So, if you spent years writing a novel, you'd be fine if I just copied and sold it without paying you anything?

"Theft is just a legal fiction where owners invoke ... because it's easier than sufficiently-protecting possessions."

In other words, if I can manage to steal it, I can own it.

IP protection is actually based in the Constitution of the United States.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion from what I said. Intellectual Property is a legal fiction. That's a fact not an opinion. I personally don't believe in using violence to solve problems. That's an opinion. Feel free to disagree. Most people do.

I don't see it in there, but that wouldn't change the fact that IP is a legal fiction.

:rolleyes: Oh dear.
...and I just love the way you throw around the word "violence". Talk about fiction.

You don't agree that laws are enforced with violence or threats of violence? I thought that was a generally accepted fact.

It's in there. It's called the Copyright Clause. Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 8. But that only proves it's a legal fiction.

As per usual... people are carelessly slipping in and out of what the law is vs. what the law should be.

Unsurprising.

If you don't support legal protection for intellectual property then you are willing to allow anyone else to take the content of your novel and sell it as their own. Legal fiction and the threat of violence is what lets people profit from their work when their work is easy to copy. Take the fiction and violence away and the incentive to create easily copied things (like books, movies, software, processes, etc.) is greatly diminished.

I disagree. There are plenty of more creative ways to monetize thought capital, and there are lots of examples of IP laws stifling innovation. Just look at patent trolls; whole companies set up to do nothing other than use our IP laws to extract value from true innovators. The pharmaceutical industry is another great example of the failure of IP laws. There are lots more. IP laws don't do as much to protect innovators as people are led to believe.

I hope you ordered the jersey from this store: https://spexcel.aliexpress.com/store...topselling_tab

All the other stores have very bad jerseys. Nice designs but still very bad fitting jerseys.

Think about it for a minute. If the agreement was to produce kit of a specific design for the exclusive use of the team, if even original Biemme kit was made and sold to anyone else, not only would it be relevant, it would be decisive. On the other hand, if there was no such stipulation and Biemme made "extras," in some indeterminate quantity and quality, we wouldn't know if anyone's rights were violated unless we knew the terms of the agreement.

For all we know, Biemme have the right to sell whatever quantity or quality they want, including assigning the manufacture to the cheapest, sloppiest factory on the planet. And it could be that the only reason they don't is because it has their own name on it.

All this is as irrelevant as ever to my decision (whether or no to buy the stuff), but it's still relevant to this train-wreck of a discussion. ;)

Eh, sort of. People should make a case by case distinction.

I have zero qualms about intellectual property if the owner is a multi-billion dollar corporation. Their concerns should never be taken into account for anything.

Barring that...it comes down, IMO, to whether the person would ever actually consider buying the product at full price. Like back when Napster was big...if a person would realistically consider paying $20 for an artists CD, it might have been immoral for them to download it off of Napster. If there was a zero % chance they ever would have bought the CD, it is a victim-less crime.

Also...taking a look at the polling...the group of people who think this is no big deal is growing...over 30% now.

Interesting :)

And let's not forget that "easy to copy" is not the same as easy to come up with. It's not just a matter of profit, it's a matter if basic compensation, too.

Basic compensation is profit.

So you think there should be no protection for copyrighted works, like novels? How will writers monetize their work?

OPie will be happy about these replicas! : https://www.ebay.com/itm/Light-weigh...t/123085130937

There's replicas of Oltre XR4, Cervelo R3/S5, S-work sl5, Pinarello F10, etc, it's all out there.

"The Congress shall have the power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"


Encompasses patents as well as copyrights.


The right to control your IP is no more a "legal fiction" that the right to control your personal property. Seek immediate medical attention for inane rationalization lasting longer than four hours.

Not if you're talking business. Profit is what's left after you pay the bills, and compensation includes what it takes to pay the bills.

I'm still looking at this as an author. If I sell some books I get basic compensation, and it's profit. It isn't loss.

Another train wreck you caused:

https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycl...freewheel.html

Calling a shirt or shorts "Progress of Science and Useful Arts" is an awfully loose use of the term.

I would say branded and marketed anything is not covered under the constitution if this is the best you can come up with.

Yes. That's what I think.

While I don't have all the answers for how thought capital monetization would work in a world with no legal IP protection, I'm confident that people would still write books. My understanding is that most authors don’t make very much if any money on their books today, and people still write books. In a world with no legal IP protections, publishers would still sell physical books, same as they do today. Some readers are willing to pay a premium for a first edition hardcover book. Those book sales are totally unaffected by IP laws so publishers would still make money on those sales and some of it would go to the author. For the easily reproducible e-books, publishers could easily create technologies to authenticate the source that would restrict the unauthorized distribution of e-books which would allow authors to be compensated for books sold through that channel too. OverDrive is an example of such a technology. I can also imagine that some people would be willing to pay for content in advance like a kickstarter for a novel so they could be among the first to read it. There are also companies and not-for-profits that could fund books, this happens with a lot of books today like business books and books with some kind a message that someone wants to promote. These are just a few ideas that came to mind after thinking about it for 5 minutes. I’m sure people actually in the business could come up with even more creative ideas. People are willing to pay for content, and publishers should be clever enough to figure out how to monetize that content.

Only stupid publishers. Why would I invest in a book with no legal protection against someone else selling it for less? Why would I invest in finding and grooming authors if there was no legal framework for profiting from their work?

If you want evidence of this, look at what happens to books and movies when they enter the public domain.

No, technology can't stop people from copying ebooks. If a human can read it, it can be duplicated.

How to remove Overdrive DRM.

People are willing to steal content if they can get away with it. Laws are how we stop them, just like they stop people from stealing physical things.

Nobody is stealing anything when it comes to digital content.

They are reproducing it. Really the OPPOSITE of stealing. You can argue it is illegal if you want, but it's not stealing if nothing was taken.

They are stealing it if its against the law. That's what we're discussing - should it be illegal.

And money was "taken" if someone copies IP without paying the owner.

LOL :thumb: