The court system is government force, and for someone who claims to be a libertarian, it should only be used in response to force. (NAP ring a bell?) Explain what force was used on Ron Paul by the video creators or Youtube. If there was none, then suing Youtube to make them act like you want is not a libertarian action.
I love Ron Paul, but these stupid posts defending a stupid action by his campaign make us look like cultists, rather than reasoned champions of liberty.
I agree that anonymity is not a right, but neither do you have a property right to your reputation.
If you can get a third party (such as Youtube) to willingly release information about the video creator, then you have done nothing that violates libertarian principles. If you file a lawsuit seeking to use force to compel someone to answer, then that is un-libertarian.
I suppose it depends on how you define "capitalism". If we're defining it as free markets, then he's completely right. We've never had one of those.
If we're defining "capitalism" to be our current fascist, crony corporatist state of existence, then sure, fire away.
Side Note: The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is tricky to use correctly, and people often don't. Let's say I create a new religion based on one rule: absolute nonviolence, no matter the situation. If someone claiming to be a follower of my religion goes on a shooting spree, and I claim he isn't a follower at all, can you "No True Scotsman" me?
The "issue" is that ideas are not property, and if you try to protect them like they are, you get into all kinds of ridiculous situations like we are now. When your premise is wrong, you can't make the conclusion that follows correct.
You can cure the disease by abolishing intellectual property law now, or you can spend the rest of your life trying and failing to cure the symptoms (and ultimately end up having it abolished anyway when the economy collapses under it's own bloated weight).
I'm fine with either method, honestly. I'm to the point where I think I should let my political opponents have everything they want, just so I can watch the system grind to a complete halt under their batshit insane policies.
"You can't make and sell cupcakes in the shape of a star! That was my idea!"
"I was going to write a story about a cyborg ninja who goes on a journey of self-discovery! Award me damages!"
"My name is Anne! You can't use that name, it's mine!"
It will be glorious to behold, and people like you will be sitting around with your thumb up your ass, wondering why there are no new jobs, no new products, and every product that already exists costs twice as much due to licensing fees and legal costs.
Given the tone of your comment, can I assume that you are a member of the Huntsman campaign, here to impugn the character of Ron Paul supporters through your profanity-laced diatribe?
AC claims straight up that patents being too big for anyone to avoid infringing on them is the best system. I detect no hints of sarcasm, nor any signs of the obvious cognitive dissonance that such a statement must bring (if it is impossible to know that they are infringing, how can they be said to be "stealing" someone's idea?). Furthermore, he claims to want ideas for a better system while immediately refusing to listen to any idea he has predetermined that he doesn't agree with. He's succinct, confrontational, and he obviously designed his post carefully to invoke anger in anyone with a functioning brain.
In light of the above, I award this AC 10/10. This is the high caliber of trolling I've come to expect from the TD comment section.
One small misstep isn't enough to get me to change my opinion of him. My worldview remains firmly intact. Now, if he were to come out in support of invading Iran like the rest of the warmongering chicken-hawks the GOP has put up so far, I'd be gone in a split second.
Oddly enough, I don't really agree with either side of this debate. Anonymity is not a right, nor do you have a right to your reputation.
The only violation of libertarian property rights here is trying to use the courts to force a private entity to turn over information that they otherwise wouldn't. As un-libertarian as that might be, free speech doesn't really factor in.
(If he had called up Google and asked them to turn over the logs, and they had complied willingly, it wouldn't have been inconsistent with libertarian principles at all.)
Yes, this a disappointing mistake for the Paul campaign, but what I really don't understand are some of the responses to it here.
"Sure, he's been consistent in his positions to end the ruinous war on drugs, stop murdering people overseas, and keep the government from detaining you indefinitely, but . . . he filed a questionable lawsuit to unmask someone who was putting out vile and defamatory content in his name. I guess that means he's now an establishment candidate and devoid of any principles."
To that I have to ask: Wat?
The Paul campaign screwed up. It happens. We should definitely speak out and make sure they know that they screwed up, and at no time should we turn a blind eye to these things merely because we like the rest of what they do. But let's keep some perspective, here. If you expect any person to refrain from making any mistakes, ever, in order for them to win your approval, then you're going to spend most of your life without friends of any kind.
Re: Oh I get it, all you have to do is ask people to "do better"
This article was apparently written specifically for you.
1. Your content will always be available for free on the internet.
2. Read #1 again and again until you really understand it. I'll wait.
Now, you either listen to what your customers want and make money, or you continue to whine about the above fact until you go bankrupt.
No doubt you are prepared to whine as a response to this post, too. So be it. I know you think file sharing is theft. I disagree, and you won't change my opinion by whining. You are not going to get my business by whining. You are not going to get me to tell all my friends about your work by whining.
Then the scarcity is in the production, not the end product. Once created, the product is infinitely copyable and thus has a value approaching zero.
If you want to increase production, you give people a reason to support production (e.g. Kickstarter). You can't improve production by trying to overturn the laws of supply and demand for the end product.
It's funny when trolls talk about supply and demand and somehow don't realize what this means about an infinitely copy-able good and the effect that inevitably has on content prices.
Can't stream it? Just copy it off ThePirateBay for its natural supply-and-demand value.
On the post: Sorry Ron Paul, You Don't Get To Abuse Trademark Law To Unveil Anonymous Internet Users
Re:
The court system is government force, and for someone who claims to be a libertarian, it should only be used in response to force. (NAP ring a bell?) Explain what force was used on Ron Paul by the video creators or Youtube. If there was none, then suing Youtube to make them act like you want is not a libertarian action.
I love Ron Paul, but these stupid posts defending a stupid action by his campaign make us look like cultists, rather than reasoned champions of liberty.
On the post: Sorry Ron Paul, You Don't Get To Abuse Trademark Law To Unveil Anonymous Internet Users
Re: Anonymity is not guaranteed
If you can get a third party (such as Youtube) to willingly release information about the video creator, then you have done nothing that violates libertarian principles. If you file a lawsuit seeking to use force to compel someone to answer, then that is un-libertarian.
On the post: Brazilian Performance Rights Group Claims Collecting From Bloggers Was Simply An 'Operational Error' After Google Pushes Back
Re: Re: Re:
If we're defining "capitalism" to be our current fascist, crony corporatist state of existence, then sure, fire away.
Side Note: The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is tricky to use correctly, and people often don't. Let's say I create a new religion based on one rule: absolute nonviolence, no matter the situation. If someone claiming to be a follower of my religion goes on a shooting spree, and I claim he isn't a follower at all, can you "No True Scotsman" me?
On the post: Author's Guild Boss On E-Book Price Fixing Allegations: But... But... Brick-And-Mortar!
Always Relevant In These Discussions
If you charge too little, you're "dumping".
If you charge the same as everyone else, you're "colluding".
On the post: Why It's Mathematically Impossible To Avoid Infringing On Software Patents
Re: Re: Re:
You can cure the disease by abolishing intellectual property law now, or you can spend the rest of your life trying and failing to cure the symptoms (and ultimately end up having it abolished anyway when the economy collapses under it's own bloated weight).
I'm fine with either method, honestly. I'm to the point where I think I should let my political opponents have everything they want, just so I can watch the system grind to a complete halt under their batshit insane policies.
"You can't make and sell cupcakes in the shape of a star! That was my idea!"
"I was going to write a story about a cyborg ninja who goes on a journey of self-discovery! Award me damages!"
"My name is Anne! You can't use that name, it's mine!"
It will be glorious to behold, and people like you will be sitting around with your thumb up your ass, wondering why there are no new jobs, no new products, and every product that already exists costs twice as much due to licensing fees and legal costs.
On the post: Sorry Ron Paul, You Don't Get To Abuse Trademark Law To Unveil Anonymous Internet Users
Re: You idiot
On the post: Why It's Mathematically Impossible To Avoid Infringing On Software Patents
Re:
AC claims straight up that patents being too big for anyone to avoid infringing on them is the best system. I detect no hints of sarcasm, nor any signs of the obvious cognitive dissonance that such a statement must bring (if it is impossible to know that they are infringing, how can they be said to be "stealing" someone's idea?). Furthermore, he claims to want ideas for a better system while immediately refusing to listen to any idea he has predetermined that he doesn't agree with. He's succinct, confrontational, and he obviously designed his post carefully to invoke anger in anyone with a functioning brain.
In light of the above, I award this AC 10/10. This is the high caliber of trolling I've come to expect from the TD comment section.
On the post: Sorry Ron Paul, You Don't Get To Abuse Trademark Law To Unveil Anonymous Internet Users
Re:
One small misstep isn't enough to get me to change my opinion of him. My worldview remains firmly intact. Now, if he were to come out in support of invading Iran like the rest of the warmongering chicken-hawks the GOP has put up so far, I'd be gone in a split second.
On the post: Sorry Ron Paul, You Don't Get To Abuse Trademark Law To Unveil Anonymous Internet Users
Re: Ron Paul's lawsuit
On the post: Sorry Ron Paul, You Don't Get To Abuse Trademark Law To Unveil Anonymous Internet Users
Re: Re: Re:
The only violation of libertarian property rights here is trying to use the courts to force a private entity to turn over information that they otherwise wouldn't. As un-libertarian as that might be, free speech doesn't really factor in.
(If he had called up Google and asked them to turn over the logs, and they had complied willingly, it wouldn't have been inconsistent with libertarian principles at all.)
On the post: Sorry Ron Paul, You Don't Get To Abuse Trademark Law To Unveil Anonymous Internet Users
Some Perspective
"Sure, he's been consistent in his positions to end the ruinous war on drugs, stop murdering people overseas, and keep the government from detaining you indefinitely, but . . . he filed a questionable lawsuit to unmask someone who was putting out vile and defamatory content in his name. I guess that means he's now an establishment candidate and devoid of any principles."
To that I have to ask: Wat?
The Paul campaign screwed up. It happens. We should definitely speak out and make sure they know that they screwed up, and at no time should we turn a blind eye to these things merely because we like the rest of what they do. But let's keep some perspective, here. If you expect any person to refrain from making any mistakes, ever, in order for them to win your approval, then you're going to spend most of your life without friends of any kind.
On the post: Sorry Ron Paul, You Don't Get To Abuse Trademark Law To Unveil Anonymous Internet Users
Re: unlibertarian of doing so?
How was Ron Paul "invaded" by the video in question? Which property right did they infringe upon?
This is a misstep for his campaign, for sure (even though I don't find it to be a huge one).
On the post: How Big Music Companies Are Stealing Hundreds Of Millions In Royalties From Artists
Re:
On the post: An Open Letter To Content Creators: One 'Pirate' Explains Why He Infringes & How To Get His Money
Re: Oh I get it, all you have to do is ask people to "do better"
1. Your content will always be available for free on the internet.
2. Read #1 again and again until you really understand it. I'll wait.
Now, you either listen to what your customers want and make money, or you continue to whine about the above fact until you go bankrupt.
No doubt you are prepared to whine as a response to this post, too. So be it. I know you think file sharing is theft. I disagree, and you won't change my opinion by whining. You are not going to get my business by whining. You are not going to get me to tell all my friends about your work by whining.
Adapt or get tossed into the dustbin of history.
On the post: Workshop Audience Barred From 'Demonstrating' Approval Of Michael Geist's ACTA Takedown
Re:
On the post: Streaming Rights On Whitney Houston Movie NOT Pulled In Order To 'Make Really A Large Amount Of Money On DVD Sales' [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
If you want to increase production, you give people a reason to support production (e.g. Kickstarter). You can't improve production by trying to overturn the laws of supply and demand for the end product.
On the post: Only Hollywood Would Think That This 'Disc To Digital' Program Makes Sense
Close
1. Download film from torrent site in a minute and a half.
2. That's it. There is no Step 2.
But I'm sure Warner Bros is going to be real successful with their new program.
On the post: Hacktivist Judo: Musician Exploits New Spanish Law To Overwhelm System With Legitimate Infringement Complaints
Re:
Anyone will tell you that the best way to effect political change is to keep your head down and not make waves.
On the post: Do You Need Permission To Take A Photo With A Chair In It? You Might In France...
Re: comment held for moderation
On the post: Streaming Rights On Whitney Houston Movie NOT Pulled In Order To 'Make Really A Large Amount Of Money On DVD Sales' [Updated]
Re:
Can't stream it? Just copy it off ThePirateBay for its natural supply-and-demand value.
Next >>