User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27

Thread: One-on-One: An Austrian Perspective on IP

  1. #1
    Over 3000 post club Lucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    south Texas
    Posts
    3,238
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    605

    One-on-One: An Austrian Perspective on IP

    Hear ye! Hear ye! Yorzhik and rk3001 are going to have a 1-on-1.
    grace & peace

  2. #2
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,851
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 198 Times in 158 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    248499
    This started at WND columnist's Vox Day's blog. This was the original blog entry:

    Quote Originally Posted by Vox Day
    "An Austrian perspective on IP"

    The Mises economics blog views intellectual property as a modern form of mercantilism:
    It was thought in the middle ages that most all products required monopoly production. The salt producer would enter into an agreement with the ruler. The ruler would promises a monopoly in exchange for a share of the revenue. It was thought that this would guarantee access to a valuable commodity. How can anyone make a buck without a guarantee that his hard work would be compensated?

    Well, it took time but eventually people realized that competition and markets actually do provide, as implausible as it may seem. As the centuries moved on, markets became ever freer, and we no longer believe that the king must confer a special status on any producer. They still do it, of course, but mostly for open reasons of political patronage.

    And yet in this one area of "intellectual property," all the old mercantilist myths survive. People still believe that a state grant of monopoly privilege is necessary for the market to work.
    To me, the most damning point about the wrongness of intellectual property is the fact that the quality of literary and theatrical output was much higher prior to the IP era. I think Jeffrey Tucker is correct to point to historical monopolies as a means of clarifying the relevant issues, as government-protected intellectual property markets show much the same defects that monopoly theory would cause one to expect to see in any commodity market in which legal monopolies were granted.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  3. #3
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,851
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 198 Times in 158 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    248499
    rk3001 posted in the comments:
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    Say I write a novel, with copyright I have a certain amount of control, over that particular novel. But I don't have a monopoly on novels. If you don't like the terms I proffer for the novel, you're free to go buy someone else's.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    And thus we enter the world on contracts.

    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.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  4. #4
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,851
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 198 Times in 158 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    248499
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    Um, no. If that were true then anyone who wanted to get out of a contract they could just say I didn't agree in my mind. With a product like books, or music the contract is implied. Meaning that if you purchase it you have agreed to abide by the terms.

    If you don't like the terms of purchasing something, you are obligated not to buy, unless you can negotiate better terms.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  5. #5
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,851
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 198 Times in 158 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    248499
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    Um, no. If that were true then anyone who wanted to get out of a contract they could just say I didn't agree in my mind. With a product like books, or music the contract is implied. Meaning that if you purchase it you have agreed to abide by the terms.

    If you don't like the terms of purchasing something, you are obligated not to buy, unless you can negotiate better terms.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Um, no. If you sign your name, that is positive agreement. Every contract comes with a signature of some kind.

    "the contract is implied"... that is not quite accurate. It is more like "the contract is forced on you by the government." The problem is this is not how contracts work. The problem is that if you want a contract the terms must be agreed to, positive agreement, before any sales can be made. The purchase does not constitute positive agreement by necessity (which means "by logic").

    "unless you can negotiate better terms" is impossible when the gov't forces a contract on you. And that is what a monopoly is.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  6. #6
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,851
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 198 Times in 158 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    248499
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Um, no. If you sign your name, that is positive agreement. Every contract comes with a signature of some kind.

    "the contract is implied"... that is not quite accurate. It is more like "the contract is forced on you by the government." The problem is this is not how contracts work. The problem is that if you want a contract the terms must be agreed to, positive agreement, before any sales can be made. The purchase does not constitute positive agreement by necessity (which means "by logic").

    "unless you can negotiate better terms" is impossible when the gov't forces a contract on you. And that is what a monopoly is.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    Since you do not have to buy it then no it is not forced on you by the government. You can choose to go without the materiel. Just because you want it and want it on particular terms does not mean you have a right to it on those terms. Government is just who enforces the contract. And no not every contract comes with a signature.

    Verbal contracts are just one that do not require a signature. Anytime you agree (whether that agreement is written, spoken or implied) to something that includes the exchange of goods, services or legal tender you have entered a contract. Contracts actually have rules they operate by that exist independently of how you would like them to function. Feel free to look them up.

    As far as negotiating terms, if the author, or whomever he has given his rights to in the matter, of IP materiel wants to give it away for free he is free to do so. (Don't believe me? Just check the right sidebar of this blog.) So yes you can negotiate even IP materiel.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  7. #7
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,851
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 198 Times in 158 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    248499
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    Since you do not have to buy it then no it is not forced on you by the government. You can choose to go without the materiel. Just because you want it and want it on particular terms does not mean you have a right to it on those terms. Government is just who enforces the contract. And no not every contract comes with a signature.

