Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: Oldhobo on June 06, 2012, 06:28:52 pm

Title: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Oldhobo on June 06, 2012, 06:28:52 pm
i want to know here and now that the Vesta storyline has a "happy" ending. 
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: wdg3rd on June 06, 2012, 07:29:21 pm
Well, eventually all of the bad guys die.  Course it might take a century or two while they live large before it happens.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: SandySandfort on June 06, 2012, 07:58:58 pm
i want to know here and now that the Vesta storyline has a "happy" ending. 

The Old Hobo lives. Happy enough for you?  ;)
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Bob G on June 07, 2012, 05:34:25 am
i want to know here and now that the Vesta storyline has a "happy" ending. 

Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: ConditionOne on June 07, 2012, 06:51:04 am
I think the Ancaps are waaaaay to patient with the budding progressive movement, considering they left terra to escape all that nonsense. Not that they have to initiate any form of violence, but just walk out of the room after the first couple of outrageous demands.

I mean, it's not like any of the progs have any higher power to appeal to to initiate force upon the businesses to heed the groups demands, right?

Ignoring the progs might event bring them to attempt violence in the form of terrorism, which would then give the adcaps the right to protected themselves and all but eliminate the progs, if not at least exiled them.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Azure Priest on June 07, 2012, 07:10:37 am
Oh, you don't ignore termites eating your home. You call an exterminator. These "do gooders" are termites on the society, pure and simple.

Yesterday's strip was also right, sadly. If you don't vote, you don't count. VOTE in your local election, or you deserve the government you get.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: SandySandfort on June 07, 2012, 07:19:11 am
Yesterday's strip was also right, sadly. If you don't vote, you don't count. VOTE in your local election, or you deserve the government you get.

What that point of view has some merit, if you believe the system can be fixed, that was not my point. The thing is, the bad guys use voting as a "Catch 22."

1. If you don't vote, you cannot complain if things don't go your way.

2. If you do vote, you are participating in the system and are tacitly agreeing to accept the results.

Heads I win, tails you lose.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: bjdotson on June 07, 2012, 08:02:51 am
if voting really changed anything it would be against the law.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: macsnafu on June 07, 2012, 08:25:42 am
What good is voting, if the choice you want to vote for isn't even on the ballot??  He who controls the ballot has the real power, not the voter.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Rbsnedd on June 07, 2012, 02:53:28 pm
You know, I think `the Mascons` have forgotten something vital.
They want to set up controls on the food and water but what about the air supply.
Seems to me that whoever controls the breathable air controls the colony.

Also, have the colonists actually built a nuclear power plant INSIDE the colony?
Bloody stupid place to put it.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: ZeissIkon on June 07, 2012, 04:29:46 pm
Also, have the colonists actually built a nuclear power plant INSIDE the colony?
Bloody stupid place to put it.

Well, not so much.  The same technology that protects the colonists protects the nuclear plant -- meaning, it doesn't need to be hardened against the space environment (meteoroid shielding probably costs more than radiation shielding, considering that while gravel/dust is basically free, labor to emplace it isn't, and you need more of it to stop a grain of sand at 20 km/s than to stop beta particles), doesn't require its own life support systems for the operators and maintainers, doesn't require long, expensive transmission lines.  By the time there are "burners" that can travel between planets at constant boost above about a milligee, it seems likely that fission power will be competitive with solar on safety (and possibly cheaper, given a belt-local source of uranium or thorium -- a good bet, since at least some meteorites appear to have come from bodies that were shattered after concentrating dense materials in their cores).
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Bob G on June 07, 2012, 09:45:37 pm
Yeah, let's put guards and RadProt workers in solar plants, because they deal with so much radiation . . .

After all, sunlight is radiation, isn't it?
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Warren on June 07, 2012, 10:04:33 pm
I don't see how the Mascons are going to enforce anything. Also is this a flashback to what's going in with the ISS?
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: myrkul999 on June 07, 2012, 10:11:49 pm
Also is this a flashback to what's going in with the ISS?

No, I get the impression that the ISS story is effectively over, all that's left is a long-ass trip in a cramped tin can.

This is a flash-back from the aborted duel with Guy's relative and the dude-looks-like-a-lady (forgive me, I forgot their names).
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Apollo-Soyuz on June 07, 2012, 10:49:53 pm
No, I get the impression that the ISS story is effectively over, all that's left is a long-ass trip in a cramped tin can.

This is a flash-back from the aborted duel with Guy's relative and the dude-looks-like-a-lady (forgive me, I forgot their names).

While I don't mind the jumps, that part is a bit annoying. The only way I really know a chapter is over is if they don't get back to it anytime soon. Actually the really annoying part is that there isn't a "chapter flag" every time the story-thread jumps, so skipping back to say the space-scouts first outing takes a bit of hunting around. (Ah well, I get my money's worth anyway)



Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: ContraryGuy on June 08, 2012, 01:33:03 am
You know, I think `the Mascons` have forgotten something vital.
They want to set up controls on the food and water but what about the air supply.
Seems to me that whoever controls the breathable air controls the colony.

I was planning on mentioning this, so thank you for the opening.  Becasue Vesta is inside the asteroid proper, the atmosphere plant can be made to be mostly self-sustaining through gardens and scrubbers with an actual atmosphere plant for startup and backup tyo make up for losses and pressure events.

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?
According to AnCap market principles, you either boycott or move.  But, in the Belt, there is no where to move to.  (remember, these people oppose paying for air so they cant move to another 'roid)

And what happens when market anarchy happens on the same rock?  Do yuou have to pass through an airlock that says "Now entering airspace of Company B; please have payment ready."?

In such a small space, what if you piss off the executive (or the engineer in charge of the physical plant)?  Can they cut off your air?  Can they bar you from entering their airspace?
Does flagging your ID in the computer so you cant enter their airspace (through the airlock) count as a violation of the ZAP?

What if the company in charge of providing the atmosphere raises the cost of air so much that people complain?  Are the people justified in forcibly taking over("liberating") the air plant "for the common good"?  Would that be a violation of the ZAP?

Does every person have their own personal shuttle so that they can move among asteroids in order to find the cheapest air costs?  If they dont, how will they move to a cheaper asteroid?
Or will they just suck it up and pay the higher cost?

Bachelors in AnCap are rootless and mobile (and own their own spacecraft); so they can jsut pick everything up and move away if the air costs gets too high.  But what about the families?  Can they just pick up everything and move away?

The OP has a good point.  But we cant discuss it in terms of the comic, because such petty concerns must be hand-waved away in favor of telling the story.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Rbsnedd on June 08, 2012, 05:41:25 am
Also, have the colonists actually built a nuclear power plant INSIDE the colony?
Bloody stupid place to put it.

Well, not so much.  The same technology that protects the colonists protects the nuclear plant -- meaning, it doesn't need to be hardened against the space environment (meteoroid shielding probably costs more than radiation shielding, considering that while gravel/dust is basically free, labor to emplace it isn't, and you need more of it to stop a grain of sand at 20 km/s than to stop beta particles), doesn't require its own life support systems for the operators and maintainers, doesn't require long, expensive transmission lines.  By the time there are "burners" that can travel between planets at constant boost above about a milligee, it seems likely that fission power will be competitive with solar on safety (and possibly cheaper, given a belt-local source of uranium or thorium -- a good bet, since at least some meteorites appear to have come from bodies that were shattered after concentrating dense materials in their cores).
Well yes, but my impression from the story is that the alarm went off because of a detector that has to be located INSIDE the life-support environment which is, to say the least the last place you want to risk contamination.
And stupid because it would be so easy to isolate even a contemporary type of fission reactor from the living areas on Vesta and operate the thing safely even if a Chernoble or Fukishima type screw-up were to happen.
Then again, with presumably no zoning type laws on Vesta perhaps the plant was built first then some clown decided to build something inside the plant`s safety zone and connected an airlock directly to it.
Yes people can be that stupid.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: customdesigned on June 08, 2012, 06:20:57 am

And what happens when market anarchy happens on the same rock?  Do yuou have to pass through an airlock that says "Now entering airspace of Company B; please have payment ready."?


There was a similar dilemma in medieval times, and for a while, yes you paid a toll at every bridge or boundary marker (hence the bridge troll fairy tale meme).  The cost under that system was actually very representative of maintaining the roads, bridges, etc.  However, it became very inconvenient and time consuming to travel.  So neighboring fiefdoms would grant a narrow strip of land to a "commons" for travel.  Sometimes they would establish an independent franchise that paid them all fees, and charged tolls (but for a much larger area, reducing the number of times you had to pay).  Sometimes they would have an agreement to take turns with maintenance of the commons.

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.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: customdesigned on June 08, 2012, 06:26:48 am
Well yes, but my impression from the story is that the alarm went off because of a detector that has to be located INSIDE the life-support environment which is, to say the least the last place you want to risk contamination.
That is actually a very smart place to put sensors, that is the acid test of whether all that isolation is actually working.  Additional sensors inside the plant can help diagnose any problem, but the sensors in the living area are the bottom line assurance that things are ok.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Azure Priest on June 08, 2012, 07:14:24 am
Bwahahahaha! Now these "know it alls" finally realize that they don't know squat!
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: macsnafu on June 08, 2012, 09:09:07 am
They said mini-nukes, meaning these are very small nuclear power plants.  I can only guess how much fissionable material is necessary to run a mini-nuke, but it is obviously going to be much less than the amount needed for a large-scale nuclear power plant.  Thus the danger from the mini-nukes is also proportionately smaller.  And that's assuming they haven't come up with a safer way of handling nuclear fission.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: customdesigned on June 08, 2012, 11:34:47 am
They said mini-nukes, meaning these are very small nuclear power plants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Apollo-Soyuz on June 08, 2012, 11:47:45 am
it's been established elsewhere in the strip that small nuclear bombs are commonly used to mine asteroids. Assuming "mini-nukes" are power plants is probably mistaken.

They said mini-nukes, meaning these are very small nuclear power plants.  I can only guess how much fissionable material is necessary to run a mini-nuke, but it is obviously going to be much less than the amount needed for a large-scale nuclear power plant.  Thus the danger from the mini-nukes is also proportionately smaller.  And that's assuming they haven't come up with a safer way of handling nuclear fission.

Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 08, 2012, 01:18:02 pm
I agree with Apollo-Soyuz; A nuke is a nuke is a nuke... is a nuclear warhead.
A njookjoolar power plant would more probably be shortened with "reactor".
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Tucci78 on June 08, 2012, 03:47:30 pm
You know, I think `the Mascons` have forgotten something vital.
They want to set up controls on the food and water but what about the air supply.
Seems to me that whoever controls the breathable air controls the colony.

I've had blazing idiots going into full "Nurmee-nurmee-nurmee-I'm-not-listening!" mode when I've observed this before, but centralization (and thereby critical point-failure vulnerability) of life support functions in a situation where "death pressure" is no more than a gasket away is the sort of self-correcting cement-headedness which tends to fulfill Heinlein's observation that:
Quote
"...stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."

I can't imagine any engineer or group of engineers who would devise a system that could be co-opted by a bunch of megalomaniac n00bs desirous of imposing "controls [on] the breathable air" in order to assert political control of the colony as a whole.

Anybody here not familiar with Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and his immensely credible depiction of how the Loonies of the Authority's penal colony had established compartmentalization and redundancy of vital functions in the "cubic" they'd created for their farming, industry, living space, and commerce?

