DHS now goes after purse counterfeiters, right here in Indiana

[Kirk Freeman]

It is not real property. It is nothing but a fictional construct. The suggestion that you can 'own' words, thoughts or ideas (in a philosophical sense) is fundamentally absurd.

Yes, you own thoughts and the usufruct product of your thoughts.

I have yet to find a single person who could even present a consistent ethical system for dealing with the ownership of this imaginary property.

You simply must be kidding.

You would abolish patents then? Copyrights? The patents of John Moses Browning are meaningless?

It is ethical to steal the work of another and violate their right to property?

MEYE property! Unless I can steal another's work then it is not property at all.

Man the INGO property rights hokey pokey is exhausting!

INGO: Property rights, which are sacred, for me, but not for thee.

 

[Stickfight]

You would abolish patents then?

Can't speak for the person you quoted, and I wouldn't abolish patents, but US patent law is in serious need of reform. It has drifted far afield from promoting the useful arts.

Copyrights?

Copyrights definitely need to go.

The patents of John Moses Browning are meaningless?

They aren't "meaningless" but they are/should be expired. JMB is long dead.

It is ethical to steal the work of another and violate their right to property?

You don't know what "steal" means. A quick test is that the "property" owners still have the "property" in question. Someone putting a Coach logo on a purse does not prevent Coach from doing same. If a person were to break in to the Coach factory and make off with the actual physical logos, then they would have stolen Coach's property.

You statist are always big fans of state enforced artificial scarcity.

 

[downzero]

The idea that intellectual property is the same as any other property right in anything other than the legal sense is a fantasy perpetuated by those who support the status quo.

Intellectual property is a quasi property right invented for specific policy purposes supported by a single sentence of the constitution. The last ten years especially have shown that innovation has made the old rules of intellectual property outdated, but as with all areas of law, reform is slow.

I suspect that by the time I retire, our intellectual property regime will look very different than it does today. I don't know exactly how I would change it, but I would start with the proposition that protection is to serve markets and productivity, and not merely to provide a monopoly for an arbitrary purpose (or worse, for anti-competitive purposes).

 

[IndyDave1776]

Copyrights definitely need to go.

You would tell the firm that spent millions of dollars making a movie in the expectation of making a return on the money that there is nothing wrong with someone burning copies and selling them for 1/3 retail price?

You don't know what "steal" means. A quick test is that the "property" owners still have the "property" in question. Someone putting a Coach logo on a purse does not prevent Coach from doing same. If a person were to break in to the Coach factory and make off with the actual physical logos, then they would have stolen Coach's property.

You haven't stolen value from another person by trading on his name/reputation? It isn't an even greater wrong if you damage his reputation by putting out inferior goods in his name?

 

[downzero]

You would tell the firm that spent millions of dollars making a movie in the expectation of making a return on the money that there is nothing wrong with someone burning copies and selling them for 1/3 retail price?

The problem is that copyrights last for WAY, WAY too long. Books that are long out of print are not online for everyone to read because it costs too much to seek out the current copyright holder and assure that it is okay to post them for them to read.

I wouldn't abolish copyrights, but continuing to extend them to assure that Steamboat Willie isn't in the public domain is serving NO policy purpose in the year 2012.

You haven't stolen value from another person by trading on his name/reputation? It isn't an even greater wrong if you damage his reputation by putting out inferior goods in his name?

I think it's an even greater wrong that those who can improve on an existing invention can't do so for fear of infringing on a "property" right that may have NO current value.

I'm not saying to get rid of it all, but not noticing the rampant abuse and monopoly it allows for, in some cases, no social benefit is a net loss for us overall.

Capitalism only works with stiff competition. Eliminating competition entirely for too long in order to give someone a monopoly is bound to cause problems.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think it's an even greater wrong that those who can improve on an existing invention can't do so for fear of infringing on a "property" right that may have NO current value.

You can patent an improvement separate from a patented invention. In general, I agree with your concerns, but as I see it, improving on an invention and simply running it through the Chinese duplicator are two entirely different things. For example, there is nothing wrong with me building automobiles, but if I start putting blue ovals on the front declaring 'Ford', that is different, which is exactly what was being argued earlier only with consumer goods, but the same principle applies in both cases.

