Skip to content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Add
About | Wiki | Legacy

"Intellectual Property" a Violation of Real Property

Unless you really want to believe in something you know is a lie you probably wont be inclined to believe people who express inconsistent ideas.

Free Software or Open Source Software have been typically attacked by people who do appear to believe quite strongly in property ownership. If you create something, they would argue, then you are entitled to control it. How else are you gonna get compensated for it?

I of course agree to this extent, but I don't quite agree with the typical progression of this argument which sees the fact that most Free Software is given away or distributed under terms which allow free copying and sharing to be an affront to this right to compensation.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that the software developer still gets to choose whether to distribute under those terms (something (s)he'd be able to do to a large extent even if copyright was abolished today), this argument fails to take into account the fundamental nature of software which excludes it from the possibility of being owned, unless you consider a program as one with the medium.

Software cannot exist on its own. It always needs a medium. Software are simply arrangements of ones and zeros represented one way or another by physical properties of a medium such as micro or nanoscopic dents in a compact disk. If you consider software as distinct from the storage media or memory in which it remains you're essentially using one medium, your brain, to conceptualize the arrangements within another. Without either the brain or the other mediums the software could not exist to begin with. How do you own something that doesn't really exist?

This leads us to an interesting point: pretending that ownership of software is possible and thus trying to enforce this ownership (as copyright and patent laws do) actually leads us to violations of actual physical property. If you claim that every arrangement of ones and zeros represented in any medium so long as it is the same arrangement as on your original medium (which you produced) is your own property then you're essentially claiming ownership of these media.

To simplify, if you claim to own a program you're actually claiming to fully or partially own the CDs, DVDs, hard drives of all the people who may have a copy of that program on them. Yet if these people acquired these storage mediums and devices themselves they already are their rightful owners. So in essence you are claiming ownership over something that isn't yours.

Software patents, and all patents for that matter, in that sense actually claim ownership of parts of your brain should you have "their" idea in your mind and use it. This doesn't make any sense. The only way anyone can have any claim over what you do with your property is if you directly agreed with that someone to use your property in such a way, but this isn't how copyright works nor what advocates of proprietary software have in mind.

Instead they assume that even people who never had any sort of an agreement with the actual developer are still bound by the terms of that (non-)agreement. If a person who got the copy from a developer gives it to someone else then that someone else can only have an agreement with that person, not with the developer. If that person broke the agreement not to copy, for instance, then that person alone should be liable for damages, not the one he gave a copy to. Yet copyright enforcement will assume legal prosecution of not only the other person, but everyone else who may have got a copy from him.

This is because copyright doesn't operate on agreements at all (despite how licenses are titled as "agreements"). Instead copyright licenses are merely government enforced monopolies granted to the "copyright holder" that overrides property rights of anyone whom may get the copy of the copyrighted work. Thus this form of "intellectual property" (or pretension of such) is actually a form of institutionalized property violations.

Advocates of proprietary software or even just advocates of copyright or "intellectual property" in general may find this idea unacceptable, but I would venture to guess pretty confidently that they're among those who'd rather believe a lie than be consistent (as mentioned at the beginning of the article). They're concerned for the money or some kind of power they've been able to derive from these monopoly grants.

Proprietary software advocates would probably be most concerned with money whereas ironically Free Software advocates, especially those who promote GNU General Public License (GPL), would be concerned with power.

Money

With regards to money the concern comes from the inability to imagine how could a software developer get paid to develop it. There have been many answers to this question by many Free Software advocates. To reiterate, most of the money is actually in custom coding anyway, as Richard Stallman would usually say, where you get paid to write something specific for someone specific rather than writing it in hopes of it being valuable enough for someone to pay you for it.

But in the latter case, what you can charge for is the first copy. It is after all only the copies on the mediums that you own that you can truly call your own. Thus the price of a first copy, if you value the software thus much and if you believe people are willing to pay, should be higher than it typically is. Don't count on volume sales, but rather on recouping the basic costs with the direct sales to the first few customers. If you want to make a fortune in a software business then, you better count on providing continuous value in addition to the software in form of related services (subscriptions).

