One-on-One: An Austrian Perspective on IP

[Yorzhik]

Say you and I have a contract for me to sell you a chair at a particular price. I deliver a chair, but you pay me only half the price.

I would just like to point out that this is a great illustration of how a contract comes first, and then the purchase. You realize that you just said, the price was agreed upon. That's the verbal or written contract, apparently, in this case. If you said the price was x and I never said "OK" or signed a purchase order, and I only gave you 1/2 of x, but you delivered the chair ANYWAY and took 1/2 the money, it would be your fault if you only got 1/2 the money you wanted for the chair. It would even be worse if I told you I would only give you 1/2 x for the chair and you STILL delivered it and took 1/2 the money. Correct?

 

[Yorzhik]

I promised links, but I haven't found a good reason to do it yet. Suffice to say, at this point, that I agree with everything the links you posted say about contracts. Unfortunately, your links agree with me that you need positive agreement before you can execute and have the courts uphold a contract.

 

[rk3001]

Changing position.

Changing position.

You have posted a contradiction. You say you agree with everything my links say about contracts, but then say a contract requires positive agreement. Did you miss the links on implied contracts?

Here is <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+contract">one</a> of them. By their very nature as the name well, implies, implied contracts of course do not need positive agreement. By definition in an implied contract acceptance of the goods is acceptance of the contract.

You're getting better though, at least now you recognize oral contracts. Implied contracts shouldn't be that hard.

This was your initial post disputing me:

Here's the problem with your "terms I proffer". You have to get positive agreement from the contractee before you can force adjudication as the contractor. In other words, if a buyer does not agree to your terms (a contract), even in thought, you are OBLIGATED NOT TO SELL to him if you want to uphold the integrity of your contract. If you do sell to him, with no positive agreement, then you are at fault if he breaks your terms.

Now you say:

Back to the show:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rk3001
What you have been arguing is that if someone disagrees with a contract, even in thought, then they are not bound by it.
No. Here is what I said: "BUT, if the purchaser signed a contract saying he would not copy the chair, it doesn't matter what the purchaser claims, he is liable for whatever damages were caused by the purchaser copying the chair."

Read again: "it doesn't matter what the purchaser claims". Let's say the purchaser thought about disagreeing with a contract he signed. It doesn't matter, the purchaser is bound by the contract.

Now, I realize where this became confusing: I said, "In other words, if a buyer does not agree to your terms (a contract), even in thought, you are OBLIGATED NOT TO SELL to him if you want to uphold the integrity of your contract." But this was said in the context of the purchase being the contract.

So no it was not said in the context of the purchase being the contract, because I was the one who said that, only I hadn't yet because we weren't debating contracts at that point. Though contracts were implied in my initial post, it wasn't about them it was about copyright.

So in one post you say one thing, then I don't know how many posts later you say something else, only it's supposed to be the same argument?

This is the kind of thing I meant when I said your argument changed.

So here we are. You say you will provide links to support your argument only you don't need to because my links support what you say. But then you say something that is in contradiction to two of the links.

Then you make a factually incorrect statement about the context of your first post.

The question for me becomes is it worth my time to continue? I don't know if you're just confused, or if you're being intentionally dishonest. All I know for certain is that you're saying one thing, and the record says something different.

I'll check back here in a day or two. If you have a post or posts that 1, explain the inconsistencies between what you say and what the record shows, and 2 addresses implied contracts and positive agreement, either by admitting they don't need it or explaining how they do with some evidence to back that up, I'll continue.

If not, then I don't really see the point.

 

[Yorzhik]

You have posted a contradiction. You say you agree with everything my links say about contracts, but then say a contract requires positive agreement. Did you miss the links on implied contracts?

I didn't miss the links. Implied contracts are for things like: you go to the doctor and expect to pay "some fair amount" for services rendered even though typically prices aren't discussed before services are rendered because what services will be performed aren't known before the conclusion of the service. Thus, if you go to the doctor and he checks you out and, not liking what he sees does the next level of test and then refers you do a specialist, you cannot get out of the bill because "you never agreed to pay that much".

We can safely understand that you are saying that copyrights are implied contracts?

You're getting better though, at least now you recognize oral contracts.

Just a note, I've always accepted oral contracts. If you had ever asked me directly, I would have even said that there are more verbal contracts than written ones.

If you aren't clear about something, or if something doesn't make sense, and you can ask directly; do.

Implied contracts shouldn't be that hard.

Not only do I say implied contracts exist, but there are more implied contracts executed than written contracts. Every time something is bought at a grocery store and nothing is said at the cash register, it must be an implied contract because there is nothing said or written.

So no it was not said in the context of the purchase being the contract, because I was the one who said that, only I hadn't yet because we weren't debating contracts at that point. Though contracts were implied in my initial post, it wasn't about them it was about copyright.

The whole conversation is about copyrights, and your post inferred contracts because a purchase was involved. All transactions (purchases) involve a contract of some type and so far, nothing you've said has shown disputes that. Here is the line from your post that made me bring up contracts: "you're free to go buy someone else's". As soon as you said the word "buy" a contract is involved - I said "And thus we enter the world on contracts." Although I meant to say of contracts.

Then you make a factually incorrect statement about the context of your first post.

This is not correct, as just demonstrated.

The question for me becomes is it worth my time to continue? I don't know if you're just confused, or if you're being intentionally dishonest. All I know for certain is that you're saying one thing, and the record says something different.

Never attribute something to malicious intent what can be explained by a breakdown in communication. I'm rational, and have been discussing this topic for a number of years.