Also, have the colonists actually built a nuclear power plant INSIDE the colony?
Bloody stupid place to put it.

Not if:

(a) the colony is compartmentalized, as any design engineer would structure the friggin' place to be (remember, well-compartmentalized nuclear submarines of the U.S. Navy have been operated from the git-go with their fission reactors inside the pressure hull, where the officers and crew sleep and eat and use those complicated toilets, sometimes for months at a time without even surfacing), and:

(b) the design of this future-tech "nuclear power plant" is even just as reliable in its safety parameters as are those designed and run today aboard the surface and submarine warships of the U.S. Navy.  

Why is it that people who know precisely dick about nuclear power are always the loudest and most annoying whining jerks when it comes to discussing the viability of fission in the generation of baseload electrical power?  

Oh, of course.  It's because they're willfully and arrogantly ignorant schmucks.

Easy answer.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: SandySandfort on June 08, 2012, 05:21:28 pm
it's been established elsewhere in the strip that small nuclear bombs are commonly used to mine asteroids. Assuming "mini-nukes" are power plants is probably mistaken.

Yes and no. As far as the Mascons are concerned, bomb and nuclear plant are sama-sama.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: sam on June 09, 2012, 12:09:06 am
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.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: myrkul999 on June 09, 2012, 12:32:16 am
In the town I live in we actually have more than one power company. In Keene, NH, they have more than one trash service.

I see no reason why there would not be multiple air recyclers, as well.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: sam on June 09, 2012, 12:45:22 am
it's been established elsewhere in the strip that small nuclear bombs are commonly used to mine asteroids. Assuming "mini-nukes" are power plants is probably mistaken.

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.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 09, 2012, 07:09:15 am
I still think most businesses in those circumstances will provide air as a cost of running a business; if the business is viable, there's no problem.
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.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.



Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: 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/ (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.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 11, 2012, 11:41:54 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.
And i guess it would become criminal fraud only where the readers are asked to pay for the erroneously labeled bootleg product (or in other ways suffer damages - maybe they suffer a major embarrassment when bragging at high-profile dinner parties about reading Uderzo's Escape from Terra? ;) )
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: macsnafu on June 12, 2012, 08:58:06 am
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.


Yes, you're right.  But in the case of copyright violation, not fraud, what is the actual harm to the author?  Sure, the author isn't making any money off a novel that was published without his knowledge or permission (unless of course, the publisher decides to pay the author something anyway), but that's not really "harm" as I understand it.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: customdesigned on June 12, 2012, 10:23:35 am
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.

So if there is no copyright in AnCap, the  FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) license (yes, I understand that no license is necessary with no copyright) that best captures the AnCap spirit would be BSD - which allows copies and derivatives for any purpose, provided the original author is properly credited.

There was some dislike for the GPL expressed here.  I should point out that the GPL is necessary because of copyright - otherwise a competitor can take your work, incorporate it into a proprietary product, and finally (here's the kicker) *copyright* the proprietary product and forbid reverse engineering.  The GPL very cleverly makes open source safe for business in an environment that includes government enforced copyright.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: EENalley on June 12, 2012, 10:26:36 am
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.


Yes, you're right.  But in the case of copyright violation, not fraud, what is the actual harm to the author?  Sure, the author isn't making any money off a novel that was published without his knowledge or permission (unless of course, the publisher decides to pay the author something anyway), but that's not really "harm" as I understand it.


So, if you grow an acre of corn, and I come take half and sell it and refuse to pay you for your corn, or the labor that went into growing it, that's ok?  Theft is theft just because you're stealing a book instead of food or guns, or anything else for sale, that doesn't make it any less than theft.  As a writer, I work hard to produce the stories I write.  I'm entitled to enjoy the fruits of my labors.  So are you with your hypothetical corn.  I won't take your stuff, please don't try to justify stealing mine, or Sandy's or L. Neil Smiths, or any other author.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: macsnafu on June 12, 2012, 10:58:30 am
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.


Yes, you're right.  But in the case of copyright violation, not fraud, what is the actual harm to the author?  Sure, the author isn't making any money off a novel that was published without his knowledge or permission (unless of course, the publisher decides to pay the author something anyway), but that's not really "harm" as I understand it.


So, if you grow an acre of corn, and I come take half and sell it and refuse to pay you for your corn, or the labor that went into growing it, that's ok?  Theft is theft just because you're stealing a book instead of food or guns, or anything else for sale, that doesn't make it any less than theft.  As a writer, I work hard to produce the stories I write.  I'm entitled to enjoy the fruits of my labors.  So are you with your hypothetical corn.  I won't take your stuff, please don't try to justify stealing mine, or Sandy's or L. Neil Smiths, or any other author.

Heh.  I should have expected this response.

First of all, I was asking, not trying to make a particular point.  There may indeed be something wrong with taking the results of someone else's efforts and profiting from it without their permission.  But exactly and explicitly what is it that's wrong with it? That's what I'm trying to clarify.   Again, no actual harm has been done to that person.  They're merely not being paid for their efforts.  No one has a right to be paid for their efforts.  If you write a book that no one wants to pay for, no rights-violation has taken place.  If I re-publish your book without your permission, and no one buys my edition of your book, meaning I make no profit off of it, has something wrong still been done to you?  Or does the alleged harm only occur if I profit from your efforts?

But your example is clearly not analogous, because there is an actual, physical product that has been stolen from the owner, regardless of the amount of effort that the corn grower has gone to, he clearly owned the corn and the land that the corn was grown on.  Theft and trespassing have clearly taken place. 

Theft and trespassing hasn't necessarily take place if someone gets a copy of a book and then re-publishes it.  The author still has their original manuscript or file on their computer, and if the book is publicly available, then no trespass was necessary to get a copy of it.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: SandySandfort on June 12, 2012, 11:07:20 am
And i guess it would become criminal fraud only where the readers are asked to pay for the erroneously labeled bootleg product (or in other ways suffer damages...

Not unless the buyer did not get what he paid for.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of Debbie Does Dishes. Not actionable by the buyer, because no damages. He wanted Debbie Does Dishes; he got Debbie Does Dishes.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of The Little Mermaid. He paid for something and did not get it. Assuming the other 8 elements are present, Bob was defrauded out of the purchase price of Debbie Does Dishes.

... maybe they suffer a major embarrassment when bragging at high-profile dinner parties about reading Uderzo's Escape from Terra? ;) )

Okay, who is this Uderzo, and did anyone see where I put my gun?

I guess I need to add a smiley face, so one of the Forum's yahoos doesn't start huffing and puffing about a violation of the ZAP or some such.  :)
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: macsnafu on June 12, 2012, 11:08:09 am
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.

So if there is no copyright in AnCap, the  FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) license (yes, I understand that no license is necessary with no copyright) that best captures the AnCap spirit would be BSD - which allows copies and derivatives for any purpose, provided the original author is properly credited.

There was some dislike for the GPL expressed here.  I should point out that the GPL is necessary because of copyright - otherwise a competitor can take your work, incorporate it into a proprietary product, and finally (here's the kicker) *copyright* the proprietary product and forbid reverse engineering.  The GPL very cleverly makes open source safe for business in an environment that includes government enforced copyright.

Yep, as I understand it, under current copyright laws, it's impossible, or practically so, to release a work directly into the public domain, and thus prevent someone else from claiming the rights to it.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: macsnafu on June 12, 2012, 11:09:48 am
And i guess it would become criminal fraud only where the readers are asked to pay for the erroneously labeled bootleg product (or in other ways suffer damages...

Not unless the buyer did not get what he paid for.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of Debbie Does Dishes. Not actionable by the buyer, because no damages. He wanted Debbie Does Dishes; he got Debbie Does Dishes.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of The Little Mermaid. He paid for something and did not get it. Assuming the other 8 elements are present, Bob was defrauded out of the purchase price of Debbie Does Dishes.

... maybe they suffer a major embarrassment when bragging at high-profile dinner parties about reading Uderzo's Escape from Terra? ;) )

Okay, who is this Uderzo, and did anyone see where I put my gun?

You never read Asterix? 

Albert Uderzo (born 25 April 1927) is a French comic book artist, and scriptwriter. He is best known for his work on the Astérix series, but also drew other comics such as Oumpah-pah, also in collaboration with René Goscinny.

--Wikipedia
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Killydd on June 12, 2012, 11:51:59 am
First, my apologies, I just realized that I was confusing "trademark" with "copyright" which is a different matter entirely.  However, I do still believe that copyright should be reasonably enforced:
And i guess it would become criminal fraud only where the readers are asked to pay for the erroneously labeled bootleg product (or in other ways suffer damages...

Not unless the buyer did not get what he paid for.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of Debbie Does Dishes. Not actionable by the buyer, because no damages. He wanted Debbie Does Dishes; he got Debbie Does Dishes.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of The Little Mermaid. He paid for something and did not get it. Assuming the other 8 elements are present, Bob was defrauded out of the purchase price of Debbie Does Dishes.

However, there is a reasonable assumption on the part of the buyer that some part of his purchase price is making it back to the original author when he buys an item.  Whether this is done as a lump sum or as micropayments is immaterial to this assumption:  part of what the end user is buying is the knowledge that he is supporting the original author. 
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.


Yes, you're right.  But in the case of copyright violation, not fraud, what is the actual harm to the author?  Sure, the author isn't making any money off a novel that was published without his knowledge or permission (unless of course, the publisher decides to pay the author something anyway), but that's not really "harm" as I understand it.


So, if you grow an acre of corn, and I come take half and sell it and refuse to pay you for your corn, or the labor that went into growing it, that's ok?  Theft is theft just because you're stealing a book instead of food or guns, or anything else for sale, that doesn't make it any less than theft.  As a writer, I work hard to produce the stories I write.  I'm entitled to enjoy the fruits of my labors.  So are you with your hypothetical corn.  I won't take your stuff, please don't try to justify stealing mine, or Sandy's or L. Neil Smiths, or any other author.

Heh.  I should have expected this response.

First of all, I was asking, not trying to make a particular point.  There may indeed be something wrong with taking the results of someone else's efforts and profiting from it without their permission.  But exactly and explicitly what is it that's wrong with it? That's what I'm trying to clarify.   Again, no actual harm has been done to that person.  They're merely not being paid for their efforts.  No one has a right to be paid for their efforts.  If you write a book that no one wants to pay for, no rights-violation has taken place.  If I re-publish your book without your permission, and no one buys my edition of your book, meaning I make no profit off of it, has something wrong still been done to you?  Or does the alleged harm only occur if I profit from your efforts?

But your example is clearly not analogous, because there is an actual, physical product that has been stolen from the owner, regardless of the amount of effort that the corn grower has gone to, he clearly owned the corn and the land that the corn was grown on.  Theft and trespassing have clearly taken place. 

Theft and trespassing hasn't necessarily take place if someone gets a copy of a book and then re-publishes it.  The author still has their original manuscript or file on their computer, and if the book is publicly available, then no trespass was necessary to get a copy of it.