Power

Free Software advocates typically rallying behind the GPL are concerned with power, albeit their intentions tend to be benevolent. They just never really came to grasp the fact that they're still operating on a paradigm that they'd otherwise be inclined to reject, which is the paradigm that ownership of ideas and for that matter software is possible. Thus they see it as ethical to fight proprietary software by simply establishing different kinds of monopolies.

GPL is still not fundamentally different from any other proprietary software license (EULAs as they're typically called) in that they are not so much agreements as much as monopoly grants by government under the copyright law operating under the "software can be owned" assumption.

Outside of this paradigm however, if I get emacs from somewhere other than Richard Stallman's GNU.org or FSF.org I actually shouldn't be bound to the terms of his GNU GPL, but rather to whichever terms the one I got it from chooses to set. If he fails to include the license then no terms apply. Of course, he would be in violation of the GPL as an agreement. The difference here is that I wouldn't be liable if I gave it to someone under terms other than GPL, because it wasn't me who had an agreement with Richard Stallman. Thus the leak is out and the only one to blame is the direct recipient from any of the Stallman's own mediums (such as GNU.org).

That's how it would work without the software-ownership paradigm and thus without copyright. Two practical results from this would not be far different from what they already are however. Software would still be all over file sharing sites, except it would be legal and ethically legitimate (as it already is). However what would be different are the contractually agreed to fines for the original-copy-receivers (since they are the only ones who were in the direct author-user agreement they're the only ones liable for these agreement-violating leaks). They would probably go quite high in order to disincentivize them from leaking their copies.

This would however have a side-effect of less people purchasing software under draconian and anti-sharing terms to begin with resulting in the flourishing of the Free Software industry, based on reasonable and unrestrictive user-author agreements and the ongoing value-adding service business model.

Conclusion:

Intellectual property is a lie, thus its enforcement by means of the copyright law is nothing more than institutionalized violation of real property rights by means of granting government enforced monopolies to authors. They are given the power to dictate how individuals who never entered any agreements with them and instead got it from someone else will use their own property (hard drives, DVD players and burners etc.).

Without this enforced violation of property restrictive software distribution agreements would be economically unsustainable paving the way for Free Software/Open Source to flourish to a far larger extent than it does today, increasing the overall value proposition of each software user and thus leaving far more software spending power for the service subscription business model as a way for software developers to make a living.
Intellectual property theft is still a serious threat, but it can be fought with knowledge. Perhaps one of the best ways to avoid intellectual property theft altogether is to study up on the issue by obtaining a Bachelor of Science in Cybersecurity and information. Pursuing this degree online makes it easy to balance classes with just about any work schedule. Technology is showing no signs of slowing down, which means that intellectual property threats will always be present. Whether the goal is to be at an advantage when faced with future threats or just to obtain a career in the IT field, the degree is a valuable tool.

Follow up: Implications of rejecting "intellectual property".

Comments

Re: The GPL is NOT a EULA

I R A Darth Aggie wrote:

GPL is still not fundamentally different from any other proprietary software license

Yes it is. Dramatically different, as it is a distribution license. It most assuredly is not a EULA, as I don't have to accept the GPL in order to download, run the program, or even study the code.

Are you saying you're not bound by it, that you can copy it to someone else under different terms? I don't think you do. The difference you're pointing at are merely differences in terms. They both rely on the copyright law to grant the author a privilege to dictate how people should use the media within which they have it stored, regardless of whether they received a copy from the author or someone else.

Anonymous wrote:

I don't really agree with the second argument, if i buy a chair, the company i bought it from owns the rights to the chair, but i still own the chair. i can't legally produce copies of it, but i own the wood, i could make a table or burn it, i would own the results, i am also free to sell the chair on.

What the hell? You can't legally produce copies of it? So you can't make an exact same chair out of your own property? Well then, that just illustrates my point. This supposed "ownership" of an idea that represents that chair the way it is overrides your own real property rights. Yet real property exists in reality by themselves while ideas do not and cannot exist without a medium (brain, storage media or even if you will, a representation in form of a chair).

You can't own a number. You thus cannot own a design or an arrangement or an algorithm. You can only own a physical representation of them or a medium on which they're stored as information.

I'm basically just rephrasing the whole point of my article which it seems is so easily (and perhaps willfully?) ignored.

Anonymous wrote:

a program on cd is the same, i own the cd, i presumably don't have the right to copy and sell cds (as in the physical medium),and i don't have the right to sell copies of the program, but i can do anything i want it, it is mine, i can sell it on if i want (depending on the EULA, but thats a different disscussion).

You don't seem to understand ownership at all. The fundamental part of ownership is exclusive control. This means that if you own something no adherence to the terms of another applies. Exclusivity means only you can decide what you will do with it. You saying how you own that CD yet what you can do with it depends on the EULA is a contradiction.

Anonymous wrote:

All patents are based on ideas, Edison doesn't own your electricity, filaments and glass, just the idea of combining them into the light bulb.

Can you show me that idea? I mean, show IT to me, not the light bulb or a piece of paper or a brain. Show me the idea. Where is it? If you can't show me then tell me how exactly does it exist to begin with?

You too seem to be missing the basic point from the article. Ideas don't exist by themselves. They always require a medium.

Anonymous wrote:

Also you seem to be mixing copyright and patents, unless you are advocating removing all protections for a creator of something, which goes much further than just software.

Both copyright and patents rely on the same paradigm I was talking about, which is that "intellectual property" (ownership of ideas, information, arrangements and thus software) is possible. On that level there is no difference between them. They just apply to different forms. I was talking about software specifically as one example so I could focus on the consequences of this paradigm in the software world.

I don't wish to remove protections of a creator of something. I wish to stop violations of property ownership that actually is valid and possible in the real world. Protections you're talking about are no protections at all. They're overreaching powers instead.

Without these powers you can still come up with a new program and charge money to copy it to others. You can still have contracts with people where they agree not to copy and to pay a fine to you if they break this agreement. But these agreements must be between you and them directly. You can't pretend that you can slap a "license" with every copy of program and that it will now suddenly bind every single person who ever receives it even if not from you.

See the last part of my article about what the software industry could look like if we didn't insist on this flawed notion of intellectual property. A service model in combination with Free Open Source Software would probably be booming. After all, if you can't support the users of your program why the hell did you release it to begin with. Nobody forced you to do that. If you want to make money you have to create value consistently, not one-off.

gus3 wrote:

@ #2 Pat:

You are totally uncalibrated.

First, the GPL forces nobody to be like anybody else. Are you so coerced? By your own admission, no.

Second, a patent gives nobody control over something I possess. Where someone may have a patent on a particular circuit breaker design, if I go to the store and buy one of those breakers, there is absolutely no control on the part of the patent holder over how I use that breaker. I may use it conventionally in my house's breaker box, or I may put it into my Nefarious World Domination Contraption(tm), or I may build it into a mechanism that flips it back and forth at 1Hz, or I may take it apart and study it. The patent holder would have no case against me for doing any of those things; neither would the patent holder be liable for any unreasonable mis-use to which I put the circuit breaker.

The only thing the patent does is grant a temporary monopoly to the holder, as compensation for the work that went into the patented subject. Once that monopoly expires, the public owns the patent, and can build more of the subject to our heart's content.

Yes yes, that is so in the little scheme of things that the current legal system establishes. I question that scheme of things because the paradigm on which it operates assumes things that are not real (as explained in the article).

One advice people. Snap out of this dependence on your particular legal systems! Unless you believe that everything that is called a "law" automatically represents reality as it absolutely is then law can very much be based on very flawed assumptions.

Think outside of the box. Think about what IS not what is said to be by a bunch of politicians and legislators.

I say this because I find detailed descriptions of how your particular country's legal system deals with ideas and software to be next to useless. I don't argue from the perspective of the law so you wont find any arguments from me if you say "the law prescribes this or that". I know it does, but the law isn't always right, so what then? Then you look at reality. Then you ask more fundamental questions. Then you do philosophy.

