If it is intellectual property, shouldn't it be taxed?

>the solution to government granted monopoly on things is to give government the ability to extort money from said things

when you are a statist, every problem is solved either by 'reform' or taxation

Reality is statist.

This.

/thread

>steals ur homework
>erases name
>puts own name on it
>gets an A
heh nothin personnel kid

taxation is theft
intellectual property can't exist

Then intellectual property shouldn't be protected. You cannot have both.

and it shouldn't, propriety exist because resources are usually limited, but ideias or ways to express it are potentially limitless.

If you want to live in my country you'll have to pay them, and frankly I don't care if it's theft or not, you can go start your own country where there's no taxes though, nobody is making you stay here

>>i should move myself from my residence to stop the robber

Attached: b90.png (645x729, 91K)

>your residence

What do you propose instead?

If you use property to make income you pay taxes on both the property and the income. You don't in the case of intellectual property.

You realize it costs several thousand dollars to file a patent right?

paying directly for what you want to use, and opening the market to avoid overpriced services

>my residence
Your private property only exists because the state says it does.
Anarchists do not share the same ethical values as most people.

And how you do police and roads?
If you didn't paid for the police, you're registered as a "non participant" and they don't chase criminals attacking you etc?

>people are honestly defending GDPR and article 13
i dont know whether to laugh, be angry or be disappointed.

Attached: 1523677136177.jpg (600x629, 28K)

>Taxation is theft.

So you expect the government to enforce your IP rights for free?

they already dont do that.

ideas are basically just different ways we can combine the various resources we have, if we have finite resources then we have finite ways to combine them too; therefore there are limited ideas

You can't adequately evaluate intellectual property, but as
Said, you pay tax on royalties instead

>roads
this is pretty simple, just need of a group of people with money in need of a road.
>police
could be this, but not necessarily the only way, after all they just need of enough money

GDPR is unironically a good thing though

Kys commie.

rationalization doesnt make it good.

what i mean is that property exist because resources are limited in the sense that if i have it you can't have it, and if i give it to you i lose it. but ideias, and ways to express it, can be shared without loses.

The hell it isn't! You take the time to create something, it's your property. But somehow I don't see you creating anything.

desu i agree with you. i'm not sure why i'm trying to defend ip

No. Taxation of wages and labor is theft.

But it is good. Explain why it isn't

so if i make a paper mache dildo that means that no one else can do the same, even though it took little to no effort?

how is it good then?

If you had your own country, your people would tise up and overthrow your ass and put you in front of a wall to be shot.

Less getting assfucked by natural monopolies and the ability to finally get ease of mind about that shitty website that you made an account on in your teenage years and that still got your data just waiting for a breach event.

>this is pretty simple, just need of a group of people with money in need of a road.
Real life property and infrastructure are not as simple as Bob and Joe shaking hands, contrary to what some autistic Jew in a bow tie might say. Government as a means of conflict resolution is inevitable, because otherwise, direct violence is unavoidable.
Anarcho-capitalism is unironically worse than communism.
Information isn't scarce like physical property, retard.

what about article 13?

Dirty foreigners don't get to steal and sell your personal data

society runs with contracts (shaking hands)
construction of road:
owner of the terrain

What is in Article 13?

It's a law proposal of the EU where the websites must remove any sort of copyrighted material or get fined.
But it's worded in a way that even links are considered copyright material, there's no fair use whatsoever and there should be some sort of global copyright database bullshit to the filters to work.
In practice is an unenforceable mess that will make companies simply block europe even harder than they are with the GDPR.

There shouldn't be any copyright.
Imagine someone discovering the cure for a disease that is killing humanity but he wants trillions, as money is gathered the whole humanity dies.

Legally speaking, a judge would just open an exception for that and break his patents.

>Legally
Anything can be done legally.
I was just saying it's wrong out of principle.

The whole idea of copyright and patents are to allow you to have a chance of competing by having a small monopoly over your thing for a very limited period of time.
But if the system is not doing that and just that, then it is failing at it's core principles and should ideally be reseted to a working state.

