Selling records … not so much.
Category Archives: Property
Why we don’t need copyright laws
Over at the Pirate Party of New Zealand website (where I am now a guest blogger, yo ho ho!), the Pirates outline their core policy. Contrary to what you might expect, the Pirates support copyright laws. Here is what they say about copyright.
Copyright
Because we see copyright as a legal right, not a moral right, we think it should be up to individual societies to democratically decide whether to implement copyright law, and if so, to what extent. The long title of the Statute of Anne 1709 (widely regarded as the beginning of modern copyright law) describes the statute as being for “the Encouragement of Learning” (British Copyright Act, 1709). Similarly, the stated aim of the provision for copyrights and patents in the USA constitution is “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” (USA Constitution, art. I, sec. 8, cl. 8). The Pirate Party believes that modern copyright law is more restrictive than necessary to serve this purpose, and that the purpose could actually be better served by less restrictive law.
So copyright is for “the Encouragement of Learning”. But we have state education for that!
So copyright is also “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. But we have the Ministry of Science and Innovation for that, and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage!
It would seem that “the Encouragement of Learning” and the promotion of “the Progress of Science and useful Arts” are already more than well catered for by big government with at least three separate ministries with all their ministers, associate ministers and associated minions.
So we don’t need copyright laws!
Two women wearing the same dress
Two women wearing the same dress is sometimes a criminal matter.
Two blondes, one dress – a recipe for a catfight
Drinks were thrown and blood was spilt when two blondes clashed in a bar about who looked best in a silver dress, a jury has been told.
Victoria Clapham, 22, wore the dress on a night out in central Wellington late last year. It was given to her by her friend Matthew Vibert and his mother – but she says she did not know he had previously given it to another woman.
Its first owner, Bridget Masters, 20, was Mr Vibert’s former girlfriend, and sparks flew when the two blondes crossed paths in the toilets at the former Temperance Bar on November 28.
In Wellington District Court yesterday Ms Clapham denied telling Masters that the dress looked better on her. The dress is not an exhibit in court and was not photographed for the jury to see.
I Googled “two women wearing the same dress”.
I found this
and this
and this
but I couldn’t find a picture of two women wearing the same dress. The very same dress.
Your search – “two women wearing the very same dress” – did not match any image results.
In philosophy, we call the distinction between the same dress and the very same dress the type–token distinction.
the type–token distinction is a distinction that separates a concept from the objects which are particular instances of the concept. For example, the particular bicycle in your garage is a token of the type of thing known as “The bicycle.” Whereas, the bicycle in your garage is in a particular place at a particular time, that is not true of “the bicycle” as used in the sentence: “The bicycle has become more popular recently.”
You can own a bicycle (token). But you can’t own the bicycle (type). You can own an instance of a concept. But you can’t own a concept.
Advocates of so-called “intellectual property” would claim otherwise. They believe in patents. ‘Patent’ is basically a euphemism for a government granted and enforced monopoly. Were the government to grant you a patent on the bicycle, it would place a restriction on the freedom of everyone else to do what he wishes with his own property. (E.g., if you patent a bike, then that means I can’t use my steel and rubber to make my own bike!)
Concepts are mental entities. The ‘bicycle’ concept exists in the mind/brain of everyone who knows what a bicycle is. The ‘bicycle’ concept is part of me, and I claim ownership, because I claim self-ownership. You have a patent on the bicycle? Sorry, mate. Your freedom ends where my nose begins. On yer bike!
[Hat tip: David Peterson]
Pull the Plug
This letter to the editor was spotted recently in the Press.
Ken Orr’s argument against euthanasia is that ‘‘the state is to provide legal protection for the right to life of every member of the community . . . and not preside over their destruction’’ (March 13). What a travesty of truth. In a civilised and free society, all individuals have rights and responsibilities. The role of a government is to protect those rights, not assume those responsibilities.
If I choose, when my time comes, that I want to die with dignity, that is my right, and one that should be protected by law.
The state is not ‘‘presiding over my destruction’’, as Mr Orr says it is. It is protecting the wishes of a free man who rightly owns his life and death.
