wanting my future boss to let me use a legit copy?

Autocad is Autodesk, which bought all the other companies, just like Adobe. They can shove their constantly rising bar of standards up their excessively inflated assholes

>What if I'm a poor student and wouldn't be buying your stuff anyway if I hadn't """""stolen""""" it?

Such argument can be applied to stealing and returning a hammer during its owner's sleep.
While you don't impair their ability to use it, we treat such as illegal with physical property.

That said, while I don't see the harm in such, I don't prescribe to the IP's owner how they treat such actions of others- that is their right to decide.
And me in this position, I'd have little problem with such- but I would fight those who believe they can prescribe how I deal with such situations.

>They can shove their constantly rising bar of standards up their excessively inflated assholes.
Explain.

>even if I did not steal it
While you don't impair his ability to sell the software, you're creating work from his software that decreases the demand for the work- and thus for his software.

There is nothing intellectual about porn, movies, video games, or pop music.

>Property is that which exists because of a person's work.
Let's see
>new movie comes out
>theatre plays it from reel
>someone pays for a ticket, takes a camcorder
>camcorder converts these unique images of the theatre into a file
>file gets transferred to some server or p2p infrastructure
>I download these ones and zeroes through third party infrastructure onto a harddrive I paid for myself
>suddenly the bytes on my disk being oriented a certain way means mister Goldblad can sue me
Where is the 'property' here exactly? It makes no sense.

>There is nothing intellectual about porn, movies, video games, or pop music.
You misuse the world 'intellectual.'
It doesn't mean "of high intelect," but rather "of the mind."
Pic related is a lady who "has an intellectual understanding of why she does it." (quote, by Sasha, is inexact, but close).

Attached: 1509612887102-pol.jpg (670x409, 30K)

>IP is not property once it's been laundered.
The drug dealer's defense.

>IP is mine since I work to get it.
Stealing a hammer, I worked to get it. Still does not mean its mine.

>Stealing a hammer
More like vaguely sketching someones' hammer, then making something similar on your own milling machine.

>hammer
What I'm saying is that taking the hammer from a truck is work one invests in order to make it useful to them- but the hammer still is not the thieve's property.

seems like a matter of time before human "cloning" becomes publicly accessed

>When you steal IP, impaired is its originator's ability to profit from it.

Bulllshit. Denying profit isn't stealing.
Acquiring the information for yourself and no longer needing to purchase its acquisition doesn't count as any sort of theft, as long as it wasn't acquired through espionage.

IP only has value to the creator until it is sold to the first client.
That client has every right to do whatever they want with that information, which includes sharing it with fucking everyone, selling it to others who might share it themselves or whatever else.

Your involvement, as content creator, ends at the first sale and that's it.
Everything else is baseless.

>Denying profit isn't stealing.
Denying profit is the (typical) reason an IP originator would deny its unauthorized use.
IP originators determine how their property is used.

Fuck off JIDF

You only deny continuous profit through copying it, not the original profit for which it was sold.

>you write a story
>you sell me the story for $5
>I read the story
>I then write it down myself and pass it around for free

I didn't deny you your profit.
I denied you making a profit from selling the story again and I did it indirectly.
Your profit was $5.

I didn't do anything wrong because I already paid you $5 for that story.
I also own that story and I can do whatever I want with my own property.

Intellectual property rights would be infringing on my own property.

Why do ancaps axiomatically assume that theft can only be of tangible goods?

>I didn't do anything wrong because I already paid you $5 for that story.
The originator sells you the ability to use IP in a certain way. Disagreeing to this, the IP originator will not sell you the property.

You cant own something that isnt physical.
If you arent making something tangable it isnt work, even if it is nice.
Go get a trade job and do some real work, and keep art or philosophy to your hobbies.

>Why do ancaps axiomatically assume that theft can only be of tangible goods?

Mises.org, and its contributors, are commies purporting to be freedom lovers.

They drop context of what property is- substituting one characteristic (property can be physical), and then defining property as such.

All of Kinsella's arguments against IP can be equally applied against Physical Property.

>thinking is not work
>only manual labor jobs are real work

Information cannot be considered property as it has no physical form.
It's like trying to sell the color red, or the concept of the moon.

As such, it holds no value beyond what was paid to acquire.

>property must be physical
Property is that which enables a man to further h is life. Physicality is only the most common characteristic of past property.

>can't monopolize colors
Sense data is not the work of a man, and therefore not property.

>you can't own something that isn't physical
Why? This isn't an axiom.

Ancaps are gay and so are you.
IP is an idea pushed by people that want to profit off of normal human interaction, knowledge, and communication.

>Why do ancaps axiomatically assume that theft can only be of tangible goods?
First they came for my factory.
Next they came for my mental output.
Next they came for my thoughts (racism, discrimination).

IP is an idea pushed by people who want to protect their original ideas from being stolen and copied.

>IP is an idea pushed by people that want to profit off of normal human interaction, knowledge, and communication.
This is meanngless.

>profit off of interaction
Only interaction that involves theft.

>knowledge
Knowledge, existing only through a person's work, is property.

Playing video games is also "work."
If you think you should make money off of it instead of do it because you enjoy it then you have to go back to israel.
Be productive or dont eat.

>Property is that which enables a man to further h is life.
Bullshit, property is what a man owns.
Information cannot be owned.

As evidence, laws against distributing information cannot be enforced without infringing upon a person which has not infringed upon anyone themselves.

Enforcing intellectual property rights is the very definition of unfair.

>Sense data is not the work of a man, and therefore not property.
Say that again, but slowly.

The common ancap use their ideology to rationalize themselves as morally pure.
Just as the common libertarian chases the effect (no societal derision) instead of the cause (respecting personal autonomy), ancaps are starting to do the same.

Yeah man fuck those dumb ass scientists and computer programmers lmao fucking unproductive little shits

>playing video games
What wealth is created by such?

>thinking is not productive
t. ancap

>As evidence, laws against distributing information cannot be enforced without infringing upon a person which has not infringed upon anyone themselves.
Just because a thief hides his loot in his bag does not mean the loot's owner is disallowed from retrieving it.

>Bullshit, property is what a man owns.
>Information cannot be owned.

Begging the question, the post.

If you dont want people to make copies of your "work" then dont do it in the first place, or dont share it with anyone.
You are just claiming that your "work" is more valuable than someones agency arbitrarily.

>steals hammer
>hides hammer in house
*hammer's owner break in house to retrieve hammer*
>somehow this is disallowed

>information cannot be owned
Well, it literally is.
If it wasn't, we'd be in total meltdown because every computer program would be open source and thus we'd all be paying hackers to remove WannaCry off of our computers.

>protect your property
>by having none

Im not an ancap fag, im a fascist and if you dont like what i do then you can stay away from me or be subjugated by me.

>to protect your property, you must keep it in a vault
"she wore a short skirt"

>WTH with people attacking computer programmers ability to fund themselves
Agreed. Not sure if they understand the effect of such. Hello root kits.
>stealing from society's smartest will turn out well

It is, to an extent. However, I would be content with a hard limit, like 5-10yrs, after which anyone can use the idea. Make your money, then give it up to non-exclusive mass-production so everyone can benefit. Win win.

No fag, to protect your property you must have the monoply of force and the ability to impose your will.
If you think you can stop me from distributing media or ideas then come do it.

lmao dumb leaf. in the age of american enlightment i was around 20 years for an IP, not 100something thanks to the Disney-jew. this is FACTUALLY anti-progressive and even hinders the artist to be creative and stagnates the WHOLE creative process.

how can you not see that, leaf?

Attached: 1488485900802.jpg (214x212, 9K)

>American flag
>I'm a fascist
Lmao bud your people don't know what fascism is. I've never met a genuine natsoc from the states in my life, and your autistic lambasting about how only physical work is productive only proves that Americans do not know the first thing about fascism.

Personally, I'm not arguing for century-old IP enforcement laws. I'm speaking from principle in saying that (some) IP laws should exist.

Ill say or make copies of whatever i want. If you want an accreditation on my copies that i "worked" to make, then ill be happy to oblige.
I also want credit for making all the copies i wanted at the only cost of my time and materials.

>time limit
I agree, but not for the 'maximization of utility' argument.
My reason for a time limit is that IP is property so long as it would only exist because of its originator. But as time passes, increased is the liklihood of independent discovery.

>it's not theft if I can protect my theft
Whew lad.

>IP is bad
>because it hinders people's ability to profit from another's work

Yes at the current state it is. 20 years max, not 150 you mouse apologist

"While to the Nazi the communist, and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits who are made of the right timber, although they have listened to false prophets, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom."
-Hayek

Attached: sneaky.jpg (1282x797, 84K)

>I cleaned your tools
>therefore they're mine

>Just because a thief hides his loot in his bag does not mean the loot's owner is disallowed from retrieving it.
The thief infringed upon the owner.
You're not allowed to break into my house to retrieve something that I bought from you.
>dictionary.com/browse/property?s=t
There is literally nothing missing.
>Well, it literally is.
Only legally and unfairly enforced by law.
That law shouldn't exist.
>thus we'd all be paying hackers to remove WannaCry off of our computers.
I know! Can you even imagine the economic benefits of that?
But seriously, viruses cause damage and therefore would still be illegal.
Also open source anti-viruses already exist, what's the problem?