>for a very limited period of time
IT DOESN'T GUARANTEE THAT

Yep, and that's the problem.
The thing is not doing what it is supposed to do, which means it's time to scrap it for something that do what it was supposed to do.

Imagine a world without copyright, it would be more challenging, prices will drop, everyone would be free to produce with less bureaucracy.
Inventors would be pushed to produce and actually make their own business.

Or some huge company would just copy everyone and profit off it mercilessly.
Of course, if the copyright system was just about "getting a fair share", probably it would work like you say.
The fair share would be something that have as priority not blocking the release of a product, but not being unfair to the patent owner.

>Or some huge company would just copy everyone and profit off it mercilessly.
Prices would drop for sure also everyone would be free to produce and do it easier.

The prices would drop because megacorp co. have an army of machines and sellers you can't actually compete with.
They would open 10 stores selling what you're selling but for half the price.

>They would open 10 stores selling what you're selling but for half the price.
That's already happening, mom and pop shop got pushed out a long time ago.
It's not cause of copyright, they would do it anyway.
But no copyright means the average joe has access to more information and doesn't have to pay for xyz patents to start producing something.

Copyright as it is yes, it is just the thing that megacorp co. use to beat people with.
But on a fair copyright system as the one i proposed above, Average Joe would be able to produce his thing regardless of the whims of the patent owners with the only thing they can do is getting a share of his profits, and this door would swing the other way around, because if the average joe was unable to actually produce the product, the companies would have to pay him to use his thing but not at a point he would be able to block em like a scummy patent troll can do nowadays.

>But on a fair copyright system as the one i proposed above, Average Joe would be able to produce his thing regardless of the whims of the patent owners with the only thing they can do is getting a share of his profits, and this door would swing the other way around, because if the average joe was unable to actually produce the product, the companies would have to pay him to use his thing but not at a point he would be able to block em like a scummy patent troll can do nowadays.
Sounds like more bureaucracy.
A whole new system of accountability and law suits.
Ideas should be free, only products should cost.
I would say that producers should give patent owners a reward after 5 years of production of say 0.1%-0.05% of profits depending on the profits percentage, that reward could be share in the same company.

Intellectual property is also a totalitarian scheme, it's much worse than taxation.

That's quite simple and probably would work well enough.

property is theft

There's no such thing as intellectual property. Ideas can't be owned.

how can it be theft when you make it yourself

Just remove patents, they only create monopolies.

I know, they keep the little guy down.

>create an environment in which only large companies can afford to protect intellectual property
Ebin

>society runs with contracts
yes
> (shaking hands)
fuck no this is just delusional delusional and not viable
>owner of the terrain and creates inconsistency with the ideia of property (it's mine, but can be taken without my conscent)
this leads us to the question what is yours
how did you acquire it, realistically speaking you did not acquire it without the government providing services and other things all throughout your life.
i would fully agree with your assessment if you were to spent your life without taking part in government services but you did not thus you have to pay for them, if you don't want your children to be in that predicament as you clearly dislike it then buy an island or some such shit that is not under control of a government.

the labor is not the only thing you need to generate property, you have to have raw materials which most likely than not are owned by someone, this makes your act of producing property theft.

that's so far fetched

sure, but what if you got IP you do NOTHING with, just keep it locked behind 7 locks to sit there forever

Patent attorney here.

>If it is intellectual property, shouldn't it be taxed?
IPR can be registered or non-registered and you have not differentiated between these. Non-registered IPR includes trade secrets, know how, client lists and more. How do you tax without declaring your secrets?

Registered IPR includes things like patent, trademarks, designs (which in the US is called design patents) and more. Most countries already have annuity fees on these that increase over time to encourage rights not in use to be considered by the owners to let lapse.

>A tax on copyright similar to land property taxes.
Some of the most important export goods in the US are movies, games and porn (no, seriously) while much discussed stuff from the military industrial complex come way down on the list. These things are protected mainly by copyright. The US is highly unlikely to upset a system that really brings in the big money.

>That way abandoned software will lose its copyright status and can be shared freely and more easily reverse engineered (legally).
There is far too much money involved for this to happen in the foreseeable future.

