Big.Swede on June 09, 2012, 07:52:36 am
Would not pretending to speak for someone who has not given you the authority to speak for them be something that could call for .... Curse my bad memory, i forgot what AnCap calls it, but effectivly "trial"? It is along the same line as signing a contract with another persons good name in a way.
"Im purely a layman, wondering from a laymans point of view."

SandySandfort on June 09, 2012, 09:06:40 am
In the case of "malls" or business-district-modules (run as a business), the mall-owners will provide the air, after all, they're selling visibility and customer flow to *their* customers, all the business owners.

Quite correct. In fact, they already do. In Phoenix (or any other city in the summer) the malls not only provide air, they condition it to a pleasantly cool temperature and don't charge visitors one red cent.

The big problems with the anti-market, pro-government contingent on this list and in society, is that they are ignorant of history, unaware of the present and bring no creative, problem-solving skills to the table.

SandySandfort on June 09, 2012, 09:10:57 am
Would not pretending to speak for someone who has not given you the authority to speak for them be something that could call for .... Curse my bad memory, i forgot what AnCap calls it, but effectivly "trial"? It is along the same line as signing a contract with another persons good name in a way.

"Trial" is okay, but "arbitration" is more commonly used. Contract law would not apply in your hypothetical, but the ZAP might, if the elements of fraud applied.

Apollo-Soyuz on June 09, 2012, 10:57:00 am
With our currently known and reasonably foreseeable technology, nukes much smaller than the one used on Nagasaki are inefficient, so, assuming no magic breakthroughs, a mini nuke would be a bit smaller than Nagasaki, but not a whole lot smaller.  On the other hand, to have mini nukes as a distinct category suggests some magic breakthrough, unforeseeable technology - but one that still produces explosions much bigger than a normal chemical explosion.

http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft?page=149

Tenth of a kiloton, fits in a thermos sized container.

The real-life  W54 was a bit bulkier, but could have the proper yield (variable yield 10 ton to 1 kiloton). I think something like this would be far more useful to a miner. Of course the bore hole would need to be bigger.

You could probably make them even smaller by using Americium as the fission source material instead.




Andreas on June 09, 2012, 11:59:13 am
With our currently known and reasonably foreseeable technology, nukes much smaller than the one used on Nagasaki are inefficient, so, assuming no magic breakthroughs, a mini nuke would be a bit smaller than Nagasaki, but not a whole lot smaller.  On the other hand, to have mini nukes as a distinct category suggests some magic breakthrough, unforeseeable technology - but one that still produces explosions much bigger than a normal chemical explosion.

http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft?page=149

Tenth of a kiloton, fits in a thermos sized container.

The real-life  W54 was a bit bulkier, but could have the proper yield (variable yield 10 ton to 1 kiloton). I think something like this would be far more useful to a miner. Of course the bore hole would need to be bigger.

You could probably make them even smaller by using Americium as the fission source material instead.

Plutonium is the devil's fissionable; real patriots go with Americium!  :D :D :D

Apollo-Soyuz on June 09, 2012, 04:18:45 pm

You could probably make them even smaller by using Americium as the fission source material instead.


Here's a chart. You seem to be able to reduce the mass needed if you use a good neutron reflector

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass_%28nuclear%29#Critical_mass_of_a_bare_sphere

I think there are issues using californium as a bomb. Any experimentation that has been done would probably be classified. It's probably really fsking expensive to amass a mass too.

Big.Swede on June 10, 2012, 02:00:48 am
Would not pretending to speak for someone who has not given you the authority to speak for them be something that could call for .... Curse my bad memory, i forgot what AnCap calls it, but effectivly "trial"? It is along the same line as signing a contract with another persons good name in a way.

"Trial" is okay, but "arbitration" is more commonly used. Contract law would not apply in your hypothetical, but the ZAP might, if the elements of fraud applied.

Ah, that was the word i was looking for. Thanks Sandy! In my defense, i would have looked it up but i was in a hurry for RL stuff. :)

So one would be in right to call for an arbitration for someone pretending to speak on ones behalf without actualy having the OK for that.
Also there is the obvious "Please get of my property" comment when someone commes trying to claim those grams they say you owe.
"Im purely a layman, wondering from a laymans point of view."

macsnafu on June 11, 2012, 09:27:57 am

Working in open source software, I know that competitors find value in a "commons".  The Gnu Public License facilitates a software commons among competitors.  The license (yes, copyright is enforced by a government - maybe someone can suggest how that part would work under AnCap) gives you full rights to use the software, distribute the software as is, and full rights to distribute derivative works, *provided* you also distribute source code for changes or enhancements you have made.  (See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)

Another popular license is BSD, which gives full rights to use and distribute as is and derivatives, provided you credit the original authors.  Something like business sponsors of an event with their logo on the T-shirt.

Copyrights are not merely enforced by government, they were created by government.  I don't think you would have copyrights in ancap. But I don't know what Sandy thinks.  Maybe he will get around to addressing that in the story at some time.
The GPL and BSD licenses basically allow as much freedom as possible while still being "legal" under copyright laws.  I believe Stephan Kinsella has pointed out the problems with not selecting *some* sort of copyright under our current system. Basically if you don't put copyright on something, that doesn't necessarily make it public domain, but rather, makes it up for grabs for the first person or company to claim it and put their copyright on it instead.   And then the original creator could be in violation of said copyright with publication of his own material.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

myrkul999 on June 11, 2012, 12:09:40 pm
I'm not really a fan of copyright, especially the government-sponsored kinds.

But CC I'm happy with. Creative Commons solves pretty much every problem associated with copyright. I haven't looked into the duration of it, much, but I'll tell you this: As a writer, any money I make off my works after I'm dead does me absolutely no good. At that point, I'm feeding the scavengers in more ways than one. You know what? Screw the scavengers. I want to be remembered, not profited from. Making all my works public domain at the time of my death (or at least, execution of my Will) will make it that much harder for the scavengers to feed off my corpse, at least for very long.

Now, as to how copyright (even Creative Commons) could be upheld in an AnCap society, that's a different kettle of fish entirely. Basically, you would have to prove damages. Now, If I reprint your story, or artwork (or, since this is a webcomic site, both), without permission, I haven't really harmed you, exactly, but by not asking you first, I've cheated you out of the chance to ask for compensation. I think it would be fair to require that you have that opportunity after the fact, if I use your stuff to make any money.

Killydd on June 11, 2012, 01:09:38 pm

Working in open source software, I know that competitors find value in a "commons".  The Gnu Public License facilitates a software commons among competitors.  The license (yes, copyright is enforced by a government - maybe someone can suggest how that part would work under AnCap) gives you full rights to use the software, distribute the software as is, and full rights to distribute derivative works, *provided* you also distribute source code for changes or enhancements you have made.  (See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)

Another popular license is BSD, which gives full rights to use and distribute as is and derivatives, provided you credit the original authors.  Something like business sponsors of an event with their logo on the T-shirt.

Copyrights are not merely enforced by government, they were created by government.  I don't think you would have copyrights in ancap. But I don't know what Sandy thinks.  Maybe he will get around to addressing that in the story at some time.
The GPL and BSD licenses basically allow as much freedom as possible while still being "legal" under copyright laws.  I believe Stephan Kinsella has pointed out the problems with not selecting *some* sort of copyright under our current system. Basically if you don't put copyright on something, that doesn't necessarily make it public domain, but rather, makes it up for grabs for the first person or company to claim it and put their copyright on it instead.   And then the original creator could be in violation of said copyright with publication of his own material.

I think copyrights would be continued, since violation of copyright is essentially fraud:  falsely claiming that a different company or author is the source of the material.  Patents, on the other hand, would be discontinued, except in the context of guild secrets. 

However, because the air had to come from somewhere to begin with, the atmosphere plant is obviously owned by a corporation: Company A.
If you want to breath, you have to buy a subscription to have air in your quarters.  Naturally since most people pay up for the common areas, there will be free riders.  But what if the tenants decide they dont want to pay for their air any more?

