Oleg Volk says:The subversives at Seattle Weekly have been on a tear against Alan Gottlieb lately: See here and here.
Seattle News used my photo without permission. They did not return my phone call. My attorney is on this matter already. [More]
What a great illustration of the arrogance of the collectivists, who think they can control the property of others--including and especially our guns--with impunity...
19 comments:
Impunity, nor the law, will protect these scum from me.
i'm no friend of "intellectual property" or copyright.
Tough. Anybody steals mine and I'm going to come after them just as surely as if they stole my car.
I've seen that philosophy and dismiss it outright as bullshit and immoral.
There would be NO property if it did not originate as intellectual property-which, incidentally, is also a monopoly, both in fact and morally.
I'm not going to weigh in specifically on "information wants to be free" vs. "intellectual privacy", but I will mention this:
I had a fiction series running. A couple of dozen short stories (and a commented anthology in the works), one novel published, sequel in near-final draft, and a third novel outlined and three chapters into the manuscript. I was making rent off novel sales until some... person pirated it. Sales stoppped virtually dead. I could no longer afford to waste time finishing the next two novels. Funny thing is, once I knew the income stream was shot, I simply left the novel on my website as a free download (and saved money by killing the novel's specific website). Seven years on, it is still being downloaded three or four DOZEN times a month. But no one is paying.
If no cares to compensate a writer for his effort (and writing books is work), why should he labor?
Because of piracy, no one is ever going to see the sequels to Net Assets.
Oleg is a hero in this ongoing war. I hope he pursues justice.
Just finished reading all the comments at the Weekly. I'm very pleased with the quality of the comments.
Seems Leftist hatred has a way of backfiring.
David, could you honor us by keeping us updated?
And you just gotta love a fair-minded and unbiased title like: "Second Amendment Brief Filed by Bellevue Gun Nuts."
Hope Oleg nails 'em to the wall!
Tear 'em a new one Oleg!
There is a very strong case to be made for the position that copyright and patent are actively harmful to property rights and therefore freedom.
Stephan Kinsella has articulated them better than anyone else:
http://mises.org/books/against.pdf
"There is a very strong case to be made for the position that copyright and patent are actively harmful to property rights and therefore freedom."
Bullshit. There is NO CASE TO BE MADE, because people derive income and livelihood from intellectual property. This encourages development, because there is a benefit to the individual to create something of value. If I'm unable to derive income to support the production, the production ceases, the development ceases, and society cannot benefit. And I'm boggled that some Socialist shitbag has tried to attach that to Mises. I'd certainly like to see a cite to the effect that he ever supported such a position.
Now, I CHOOSE to make my first novel available for free, as a promotional matter. I CHOOSE to create certain content for free, as a public service. I get paid for most of it, though I do encourage lending and sharing through libraries and person to person. The pay enables me to produce more writing, of a quality that people are willing to pay for. There's no end of the dreck available for free. Most of it is worth less than you pay for it.
But the "intellectual property is wrong" bullshit comes from the same libtards who insist that Joe Illiterate's unskilled screw tightening is deserving of a "living wage."
There's also the fact that my daughter did not consent to her picture, and Oleg did not consent to his work, being used in that fashion.
So, we were not paid for the work, and it was used for a purpose we oppose.
Yeah, that's "Fair."
If you believe so, please give me your address, and I will show up to discuss in person the matter of personal rights. I promise to be "fair."
"Perhaps there would even be more innovation if
there were no patent laws; maybe more money for research
and development (R&D) would be available if it were not
being spent on patents and lawsuits."
Kinsella is a fucking idiot. First, "Perhaps" and "maybe" have no place in a professional paper.
Second, it was Thomas Jefferson who created the modern concept of IP, as opposed to the patronage system (that worked so well in the Feudal era).
Consider where most of the scientific and technical development in the world took place since then. Game, set, match.
"But should not
those who advocate the use of force against others’ property
have to satisfy a burden of proof?"
So, them taking my property is right, but me using "force" to stop them is wrong. A perfect argument for theft. Hey, if someone can benefit from the use of my car from 2200-0500, as long as it's back before I leave for work, what have I suffered?
"The pattern-creator has partial ownership
of others’ property, by virtue of his IP right, because
he can prohibit them from performing certain actions with
their own property. Author X, for example, can prohibit a third
party, Y, from inscribing a certain pattern of words on Y’s
own blank pages with Y’s own ink.