>Information isn't scarce like physical property, retard.
The information on how to cure cancer is pretty scare I'd say. Now who is the one struggling here?

>Anarchists do not share the same ethical values as most people.
Where do anarchists live?

in retard land where anarchy is somehow self sustainable and human beings don't naturally fall into a social hierarchy

>Legally speaking, a judge would just open an exception for that and break his patents.
Compulsive licenses are handed down in India. I cannot remember the last time it happened in the West.

Correct. And intellectual property doesn't exist.

>The thing is not doing what it is supposed to do,
Citation needed.
>which means it's time to scrap it for something that do what it was supposed to do.
Such as what?

But if you're not, you're just blocking progress. For example oil companies buying the rights to electronic cars, just to keep their current business model running.

Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as “intellectual property”—a term also applied to patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about “copyright,” or about “patents,” or about “trademarks.”

The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical property.

When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be.

To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of “intellectual property” (gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html).

Attached: 1528020843672.jpg (301x285, 62K)

>Inventors would be pushed to produce and actually make their own business.
An electronics designer, as an example, can make the next big thing but is not necessarily skilled in turning the design into business. A patent allows him some time to put his invention to practice or sell it.

>Prices would drop for sure also everyone would be free to produce and do it easier.
Those making copies will not have to bear the burden of developing the technology. An existing megacorp will also have the infrastructure like supply lines, sales offices, the legal framework and more in place. The one who would be disadvantaged would be exactly the one who put in the effort to create something new. Your idea will fail.

>you have to have raw materials
What raw materials are required for streamed music??

>gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
Let's have a look:
>The bias is reason enough to reject the term, and people have often asked me to propose some other name for the overall category—or have proposed their own alternatives (often humorous). Suggestions include IMPs, for Imposed Monopoly Privileges, and GOLEMs, for Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies. Some speak of “exclusive rights regimes”, but referring to restrictions as “rights” is doublethink too.

OK so "solving" the "problem" by, well, giving it a new name is the solution? That is so totally RMS.

I think it would if the judge himself was on the direct line of fire.
And he would do it to keep the order, as either lynching or the army would be the next steps.

Some options were offered in that discussion, but it boils down to turning the copyright system into something that can't block you from making or profiting from a patent you don't own, but still having to give some fair amount of money for the owner.

>I would say that producers should give patent owners a reward after 5 years of production of say 0.1%-0.05% of profits depending on the profits percentage, that reward could be share in the same company.
OK, that should kill off the pharma industry in no time. Even the full 20 year duration makes it hard to recoup the cost of development and also cover the costs of the projects that were terminated before reaching the market.

I wonder how many in here have actually been involved in multi year research and development projects. Hint: breakthroughs do not happen as in your average Star Trek episode.

It's the same principle why "piracy" should be rejected; it makes people think it's a serious crime like robbery and murder instead of just copy pasting.

Just look how they brainwash people into thinking copying is equal to theft. Mental cleansing is good.

>can't block you from making or profiting from a patent you don't own, but still having to give some fair amount of money for the owner
First off "fair amount" is pretty vague. Secondly we ALREADY have "compulsive licenses" which tend to be pretty badly paid. This is even covered by TRIPS but also national laws around the world.

>Mental cleansing is good.
Might feel good but is ineffective. The US economy is dependent on IPR (movies, games, pharma, semiconductor industry and other high tech) so any attack on this is seen as going for the US jugular. Cheap symbology does not come into it.

a computer/phone + an internet connection

>take time to create something
>forbid other people from creating it even if they re-invented it

>An existing megacorp will also have the infrastructure like supply lines, sales offices,
It already has.
Electronics designer should think more about the practical stuff and launch it as a product so he directly competes with the megacorp and not spoon feeds it with inventions.
Compete or stfu.

The market will adjust for the better if we get rid of IP. Less monopolies.

>Even the full 20 year duration makes it hard to recoup the cost of development and also cover the costs of the projects that were terminated before reaching the market.
That's BS, big pharma is on of the most successful industries .

*one