Company B:

I think most individuals, habitats, and companies would have their own air recycling, for safety reasons.  They would need to buy air and water by the tankful from time to time to top up for leaks and such, much as you buy your groceries - you don't have a subscription to a supermarket, and neither would anyone with his own recycling have a subscription to an air and water company.  But people without recycling would have a subscription with someone who did have recycling, because they would need air continuously.  From time to time they might change subscription.
I think there would be more variation, depending mostly on the the density of a settlement.  One that is dense to reduce transit would be more likely to have a centralized air system that pipes into places, while one that is less dense would have more room for everyone to have a private recycling system.  Also, when you buy the air, you must recall that you are also paying for all the upkeep for the recycling system that you would otherwise need to do yourself, or hire someone to do periodically.  It also would depend on how much economy of scale exists for the technology:  if 50 people end up being only twice as expensive as 10, companies will form to take advantage of that fact.

Brugle on June 11, 2012, 01:48:27 pm
violation of copyright is essentially fraud:  falsely claiming that a different company or author is the source of the material.
No.  Publishing your novel while claiming that I wrote it is fraud.  Publishing your novel without your permission while making it clear that you are the author is not fraud but is copyright violation.

myrkul999 on June 11, 2012, 02:01:04 pm
I think copyrights would be continued, since violation of copyright is essentially fraud:  falsely claiming that a different company or author is the source of the material. 

IMO, "copyright" is a bit of a misnomer. It really should be called "profit right". You're right in that claiming the work of someone else as yours is indeed fraud, in fact, they even have a specific term for it: Plagiarism. You'll note, however, that I didn't speak of that in my discussion of copyright. I spoke instead of reprinting.

Let's say I printed up the "Christmas war" arc from EFT. If I did that for my own enjoyment offline, I doubt anyone would even bat an eye. If, however, I used those comics to print up a book and compete with the printed copies sold here in the store, I have no doubt that I would suffer some legal, and probably financial, consequences from that act.

The question remains, though, how would something like that be handled sans government interference? Especially since you can't really argue that I've stolen anything, after all, the comics are given away for free, here on the site. And if I'm doing it to correct a (hypothetical) flaw in the version offered here, it could be argued that I'm providing a service to the fans. Should the consumers of the product not get the best product available?

Andreas on June 11, 2012, 05:35:54 pm
It's extremely difficult to justify the case for copyright, even today... in AnCap, when a plaintiff has to show damage, it completely falls apart.
There is no damage. There is no case.
Even leaving someone else's work sharable has aspects of providing free advertisement, recommending and proliferating the work... in fact, "free" is a business model, now.
Speaking of which, these guys I know made the copyfree initiative in order to correct some big problems within copyleft and other non-copyright licenses http://copyfree.org/standard/
Basically, the idea is "let each person own what they own"... it even allows the free modification of the original, making no screwed up copyleft demands about the work other people put into modifying it having to be also copyleft work.

SandySandfort on June 11, 2012, 11:17:12 pm
[I think copyrights would be continued, since violation of copyright is essentially fraud:  falsely claiming that a different company or author is the source of the material.

Sorry, that's not correct. Violation of copyright is not fraud, "essentially" or otherwise. It is theoretically possible  that some actions associated with copyright violations might be fraud, but none come to mind.

Here are the elements of common law fraud. Please see that the author who has had his copyright violated has not been defrauded. Maybe his readers have been defrauded, but probably not or at least there is no remedy at law. Damnum Absque Injuria.

Common law fraud has nine elements:

    1. a representation of an existing fact;
    2. its materiality;
    3. its falsity;
    4. the speaker's knowledge of its falsity;
    5. the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
    6. plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;
    7. plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;
    8. plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and
    9. consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

Obviously, the creator of the IP has no standing within these elements.

myrkul999 on June 11, 2012, 11:27:37 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

Obviously, the creator of the IP has no standing within these elements.

Based on those... Plagiarism is fraud, but the original creator is not the victim. The readers are.

Interesting.

 

anything