So, you wouldn't download a car?
[/quote]

If the design/invention of the car was in the public domain I would certainly download it without paying. But if it was NOT and the designer demanded, say, 1000 dollars for his design, I would most definitely be willing to pay this for downloading a car. Remember how much a car costs TODAY in comparison. In fact this scenario is not all that unlikely. 3D printers are getting better all the time, and atom precision rearrangement of matter is not necessarily completely utopian. Some time in the future ANYONE can with the right atoms print a car, and at that point I am sure that the printing costs of such a car will start to approach the cost of the atoms, so lets say 1000 dollars in material costs. So you can print an open source car at the cost of 1000 dollars, or you can buy the sleak and really powerful design of some car designer for an additional 1000 dollars and end up with a really, really cool car for only 2000 dollars.

BUT I am absolutely positive that a whole host of libertarians are going to whine that it's coercion to not be able to use that design for free, even though the total cost of a car has fallen dramatically since the time when you couldn't easily duplicate it. In other words, when the car costs 30,000 dollars libertarians think its ok, but once it becomes so efficient to make cars that you can make them at home for 1000 dollars, paying 1000 dollars for someone else's design work becomes too much to ask. Go figure.

As far as the company that invests billions to bring a drug to market and someone analyzes the product for a million and copies it.  Don't they know that will happen? You will never be able to protect from it. China will copy it in a heart beat no matter what laws you put in place. If not China, someone else.

Most of the money by the way is in the Synthesizing and Medical Studies. What it comes down to is not the chemicals in the medicine but the trust the public has in the company. The TradeMark. People are willing to pay for the Trademark, and if the company acts in a decent and responsible fashion it will maintain market share in the product. But if its actions loose the public trust, it will lose.

So we are not talking about it making back its billion dollars, we are talking about the time frame in making back its billion dollars.

You know, I think Bayer has figured this out. (At least in its division of the company).

This is exactly the kind of argument that muslim gang rapists use when they see a woman on the street alone. She should have been aware of such risks, so it's her own fault she got gang raped and beaten half to death. She got what she deserved.

What I find disturbing is that the ONLY reason you have ANY sympathy with this woman is that you by extraordinary coincidence have chosen to adhere to an arbitrary principle which just happens to make the above an act of aggression. But if for some reason that principle didn't include rape when you walk alone in an alley, then I absolutely positive that you wouldn't have felt an inch of sympathy for the poor woman, just like the gang rapists don't feel bad for raping her and beating her half to death, and I find that pretty scary.

Now, you can say that I am way over the top. The aspirin example is not a violation and has nothing to do with rape, but that's the point. It does. They are fundamentally similar acts of violation. One is more severe than the other, but they are still acts of violation, and any normal, human being with even a fragment of decency understands that it's a gross injustice that the inventor of a product earns NOTHING while all the parasites who have done no work to create the product get to become rich. Frankly it is shocking that anyone can say something like that with a straight face. One thing is certain: a person like that deserves no freedom.

Dude,

You got issues. Comparing IP, infringement to "muslim gang rapists".  Something obviously happened to you, I am sorry for whatever it was. I had nothing to do with it.

You're right that something happened to me: I became an adult. I learned to think. I developed basic human competencies such as reason, empathy, decency and integrity.

He ONLY deserves to get paid for his labor if someone actually USES the fruits of his labor. If the one who wants to use the fruits of his labor doesn't like the price, then he can simply refrain from consuming the labor of the mind worker. It's very simple. Basic capitalism, actually.

I apologize for the long answer in response to your post, but here is an article that is apropos to your post.

What about Sand Castles?
 
What is the purpose of a Sand Castle? Lots of time, energy, and skill that others don’t posses go into their creations.  Some people build ugly monstrosities trying to improve their skill to match the beautifully designed and intricate structures that others build. They are not built for any physical gain and serve no profitable purpose. Sand Castle’s will be washed away with the incoming tide to be forever vanquished but yet others will be built the following day with the same result. Competitions are undertaken to judge who is the most skillful at building Sand Castles. A few people become respected for their skill and crowds of people will show up to see the finished product. As certain people are granted a level of respect for their ability. A local nearby shop owner will pay the respected artist to build his Sand Castle’s in front of his shop.  This is a natural and perfect solution for everyone involved to have a win/win solution.  The shop owner gains business from the crowds that show up to see the Sand Castle, the artist receives money from for doing what he would do even if he wasn’t paid, the crowds get to be wondered about the creation of art. Young inspired youths will try to emulate the respected artist’s work. The original artist isn’t offended. He realizes that he can’t be the only artist in the world, and imitation is flattery.  

More Sand Castles need to be made. People have forgotten the pleasure of making them and viewing others creations.

No matter what is done, All Sand Castles return to the Sea .... Eventually


There is something wrong with our system of entertainment. It had a perfectly sound system that was corrupted. Sponsors and Advertisers will pay to associate themselves with quality entertainment.  Programs and almost all entertainment was base around this premise. It inspired quality and creativity. It destroyed the lazy and non-creative. It promoted new and different ideas that became popular. Bad stations with bad programing went out of business. Executives had to work for their money. Artist that wanted to be recognized had to constantly work for their money. Cost control was built into the system. Giving raises and rate reductions was built into the system. It just worked and it worked well. All most all of our entertainment system was free. Television, Radio, Family games were all free.  People paid to go to a movie when it was first released and that was an exception because no sponsors or ads were paying for the movie. The current form of Cinema will be taking its last breadths unless it changes. It will go the way of the buggy whip. Take note of artist like Kevin Smith produced “Clerks” for just under $28,000 dollars. He made millions from that venture. Modern studios will spend $30-$100 million and hope to make a little money. The world is going back to a free or near free system. The big guys aren’t going willingly, but there are some innovators like NetFlix, Revision3, Twit, Hulu, etc.... That are making great strides at delivering content.  People are willing to pay for content, up to a point. But if it is offered for free or near free, it is a clear choice.  When a Black Market springs up around products, it means that the original products are being priced to high. Stop building walls around the Sand Castles.

All Sand Castles return to the Sea... Eventually

Common Sense suggests the following:

Patents:
Patents aren’t to protect cash flow or rights, they are for the public to know that the product they are buying does what it says it does and to give credit to the creator. This keeps items like Snake Oil from being sold.

Copyright:
Copyright is not to protect cash flow, it is to give credit were credit is due so others don’t take credit for another’s work.

Trademarks:
Trademarks will fall under Copyright. That’s it.

Knowledge isn’t to be stored and hoarded for the few. It should be free and exchanged and improved. In the Common Sense future Open Source, GPL Licensing, Open Patent, is the way to a better society. There is hope, because Open Source does exist, Lawyers came up with GPL Licensing and it is flourishing. But how can that be? Nothing is done for free.  It can be, because it is natural and it closely emulates Natural Laws that every other creature on earth follows.  Apes work together as a group to provide a better environment for their group. Each Ape performs different and similar functions. There are rewards, punishment, injured that are helped out.  And all this takes place without one penny exchanging hands. It is Capitalism but without the money.

But where ever the future takes us, remember...

All Sand Castles return to the Sea... Eventualy

...but not everybody is going to follow this. So you send out the men with guns to do your bidding.

Own the legal rights to economic exploitation of the ideas? If I sell an idea that you've created, that would be illegitimate in your book. Getting gold coins in return for "selling" your idea would be wrong. How about using your idea to physically create gold coins? How about using your idea to physically create chocolate coins, which I would could eat? How about using your idea to prevent falling in a ditch? How about using your idea to create stone figures which I later trade for a big log so I can safely cross the ditch? Please define "economic exploitation".



In a rational world that's not how things work because you would own your body.


If ideas are not property you cannot own your idea. Labor != property, but you can use labor to create property. You own your labor, you own the object you created, but you don't own the idea.

If you used 10 years of your life to figure out how to walk backwards, I won't pay you for it.


Why would you even suggest something like this? I know you agree that you own your own body and therefore do not need a sign.


Why is "10 years" and "hard work" relevant? Do you believe in the labor theory of value?


Again, all the posters here agree that you own your own body.

It seems like most of your analogies don't work.

Other than that, I applaud Onarchy's initiative, although I suspect there will be a lot of debate on certain issues like IP and FRB.