 

As for the main idea of the article that copyright actually violates actual property, I find it arguable. It might be true, but not in all cases.

Before I begin, please note I do not think anyone can own ideas or even software - philosophically ownership of ideas is nonsense. I wrote an article about it, it could be interesting to you and might also help to understand my further argument: Why intellectual property is such a confusing concept

Let's walk through the software/media situation you speak about in your article.

A person claims that he is an owner of software. There are two ways the software can relate to the media.
1. The media cannot work without the software.
2. The media is just a carrier of the software and the device can work without this software.

The first case is where your argument seems to be valid. For instance, drivers. I bought a soundcard. Without special proprietary software - drivers - it won't work. By claiming ownership of drivers, the company basically says that it owns the soundcard, although I bought it and the physical object itself is my property.

However, note that in this case they do not really claim the ownership of the physical device itself. I can run it over with a car or give it to my friend or sell it. What the company claims the ownership to is the functionality.

One might say that when you are buying a soundcard, you are buying not just a physical object, but its functionality too. However, all of this becomes very airy. As soon as something is dependent on software, all of it becomes very ideal. Strictly speaking, when you are buying a soundcard, you know that it won't work without drivers and thus agree to the terms - I agree to buy this card and suffer from the fact that the company owns the drivers for it so I am forever dependent on them providing those drivers. Usually, you have no choice. And this is the agreement.

Theoretically, you can write your own drivers. That way the link to the company will be gone.

So in this case I can tell you the violation of the physical property is not full. The ownership of software leads to ownership of functionality, that is HOW you use your property. It is part of the definition of property - your property is something you can use in any way you want. So a small part of your rights are violated, but it is a rather small part I must tell you. Of course, in real life we understand that owning a soundcard and not being able to use it makes it useless.

In the second case, when we are speaking about a mere carrier and I do not think owning software means owning the carrier.

Copyright restricts your actions. It restricts your freedom. It rarely restricts your property. It restricts what you can do.

I liked your take on licenses, that, strictly speaking, agreements should be between people, not between someone you never met. HOWEVER - the person who made the original agreement (and EULA is an agreement, you are free to disagree to it) is bound to it so when he gives it to you and fails to mention the conditions under which he is bound to distribute it, he has broken it anyway. You haven't - and I liked you pointing out that, this is a fresh thought - and yes, the current law forces you into the agreement. But who knows - your argument might work in court in a specific case.

About the GPL.
Yep, the GPL is no different from EULAs in that it considers you can own software. But it does so only because the FSF set out to defend the freedom by working within the current law. So they said - we do not believe software can or should have owners, but because the law states that there are software owners, we will use that law to our advantage.

As to the person who commented on RMS here.
Whenever proprietary developers speak about GPL forcing them to be like RMS or whatever, they forget that nobody is forced to release under GPL. Then they say - but if I want to use GPL code in my soft, they FORCE me to release under GPL. Well, excuse me, if I want to use their proprietary code, they would just tell me to go ***k myself. They won't even show it to me. So nobody forces them to use GPLed code. They don't want to be forced into GPL, then don't use GPL code. I find the GPL forcing them to be silly and a double standard.

Louigi Verona, I think you might be missing a crucial thread in my argument. I'm not talking only about the situations in which a particular piece of property would be useless without software. I'm talking about being denied the right to use your property in any way you wish to begin with. This is why it does apply in the second case as well with carriers.

If a "copyright holder" says that bits stored on that CD must not be copied to anyone else or imposes any other terms as to what you can do with "them" he essentially IS telling you to some extent what you can or can't do with your own CD which contradicts the notion of property as exclusive control (that is, you being the only one deciding what to do with it).

The case of hardware that requires drivers is only a different way in which this violation of property may occur, but the ironic thing is that from this perspective there's less problem with that given that most people typically get that piece of hardware and the driver directly from the company so according to the argument that the agreement must be between you and the author it is not an ethically problematic situation.

This is why, before anyone asks, I am not necessarily advocating "piracy", at least not if you actually bought the "original". If you bought the original you are quite liable. You wouldn't be liable if you got it from a torrent site.