Some responses: 
clearly, your profit is not needed for theft to occur:  it is still theft if you steal my wallet and throw it in the garbage, since your actions have directly harmed me. 
Even if you give it away for free, you have still stolen potential sales of my book.  It may be difficult to quantify this damage, but in principle it is there.  However, that does just mean one more item for the arbitration to consider. 
Effectively, your argument is that "I did not destroy your usage of it, so I did not really take it."  However, your usage of it did degrade my usage of it.  Otherwise, we would not have created things like guild secrets and eventually patents and copyrights.  If you took some action that harmed my crops, such as releasing your pesticide intentionally where you knew it would cause me to not be able to label it organic anymore, that is a clear violation of my rights.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: mellyrn on June 12, 2012, 12:45:03 pm
Quote
Even if you give it away for free, you have still stolen potential sales of my book.

In that case, used-book stores also "steal" potential sales.  True, those copies had been bought once (at least once; possibly more!) before, but the purchaser of the used copy is buying (actively paying for, not even getting it free) your work in a way that does not profit you.   Libraries also "steal" potential sales -- that's one purchase per ?how many hundreds of readers?  And yet neither re-sellers nor lenders have caused author-wannabes to throw up their hands and refuse to write; I dare say they didn't put a meaningful dent in JK Rowlings' bean fund.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: macsnafu on June 12, 2012, 12:54:55 pm
First, my apologies, I just realized that I was confusing "trademark" with "copyright" which is a different matter entirely.  However, I do still believe that copyright should be reasonably enforced:
And i guess it would become criminal fraud only where the readers are asked to pay for the erroneously labeled bootleg product (or in other ways suffer damages...

Not unless the buyer did not get what he paid for.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of Debbie Does Dishes. Not actionable by the buyer, because no damages. He wanted Debbie Does Dishes; he got Debbie Does Dishes.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of The Little Mermaid. He paid for something and did not get it. Assuming the other 8 elements are present, Bob was defrauded out of the purchase price of Debbie Does Dishes.

However, there is a reasonable assumption on the part of the buyer that some part of his purchase price is making it back to the original author when he buys an item.  Whether this is done as a lump sum or as micropayments is immaterial to this assumption:  part of what the end user is buying is the knowledge that he is supporting the original author. 

Is there such an assumption?  Tell that to the record companies!   ;-)

Quote
Heh.  I should have expected this response.

First of all, I was asking, not trying to make a particular point.  There may indeed be something wrong with taking the results of someone else's efforts and profiting from it without their permission.  But exactly and explicitly what is it that's wrong with it? That's what I'm trying to clarify.   Again, no actual harm has been done to that person.  They're merely not being paid for their efforts.  No one has a right to be paid for their efforts.  If you write a book that no one wants to pay for, no rights-violation has taken place.  If I re-publish your book without your permission, and no one buys my edition of your book, meaning I make no profit off of it, has something wrong still been done to you?  Or does the alleged harm only occur if I profit from your efforts?

But your example is clearly not analogous, because there is an actual, physical product that has been stolen from the owner, regardless of the amount of effort that the corn grower has gone to, he clearly owned the corn and the land that the corn was grown on.  Theft and trespassing have clearly taken place. 

Theft and trespassing hasn't necessarily take place if someone gets a copy of a book and then re-publishes it.  The author still has their original manuscript or file on their computer, and if the book is publicly available, then no trespass was necessary to get a copy of it.

Quote
Some responses: 
clearly, your profit is not needed for theft to occur:  it is still theft if you steal my wallet and throw it in the garbage, since your actions have directly harmed me. 
Even if you give it away for free, you have still stolen potential sales of my book.  It may be difficult to quantify this damage, but in principle it is there.  However, that does just mean one more item for the arbitration to consider. 
Effectively, your argument is that "I did not destroy your usage of it, so I did not really take it."  However, your usage of it did degrade my usage of it.  Otherwise, we would not have created things like guild secrets and eventually patents and copyrights.  If you took some action that harmed my crops, such as releasing your pesticide intentionally where you knew it would cause me to not be able to label it organic anymore, that is a clear violation of my rights.
Again, this is not my "argument".  Really and truly, I have been struggling with the copyright issue for a long time.  Yes, I do think that something is wrong with taking someone else's work without their permission and profiting from it.  But I cannot explicitly state what is wrong. 

It is clearly not "theft" as the original creator has not been deprived of their property.  And I don't believe there can be property rights in the ideas themselves.  And even though ideas can be 'fixed' into physical form, i.e. book, compact disc, etc, the only inherent property is the actual physical form, not the idea fixed to that form.

"Degraded the usage of it" has merit, but still seems a bit weak, as mellyrn has shown.  It still claims a property right in the work, or the effort put into creating the work, without showing that it is, indeed property.

Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: EENalley on June 12, 2012, 02:00:34 pm
Quote
Even if you give it away for free, you have still stolen potential sales of my book.

In that case, used-book stores also "steal" potential sales.  True, those copies had been bought once (at least once; possibly more!) before, but the purchaser of the used copy is buying (actively paying for, not even getting it free) your work in a way that does not profit you.   Libraries also "steal" potential sales -- that's one purchase per ?how many hundreds of readers?  And yet neither re-sellers nor lenders have caused author-wannabes to throw up their hands and refuse to write; I dare say they didn't put a meaningful dent in JK Rowlings' bean fund.


The book was bought once in each instance and the publisher and author compensated per their contract.  I don't owe Ford more than once if I re-sell my car.  But if I steal the plans for it and have some magic machine that produces limitless copies with no further input and started selling those, I'd imagine Ford might have something to say about that.  And rightly so.

Just because there's a computer involved doesn't make it any less theft. 
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 12, 2012, 03:20:02 pm
Ok, now you made me angry: It was already made clear how it is not fraud, now tell me how on earth can it be theft?
Theft involves the preservation of scarcity, and the deprivation of the victim. Sharing involves neither, therefore sharing CANNOT be theft.

Squatting in a building is not stealing the rent that normally would be payable to its owner. That's not theft.
Similarly, obtaining a copy of a work without paying for it is NOT stealing the payment normally payable to the seller of that work. Also not theft.
The problem with the present business models for "IP" matters is that they MAKE NO SENSE!!!
The Media Moghouls, instead of fixing their side of it, attempts to use government to plug the big-ass holes in their plan... while engaging in intellectual sloth of the worst kind.
Patents, Copyright, all that... it's doomed. Trying to keep it alive will cause tremendous harm.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 12, 2012, 03:35:55 pm
And i guess it would become criminal fraud only where the readers are asked to pay for the erroneously labeled bootleg product (or in other ways suffer damages...

Not unless the buyer did not get what he paid for.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of Debbie Does Dishes. Not actionable by the buyer, because no damages. He wanted Debbie Does Dishes; he got Debbie Does Dishes.

Bob wants to buy Debbie Does Dishes. The bootlegger sells him a pirated copy of The Little Mermaid. He paid for something and did not get it. Assuming the other 8 elements are present, Bob was defrauded out of the purchase price of Debbie Does Dishes.

... maybe they suffer a major embarrassment when bragging at high-profile dinner parties about reading Uderzo's Escape from Terra? ;) )

Okay, who is this Uderzo, and did anyone see where I put my gun?

I guess I need to add a smiley face, so one of the Forum's yahoos doesn't start huffing and puffing about a violation of the ZAP or some such.  :)

Sorry, I didn't elaborate my point very well.
Example: Someone buys a work of art, and attributes part of the value of the work to the prestige (real or imagined) of its creator (let's say it's a Picasso). Now it turns out it's really a Johnson, bootlegged and re-signed as a Picasso. This, to my understanding, is fraud, since the purchase was in part driven by the fraudulent claim. If it had been "Debbie does dishes", obviously a work the value of which is derived entirely from its usability, then as you say, no harm no foul.

Uderzo is the surviving creator of Asterix ;) That bit was just to try and spin out an example of a fraudulent claim that could potentially cause harm (loss of face)... it was far fetched, I admit.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: EENalley on June 12, 2012, 03:40:04 pm
Ok, now you made me angry: It was already made clear how it is not fraud, now tell me how on earth can it be theft?
Theft involves the preservation of scarcity, and the deprivation of the victim. Sharing involves neither, therefore sharing CANNOT be theft.

Squatting in a building is not stealing the rent that normally would be payable to its owner. That's not theft.
Similarly, obtaining a copy of a work without paying for it is NOT stealing the payment normally payable to the seller of that work. Also not theft.
The problem with the present business models for "IP" matters is that they MAKE NO SENSE!!!
The Media Moghouls, instead of fixing their side of it, attempts to use government to plug the big-ass holes in their plan... while engaging in intellectual sloth of the worst kind.
Patents, Copyright, all that... it's doomed. Trying to keep it alive will cause tremendous harm.

Huh?  I'm not talking about sharing.  I'm talking about someone taking a manuscript copy running off 10K copies and selling it.  Sharing is perfectly fine.  The library paid for their copy to lend. 
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: macsnafu on June 12, 2012, 03:51:27 pm
Huh?  I'm not talking about sharing.  I'm talking about someone taking a manuscript copy running off 10K copies and selling it.  Sharing is perfectly fine.  The library paid for their copy to lend. 

Why aren't you talking about sharing?  If I share a book I buy with half a dozen of my friends, then that's half a dozen potential sales that the author won't benefit from, right?  Assuming that they all are interested in buying the book, that is.

Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 12, 2012, 03:53:42 pm
However, there is a reasonable assumption on the part of the buyer that some part of his purchase price is making it back to the original author when he buys an item.  Whether this is done as a lump sum or as micropayments is immaterial to this assumption:  part of what the end user is buying is the knowledge that he is supporting the original author.
This, I think, is patently false. In the purchase of a physical object that incorporates a work of art, there cannot be such an assumption from any but the most naive.
The 2nd-Hand shop is a stellar example, we're just buying an object, whether it's the first purchase or the Nth purchase. We can make believe that our buying the object benefits the creator, but that's just a fancy.

If you want to support an artist, ask them how. Some have a tip jar, some will say "tell your friends", some will say "buy a plushie", "click the ads"... and my favourite: "buy some originals". That's how it is. The follies of fandom is not supporting of the creators - it is a self-involved pastime, a mental cosplay, if you will, of pretending that these trappings of the art can somehow transform their purchaser into something related to the art. Claiming to support the artist may be part of that, but it is not the truth value of the claim that has value to these cosplayers, it's the acceptance/envy (real or imagined) of their peers (real or imagined).
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 12, 2012, 03:56:24 pm
Huh?  I'm not talking about sharing.  I'm talking about someone taking a manuscript copy running off 10K copies and selling it.  Sharing is perfectly fine.  The library paid for their copy to lend. 

Why aren't you talking about sharing?  If I share a book I buy with half a dozen of my friends, then that's half a dozen potential sales that the author won't benefit from, right?  Assuming that they all are interested in buying the book, that is.



Exactly, sharing kicks the bottom out of the "stolen sales" argument.
Neil Young said that for music, pirating is just the new radio. It's the way music gets around, the way you get your stuff heard.
That has a lot of merit.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: myrkul999 on June 12, 2012, 04:37:03 pm
Huh?  I'm not talking about sharing.  I'm talking about someone taking a manuscript copy running off 10K copies and selling it.  Sharing is perfectly fine.  The library paid for their copy to lend. 

