Andreas on June 19, 2012, 01:32:45 pm
... a rational court ...
And now we're back in the hypothetical world  :D ;D :D     :'(

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see that the current discussion from my comment is about a hypothetical world where today's copyright laws have been repealed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.

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".


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.)

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.

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/

Important to note is that GNU General Public License (GPL) is NOT copyfree compatible : 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)

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.

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/

Important to note is that GNU General Public License (GPL) is NOT copyfree compatible : 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.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

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.

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

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.



 
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

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.

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.

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").

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?
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 06:34:38 pm by customdesigned »