That said, I've read your article and I think it's good in so far as it represents a fairly widespread understanding of property as a concept that comes out of scarcity. I also like that you regardless recognize that it is something natural, that is, arising directly from the natural world rather than just a "nice idea" we arbitrarily agreed to follow. But I have a somewhat different theory of where property comes from and I also have a little different take on scarcity. Property is something I've really thought a lot about.

I recently wrote an article about it here. It's framed as a critique of typical libertarian and anarcho-capitalist defenses of property and a proposal of ways to strengthen their arguments. But even if you're not any kind of libertarian you might find the ideas on property ownership interesting. If you wish we can also discuss it live sometime on our IRC channel at irc.freenode.net #libervis .

Cheers Smiling

 

Yep, sure. I'll read your article now and maybe we can catch up online.

Shortly - I understand what you mean about the CD thing. In fact, I think you are right. I did not consider the fact that software is actually quite physical, strictly speaking - it is burnt on a cd literally, so the cd as a physical object is there with the software, indeed. Same with books, actually, perhaps a more obvious example is we are more used to books.

To get more basic, as I've said in my article - there is no such thing as intellectual property. So you can own your software, but no way you can own a copy of it, since it is a different object.

I can go to IRC, but do you have an ICQ of GMail? Not very used to irc.

Louigi Verona wrote:

To get more basic, as I've said in my article - there is no such thing as intellectual property. So you can own your software, but no way you can own a copy of it, since it is a different object.

Yes, it can be said that it can be owned if you think of it as one with the medium. I was operating from that semantical perspective when I wrote "Ideas can be owned" sometime earlier. I later realized that was complicating it too much. Perhaps the Occams Razor would apply. A simpler way to state the truth was to ask about the nature of ideas specifically and distinctively from the medium and see if it can be owned in which case the answer is clear. Another benefit of that is that this is how most people try to think of ideas, as distinct.

If ownership of the idea cannot happen without the ownership of a medium which it is essentially a part of then it's not the ownership of an idea we're talking about so much as the medium.

Louigi Verona wrote:

I can go to IRC, but do you have an ICQ of GMail? Not very used to irc.

I do have ICQ; 221298635.

Cheers

Re: "Intellectual Property" a Violation of Real Property

 

Anonymous wrote:

Quote:

I don't really agree with the second argument, if i buy a chair, the company i bought it from owns the rights to the chair, but i still own the chair. i can't legally produce copies of it, but i own the wood, i could make a table or burn it, i would own the results, i am also free to sell the chair on.

What the hell? You can't legally produce copies of it?

i was referring to producing copies to sell on, my apologies that i didn't make that clear.

Quote:

You don't seem to understand ownership at all. The fundamental part of ownership is exclusive control. This means that if you own something no adherence to the terms of another applies. Exclusivity means only you can decide what you will do with it. You saying how you own that CD yet what you can do with it depends on the EULA is a contradiction.

well first off i said thats a different conversation, any contract thats unfair doesn't mean that all contracts should be got rid of.
second i do understand ownership, they own the idea, i own everything else and the right to use that idea in that product. if you don't like that, next time you buy a computer lay aside a few million $/£/galactic credits develop your own chips, your own production processes, from mining the raw materials up, a few more million for developing the software, at the end after a few years you might have a computer where you own

    everything
Quote:

Can you show me that idea? I mean, show IT to me, not the light bulb or a piece of paper or a brain. Show me the idea. Where is it? If you can't show me then tell me how exactly does it exist to begin with?

You too seem to be missing the basic point from the article. Ideas don't exist by themselves. They always require a medium.

can you show me time ?, in not please tell me how exactly does it exist to begin with ?????

you seem to be missing the basic point of ideas, they don't have physicality, they are embodied in a medium.

Quote:

I don't wish to remove protections of a creator of something. I wish to stop violations of property ownership that actually is valid and possible in the real world. Protections you're talking about are no protections at all. They're overreaching powers instead.