The key question is if the original owners no longer have their copy. If you copied the manuscript (or the plans to the new Ford), and started making physical objects to those plans - printing books, or fabricating cars - you've not stolen anything from anyone. If you took a physical copy of the manuscript or plans, however, then you have stolen something - the physical copy that once was in their possession.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: macsnafu on June 12, 2012, 04:57:54 pm
Huh?  I'm not talking about sharing.  I'm talking about someone taking a manuscript copy running off 10K copies and selling it.  Sharing is perfectly fine.  The library paid for their copy to lend. 

Why aren't you talking about sharing?  If I share a book I buy with half a dozen of my friends, then that's half a dozen potential sales that the author won't benefit from, right?  Assuming that they all are interested in buying the book, that is.
Exactly, sharing kicks the bottom out of the "stolen sales" argument.
Neil Young said that for music, pirating is just the new radio. It's the way music gets around, the way you get your stuff heard.
That has a lot of merit.

Sure.  Of those half a dozen people I may share a book with, some may not have bought their own copy even if I hadn't shared it with them, and some might buy a copy for themselves because I shared it with them, and they especially liked it.   Any attempted calculation of 'lost sales" that doesn't take these possibilities into account must necessarily be flawed.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: mellyrn on June 12, 2012, 06:48:12 pm
Quote
Neil Young said that for music, pirating is just the new radio. It's the way music gets around, the way you get your stuff heard.
That has a lot of merit.

I was once given a pirated music CD which I loved so much, when I had a few extra bucks, I bought 3/three "legitimate" copies -- one to keep, two to give away. 

Otoh, I know of a seriously-anti-pirating guy whose wife is a musician.  I doubt I'll ever buy her stuff because I don't know what it's like.  If I heard a sample and liked it, it might be the only track I did like, and the rest of the album would be a waste from my perspective; if I heard a sample and didn't like it, I wouldn't buy the album and might never know that was the only track I wouldn't have liked.

I'm an author-wannabe myself.  I've got a web site and everything (hasn't been updated in two years . . . at least).  When I get bold enough (meaning, I've got my butt in gear enough to do regular updates) to advertise, I'm going to put it out there and hope for the best.  If you can make money off it in ways that I can't (I have a turnip's masterful grasp of business) -- please fucking do!  It would be nice if you cut me in for a little piece; my other fan might think poorly of you if you didn't, dontcha know?  But as much as I'd like to make my living at writing, that isn't why I do it.

I'm not entitled to a living.  Either I can make one, or I can't.  People will either buy my stuff (from me, or my agent if I had one), or they won't.  "Copyright" seems like trying to force the world to give me what it doesn't have to -- rather as "government" seems like trying to force me to accept some people as "my" people whether I truly feel that way about them or not.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Warren on June 12, 2012, 07:10:32 pm
These two links have some interesting observations that bear n the current discussion.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html

http://www.cippm.org.uk/downloads/Symposium%202009/Hoffner%20-%20vortrag_eng-10_min.pdf

The data is from long before the computer age so I don't know if the conclusions would fit 100% with today's ease of passing information about.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: mellyrn on June 12, 2012, 07:24:55 pm
Quote
I have been struggling with the copyright issue for a long time.  Yes, I do think that something is wrong with taking someone else's work without their permission and profiting from it.  But I cannot explicitly state what is wrong.

I thought this was such a good question, I took it home for dinner.  We've been chewing it over for the last hour, all of us agreeing that, yes, something's wrong about it -- but what?

Here's what we've got so far:  most of everyday life is lived in what P pleases to call "natural" anarchy -- we refer to no ruler or leader to decide what's for dinner or whose turn it is to do dishes, kind of thing.  That cooperation arises naturally out of community life; there's a sense of reciprocity and mutual respect -- I do this, you do that, stop when we feel we've done more than enough.  P borrows my shirts; she knows full well I'm going to say yes if she asks, and yet she still asks.  I wouldn't mind if she didn't -- and I like it better when she does.

Taking someone else's work without so much as a by-your-leave -- even a copy, so that he's not deprived of anything -- is a violation of that communal relationship, the unstated social dance that makes our homely anarchy function.

P went so far as to wonder whether it always was about the relationship -- that when it's theft of a physical object, the material loss involved perhaps masked the fact that the greater crime (from the perspective of a social species) was the damage theft causes to our relationships; and now that we're in this information society, and it's "intellectual" property, the harm to our social relationships is more clearly seen.


 ;) I could do a reverse-sam and say something about how you guys are all groaning at all this talk of 'ships and how it's obvious all my dinner partners tonight were women.  But I know we're all people here.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Brugle on June 12, 2012, 07:47:45 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.


Yes, you're right.  But in the case of copyright violation, not fraud, what is the actual harm to the author?  Sure, the author isn't making any money off a novel that was published without his knowledge or permission (unless of course, the publisher decides to pay the author something anyway), but that's not really "harm" as I understand it.
Obviously, the author might suffer a loss of income if someone copies a novel without permission.  But income is not guaranteed in a free society.  Copyright is a government grant of monopoly privilege which (as far as I can tell) would not exist in a free society.  Did I say something to suggest that I support copyrights?

there is a reasonable assumption on the part of the buyer that some part of his purchase price is making it back to the original author when he buys an item.
While I don't know if it meets the standard for fraud that Sandy described, I would consider it some sort of crime if the seller deceived the buyer in that way (similar to people collecting money for a charity and then keeping it for themselves).

Quote from: Wikipedia
In the early 1960s Donald A. Wollheim, science fiction editor of the paperback publisher Ace Books, claimed that The Lord of the Rings was not protected in the United States under American copyright law because Houghton Mifflin, the U.S. hardcover publisher, had neglected to copyright the work in the United States.[38][39] Ace Books then proceeded to publish an edition, unauthorized by Tolkien and without paying royalties to him. Tolkien took issue with this and quickly notified his fans of this objection.[40] Grass-roots pressure from these fans became so great that Ace Books withdrew their edition and made a nominal payment to Tolkien.[41][42] Authorized editions followed from Ballantine Books and Houghton Mifflin to tremendous commercial success.
When I bought LOTR, the store had both the Ace and Ballantine editions.  (I'm that old.)  Having been made aware of the issue by a friend, I bought the somewhat more expensive authorized edition.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: EENalley on June 12, 2012, 07:55:40 pm
I refer people here (http://down-with-power.com/ip-rights.html).  When you get down to things, as this essay points out, all rights are property rights, and all property rights are Intellectual property rights.  You can do nothing creative without thinking about it first.

Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Brugle on June 12, 2012, 10:38:43 pm
I refer people here (http://down-with-power.com/ip-rights.html).  When you get down to things, as this essay points out, all rights are property rights, and all property rights are Intellectual property rights.  You can do nothing creative without thinking about it first.

That sounds like Ayn Rand's defense of IP.  I enjoy reading Rand and find many of her arguments quite convincing, but found her weak on a few issues including IP (although that was not nearly as bad as her defense of the coercive state).

Stephan Kinsella discussed many justifications for IP (including Rand's), including the problems with using creation as the foundation for property rights, in "Against Intellectual Property":
http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: myrkul999 on June 12, 2012, 10:56:48 pm
Taking someone else's work without so much as a by-your-leave -- even a copy, so that he's not deprived of anything -- is a violation of that communal relationship, the unstated social dance that makes our homely anarchy function.

This is an excellent observation. Copying someone's idea is a dick move. But is it a crime?

Under the libertarian/anarchist definition, a crime causes harm to someone. Copying someone's idea doesn't harm them.

To quote Thomas Jefferson (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson):
Quote
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
(Emphasis added)

So, no, even if it is a bit of a dick move to "steal" an idea, that person still has his idea, and can act on it. He hasn't been harmed, so there is no crime.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 12, 2012, 11:59:31 pm
This is an excellent observation. Copying someone's idea is a dick move.
Maybe that's just our "state brand" minds following on conditioning?
We're assuming here that the natural state of the artist is to hoard their work like a dragon, saying to all comers:
What I have is so awesome, that it'll cost you to even look at it...

... is that actually likely? Already people, artists, are adapting to the fluidity of thought in the electronic medium: The ones who are adapting are making "Free" their business model, and they're saying the exact opposite: Hey, come look at what I have! Feel free to share (tell your friends)

In the anarchic community, are people assumed to be stupid? Do we assume that they don't realize that their favourite artists need to eat, and that their keeping the art as a side business makes them less prolific in that field? Do we assume that they won't do what people already now do? Supporting what they'd like to see more of?

We've grown up in a society that was not free, where artists were regarded as freeloaders (even when their necessity was obvious), and where they had to retaliate in kind, rationing their art for the sake of proving its merit.


Copying someone's work against their explicit will is a dick move (or maybe just impolite), but think of fanart and cosplays and fanfics, those are all IP infringement (really, they are), and the lawyers sit perched in their aeries waiting to cease-and-desist the frack out of anyone trying any of *that* stuff...

That's the dick move.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 13, 2012, 12:21:46 am
I refer people here (http://down-with-power.com/ip-rights.html).  When you get down to things, as this essay points out, all rights are property rights, and all property rights are Intellectual property rights.  You can do nothing creative without thinking about it first.
That there was the death rattle of an ill-conceived and ill-delivered idea. When a pasture has become the target predators to the point where it can not be defended, and the predators cannot be driven out without destroying the pasture... nothing can be done but abandon it.
The copyright system is choking on the feces of its own impossibility, it CANNOT be saved - it may even be that the draconic measures of government meant to futilely try to save it will be the straw that breaks the back of government itself. The moghouls had the ability to control ideas back when ideas could be obtained only bound into physical objects... and even back then it was touch-and-go; now that information can move unfettered by physical containers, it's entirely impossible to maintain that monopoly.

And finally, piracy is immensely beneficial to the artist:
Of a given population, some percentage, x, is going to pay the artist for the art, up front, having found the artist by themselves.
A much larger percentage, let's arbitrarily call that y=10x (grossly conservative), will pay the artist for the art, up front, once it has been brought to their attention.
A much larger percentage, arbitrarily z=100x, will pay the artist for use of the art, after they've seen it and enjoyed it.
A much larger percentage, arbitrarily a=1000x, will tell their friends about the art, having gotten it for free, but wouldn't have ever bought it.
Now, the kicker is this: x is a function of b - findability. The 1000 freeloaders to each die-hard avantgarde (member of the basic x), who aren't withholding any money, as they were never going to have spent it, are going to boost the crap out b, expanding the artists income basis on all three paying levels (x, y, z).
And that's not taking into account income from ads, which in some cases may make even a-users profitable (or at least reduce overhead).

Piracy is not harmful to the author, only to the leeches that artists have had to associate with for the last century.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: myrkul999 on June 13, 2012, 12:58:15 am
Copying someone's work against their explicit will is a dick move (or maybe just impolite), but think of fanart and cosplays and fanfics, those are all IP infringement (really, they are), and the lawyers sit perched in their aeries waiting to cease-and-desist the frack out of anyone trying any of *that* stuff...

That's the dick move.

Too true. But all of those are creative endeavors based on other people's IP. If I wrote a novel, and suddenly I see people dressing up as my characters, painting things based on my descriptions, or writing stories set in my world, or any of the various other activities fans get into, I'd be ecstatic. That means that those people loved my work so much, that it inspired them so much, that they wanted to create something from it. That's awesome. So, not a dick move at all.

I am reminded of the Shakespeare quote...
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: mellyrn on June 13, 2012, 08:15:37 am
So, not a dick move at all.

myrkul999, I think Andreas meant

and the lawyers sit perched in their aeries waiting to cease-and-desist the frack out of anyone trying any of *that* stuff...