A reasoned morality of man qua man is where true human compassion is found, not in Mr Orr’s cold mysticism.
MARK HUBBARD
Geraldine
A travesty of truth? Yes. Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin, not the same side of the one coin! A right to remain alive is not a duty to remain alive. If confounding the two is Ken Orr’s argument, then the best I can say is that I don’t like his style. There’s a fine line between disingenuity and dishonesty, and Mr. Orr should check to see he hasn’t crossed over to the other side. Meanwhile, Mr. Hubbard should check his premises!
(Suppose, for the sake of argument.) You don’t own your life. God does. Your life is God’s property and He’s entrusted it to you. You are His servant. You have a responsibility to take care of God’s property as you would your own.
Think of your life as if it were a car. Except you can’t trade it in for a new one. So you look after it. You service it regularly. You keep it in good running order. If it breaks down you get it fixed if it can be fixed. You drive it until it grinds to a halt.
But what if your life still “goes” but is in no way, shape or form “roadworthy”? What’s the right thing to do? A good and faithful servant doesn’t leave rubbish lying around, cluttering up the place. Your life is rubbish now. I say dispose of it. Drive your life to the dump. Or pay someone to take it away.
(Old abandoned cars are sometimes photogenic. Dying in pain is never pretty.)
Memories are all that’s left behind
As I lay and wait to die
Little do they know
That I hear their choice of lifeEnd it now, it is the only way
Too cruel, that is what they say
Release me from this lonely world
There is no hope – Why don’t youPull the plug
Let me pass away
Pull the plug
Don’t want to live this wayOnce I had full control of my life
I now behold a machine decides my fate
End it now it’s all too lateWhat has now been days, it seems like years
To stay like this is what I fear
Life ends so fast, so take your chance
And make it lastEnd it now, it is the only way
Too cruel, that is what they say
Release me from this lonely world
There is no hope – Why don’t youPull the plug
Let me pass away
Pull the plug
Don’t want to live this way
Socialism and the Politics of Envy.
A bunch of Ugly Old Lefty Hags want to Ban the Tui Girls.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10787157
This is a typical example of Lefties pretending to have high ideals when in reality they are nasty and malicious. filled with Envy, Malice, and Jealousy and have no quarms about using despotic powers of Nanny State to trample the legitimate rights and liberties of others.
This Blog Post is My Libertarian Christian “IN YOUR FACE!” to all such Prudish tyranny!
This is for You my Pretties! Tim Wikiriwhi
This is me defending Steve Crows Hamilton ‘Boobs on Bike Parade’ last year from Bigotry and Religious Opression.
This is what was on the other side of my picket sign.
Megaupload vs. YouTube
An analogy may help. You have this warehouse that allows people to deposit copies of films and music. Then you allow other people to visit and take away those copies. At best, you don’t charge for such a service, yet you provide a facility for the transaction. What are you guilty of? Certainly not of the original theft. But you’re a fence. Did you know the goods were stolen? Perhaps not. But is your ignorance any defence? A reasonable person would say no.
The analogy is to Megaupload. But it might as well be to YouTube. What’s the difference?
There is an old (or perhaps not so old) adage, “It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.” This seems to be the principle by which YouTube operates. Copyright holders must opt out of having their copyright infringed, rather than opt in by giving (or not giving) permission to copy.
Copyright infringement is rifest where condemnation of copyright infringement is the loudest. Excuses abound.
I gave full attribution of source.
It was open content, not subscriber.
I was helping them in this instance.
I was criticising, reviewing and reporting some … news. Fair use.
Some makers of film/ music are quite happy to let their work be copied.
When someone posts a video clip that violates copyright to YouTube they are told to remove it.
We have to take it on faith that the videos on YouTube that have been copied without approval are taken down again.
Some are old and the owner of the copyright doesn’t intend to make any more money from them and gives them away free.
Many bands/popsingers these days want to show that they are “down with the kids” and don’t enforce their copyright on video clips, but probably actually see it as being good advertising for their music.