Without these powers you can still come up with a new program and charge money to copy it to others. You can still have contracts with people where they agree not to copy and to pay a fine to you if they break this agreement. But these agreements must be between you and them directly. You can't pretend that you can slap a "license" with every copy of program and that it will now suddenly bind every single person who ever receives it even if not from you.

right so you sell software A to me with license X, i give software A on to person B without licence X, person B isn't liable, even if they pass it on to person C, but i am.
in a simple scenario thats fine, the thing is you miss the point that people may be getting that software knowing that it doesn't have the proper licence, is that morally right?.

second say that software A goes on to be distributed to a million more people, do you have to come after me for that money, even though you have no chance of getting that money back.

third it makes the asumption that you can actuallly trace the person that removed the licence.
the whole idea revolves around SAS, which doesn't work for everything, not even all software.
and this still doesn't resolve the problem of you not owning the software. you still wouldn't own the idea.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't really agree with the second argument, if i buy a chair, the company i bought it from owns the rights to the chair, but i still own the chair. i can't legally produce copies of it, but i own the wood, i could make a table or burn it, i would own the results, i am also free to sell the chair on.

What the hell? You can't legally produce copies of it?

i was referring to producing copies to sell on, my apologies that i didn't make that clear.

No need to apologize. Still though, same difference. If you bought a chair it's yours. If you have some extra material which you can use to make the exact same chair then that new chair is yours. If it's yours you can sell it.

Anonymous wrote:
Quote:

You don't seem to understand ownership at all. The fundamental part of ownership is exclusive control. This means that if you own something no adherence to the terms of another applies. Exclusivity means only you can decide what you will do with it. You saying how you own that CD yet what you can do with it depends on the EULA is a contradiction.

well first off i said thats a different conversation, any contract thats unfair doesn't mean that all contracts should be got rid of.

I'm not talking about unfair contracts. If you agreed to the contract terms yourself then it's not unfair. I'm talking about copyright enforcing an agreement on to people who never made that agreement based on the assumption that you can own software and any copy of it made anywhere regardless of whom made the copy.

Anonymous wrote:

second i do understand ownership, they own the idea, i own everything else and the right to use that idea in that product. if you don't like that, next time you buy a computer lay aside a few million $/£/galactic credits develop your own chips, your own production processes, from mining the raw materials up, a few more million for developing the software, at the end after a few years you might have a computer where you own

    everything

My point is that ideas by themselves cannot be owned because they do not exist without a medium. The only way you could say someone owns an idea is if you considered the idea as not distinct from the medium on which it's stored. So if it's in your brain you own it because you own your brain, but as soon as you tell it to someone else then that someone else owns his copy of it because it's his brain. Replace a brain with a DVD or hard disc and it's the same thing. Information cannot exist without the media and thus cannot by itself be owned. Only the media can.

What you're claiming however is that someone can own an idea in such a way to own every single instance of it that occurs in anybody's head or is copied to any media anywhere in the world. That doesn't make any sense.

Neither does this sarcastic suggestion of yours. The process you're describing was already accomplished by someone else and that someone else already put a price on the final product (the chips, components etc.). Once I paid that price I own it. What's so hard to understand here? The ideas are merely an indication that their brain was working while they were doing this stuff, but ideas themselves are not the final product. Physical action and physical things are. You don't pay people for ideas. You pay them for a service or a product even if it's just the service of copying an idea to you. But once it's copied it's yours.

You may have agreed to certain conditions before you could get it, but those conditions again are only between you and the one who gave you the copy, not between random two people who never met the author, but happen to have a leaked copy.

Anonymous wrote:
Quote:

Can you show me that idea? I mean, show IT to me, not the light bulb or a piece of paper or a brain. Show me the idea. Where is it? If you can't show me then tell me how exactly does it exist to begin with?

You too seem to be missing the basic point from the article. Ideas don't exist by themselves. They always require a medium.

can you show me time ?, in not please tell me how exactly does it exist to begin with ?????

I can't show you time, but I don't claim that I can own time. You however claim that you can own an idea despite the fact that you can't point to it specifically without pointing to a medium. That's the whole point.

Anonymous wrote:

you seem to be missing the basic point of ideas, they don't have physicality, they are embodied in a medium.