>time limit
This must be determined on a case-by-case basis, determined by the liklihood of independent discovery.

>a communist is a potential recruit for a Nazi

Attached: Night_of_Long_Knives_2.jpg (407x326, 60K)

>theft must look like X
>otherwise, not theft
Theft is not defined by what common theft is.

>direct appeal to authority
>dropping context

>I have the right to steal computer programs
>and to demand that said computer programs are safe for me to use

They have common intellectual roots, is what Hayek is saying.

>Theft is not defined by what common theft is.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft

>declaring a dictionary link as an appeal to authority
Are you retarded?

But seriously, viruses cause damage and therefore would still be illegal.
Pic related
Viruses are still illegal, yet people get them. There would be no economic benefits from having everyone's computers be filled with rootkits. And if you meme about the hackers becoming richer, well, then the only thing I have to say to you is you're a fucking retard
Open source anti-viruses didn't help against WannaCry. The only reason Microsoft was able to shut down WannaCry's capability was because it was closed-source and thus the hackers could not understand what they needed to do to crack the code.

Attached: Its-illegal-to-be-a-criminal-in-Sweden-550x340.png (550x340, 149K)

by that logic, the Communist and the Capitalist do too, as they are both equally Jewish

I don't try to hide my theft behind some excuse of idealism. The licensing fee for those types of software is outrageous, and it's available for free if you know how people that will bootleg it for you. Seems like an obvious choice.

Here's an attempt to justify for the sake of conversation. The idea behind the product isn't useful to me, but the service is. You want to make more money than someone else, you can do what everyone else has to do: be better. Your rights are only things you can get away with. You can try to get away with using force to protect something, but people will use force to protect their own rights. Somewhere in the middle is a reasonable agreement, maybe.

>There would be no economic benefits
It was a joke, you toothless killjoy, calm down.

And wait, what exactly was closed-source?

I believe in physical determinism.
Hows that for freedom?
Guess what? I "stole" that idea from someone else.
Too bad they cant surcharge me every time i talk about it.

If you think you are entitled to be payed for "work" you did once over and over without ever having an agreement to be payed in the first place, you deserve the darwin award.

Jewish is a property of its followers, not an aspect of the ideology.

>>declaring a dictionary link as an appeal to authority
You're also context dropping.

Read the fucking history of the light bulb. Stealing INtellectual POroperty is about the only way to actually make money off it.

No, its more like I drew a design for these tools... Hey you cant make those tools with your own materials because i said so.

Microsoft's products are obviously not open source. Therefore, when they patch WannaCry's capabilities to shut down your computer's functionality, WannaCry's hackers cannot look at the sourcecode and see what Microsoft did, so they can reverse engineer that in their favour.

>I have a right to set the price (licencing fees) for which a person must sell X to me.

>The idea behind the product isn't useful to me, but the service is.
The service stems from the idea.

>demands software sellers don't include viruses in stolen software

>case-by-case
this doesn't make any sense, especially if the artist dies. 100+ years is way to much for any IP and just gives greedy capitalists a reason to milk an IP.

IF YOU SHILL FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY YOU ARE A KIKE SLAVE AND WILL BE TREATED AS SUCH ON TDOTR

Calm down, Cletus, you're too fat to hang anyone

Attached: 1537625561908.png (2000x2000, 469K)

>nature oppresses me
I thought this was only a meme.

>theft is allowed since I never agreed, with the property owner, to not steal

Rights are only what you can get away with.

>100% inheritance tax is fine
>since its earner dies

>Microsoft's products are obviously not open source.
>WannaCry's hackers cannot look at the sourcecode
But they're fucking hackers!
How exactly could they not look at the fucking source code?
Could they not afford a copy of Windows 10 for themselves?

Also nobody said you have to publish your source code.
I just said that if somebody buys your product and then copies it, distributing that copy should not be a crime.
It's up to you if you want to make your product impossible to copy, or unable to function if copied.

>if I kill you
>then I can take your stuff
>legally

>Rights are only what you can get away with.
The most honest comment in this thread.

>be leaf
>be faggot
>begone

>Could they not afford a copy of Windows 10 for themselves?
Playing retarded to troll stopped being funny in 2008.

>hacks into your computer
>ruins it
"i was not infringing on your property, bro"

>gets btfo'd
>comes back an hour later to defend his Jap honor
Day of the third bomb when?

There's nothing wrong with the context, copying something is simply not stealing.