 

[downzero]

You can patent an improvement separate from a patented invention. In general, I agree with your concerns, but as I see it, improving on an invention and simply running it through the Chinese duplicator are two entirely different things. For example, there is nothing wrong with me building automobiles, but if I start putting blue ovals on the front declaring 'Ford', that is different, which is exactly what was being argued earlier only with consumer goods, but the same principle applies in both cases.

As you've demonstrated, trade dress and trademarks complicate the matters. My solution to that is to only buy from legit places if I want an authentic product. I have no confidence in most of the crap on the internet; much of it is not legitimate product.

Then again, if you could look through my Ray Bans and not tell that they're not crappy copies, ignorance is bliss, sometimes.

 

[steveh_131]

Yes, you own thoughts and the usufruct product of your thoughts.

Legally, yes. Ethically...like I said, I haven't found anyone who could come up with any consistent methodology for this. I think it's nonsense.


You simply must be kidding.

You would abolish patents then? Copyrights? The patents of John Moses Browning are meaningless?

It is ethical to steal the work of another and violate their right to property.

So your premise is that your ownership of intellectual property should be enforced and defensible in the same way as physical property?

 

[steveh_131]

This is an interesting topic that is taking this thread off track, so I made a new thread with a poll:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general_political_discussion/252033-intellectual_property_real_or_imaginary.html

 

[mrjarrell]

[ame]http://youtu.be/-KrI59fviIE[/ame]

 

[melensdad]

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security now raids stores selling counterfeit purses. Is there anything DHS cannot do in the name of protecting the homeland?

While I believe that the counterfeit industry needs to be shut down, I don't understand why the DHS should have any involvement in this type of matter.

 

[Smokepole]

I don't know the history of your debates but you didn't get any of that from me.

I think it's a valid point to object to DHS enforcing property rights, as opposed to actual security issues, without being accused of "hating property rights". So, lighten up Francis.

Amen Sgt. Hulka.

I agree, this should be more about DHS and specifically TSA growing to encompass everything under the sun and becoming the US version of the SS.

 

[Stickfight]

You would tell the firm that spent millions of dollars making a movie in the expectation of making a return on the money that there is nothing wrong with someone burning copies and selling them for 1/3 retail price?

Yes, because I am willing to face the reality that it isn't possible to prevent their movie from being redistributed. If they make the choice to invest anyway, they shouldn't expect my resources to be used by the government to support their impossible business model. People make dumb choices with their investments every day, do you want to government to support the buggy whip industry too?

You haven't stolen value from another person by trading on his name/reputation? It isn't an even greater wrong if you damage his reputation by putting out inferior goods in his name?

No, because value can't be "stolen".

 

[Kirk Freeman]

While I believe that the counterfeit industry needs to be shut down, I don't understand why the DHS should have any involvement in this type of matter.

Because it is Customs and Customs is part of DHS now.

Congress has ordered Customs to do exactly this.

I agree, this should be more about DHS and specifically TSA growing to encompass everything under the sun and becoming the US version of the SS.

DHS? TSA now? What does TSA have to do with this?

I can't keep up with the dance.

It was Customs. You know the largest and one of the oldest federal law enforcement agencies.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So your premise is that your ownership of intellectual property should be enforced and defensible in the same way as physical property?

That is the law and that is how it is done, just as you want to do it.

 

[steveh_131]

That is the law and that is how it is done, just as you want to do it.

No, that's not really true at all. IP is not treated exactly the same as physical property by the law or by anyone else.

Still waiting for you to come defend your position on intellectual property.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general_political_discussion/252033-intellectual_property_real_or_imaginary.html

 

[Kirk Freeman]

IP is not treated exactly the same as physical property by the law or by anyone else.

One still has a property right in IP. Defending it by law enforcement or by court order is still using the government to defend one's right.

Still waiting for you to come defend your position on intellectual property.

I don't have a position on IP.

Whatever reforms Congress thinks are necessary. I can see the pro-reform point(s).