Oh really? And what have I been saying all along? I've been saying ideas can't exist without the medium. That would be because they're embodied in a medium! Way to discover hot water. Neutral

Anonymous wrote:
Quote:

I don't wish to remove protections of a creator of something. I wish to stop violations of property ownership that actually is valid and possible in the real world. Protections you're talking about are no protections at all. They're overreaching powers instead.

Without these powers you can still come up with a new program and charge money to copy it to others. You can still have contracts with people where they agree not to copy and to pay a fine to you if they break this agreement. But these agreements must be between you and them directly. You can't pretend that you can slap a "license" with every copy of program and that it will now suddenly bind every single person who ever receives it even if not from you.

right so you sell software A to me with license X, i give software A on to person B without licence X, person B isn't liable, even if they pass it on to person C, but i am.
in a simple scenario thats fine, the thing is you miss the point that people may be getting that software knowing that it doesn't have the proper licence, is that morally right?.

You'd be the only one morally in the wrong if you gave software to person B even if you agreed with the author not to do that. B, C, D etc. have not made that agreement and thus are not liable. But I'm repeating myself!

Anonymous wrote:

second say that software A goes on to be distributed to a million more people, do you have to come after me for that money, even though you have no chance of getting that money back.

That will depend on what agreement I had with you, wont it? If we agreed you'd give me $1000 if you break the agreement then I'd only get $1000. But we could've agreed you'll give me $7 per copy and you'd then owe me $7 million. You can't pay? Well then why did you leak the copy?

Now you're gonna blame those other people who had nothing to do with your agreement because you couldn't respect your own agreements? Way to go.

Anonymous wrote:

third it makes the asumption that you can actuallly trace the person that removed the licence.

And copyright helps with that how exactly? Oh right, by allowing you to randomly target anyone. Cool. That's certainly justice at work.

Anonymous wrote:

the whole idea revolves around SAS, which doesn't work for everything, not even all software.
and this still doesn't resolve the problem of you not owning the software. you still wouldn't own the idea.

Define SAS.

Your sentences barely make sense here and you almost sound like a troll (especially by using my own arguments while arguing against them (wtf)).

Re: "Intellectual Property" a Violation of Real Property

 
Quote:
Quote:

second say that software A goes on to be distributed to a million more people, do you have to come after me for that money, even though you have no chance of getting that money back.

That will depend on what agreement I had with you, wont it? If we agreed you'd give me $1000 if you break the agreement then I'd only get $1000. But we could've agreed you'll give me $7 per copy and you'd then owe me $7 million. You can't pay? Well then why did you leak the copy?

Now you're gonna blame those other people who had nothing to do with your agreement because you couldn't respect your own agreements? Way to go.

so basically any protection is essentially toothless, and relies on some kind of gentlemans agreement.
I assume if some one stole your car and sold it to their friend who knew it was stolen, you would be happy to let them keep it.

Quote:
Quote:

third it makes the asumption that you can actuallly trace the person that removed the licence.

And copyright helps with that how exactly? Oh right, by allowing you to randomly target anyone. Cool. That's certainly justice at work.

its the same as making it a criminal offence to aid a abet, the same as banning the trade in blood diamonds. it isn't randomly targeting anyone, people aren't fooled into thinking theyre getting a legitimate product for free when they log on to the pirate bay.

Quote:
Quote:

the whole idea revolves around SAS, which doesn't work for everything, not even all software.
and this still doesn't resolve the problem of you not owning the software. you still wouldn't own the idea.

Define SAS.

Your sentences barely make sense here and you almost sound like a troll (especially by using my own arguments while arguing against them (wtf)).

Software As A Service (you complain to me for being pedantic).

my point is, is that you say you don't own something, because companies claim ownership over the idea, im saying even if you implement this idea you still won't own that something because the companies will still be able to claim they own the idea, unless you get the software from somebody who has already removed the licence agreements etc.

At the end of the day I think you can own ideas, i know you dont, and i think your arguments for not being able to own ideas are flawed. I also think that if your /solutions/ were ever implemented it would be much worse then the current flawed system.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.