That's the dick move. (emphasis added)

Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: SandySandfort on June 13, 2012, 08:24:43 am
If I wrote a novel, and suddenly I see people dressing up as my characters, painting things based on my descriptions, or writing stories set in my world, or any of the various other activities fans get into, I'd be ecstatic...

You and me both, brother! My secret (until now) desire, is that the honorific, "Sv" and its address form, "Sov," move into general usage. Everywhere would be nice, but even if just libertarians, anarchists, et alia, pick it up, I would be in doggy heaven.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: macsnafu on June 13, 2012, 08:59:03 am
So maybe copyright violation is, as suggested, a dick move, and a violation of the relationships between people, i.e. rude, impolite, and something that most people will just naturally look down upon, but not an actual crime?

In that case, what copyright law is doing is preventing the jerks in society from exposing themselves to the rest of us.  After all, in the example of Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings, who wouldn't think that Ace Books were jerks, just trying to make a quick buck, and that Ballantine was the more honorable publisher, since they sought Tolkien's permission to print the book, even though they legally didn't have to?
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: myrkul999 on June 13, 2012, 01:43:25 pm
So, not a dick move at all.
myrkul999, I think Andreas meant
and the lawyers sit perched in their aeries waiting to cease-and-desist the frack out of anyone trying any of *that* stuff...

That's the dick move. (emphasis added)

Oh, I know. I was saying that all of the stuff that was technical copyright violations only pisses off the lawyers, not the creators (well, maybe the fanfiction... especially the slash stuff, but it's still pretty cool) Thus the reference to the Shakespeare quote, which was "The first thing we do, is kill all the lawyers"
(sorry, sometimes, when I think I'm being clever, I'm actually being obtuse)
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 13, 2012, 01:56:09 pm
I know that it only pisses off the Lawyers, but the sad state of affairs today is that many artists (the "lucky" ones who got signed) have no choice in the matter; they had to sign over the guardianship of their treasures to these vultures with their C&D writs.
Those vultures are the ones in real danger from sharing.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: ContraryGuy on June 14, 2012, 03:50:37 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.

Back in the eighties, I read an article about the possibilities of californium bullets, for commandos and such.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Apollo-Soyuz on June 14, 2012, 08:17:34 pm
Back in the eighties, I read an article about the possibilities of californium bullets, for commandos and such.

Well according to the chart, you would need 96.3 oz of californium-252. Even if you got that down to about half with a gee-whiz neutron reflector or other tricks, we're still talking a bullet the mass of a "super Big Gulp".  Totally illegal in Bloomberg's New York City.

That might fit on a Starship Trooper's battle suit, but probably not in a reasonable sized handgun or longarm. Also, the stuff is such a high neutron emitter that the shielding is probably a bitch to lug around.

Then again, californium is so expensive and so rare it's pretty unlikely anyone not depending on a paycheck from Uncle Sugar (or another superpower) have ever had enough of it around to study. So if the published critical mass was a lie, and the true numbers were classified, the secret is probably safe for a while.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: mellyrn on June 15, 2012, 07:32:21 pm
Quote
He hasn't been harmed, so there is no crime.

Well, if someone rapes you -- gently, so there is no damage, no harm as such -- is that a crime?

Is physical harm the only measure?  If you threaten my friend Mike, who is a seriously badass martial-arts instructor, he's probably only going to keep rather more of an eye on you than otherwise, but you're really not going to bother him.  If you threaten my other friend Paul, who is of double-digit IQ and was abused for most of his childhood, he'll panic and have nightmares for weeks.  Law might not tax you with any "harm" done to Paul, but I'd really like to inflict real harm on you for messing with him, especially if you knew how he'd feel about it.

If someone breaks into your home but doesn't disturb anything -- for a prank, say -- is that a crime?

I'm talking in RL with someone who would feel trespassed against by someone using her idea without permission.  Myself, I am rather bemused by that feeling.  I'd be mildly annoyed, very mildly.

Here's a question:  would you expect me to be a) happy; b) sad; c) angry or d) indifferent, if you sold my book without my permission?

If you think it even might be b) or c), and you do it anyway, I don't think that's "just" a "dick move".   (I think it's a dick move if you do it without bothering to wonder how the other person would respond.)

We have an expectation that others will refrain from deliberately doing things that can pretty well be predicted to cause unhappiness.  That's pretty vague and sloppy, to be sure; I for one would like to offend someone who is offended by human nudity, but I guess that's because I see that offense as sort of optional (not to mention inordinately pointless).  I might have "views" about whether you "should" be upset if I break into your home without disturbing anything, but I would in fact be (extremely!) surprised if you were not upset.

I'd be very surprised if you were not upset at being forced into even the gentlest of sex acts.

I'd be surprised if you were not upset at my selling your book without checking in with you (even though, as I said, I myself wouldn't be very upset).

Being human, I think we have a pretty good idea of what will and will not please our fellow humans.  To deliberately do something that we know will not please -- ?  Is that not a crime against what keeps us in society with one another, that mutual trust?  Dante placed counterfeiters in one of the very lowest circles of Hell precisely because they transgressed against the trust that made currency possible.

I don't know if the author of the book has "standing" to call for arbitration; I think, though, that other members of the community might call the unauthorized seller up for arbitration, and restitution to the community.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: myrkul999 on June 15, 2012, 10:20:13 pm
Bear with me, your excellent points deserve in-depth answers. I will do my best to do them justice.

Quote
He hasn't been harmed, so there is no crime.

Well, if someone rapes you -- gently, so there is no damage, no harm as such -- is that a crime?

There is no "gentle" rape... even if the actual act is done with the utmost care, there is still the threat of force, the intimidation, the power, that the crime is actually about.

Is physical harm the only measure?  If you threaten my friend Mike, who is a seriously badass martial-arts instructor, he's probably only going to keep rather more of an eye on you than otherwise, but you're really not going to bother him.  If you threaten my other friend Paul, who is of double-digit IQ and was abused for most of his childhood, he'll panic and have nightmares for weeks.  Law might not tax you with any "harm" done to Paul, but I'd really like to inflict real harm on you for messing with him, especially if you knew how he'd feel about it.

Again, the crime here is the threat, not the physical harm. I'd be guilty either way, because I threatened to harm them. The current system of law defines this as "assault", and the libertarian/anarchist system of law would define this under the broad category "aggression", and probably keep the specific "assault".

If someone breaks into your home but doesn't disturb anything -- for a prank, say -- is that a crime?

Trespass... entry of someone's property without their permission or against their express wishes. Since that's a property violation, it is a crime under even anarchist standards.

I'm talking in RL with someone who would feel trespassed against by someone using her idea without permission.  Myself, I am rather bemused by that feeling.  I'd be mildly annoyed, very mildly.

Here's a question:  would you expect me to be a) happy; b) sad; c) angry or d) indifferent, if you sold my book without my permission?

If you think it even might be b) or c), and you do it anyway, I don't think that's "just" a "dick move".   (I think it's a dick move if you do it without bothering to wonder how the other person would respond.)

That depends on how I got the book. If I made a copy of the manuscript (which is what I assume you mean), I'd expect you to be pretty upset. If I purchased the book, it's not your book anymore, so I would expect you to be indifferent. Either way, though, you haven't lost anything. The most you could say I did was trespass, if I snuck (my spellcheck complains, but I'm sticking to it, dammit) into your office or computer to get that copy.

We have an expectation that others will refrain from deliberately doing things that can pretty well be predicted to cause unhappiness.  That's pretty vague and sloppy, to be sure; I for one would like to offend someone who is offended by human nudity, but I guess that's because I see that offense as sort of optional (not to mention inordinately pointless).

And here's the rub... I don't consider IP violations crimes, because information is not property. It cannot be. So my actions in that regard can reasonably be predicted to piss people who do consider information property off, just as your actions regarding human nudity can be reasonably predicted to piss prudes off.

I might have "views" about whether you "should" be upset if I break into your home without disturbing anything, but I would in fact be (extremely!) surprised if you were not upset.
No need to worry about being surprised here...
I'd be very surprised if you were not upset at being forced into even the gentlest of sex acts.
nor here...
I'd be surprised if you were not upset at my selling your book without checking in with you (even though, as I said, I myself wouldn't be very upset).
But here, prepare to be surprised. As I said above, Information is not Property. If I sold you a book, I'd be completely unsurprised if you sold it to someone else. If I gave you a copy of the manuscript and did not contractually oblige you to keep it to yourself, that's my damn fault. So long as you get the book without causing me harm, what you do with it after that is none of my business. (Note that hacking a computer password is functionally identical, IMO, to to B&E.)
Being human, I think we have a pretty good idea of what will and will not please our fellow humans.  To deliberately do something that we know will not please -- ?  Is that not a crime against what keeps us in society with one another, that mutual trust?  Dante placed counterfeiters in one of the very lowest circles of Hell precisely because they transgressed against the trust that made currency possible.

I don't know if the author of the book has "standing" to call for arbitration; I think, though, that other members of the community might call the unauthorized seller up for arbitration, and restitution to the community.

Thoughts?

Unless the author was trespassed against, or had something (physical) stolen, Nope, no standing to call for arbitration, nor do the other members of the community have any standing, provided there were no fraudulent claims.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 15, 2012, 11:59:17 pm
We also have to consider the sustainability of the law: Even today, with legislators deciding arbitrarily on what should be a crime or not, they do have to consider whether it can be sustained; whether it is possible to police a ban for instance.
Today we're at a threshold; the draconic measures planned by the IP-ghouls are such that it itself is proof of the non-sustainability of "IP". It's clear that they can't keep people from obtaining and sharing digital content. The "licensed copy sales" business model is falling over : instead companies are selling support for their products, or they're going for SaaS models, where the actual software is on their end of the pipe. SaaS models don't work for "inert content" like books or music and the like : if it is piped, it can be tapped.

Returning to the somewhat academic question of "selling copies of someone else's work without permission" (because selling copies of any work is highly iffy, be it original or copy) I think the future will have it like this: The only reason why people will "buy" a work, is to deliberately express support for its author. This means that illicit copies cannot be "sold" without engaging in dishonesty (claiming to be the author of the work), this, in turn, can be avoided through networks of trust. The public will not be amused at all if someone fakes authorship.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: mellyrn on June 16, 2012, 03:36:15 pm
Quote
But here, prepare to be surprised. As I said above, Information is not Property. If I sold you a book, I'd be completely unsurprised if you sold it to someone else. If I gave you a copy of the manuscript and did not contractually oblige you to keep it to yourself, that's my damn fault. So long as you get the book without causing me harm, what you do with it after that is none of my business. (Note that hacking a computer password is functionally identical, IMO, to to B&E.)

Ah, there's what I overlooked:  how you got the copy.  If I gave you a copy to read and you ran off & sold it because I didn't say not to, that is quite different than B&E (virtual or otherwise; I agree with you about hacking) to get it.

I agree that information is not property; but then, I have funny ideas about property.
Title: AnCap Copyright
Post by: customdesigned on June 16, 2012, 04:42:56 pm
Quote
But here, prepare to be surprised. As I said above, Information is not Property. If I sold you a book, I'd be completely unsurprised if you sold it to someone else. If I gave you a copy of the manuscript and did not contractually oblige you to keep it to yourself, that's my damn fault. So long as you get the book without causing me harm, what you do with it after that is none of my business. (Note that hacking a computer password is functionally identical, IMO, to to B&E.)

