I love the LVMI for the most part, have learned a lot from it and have even donated to it. My one area of disagreement with it is with regards to the concept of intellectual property rights. I certainly agree that that out current copyright, trademark and patent laws are unjust in many ways. This is nothing inherent with IP in my view but the fact that these properties are “protected” by government. We should not expect government to protect intellectual property any better than it delivers medicine. Did Mises himself write about this? What were his views if any? What are your views? Is this something LVMI scholars generally agree on or is there a great deal of disagreement on this issue?
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
http://mises.org/Community/groups/educational_pamphlets/default.aspx
MacFall: That's not a proper analogy. It's more like, I paid for a tomato and got a carrot.
That's not a proper analogy. It's more like, I paid for a tomato and got a carrot.
And this is where your argument falls apart. We are talking about re-selling something as if I produced it, when I did not. The product is the same regardless of who produced it. The tomato does not magically change to a carrot in the real world. My analogy is the correct analogy.
It is the same as selling a story as your own when you did not write it. The story does not change.
"Most voters know nothing about how markets work—or even that they work..." Sheldon Richman
banned:But suppose I ask for fuji apple and the vendor sells me a gala.
But this is not what he is talking about. He is talking about a vendor selling you a fuji apple, and claiming he produced it, when he did not. You still got a fuji apple. There is no "fraud".
Um. I think I'm in a better position to say what I'm talking about than you are, since I'm me and you're not. And given that, I can say confidently that you're pretty wrong.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
MacFall: Um. I think I'm in a better position to say what I'm talking about than you are, since I'm me and you're not. And given that, I can say confidently that you're pretty wrong.
The whole world can read what you are talking about, and you cannot even understand the false analogy you are making. Invalid analogies are one of the most common argumentative fallacies made, and you are doing an excellent job of it.
If I write a story, and then you sell the story, and claim you wrote it, did the story somehow magically change? No, it does not, but this is what you are claiming, and I can read what you are claiming just fine. But you yourself appear to not know what you are claiming.
What you say I am talking about has nothing to do what I am actually talking about.
What I have maintained is that if the terms of a sale are that you will recieve a for the price of x and the vendor gives you b instead of a, there is a legally addressable discrepancy.
MacFall: What you say I am talking about has nothing to do what I am actually talking about. What I have maintained is that if the terms of a sale are that you will recieve a for the price of x and the vendor gives you b instead of a, there is a legally addressable discrepancy.
Ok, now I feel really stupid. I am really sorry. Here is the post I was referring to:
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "copyright", Spidey. If a person claims to be writing a book as Terry Goodkind and is not actually Terry Goodkind, they are committing fraud.
However, I do not think this has anything to do with copyright. But it does have everything to do with fraud.
Copyright, as far as I understand, just says that if someone "creates" something (a song, poem, picture, floorplan, etc.), that no one else can copy it and sell it.
Actually, reading over my posts I am realizing that I never actually made clear exactly what I was talking about, so the culpa is mea.
LOL internets.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap