tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post3603041140297579155..comments2019-05-15T19:42:58.525-07:00Comments on Intellectual Space: Songs Are Like Factories (a deeper look)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-23745921000818546932014-08-30T11:06:06.523-07:002014-08-30T11:06:06.523-07:00"I demonstrated very clearly how your copying..."I demonstrated very clearly how your copying my song interferes with my use. "<br /><br />Well, maybe your thinking so is the problem. You can either get angry, or improve your argument. Your choice.<br /><br />"Offer your own proof that physical objects are rivalrous."<br /><br />I have a few times including the last comment. My action using an object is made impossible if you are controlling said object. You and I cannot make use of the bike simultaneously, we cannot both eat the sandwich, we cannot both stand in the same place. If you don't think so, then you surely won't mind my eating the food in your fridge.<br /><br />In comparison, we can both sing the same song, independently come up with the same idea, etc.<br /><br />"Until then, shut the fuck up you evil fucking communist."<br /><br />Calling people names will do nothing to convince anyone. Being a rude jerk only demonstrates your temper and your lack of confidence in your arguments.<br /><br />"Try. I'm waiting. "<br /><br />Given that you did not address any of the points in my comment, I doubt it. <br /><br />Btw, notice that I quoted "your" words. Julien Couvreurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15158751165174523704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-42575397148995415982014-08-28T16:43:09.483-07:002014-08-28T16:43:09.483-07:00Can you explain exactly how a song is a factory? ...Can you explain exactly how a song is a factory? A song is a consumer good but the factory should be analogous to a computer or cd burner. This is where your analogy fails because the song copier is using their own property to make the copy.<br /><br />A physical example would be a plastic toy that a person copies using a 3d printer. The plastic toy isn't a factory, the printer is, and the copier hasn't committed trespass because he's used his own propertyChrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-91451210040743344472014-08-28T11:49:28.259-07:002014-08-28T11:49:28.259-07:00I proved the factory and the physical machines wer...I proved the factory and the physical machines were rivalrous. Then I substituted a song, while changing nothing else. It comes out the same. Thus, I proved a song is rivalrous. Either that, or I didn't prove either one. Take your pick. <br /><br />I demonstrated very clearly how your copying my song interferes with my use. You have not demonstrated that you understand my argument, thus you have no basis to agree or disagree. <br /><br />Offer your own proof that physical objects are rivalrous. Until then, shut the fuck up you evil fucking communist. You have no right to my property, and I have every right to use deadly force against you or anyone else who threatens it. <br /><br />I know you don't understand how you are harming innocent humans, but it is time for you to look in the mirror. You are not merely wrong, you are evil. You have no right to take my rightful property, no matter what Stephan Kinsella says. <br /><br />If you really want to engage in philosophical argument, then create a proof that physical goods are rivalrous. After you do so, you will discover one of two things. Either:<br /><br />1. Your "proof" will simply include "physical" as part of the definition of rivalrous. <br /><br />or<br /><br />2. Your proof will work precisely the same for intangible goods. <br /><br />I have repeated this request at least 20 times to you, Kinsella, Davis, Tucker and the other Intellectual Communists. <br /><br />Go ahead Julien Courveur. Try. I'm waiting. <br /><br />Alexander Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084437410219655499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374419459487768842.post-84866249834942667402014-08-27T17:46:46.190-07:002014-08-27T17:46:46.190-07:00The problem with arguing by analogy is that it ass...The problem with arguing by analogy is that it assumes that there is no relevant difference. But there is: the machine is rivalrous, but the song isn't.<br />Are you trying to argue that the song is indeed rivalrous?<br /><br />The chain of reasoning you are offering for IP is: (1) we accept ownership in this scenario which involves rivalrous goods, (2) this other scenario is similar (except it's not), (3) therefore we should accept ownership in this other scenario too.<br /><br />The machine is rivalrous in that we can't both simultaneously control its usage. If the owner is choosing to leave it idle and non-productive (as the fire extinguisher in your kitchen), the trespasser is interfering with that control. We agree. The obvious case is that the owner is actively using the 100 machines.<br /><br />The song is not rivalrous in that we can both simultaneously use that information independently. The "owner" can choose to put it to use or not, while the "trespasser" can choose to put it to use or not. Even if the "owner" uses the song for his action (ie using all 100 machines), the "trespasser" is still not preventing the "owner" to use the song. <br />Therefore he cannot be considered a trespasser.Julien Couvreurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15158751165174523704noreply@blogger.com