Ah, there's what I overlooked:  how you got the copy.  If I gave you a copy to read and you ran off & sold it because I didn't say not to, that is quite different than B&E (virtual or otherwise; I agree with you about hacking) to get it.

I agree that information is not property; but then, I have funny ideas about property.

If there were no copyright laws, I could still sell you a book under a contract that says "you may use this copy for your own use for any purpose, but may not give copies or modified copies to any other person".  Copyright laws simply make that kind of contract the default in any sale of physical copies of information.   Today, you can include an open source or creative commons license with your book to reinstate freedoms removed by the default copyright law.   Conversely, copyright law also declares default "rights" for those buying copies of information, including the right to make backups, and to copy to other media for personal use.  Hence, proprietary products often include a license that attempts to take away some of the rights granted by default.

One of the legal innovations that came out of the open source movement was a "menu" of licenses.  It is frustrating to buy an information product, and find it comes with a 50 page contract in fine print written in language that makes your eyes  glaze over.  Your eyes close involuntarily at page 19, and you say "screw it" and click the "I Agree" button.  Too bad you missed that provision on page 49 concerning your first born.   (Or in real life, a Vista Home license, for instance, forbids you to run it in a "virtual" machine - never mind that every commercial processor sold today presents a virtual ISA and is therefore a "virtual" machine.)  Every proprietary software product comes with a different 50 page license.  Open source products select from a handful of licenses, that it is possible for non-lawyers to actually become familiar with.  So once you've studied those licenses, you can know at a glance whether you are willing to accept the terms of the license. 

It is possible for proprietary products to also use a "menu" of licenses.  Borland used to have their "no nonsense license", which was popular partly because they used the same one on every product.   By repealing copyright law, this would force all proprietary vendors to revise their product licenses to include copyright provisions.  It would also make buyers and sellers take licenses more seriously - licenses that you can't even read until you purchase and open the product are today generally not considered enforceable.  In order for consumers to be able to decide at a glance whether they accept the terms of a license before purchasing, proprietary vendors would be forced to adopt a handful of well-known proprietary licenses.
Title: Re: AnCap Copyright
Post by: myrkul999 on June 16, 2012, 05:25:18 pm
Ah, there's what I overlooked:  how you got the copy.  If I gave you a copy to read and you ran off & sold it because I didn't say not to, that is quite different than B&E (virtual or otherwise; I agree with you about hacking) to get it.

I agree that information is not property; but then, I have funny ideas about property.

And you can be held accountable for how you get the information, and maybe what you did with it after that, but anyone who got it from you is free and clear. The only requirement for someone who has received stolen property is to make the party who was stolen from whole again, and since the person still has their information, there's nothing to "make whole".
Title: Re: AnCap Copyright
Post by: Brugle on June 16, 2012, 05:26:16 pm
If there were no copyright laws, I could still sell you a book under a contract that says "you may use this copy for your own use for any purpose, but may not give copies or modified copies to any other person".  Copyright laws simply make that kind of contract the default in any sale of physical copies of information.
The first sentence is correct but the second is not.  Modern copyright laws bind third parties who have not agreed to any contract (explicit or implicit).

Let's say that Amy sells a book to Bob under such a contract, Bob makes a copy and gives it to Cindy, and Cindy makes and sells a lot of copies.  In a free society (as I understand it) Amy would be able to sue Bob but not Cindy.  Under copyright law, Amy would also be able to sue Cindy.

[Oops, myrkul999 posted while I was proofreading essentially the same thing.]
Title: Re: AnCap Copyright
Post by: customdesigned on June 16, 2012, 09:30:12 pm

Let's say that Amy sells a book to Bob under such a contract, Bob makes a copy and gives it to Cindy, and Cindy makes and sells a lot of copies.  In a free society (as I understand it) Amy would be able to sue Bob but not Cindy.  Under copyright law, Amy would also be able to sue Cindy.

[Oops, myrkul999 posted while I was proofreading essentially the same thing.]
Only if Bob sells to Cindy under the default arrangement.  If Bob sells to Cindy under, say, a (fraudulent, of course) Creative Commons license, then Cindy is innocent (assuming she bought in good faith, yada, yada) - it was Bob that committed the fraud.  This is why proprietary vendors hate CC/FOSS licenses - they *like* being able to sue Cindy as well as Bob.  And the only reason it is easy for a Judge to assume Cindy acted in good faith is because CC/FOOS licenses are now common.


Title: Re: AnCap Copyright
Post by: myrkul999 on June 16, 2012, 11:27:41 pm
  • Of course any (rich) jerk can sue you for no reason just to make your life difficult.
...not quite. There are consequences for frivolous lawsuits, even today.

Under an AnCap system, it's likely that someone who engages in that sort of behavior will alienate anyone who would do business with them, until even the arbitration firms stop taking his calls.... assuming he doesn't go broke, paying court costs, first.
Title: Re: AnCap Copyright
Post by: Brugle on June 17, 2012, 12:56:01 pm

Let's say that Amy sells a book to Bob under such a contract, Bob makes a copy and gives it to Cindy, and Cindy makes and sells a lot of copies.  In a free society (as I understand it) Amy would be able to sue Bob but not Cindy.  Under copyright law, Amy would also be able to sue Cindy.

[Oops, myrkul999 posted while I was proofreading essentially the same thing.]
Only if Bob sells to Cindy under the default arrangement.  If Bob sells to Cindy under, say, a (fraudulent, of course) Creative Commons license, then Cindy is innocent (assuming she bought in good faith, yada, yada) - it was Bob that committed the fraud.

My example illustrated copyright.  Your example adds the obvious crime of fraud.  Why?

My example was about whether Amy could sue Cindy.  IANAL, but my guess is that in your example, even if Cindy is innocent (of fraud?), she could be sued in today's society (at least to the extent that she profited by selling Amy's book).

And, most important, just because someone might (by jumping through hoops) prevent a government "law" from being applied in a certain way in some situations does not change the nature of that "law".  The essence of copyright (that distinguishes it from contract) is that copyright binds thirds parties that have made no contract (explicit or implied).
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 17, 2012, 01:09:29 pm
As I understand it, that all only applies when (as all proprietary products are today) the product is stamped with a copyright mark or blurb.
If A sells product X to B under copyright, then B cannot legally sell or give a copy to C, however, if the product has no mark of copyright, and C can be shown to have acted in good faith (due perhaps to fraudulent claims by B), then C has committed no crime, exactly because C has entered into no contract, explicit or implicit.
 
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Brugle on June 17, 2012, 01:36:16 pm
As I understand it, that all only applies when (as all proprietary products are today) the product is stamped with a copyright mark or blurb.
That's not what I understand.  While Wikipedia is not necessarily reliable, it says:
Quote from: Wikipedia
In 1989, the U.S. enacted the Berne Convention Implementation Act, amending the 1976 Copyright Act to conform to most of the provisions of the Berne Convention. As a result, the use of copyright notices has become optional to claim copyright, because the Berne Convention makes copyright automatic.[31] However, the lack of notice of copyright using these marks may have consequences in terms of reduced damages in an infringement lawsuit — using notices of this form may reduce the likelihood of a defense of "innocent infringement" being successful.[32]

If A sells product X to B under copyright, then B cannot legally sell or give a copy to C, however, if the product has no mark of copyright, and C can be shown to have acted in good faith (due perhaps to fraudulent claims by B), then C has committed no crime, exactly because C has entered into no contract, explicit or implicit.
You (like customdesigned) introduce fraud into a discussion of copyright.  Again I ask: why?  Perhaps I'm missing something.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 17, 2012, 02:04:10 pm
Because, B is already breaking the original contract in distributing to C.
Either there is good faith (=fraud on B's behalf) or ill faith (which makes for less discussion)
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Brugle on June 17, 2012, 02:56:23 pm
Because, B is already breaking the original contract in distributing to C.
Either there is good faith (=fraud on B's behalf) or ill faith (which makes for less discussion)
Is less discussion bad?  I prefer a quick discussion that focuses on an issue to an extensive and laborious mishmash of extraneous matters.  YMMV.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 17, 2012, 03:07:58 pm
The reason is, that what you said (that A can sue C directly) is only true when there is ill faith (and this delimitation was not part of your statement). The counterexample offered an example of why and how your implicit claim can be falsified - by introducing an act of B that enables C to act in good faith.

To reiterate in general terms: Simple is good, but only if simple is also sufficient. Here two versions of a counterargument were offered to show that your previous, simple claim was not sufficient.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Brugle on June 17, 2012, 05:10:17 pm
The reason is, that what you said (that A can sue C directly) is only true when there is ill faith (and this delimitation was not part of your statement).
I find that hard to believe.  What is your basis for that statement?
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 18, 2012, 12:02:00 am
Augh!
Because we gave you a counterexample, where a middle hand expressly and fraudulently waives the copyright, this enabling C to act in good faith. Why are you taking us around in circles???
If the material to be propagated is simply found by C, then default copyright applies. But if B fraudulently poses as copyright holder, and acting as such waives copyright for C, then the activities of C remain B's responsibility (serving to add fraud charges to the already established breach of non-distribute clauses (copyright)).
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Killydd on June 18, 2012, 11:15:57 am
Quote
But here, prepare to be surprised. As I said above, Information is not Property. If I sold you a book, I'd be completely unsurprised if you sold it to someone else. If I gave you a copy of the manuscript and did not contractually oblige you to keep it to yourself, that's my damn fault. So long as you get the book without causing me harm, what you do with it after that is none of my business. (Note that hacking a computer password is functionally identical, IMO, to to B&E.)

Ah, there's what I overlooked:  how you got the copy.  If I gave you a copy to read and you ran off & sold it because I didn't say not to, that is quite different than B&E (virtual or otherwise; I agree with you about hacking) to get it.

I agree that information is not property; but then, I have funny ideas about property.

If there were no copyright laws, I could still sell you a book under a contract that says "you may use this copy for your own use for any purpose, but may not give copies or modified copies to any other person".  Copyright laws simply make that kind of contract the default in any sale of physical copies of information.   Today, you can include an open source or creative commons license with your book to reinstate freedoms removed by the default copyright law.   Conversely, copyright law also declares default "rights" for those buying copies of information, including the right to make backups, and to copy to other media for personal use.  Hence, proprietary products often include a license that attempts to take away some of the rights granted by default.

One of the legal innovations that came out of the open source movement was a "menu" of licenses.  It is frustrating to buy an information product, and find it comes with a 50 page contract in fine print written in language that makes your eyes  glaze over.  Your eyes close involuntarily at page 19, and you say "screw it" and click the "I Agree" button.  Too bad you missed that provision on page 49 concerning your first born.   (Or in real life, a Vista Home license, for instance, forbids you to run it in a "virtual" machine - never mind that every commercial processor sold today presents a virtual ISA and is therefore a "virtual" machine.)  Every proprietary software product comes with a different 50 page license.  Open source products select from a handful of licenses, that it is possible for non-lawyers to actually become familiar with.  So once you've studied those licenses, you can know at a glance whether you are willing to accept the terms of the license. 