I'll check back here in a day or two. If you have a post or posts that 1, explain the inconsistencies between what you say and what the record shows,

The inconsistencies are explained either by my poor communication or your misunderstanding of the argument. I'll admit that I'm much looser and quicker to post without proofreading on a blog. Instead of getting angry about it, assume I might just be communicating poorly. That's the nice thing about forums (and blogs) is that you can get things clarified.

and 2 addresses implied contracts and positive agreement, either by admitting they don't need it or explaining how they do with some evidence to back that up, I'll continue.

I guess this is where the discussion lies. I'll grant you this is your best argument. So just to be clear, you are resting your argument on the claim that copyrights are implied contracts?

But it will be shown, even implied contracts require positive agreement.

 

[rk3001]

Done

Done

But it will be shown, even implied contracts require positive agreement.

That would be a nice change of pace, for you to actually show something. By that I mean show some proof. But I'm done waiting for it.

The whole conversation is about copyrights,

No our whole discussion has been about contracts. It started on a thread about intellectual property, of which copyright is a part it's true, but we've only discussed contracts. I posted my thoughts on IP and monopoly and was open to hearing about others thoughts on that. You however chose to go of on a tangent about contracts. Now you want to change the discussion. Again.

If you had some argument to make against copyright, you should have made it. Cause here's the thing about contracts, they're only valid if they conform to the law. IP, copyrights, and so on are the law. They may be bad law, but they are the law. So contracts, whether they be written oral, or implied have to conform to them or they would be void. Nothing in a contract will make you exempt from the law.

The inconsistencies are explained either by my poor communication or your misunderstanding of the argument.

Sorry, It's happened too often for me to accept the "I didn't mean it like that" excuse.

So just to be clear, you are resting your argument on the claim that copyrights are implied contracts?

No. My argument has always been that if you purchase something knowing there are obligations to that purchase, then you are agreeing to them, even if you do not agree with them. And if you didn't understand the obligations the most you can do is negate the purchase i.e., you get yours back and the seller gets his back. You don't simply get to ignore them.

I suppose an argument could be made for copyrights as implied contracts, but I'm tired of this dance with you. First it's this. Then no I meant that. Well I really always meant the other thing. No thanks.

I've wasted a lot of time on this. Which to be fair, is my own fault. The moment I read the "Even in thought" line I should have known what was up. But sometimes you've got to learn a lesson the hard way.

You're gonna have to find a new dance partner. I have something constructive to do. I'm going to drill a hole in my forehead with this blunt pencil. I'm sure I'll feel much better then.

 

[Yorzhik]

Well then, I guess I can start this post with "In closing;"

That would be a nice change of pace, for you to actually show something. By that I mean show some proof. But I'm done waiting for it.

Some things don't need proofs. For example, if I say contracts have been around since transactions have been a part of mankind's reality - I don't need proof. Hopefully you can intuit something like that. If I say copyrights have been around for a few hundred years, I would provide a link.

I wish you could have seen the difference. We never got to the details beyond what your links sufficed to show.

No our whole discussion has been about contracts.

Only in so far as the discussion about contracts was a discussion against copyrights. The power of copyright over your property rests entirely on an implied-by-law contract. I was showing how this contract was not good law by first establishing how a contract worked.

As far as the "even in thought" argument was used; I'm sorry I brought it up in the first post as it is a detail that we can only get to after an understanding of how contracts work has been established. It was confusing without that foundation and I shouldn't have put it in the first post. We would have eventually gotten to "thoughts/intents" later on as that is the realm of implied contracts.

If you had some argument to make against copyright, you should have made it.

I was. If the contract that gives copyright its power is invalid, then copyright is bad law. First one needs to understand how contracts work.

Cause here's the thing about contracts, they're only valid if they conform to the law. IP, copyrights, and so on are the law. They may be bad law, but they are the law. So contracts, whether they be written oral, or implied have to conform to them or they would be void. Nothing in a contract will make you exempt from the law.

IP, copyrights, and patents are bad law. They rest on contracts for their power over your property. If one understands how contracts work, then they would not support copyrights.

Sorry, It's happened too often for me to accept the "I didn't mean it like that" excuse.

You are too prideful to realize it was also the "you misunderstood" excuse that I've had to deal with in your posts. Now realize I didn't say your frustration is entirely your fault. I'm saying you have a short fuse because you misunderstand but don't allow for your misunderstanding.

No. My argument has always been that if you purchase something knowing there are obligations to that purchase, then you are agreeing to them, even if you do not agree with them.

So when you buy a book, it is your property. However, you cannot copy it because...

I say it's because the copyright is a contract. If you agree, then you are saying that copyright is valid because it is a valid implied contract.

And if you didn't understand the obligations the most you can do is negate the purchase i.e., you get yours back and the seller gets his back. You don't simply get to ignore them.

That works with physical property because it is scarce (scarce in the economic sense. IP is not scarce, so by necessity it will work differently. Thus, the contract must be different to accommodate for this difference.

I've wasted a lot of time on this. Which to be fair, is my own fault. The moment I read the "Even in thought" line I should have known what was up. But sometimes you've got to learn a lesson the hard way.

Or you could have asked "what do you mean by saying 'even in thought'?" and I could have explained, or more likely taken back that line immediately.

Well, I'd like to say that it was good rk3001, but you obviously stopped trying to communicate before we even started.

If anyone else wants to take up the copyright mantle, please do. Drop me a private message. Any of the new atheists out there think that copyright is good law?

 

[Yorzhik]

And one parting curiousity on rk3001 even though he isn't here.

rk3001 argues like an evolutionist. I wonder if he is one based on that evidence alone?