They probably do. But how would you ever know? The “it’s not a copyright violation unless someone complains” philosophy in evidence here just doesn’t wash.
In any case, can YouTube avail itself of the above excuses, weak as they are? A reasonable person would say no. In the Cannibal Corpse video I posted yesterday, at the beginning of the video we read the notice, “Ripped by Prince of Darkness,” and at the end there is a link to his website, MadhouseHQ. What’s more, YouTube includes the video in question in its YouTube Mix for Cannibal Corpse. And, not only that, but YouTube hosts his blog (both YouTube and Blogger are Google-owned), which is a collection of links to the likes of (the now deceased) megaupload.com and mediafire.com.
What will the Feds do next? Pull the plug on YouTube? I sincerely hope not. When copyright laws are enforced, the collateral damage is too great. Instead, let’s try to grow a voluntary culture of respect. Respect for the productive. Respect for the artists. Embed their videos, but also buy their CDs and buy their merchandise. That’s fair use.
Paley’s other watch
In his book Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, first published in 1802, William Paley wrote
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place. I should hardly think of the answer which I had given before, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible? When we come to inspect the watch, we perceive—what we could not discover in the stone—that its parts are framed and have been put together.
We notice more: we find a series of wheels, the teeth of which catch in, and apply to, each other, conducting the motion to the balance and from the balance to the pointer. Further, we notice that the wheels are made of brass to prevent rust; the springs of steel (no other metal being so elastic); that over the face of the watch there is placed a glass, a material employed in no other part of the work, and without which the hour could not been seen without opening the case. This mechanism being observed, the inference, we think is inevitable: the watch must have had a maker, and been designed for a purpose.
Paley’s question was, “Does the watch have an intelligent designer?”
My question is, “Does the watch belong to someone?”
[Cross-posted to SOLO.]
Blackout
Wikipedia is blacked out globally for 24 hours to protest SOPA and PIPA. Wikipedia says
The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.
YouTube is such a website.
Lucky for us that the world’s most famous Objectivist is on our side.
[Cross-posted to SOLO.]
Fa’afetai e Atua o le Aso Faraile
There’s an entry under ‘Theft’ in Ian Heydon’s Samoa A-Z.
It is wise not to leave valuables or even items of clothing unattended on a beach or in a fale. Samoans can have a different view to ownership of property and things can ‘go missing’. Use your resort safe or ask your host for the best place to keep things safe. I have no personal experience of this and feel totally safe in Samoa but commonsense should tell you that an expensive beach towel could be inviting to someone who doesn’t own one.
Samoans? They’re born to steal.
Apparently, it’s the same in Tonga.
Theft happens – not normally through malice but simply because the concept of individual ownership of material goods is not totally accepted. So, don’t leave valuables unattended, including clothing and shoes. If your towel ‘goes missing’ overnight, it’s simply because someone had need of a towel! Just use common sense and don’t leave things open to temptation.
You’re safe from “theft” in Fiji, Vanuatu and the Cook Islands. But is it really theft in Samoa (or Tonga) if it’s not really your beach towel in the first place? If someone needs “your” beach towel more than you do, shouldn’t they have it?
Anyway, in Samoa it’s not just a hypothetical beach towel that’s “gone missing”.
It’s an entire day!
The Principle of Self-Custodianship
Glenn Peoples says that a Christian cannot be a libertarian. He says, “A Christian, by becoming a libertarian, compromises and gives up part of her Christianity.”
His argument is that libertariansm is based on the Principle of Self-Ownership or Individual Sovereignty
Each individual is the owner of his own life and has the right to live it as he sees fit, as long as he respects that same right in others.
and that this principle is incompatible with the commonly held Judaeo-Christian view that everything, including one’s own life, is owned by God.
The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it (NIV)
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine (KJV)
It does not follow from this incompatibility that a Christian cannot be a libertarian, because libertarianism does not have to be based on the Principle of Self-Ownership. My view is that Christian libertarianism is based on the Principle of Self-Custodianship.
Each individual is the custodian of his own life and has the political right to live it as he sees fit, as long as he respects that same political right in others.