It is possible for proprietary products to also use a "menu" of licenses.  Borland used to have their "no nonsense license", which was popular partly because they used the same one on every product.   By repealing copyright law, this would force all proprietary vendors to revise their product licenses to include copyright provisions.  It would also make buyers and sellers take licenses more seriously - licenses that you can't even read until you purchase and open the product are today generally not considered enforceable.  In order for consumers to be able to decide at a glance whether they accept the terms of a license before purchasing, proprietary vendors would be forced to adopt a handful of well-known proprietary licenses.
So, in effect, make copyright contracts common, with a clause in them that states "you may not open this book without signing this contract, see proprietor for details."  Works well for voluntary transactions, but consider a book left in a laundromat, especially one with an informal book exchange in place.  I suppose at that point, a decision would have to be made about how little action it can take to be considered signing a contract.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Brugle on June 18, 2012, 03:06:20 pm
Why are you taking us around in circles???
I simply asked whether you had any evidence for your assertion.  Your refusal to answer is not evidence that your assertion is true.

if B fraudulently poses as copyright holder, and acting as such waives copyright for C, then the activities of C remain B's responsibility (serving to add fraud charges to the already established breach of non-distribute clauses (copyright)).
Repeating your assertion is also not evidence that it is true.

I ask again: do you have any evidence for your assertion that acting in good faith makes someone immune to being sued for copyright violation?

IANAL, but I have read quite a bit about IP in the past few years, and your assertion is contrary to everything I remember reading.  My reading had large gaps, so my understanding could easily be erroneous, which is why I ask for evidence instead of saying your assertion is wrong.

My understanding of copyright is that it binds third parties who have made no relevant contract of any kind.  If my understanding is wrong I'd like to know.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: macsnafu on June 18, 2012, 03:24:29 pm
IANAL, but I have read quite a bit about IP in the past few years, and your assertion is contrary to everything I remember reading.  My reading had large gaps, so my understanding could easily be erroneous, which is why I ask for evidence instead of saying your assertion is wrong.

My understanding of copyright is that it binds third parties who have made no relevant contract of any kind.  If my understanding is wrong I'd like to know.

My understanding, too, is that copyright law binds third parties.  Some people have suggested contractual solutions as an alternative to copyright, but contracts generally only apply to those who agree to the contract, and not to any third parties who did not agree to it.   Actual fraud would still be considered a crime in a free society, and thus does not need a contractual solution. 
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 18, 2012, 04:26:32 pm
I simply asked whether you had any evidence for your assertion. 
...

I ask again: do you have any evidence for your assertion that acting in good faith makes someone immune to being sued for copyright violation?


I did not understand that you asked that, actually.
The quick answer is that nobody is ever immune to being sued for anything.
Whether they can be convicted is another matter.
Ultimately, that's not a matter of law, either:
The question "Can a person be convicted of copyright infringement for distributing something, if they have purchased a license to distribute it, but that license turns out to be issued by a fraudster?" is one that only actual case histories can answer.
Is there a precedent of conviction or acquittal under these circumstances? Or something in between? I don't know.

Of course, it shouldn't surprise us if the perversions that are Copyright and Patent law hold that the one with the deed is always right... after all, these laws were made to order, and to always serve the whim of copyright holders, regardless of normal principles of justice.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: customdesigned on June 18, 2012, 07:16:12 pm

I ask again: do you have any evidence for your assertion that acting in good faith makes someone immune to being sued for copyright violation?

IANAL, but I have read quite a bit about IP in the past few years, and your assertion is contrary to everything I remember reading.  My reading had large gaps, so my understanding could easily be erroneous, which is why I ask for evidence instead of saying your assertion is wrong.

My understanding of copyright is that it binds third parties who have made no relevant contract of any kind.  If my understanding is wrong I'd like to know.


What you remember reading about "IP" may be entirely accurate, however your current reading comprehension needs a boost.  If you look back, you'll see that the current discussion from my comment is about a hypothetical world where today's copyright laws have been repealed - but other aspects of the legal system remain roughly the same (this is, after all, a sci-fi forum).  We were trying to discuss how content creators who wished to use the proprietary model could still do so (or at least that is what *I* thought I was discussing with my comment).  If you thought we were talking about *current* "IP" laws (itself a huge propaganda distortion - there are no current "IP" laws, only trademark, copyright, and patent law - all three distinct), that would explain the huge disconnect.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: ex-Gooserider on June 19, 2012, 06:33:30 am
My suspicion under the current legal environment is that any significant (i.e. book length) work would be considered almost certain to be under copyright...  Thus if Suzy finds a non-copyright-marked book laying about, and publishes it with no further investigation my expectation is that the courts would find her guilty of bad faith in assuming it was OK to publish.

If she could show that she went to reasonable (definition of reasonable is debatable) efforts to identify the author and / or any other rights-holders, and published after being unable to do so, then a "bad faith" charge would be harder to sustain, UNLESS she published it as her own work (in which case she was claiming something she knew wasn't hers...)  OTOH, if she published it as "by unknown author" and possibly set some share of any profits aside to compensate the author if / when he showed up, then it would be hard to show bad faith....

About the only way I could see her getting off with no bad consequences is if she got the book from someone purporting to be the rights holder, and could show reasonable "due diligence" that she had made sure that the claimed rights holder really WAS as claimed...  Then you have reasonable action in good faith, which a rational court shouldn't be able to penalize...

ex-Gooserider
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 19, 2012, 01:32:45 pm
... a rational court ...
And now we're back in the hypothetical world  :D ;D :D     :'(
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Brugle on June 19, 2012, 03:53:43 pm
your current reading comprehension needs a boost.  If you look back, you'll see that the current discussion from my comment is about a hypothetical world where today's copyright laws have been repealed

OK, let's do that.  Note: I'll avoid quotations to keep the length down.

In reply 86, you said that copyright laws simply made a particular contract the default.  (This suggested that something similar to copyright could be implemented in a non-copyright legal system.)

In reply 88, I pointed out a fundamental error in that position: copyright binds third parties who are not parties to any contract.  Contracts cannot be used to do that.  (myrkul999 had said something similar in reply 87.)  I then gave a simple example of how a situation would be handled differently with copyright and without.

In reply 89, you disagreed with something in my example, but did not explain whether you disagreed with the copyright part or the non-copyright part or both.  The rest of the post is about conditions under current copyright law.  The normal interpretation for any reader is to assume that the first sentence of a paragraph ties in with the rest of the paragraph (unless the writer specifies otherwise).  The part of the paragraph that was clearly about copyright talked about fraud.  (It did not discuss the main point--the binding of third parties under copyright.)

In reply 91, I asked why you added the extraneous matter of fraud to the example.  When discussing today's (copyright) law, it was clearly stated.

In reply 92, Andreas discussed selling under copyright, again with the extraneous matter of fraud.  (It also contained a claim about current copyright law.)

In reply 93, I showed that Wikipedia said that that claim (about current copyright law) was false.  I asked again why fraud was introduced.

In reply 94, Andreas again argues the extraneous matter of fraud, not stating whether it applies to the copyright case, the non-copyright case, or both.  Since the previous several posts had been primarily or entirely about copyright, I think it reasonable to assume either the copyright case or both cases.  YMMV

In reply 96, Andreas said "what you said (that A can sue C directly)", which was what I said happened under current copyright law.

In reply 97, I quoted that section, continuing the discussion about current copyright law.

In reply 98, Andreas talked about copyright.

I'm pretty sure that that's an accurate summary.  Many of the posts were explicitly about copyright, and most of the rest clearly distinguished the copyright case from the non-copyright case.  Are you sure it's my reading comprehension that needs a boost?

there are no current "IP" laws, only trademark, copyright, and patent law
It is my understanding that, in addition to those, trade secret law is considered IP law.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: customdesigned on June 19, 2012, 04:11:27 pm

In reply 86, you said that copyright laws simply made a particular contract the default.  (This suggested that something similar to copyright could be implemented in a non-copyright legal system.)

In reply 88, I pointed out a fundamental error in that position: copyright binds third parties who are not parties to any contract.  Contracts cannot be used to do that. 


Fair enough, sorry for the snark.

I am a programmer, not a lawyer, but the definition of "default" in every context I have ever seen it means that it applies to *every* situation absent an explicit override.  So, yes, a "default" contract applies to 3rd parties who did not explicitly assent to anything.  I can understand not wanting to use the term "contract" for something that is not explicitly assented to, but you implicitly assent to it (and all the other millions of laws of which every US citizen has broken hundreds - enough to jail them for life) by remaining a citizen (and ignorance is no excuse, yada, yada).  But the term "default" I would *hope* applies, even in legalese.

So if you object to the term "contract", then think of it a conceptual (implicit) "contract".

Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Brugle on June 19, 2012, 05:34:19 pm
So, yes, a "default" contract applies to 3rd parties who did not explicitly assent to anything.
Bullshit.

If some people agree to a contract, it applies only to them, not to anyone else.

you implicitly assent to it (and all the other millions of laws of which every US citizen has broken hundreds - enough to jail them for life) by remaining a citizen
Bullshit.

I often obey government orders because I fear the consequences of not doing so.  Any contract I have made with any government was made under duress.  (Government agents and apologists might dispute this, of course.)
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 20, 2012, 04:26:39 am
Are there databases on case histories that are searchable by laymen? (I mean searchable both as "open for search" and "understandable enough to search")
It would be interesting to see just how badly copyright screws us over.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 20, 2012, 04:37:44 am
... if there is no copyright in AnCap, the  FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) license (yes, I understand that no license is necessary with no copyright) that best captures the AnCap spirit would be BSD - which allows copies and derivatives for any purpose, provided the original author is properly credited.

There was some dislike for the GPL expressed here.  I should point out that the GPL is necessary because of copyright - otherwise a competitor can take your work, incorporate it into a proprietary product, and finally (here's the kicker) *copyright* the proprietary product and forbid reverse engineering.  The GPL very cleverly makes open source safe for business in an environment that includes government enforced copyright.

On these lines, I'd like to point out this list of copyfree compatible licenses http://copyfree.org/licenses/ (http://copyfree.org/licenses/)

Important to note is that GNU General Public License (GPL) is NOT copyfree compatible : http://copyfree.org/rejected/ (http://copyfree.org/rejected/)

Since copyfree (http://copyfree.org/standard/) is about letting people own what they can own, thus preventing others from using dirty patent tricks to suborn their ownership, I think copyfree is very much in the AnCap spirit. Since the selling of information is so fraught with mindfart, the "free" part will have to be a part of it.

"Free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." (Sid Meyer, Alpha Centauri, 1999)
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: SandySandfort on June 20, 2012, 08:18:14 am
Are there databases on case histories that are searchable by laymen? (I mean searchable both as "open for search" and "understandable enough to search")

http://lexis.com, I think, though I have never used it. It is not free.

Or you can just do it the old-fashioned way. In the US, every county courthouse has a law library. Though they try to keep it a secret, almost all county law libraries are public libraries and, thus, open to the public. Google around to find instructions on how to search case law.  Some regular libraries and university libraries have limited legal sections. Some law schools allow public access to their libraries.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: macsnafu on June 20, 2012, 10:49:05 am
... if there is no copyright in AnCap, the  FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) license (yes, I understand that no license is necessary with no copyright) that best captures the AnCap spirit would be BSD - which allows copies and derivatives for any purpose, provided the original author is properly credited.

There was some dislike for the GPL expressed here.  I should point out that the GPL is necessary because of copyright - otherwise a competitor can take your work, incorporate it into a proprietary product, and finally (here's the kicker) *copyright* the proprietary product and forbid reverse engineering.  The GPL very cleverly makes open source safe for business in an environment that includes government enforced copyright.

On these lines, I'd like to point out this list of copyfree compatible licenses http://copyfree.org/licenses/ (http://copyfree.org/licenses/)

Important to note is that GNU General Public License (GPL) is NOT copyfree compatible : http://copyfree.org/rejected/ (http://copyfree.org/rejected/)

Since copyfree (http://copyfree.org/standard/) is about letting people own what they can own, thus preventing others from using dirty patent tricks to suborn their ownership, I think copyfree is very much in the AnCap spirit. Since the selling of information is so fraught with mindfart, the "free" part will have to be a part of it.

Interesting site.  I knew there were issues with the GPL, but had assumed that the BSD license was pretty good, but apparently, even it has issues.   I'll have to study this a little closer.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 20, 2012, 01:39:06 pm
Interesting site.  I knew there were issues with the GPL, but had assumed that the BSD license was pretty good, but apparently, even it has issues.   I'll have to study this a little closer.
Chad Perrin is the main driver behind it, very passionate about private security - not just in the computer sense. He will probably be happy to elaborate on the hows and whys of it all.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: ex-Gooserider on June 21, 2012, 02:53:04 am
<much trimmed>
there are no current "IP" laws, only trademark, copyright, and patent law
It is my understanding that, in addition to those, trade secret law is considered IP law.


Richard Stallman of the FSF, and most good lawyers would point out that there is NO SUCH THING as "IP Law".  Dr. Stallman further expresses the opinion that one should not use the term "IP" or "IP Law" as that causes confusion by mixing the different concepts and conditions of Trademark Law, Copyright Law, and Patent Law and causing them to be applied to the wrong things.  He insists that you should use the applicable term for the item being discussed.

That said,  Trade Secret law would usually be considered part of that lazy term "IP"

ex-Gooserider
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: macsnafu on June 21, 2012, 10:35:31 am
<much trimmed>
there are no current "IP" laws, only trademark, copyright, and patent law
It is my understanding that, in addition to those, trade secret law is considered IP law.


Richard Stallman of the FSF, and most good lawyers would point out that there is NO SUCH THING as "IP Law".  Dr. Stallman further expresses the opinion that one should not use the term "IP" or "IP Law" as that causes confusion by mixing the different concepts and conditions of Trademark Law, Copyright Law, and Patent Law and causing them to be applied to the wrong things.  He insists that you should use the applicable term for the item being discussed.

That said,  Trade Secret law would usually be considered part of that lazy term "IP"

ex-Gooserider

Sure, there's no such thing as "IP Law", but that's how it's being discussed by most laymen.  Thus, it is important to point out that not only is there no such thing as IP law, but that there is no such thing as IP--intellectual property.  Similarly, even if one thinks that it is wrong to download pirated music or movies, they still haven't been stolen, but merely illegally copied, as the originator still has his own copy.  But pretending the terms don't exist doesn't seem especially conducive to good argumentation.  Perhaps merely going back to basics and defining our terms will help sort out the issue.



 
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Brugle on June 21, 2012, 02:37:05 pm
most good lawyers would point out that there is NO SUCH THING as "IP Law".
not only is there no such thing as IP law, but that there is no such thing as IP--intellectual property.

Y'all are just being silly.  In some contexts, information (in some form) is treated as property.  That might be a horrid concept (I think it is), but the concept certainly exists.  "Intellectual Property" or "IP" might be a misleading term (I think it is), but it is commonly accepted.  "The laws that are based on IP" is an obvious concept, and "IP law" is a good term as long as the term "IP" is commonly accepted.  Disagreement on exactly which laws should be considered as part of IP law (some would include laws about slander and blackmail) doesn't invalidate the term.

pretending the terms don't exist doesn't seem especially conducive to good argumentation.
True.  Pretending that concepts described by the terms don't exist is also bad argumentation.

If all you are saying is that people sometimes misuse the terms, I'd agree of course.  A lawyer advising a client on how to avoid copyright violation should probably be concerned with copyright law rather than IP law in general.  An argument that the benefits of patents are much smaller than the costs of patents is an argument against patents, not against IP in general.  A more philosophical argument that information should not be treated as property should apply to all IP.  Etc.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: customdesigned on June 21, 2012, 02:45:20 pm

I often obey government orders because I fear the consequences of not doing so.  Any contract I have made with any government was made under duress.  (Government agents and apologists might dispute this, of course.)


That argument has some merit.  So if someone threatens you or your loved ones with violence unless you agree to their "contract", you would feel no remorse at breaking said "contract" should the opportunity arise (and you and your loved ones could get away with it).  That is the nature of government.  And that is the kind of "contract" I am talking about when I put the word in scare quotes.  I agree that it is a completely different animal from a truly voluntary contract, and using the same word poisons attempts to discuss the issue (which is why I object to using the same word "marriage" to cover several very different forms of long term sexual relations).

There is an old fashioned idea that once you give your word, even under duress, you ought to be bound by it - and that makes you a "man of your word".  Clearly, some thought needs to be given as to exactly what is meant by "duress".  I know the Catholic Church long ago ruled that marriage vows given under duress are not valid or binding (and an annulment is *supposed* to be an official acknowledgement that alleged vows were given under duress or fraudulent conditions).  You have been very helpful to me in thinking about exactly to what extent I ought to continue to obey an increasingly illegitimate government.  The worst part, is that even if I conclude that I should continue to obey (except where it contradicts God's law - which you would call "natural law"), it is impossible to actually do so due to the explosion of legal code.  

If you voluntarily say the "pledge of allegiance" as an adult American, I see that as a contract of "allegiance" to 50 states which are united under a Constitution (a republic).  Things get tricky when violations of the Constitution become more and more blatant.  In terms of emotion, I feel a lot more allegiance to the state of Virginia than to the devouring monster in DC.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 21, 2012, 03:49:19 pm
Marriage? You know, I don't think I've ever heard of two identical marriages.
And that's counting only monogamous heterosexual ones.
Most of the folks strung up about homosexual marriages are ones who think homosexuality is a sin, and feel that the state should act against sin.
Let's just say that I feel that to be an incredibly flucked up combination of stillborn ideas.
Marriage is about property. It means "We of this relation declare our respective properties to be our common property foremost, such that other inheritors are rendered incapable of making claims to our common property as long as one of this coupling lives".
Can't say as I feel the specific nature of the relation, or the number of "us", to be very important, compared to what it says about parents and children, (namely, "butt out", and "wait your turn").
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: customdesigned on June 25, 2012, 06:29:04 pm
Marriage? You know, I don't think I've ever heard of two identical marriages.
And that's counting only monogamous heterosexual ones.
Most of the folks strung up about homosexual marriages are ones who think homosexuality is a sin, and feel that the state should act against sin.
I'm just complaining about the terminology.  The word "marriage" has traditionally, for thousands of years, in most cultures (including those very accepting of homosexual relationships like the ancient Greeks and Romans), referred to either polygamous or monogamous heterosexual relationships, and given a high regard because of the importance of bearing and raising children (even in societies, like the Greeks, that regarded "the love of men better than the love of women").  So deliberately expanding the word to cover just about anything (the people that "marry" themselves?  Same sex? Their dog and/or horse?) breeds confusion, and brings unnecessary emotion that blocks rational discussion.  

In a sci-fi context, you could contemplate a sexual relationship between alien species that are humanoid, but genetically incompatible.  Would that be immoral, even if the alien species was of comparable intelligence (unlike, say an earth ape) and opposite (and generally analogous) sex?  I'm pretty sure the Catholic answer would be "yes - but a sexually abstinent relationship is ok".    The androids in Quantum Vibes raise a similar issue (not quite the same, since there is no sexual procreation among their own kind).  

Please note that the Catholics impose their idea of sexual morality on Catholics only.  As long as membership is *voluntary*, this is completely compatible with AnCap, as far as I can see.  (I realize there were some nasty periods of Church history where membership was not so voluntary.)   Would you agree?  

EDIT: And failure of many members to live up to the ideals does not invalidate the ideals.

In a similar vein, you can attend Bob Jones University as an atheist or any other religion (and I know several atheists that have - there are some good programs there) - BUT you have to agree to abstain totally from alcohol, other drugs arbitrarily made illegal in the US, fornication, and a few other restrictions (as spelled out in your student contract) for the duration of your degree program.   Most honest people are willing to to abstain for 2 to 4 years as part of their contract.   This is compatible with AnCap, as it is a voluntary contract.  Agree?
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: myrkul999 on June 25, 2012, 07:39:59 pm
Please note that the Catholics impose their idea of sexual morality on Catholics only.  As long as membership is *voluntary*, this is completely compatible with AnCap, as far as I can see.  (I realize there were some nasty periods of Church history where membership was not so voluntary.)   Would you agree?  

In a similar vein, you can attend Bob Jones University as an atheist or any other religion (and I know several atheists that have - there are some good programs there) - BUT you have to agree to abstain totally from alcohol, other drugs arbitrarily made illegal in the US, fornication, and a few other restrictions (as spelled out in your student contract) for the duration of your degree program.   Most honest people are willing to to abstain for 2 to 4 years as part of their contract.   This is compatible with AnCap, as it is a voluntary contract.  Agree?

Agreed on both counts, so long as all the restrictions are voluntary, I see no problem in imposing them.

A "marriage" (ie specifically something that is called a marriage) typically, even in very homosexual-friendly societies, has been heterosexual and reproduction-oriented. However, there have been numerous other ceremonies over the ages which are not so specific.

The problem is that today, the concept of marriage has been tied up and wrapped into the ideas behind those other ceremonies. Worse, there's been a legal definition applied to that concept, when prior it was primarily up to the churches to decide what was "marriage" and what was not.

What we need to do is separate the ceremony from the legality.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Apollo-Soyuz on June 25, 2012, 09:56:53 pm
What we need to do is separate the ceremony from the legality.

Well, how are you going to keep the races from mixing then? What about all those government entitlement programs that pay out surviver benefits?

[trolling/]
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: myrkul999 on June 26, 2012, 12:59:10 am
OK, to get (briefly, I imagine) back on-topic, This:
Quote
SFX: [audience hub-bub]
(and the resulting SFX in the comic)...

Classic.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: SandySandfort on June 26, 2012, 07:56:03 am
OK, to get (briefly, I imagine) back on-topic, This:
Quote
SFX: [audience hub-bub]
(and the resulting SFX in the comic)...

Classic.

When I was in university, in my radio-TV classes we used "murmur-hubub" for the background conversation in group scenes. For angry group scenes, we threw in the words "rhubarb-rhubarb!"
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: Andreas on June 26, 2012, 08:45:57 am
Rhubarb indeed... that's used in Danish stage tradition ("Rabarber-rabarber-rabarber"), but for normal crowd-noises. The lack of vowel dissimilarity, and the three-syllable flow (ta-ta-ta, instead of taa-ta) makes it less alarming-sounding. But it porridges nicely, in any case.
Title: Re: Vesta Vesta
Post by: macsnafu on June 26, 2012, 10:16:45 am
I remember reading a humor strip that used "watermelon-cantaloupe" for background discussion.