That is, by merely authoring an original expression of
ideas, by merely thinking of and recording some original
pattern of information, or by finding a new way to use his
own property (recipe), the IP creator instantly, magically
becomes a partial owner of others’ property. He has some
say over how third parties can use their property."
This is "articulated"?
I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with it, for anything "merely" expressed. Of course, I actually think about what I write, and develop it, as a profession.
"However, ideal objects
are not ownable."
Since ideal objects ARE owned in great abundance, the statement is false. He means he'd LIKE THEM not to be ownable. This is an admission that they do, in fact, have value. Face it: If it wasn't worth anything, he wouldn't be complaining so much about not having it.
"Thus, because ideas are not scarce resources in the
sense that physical conflict over their use is possible,"
Fights, and wars, have in fact resulted from this. This is truly a pathetic waste of brainpower. I can understand why he wouldn't bother protecting copyright on this. It's drivel and no one would bother paying for it. Nor is it original. "I want it, so I should be able to have it for free." A perfect socialist whine.
I've read enough. Textbook Marxian theology has no place in a "libertarian" philosophy.
Oh, and if you don't see a problem with free and unlicensed use of work, you won't object to me photoshopping pics of you fucking a goat and posting them on PETA's forum?
I mean, it's not like it's something TANGIBLE.
The only thing regarding intellectual property that does piss me off is how they keep stretching the duration of copyrights. The common rumor about this that I've heard is that Disney spends a lot of money lobbying to keep changing the rules to maintain rights over their mouse.
Copyright should last as long as a patent. 20 years is plenty of time to squeeze out as much value from an idea as you can.
Stephan Kinsella said it, I believe it, that settles it?
Sorry. I hope no one claims my thoughts are communal property, because that would make you a presumptuous wanna-be monster.
If my thoughts are mine, they are mine to share with whomever I choose--on my terms. If anyone doesn't like those terms, they should share thoughts with somebody they find more agreeable to THEIR terms.
I share thoughts with the "public" under certain up-front stated conditions. Here at WoG it's that you can copy them but not edit them and must provide credit. At Guns Magazine and Gun Rights Examiner, the stuff may not be reproduced except under contractual conditions.
If someone--anyone--can come along and abrogate that and use my work at will for their own purposes, you are ex post facto changing the conditions under which I agreed to work when you have no investment or claim to do so. You are a trespasser and a thief. Particularly since Examiner and FMG Publications DO have substantial investments and claims, which they also would not have made if they had no exclusive right to use.
What I am hearing is intellectual communism.
And sorry, Laughingdog, but Disney should not HAVE to pay lobbyists to protect what it owns. I don't agree to produce on the condition that you and enough people can vote to take my property away from me after a designated period--which can be shortened to nothing if enough of you so "vote."
What is mine is mine, including to dispose of after I am gone to my designated heirs. Then it is theirs. And if they choose to squeeze it, that's their business, and those who had no part in the planting of the seed, the watering of the field, the threshing of the wheat, the grinding of the flour and the baking of the bread have absolutely no say in its disposition--ever.
Now if someone wants to make the case that there are more effective means of protecting property--including intellectual property--than the current system of government we have--then, yeah, as our government theoretically exists to protect lives, rights and property, and as we see it is an advance over the monarchy system in that regard, yeah, it would be short-sighted and parochial to think superior forms of liberty protection can not emerge. But that's a whole big subject that covers a lot more than this, and I'll tell you one thing--if it doesn't protect intellectual property, it will be a fraudulent system.
I don't think laughingDog is saying you don't have a right to your own property. I think LD is referring to the practice in the last few copyright extensions of retroactively extending copyright on stuff that already exists to prevent it from entering the public domain at the time that it would have under the law when it was created.
Mike brought up Jefferson creating the basic IP structure we use. This structure, for both patents and copyright, was based on giving the creator time to benefit from his work or invention, followed by the information entering the public domain so that others could make use of or develop off of it.
Once can certainly argue that copyright should exist as long as the "creator" does or x years minimum to benefit the creator's heirs. One can certainly even argue that corporations - which can easily outlive their founders - can maintain copyright indefinitely (though perhaps adding a "must republish to 'excercise' the copyright after x years" or lose them just like they lose trademarks if they don't use and enforce them would be reasonable....).
But to take your argument - someone is told they can do a job and get paid whatever they can convince people to pay them for the results of that work for x years - and the govt. will help enforce the monopoly on their work (once the genie's out, ya can't hide it again). In exchange for which, they have to make it publicly available for other people to use/publish after x years (17 years, death + whatever, etc.). Nothing prevents you (or your heirs) from STILL making money off of it - but you no longer have an exclusive monopoly to the idea.
But you decide to retroactively change the terms of the contract so you STILL have a monopoly on it for X more years, just because someone voted on it. How is that morally better than someone taking away YOUR property rights to the idea retroactively?
Originally, (c) was 14 years, renewable for another 14. Patents are still 20 years. This was the "certain length of time" Jefferson devised.
There is a case to be made against endless patents--can you imagine trying to pay patents on the wheel? The gas oven? It would be a little ridiculous, yet both of those were original concepts at one time.
Disney is trying to protect The Mouse. At this point, anyone can use Kipling's Jungle Book or Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes for literary development, but The Mouse is somehow special.
The problem becomes that eventually, future development gets stifled since someone can claim almost everything. We've already had an author attempt to patent (not (C) a "plot," even though it's demonstrable all basic plots have been around for millennia.
The example in this case would be Chuck Berry patenting the 12 bar blues, and making further music development impossible.
But it's a long way from, "Twenty or fifty years" or "Seventy years after the death of the creator" to "Ideas aren't property because we can't touch them and measure them," which seems to be a ludicrous combination of socialism and childish materialism.
Although I think those last two go together rather well.
And I am CERTAINLY not swayed, nor do I regard as "libertarian," the idea that, "but SOCIETY will be better if we steal your developments! They belong to EVERYONE!"
Didn't I just hear the same logic about my money, health care, and GM?
Not sure how that would fall out with Mickey - cuz our li'l mouse is a trademark unto himself, regularly enforced, used, etc. It's a good question.
On one hand - after 'x' years, Steamboat Willie would fall into the public domain (not as soon as it would have), and anyone can redistribute it for a fee, etc.
OTOH- the main character in the story is explicitly trademarked. Can, and if so, how does one, distribute a compilation of old cartoons/etc. where the characters in said cartoons, despite being in the public domain from a copyright perspective, are still covered by actively used and enforced trademarks?
I'm NOT enough of an IP lawyer to resolve that particular issue.
Either way, while I think it's fair to argue how long something should be copyrighted or patented, or what is subject to a patent vs copyright of content (software ? ), I agree that the "everything must be free" crowd is a bunch of thieving, looting losers who want whatever you have without giving you something in return, and the "lets just keep extending the IP rights - retroactively even" crowd has gotten wayyyyyy past any reasonable number of years.
Yeah, there has to be a middle ground.
But, "My rights are violated because I can't copy your work for myself," is utterly invalid. It would, in fact, destroy all intellectuality. If it's "merely" an idea and an expression, why do I need to do my own thesis when there are so many good ones already written to choose from?
If intellectual property has no value, then why are people so interested in using it?
A textbook example of the case you mention is James Bond Thunderball and Never Say Never Again--same story and characters, because McCrory co-wrote the script and claimed rights, and remade the film. After 20 years, the courts ruled in favor of Sony holding Bond, and McCrory holding SPECTRE, so he can remake another spy movie without Bond, and Eon Films can't use SPECTRE anymore.
I'd forgotten about Thunderball. Heh.
Me, I work in computers (though darn it all if I hadn't taken several really, REALLY bad stabs at being a writer). Everything I do is idea based. Everything I work with is idea based. Every piece of software I manipulate deals in shared assumptions and abstractions tied to a common framework and relatively common hardware.
It's the ideas that made a palm-sized computer that has more processing power than any frackin' desktop I saw in the 90's possible, and why those desktops make ENIAC look like a bloated, torpid beast.
It's my knowledge, and the ability to reframe it to meet someone's needs that people pay for. Ditto for lawyers. Ditto for doctors - or does anyone honestly think doctors don't have to analyze and decide before they actually cut, prescribe, etc.?
Ideas have value. If I stop thinking, stuff doesn't get fixed.
And if I don't get paid, I no longer think for that client. They usually pay up... especially when its their website they haven't paid for you took back down...
Seems even their ideas - out on the web, have value, eh? They sure as heck hurry when those ideas are no longer being presented by our labor and expertise.
Post a Comment