    Verbal contracts are just one that do not require a signature. Anytime you agree (whether that agreement is written, spoken or implied) to something that includes the exchange of goods, services or legal tender you have entered a contract. Contracts actually have rules they operate by that exist independently of how you would like them to function. Feel free to look them up.

    As far as negotiating terms, if the author, or whomever he has given his rights to in the matter, of IP materiel wants to give it away for free he is free to do so. (Don't believe me? Just check the right sidebar of this blog.) So yes you can negotiate even IP materiel.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    You didn't read carefully. You could have saved yourself a lot of this writing if you would have correctly read "of some kind". If you'd been able to comprehend what that meant (and it is demonstrably true) then you could have saved your entire first 2 paragraphs upon which your misreading stood. You may try again if you'd like.

    As for negotiating terms, it is irrelivant what the contractor proposes if the contractee does not agree to the terms. Again, what matters is positive agreement by the contractee before the sale. It's the only way contracts can actually work by necessity. Feel free to look that up.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  8. #8
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,851
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 198 Times in 158 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    248499
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    If the contractee and contractor do not agree to the terms, then they don't complete the transaction. Again, you do not have the right to buy at terms you would prefer. You only have the right to not buy if you do not like the terms or can can not agree on the terms.

    The only way a signature "of some kind" could apply to verbal (actually to be completely technical about it I should say oral, as verbal means in words which would also apply to written contracts) contracts is if you're claiming that a person agreeing to something acts as a de facto signature, and if that's the case then that would apply just as well to someone paying for something acting as a de facto signature.

    You can say contracts have to work the way you describe "by necessity" as often as you want. But they still function as I've described them. If you want to claim they operate illogically, go right ahead. I wish you much joy of it. But they still operate, no matter your opinion of their "logic".

    Something just occurred to me, I think you might be confused by the idea in contract law of "The meeting of the minds". It's true in contract law that if there is no "meeting of the minds" a contract is unenforceable. But if that is what is you're thinking of, it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

    For a contract to be valid the parties involved must agree to what they're contracting on, their minds must meet. Example: I agree to sell you a mustang. I think I'm selling you a horse, you believe you're buying a car. Our minds have not met, the contract is unenforceable. But all that means is I get the horse back and you get your money back.

    To extend it to IP, you'd have to claim that you didn't realize that you weren't allowed to copy and redistribute the materiel when you made transaction. An unlikely prospect at best, considering how much publicity IP has garnered. But say you succeed, you still wouldn't be allowed to keep the materiel or distribute it to others. You'd simply have to return it to whomever you purchased it from and they'd give you your money back. Things would be put as if the contract had never been entered into.

    Here are two general information links on contracts.

    And here are two definitions of implied contracts.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  9. #9
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,851
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 198 Times in 158 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    248499
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    If the contractee and contractor do not agree to the terms, then they don't complete the transaction. ap
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Quite right. And if the contractor sells anyway, then it's the contractor's fault.

    I don't mean the "meeting of the minds" law. I mean contracts (transactions, really) all take place in the same way.

    Knowing about terms has nothing to do with agreeing with them (unless you are talking about a gov't forcing you to agree with the terms).
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  10. #10
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,851
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 198 Times in 158 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    248499
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Quite right. And if the contractor sells anyway, then it's the contractor's fault.

    I don't mean the "meeting of the minds" law. I mean contracts (transactions, really) all take place in the same way.

    Knowing about terms has nothing to do with agreeing with them (unless you are talking about a gov't forcing you to agree with the terms).
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    The meeting of the minds is contract law. Try actually following the links I provided. And the government doesn't force you to agree to the terms of a contract, it forces you to follow the terms of a contract you agreed to.

    "If the contractor sells anyway", What, did the contractee have his fingers crossed? How is that interpretation any better than "If the contractee buys anyway he's obligated to the contract". If you don't like the terms, either try to negotiate better, or don't buy. Don't buy and then try to claim you're not obligated to follow the terms because you don't agree with them.

    So, in my initial post I mentioned contracts. You disputed me on contracts. And now as it becomes more and more clear that you're talking out the side of your neck on contracts, you want to claim you were actually talking about transactions, not contracts?

    Does the phrase "Moving the goalposts." mean anything to you?

    But fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you can dispute my argument on contracts, backed up by evidence as I provided in the links in an previous post, do so.

    Or if you want to claim you weren't talking about contracts at all, then we have no dispute as I was discussing contracts.

    Just decide which it is; contracts or transactions?
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  11. #11
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,851
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 198 Times in 158 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    248499
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    The meeting of the minds is contract law. Try actually following the links I provided.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Yes, I know it's contract law. However, many laws have come and gone throughout history, but the way contracts are done has been the same since transactions existed. And just so you know, every transaction includes a contract of some kind. So the words can be used as synonyms for the most part.

    In other words, the laws do not matter to what is right. Therefore, we should always try and discuss what is right instead of capricious laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    And the government doesn't force you to agree to the terms of a contract, it forces you to follow the terms of a contract you agreed to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    No. I should be able copy anything I own and sell it however I please. That is only natural. You feel the same way. But for some reason, when that "anything I own" happens to be a book, the gov't forces me to treat things I own as if someone else owned them. You don't even agree that things you own should be treated as if someone else owned them... so you don't even agree with the terms of the copyright contract.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    "If the contractor sells anyway", What, did the contractee have his fingers crossed?
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    He would have to have his fingers crossed, wouldn't he...

    He probably wouldn't remain in business...

    Thus, we can say that selling something before the contract is agreed to doesn't happen.

    It does happen, though. It happened to me: I was a purchaser at a company and we were getting a new vendor. They sent a contract like most vendors do. Usually these contracts don't say much more than "we agree to supply the product and you agree to pay within 30 days" or something similar. But this vendor added "if you don't sell enough (and, thus, require more product) we will RETROACTIVELY raise the price of the product you purchased". Now that's not actually something unheard of in business but we didn't like it and sent the contract back for them to take out that line. I did my job and sent in the initial purchase order, another normal practice with a new vendor, even though they didn't have a signed contract from us yet. As it turned out, they sent the product! We paid. We sold the stuff and I kept sending purchase orders even though the contract was never signed (they kept sending back the contract with that line and we kept sending it back) and this went on for about a year, after which they reviewed our sales and one item (of many) didn't sell well and they sent us a second invoice for the retroactive pricing. I leave it to you to guess if we paid.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    How is that interpretation any better than "If the contractee buys anyway he's obligated to the contract".
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Ah, but you see, there is always a contract. Even in the above example the purchase order was the contract. And in a store, if you buy something, you own it. If you own it, you can do with it as you please. Even copy it.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    If you don't like the terms, either try to negotiate better, or don't buy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Why? If the seller will sell even if I don't agree to the terms, why should I re-negotiate? If they sell it, I own it.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    Don't buy and then try to claim you're not obligated to follow the terms because you don't agree with them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    But that is precisely how contracts work. If I don't agree to the contract, but you sell anyway, I'm not obligated to follow what I didn't agree to.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    So, in my initial post I mentioned contracts. You disputed me on contracts. And now as it becomes more and more clear that you're talking out the side of your neck on contracts, you want to claim you were actually talking about transactions, not contracts?
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    I'll take your word for it. But it isn't that big'a deal since all transactions include a contract they will be used in such a way that only context can separate the meaning of the two words.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    Does the phrase "Moving the goalposts." mean anything to you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Ah, I see you feel you are losing the argument. Better than that, consider that I might be right.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    But fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you can dispute my argument on contracts, backed up by evidence as I provided in the links in an previous post, do so.

    Or if you want to claim you weren't talking about contracts at all, then we have no dispute as I was discussing contracts.

    Just decide which it is; contracts or transactions?
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    But fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you can dispute my argument on contracts, backed up by evidence as I provided in the links in an previous post, do so.

    Or if you want to claim you weren't talking about contracts at all, then we have no dispute as I was discussing contracts.

    Just decide which it is; contracts or transactions?
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Both.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  12. #12
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,851
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 198 Times in 158 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    248499
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    The meeting of the minds is contract law. Try actually following the links I provided.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Yes, I know it's contract law. However, many laws have come and gone throughout history, but the way contracts are done has been the same since transactions existed. And just so you know, every transaction includes a contract of some kind. So the words can be used as synonyms for the most part.

    In other words, the laws do not matter to what is right. Therefore, we should always try and discuss what is right instead of capricious laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    And the government doesn't force you to agree to the terms of a contract, it forces you to follow the terms of a contract you agreed to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    No. I should be able copy anything I own and sell it however I please. That is only natural. You feel the same way. But for some reason, when that "anything I own" happens to be a book, the gov't forces me to treat things I own as if someone else owned them. You don't even agree that things you own should be treated as if someone else owned them... so you don't even agree with the terms of the copyright contract.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    "If the contractor sells anyway", What, did the contractee have his fingers crossed?
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    He would have to have his fingers crossed, wouldn't he...

    He probably wouldn't remain in business...

    Thus, we can say that selling something before the contract is agreed to doesn't happen.

    It does happen, though. It happened to me: I was a purchaser at a company and we were getting a new vendor. They sent a contract like most vendors do. Usually these contracts don't say much more than "we agree to supply the product and you agree to pay within 30 days" or something similar. But this vendor added "if you don't sell enough (and, thus, require more product) we will RETROACTIVELY raise the price of the product you purchased". Now that's not actually something unheard of in business but we didn't like it and sent the contract back for them to take out that line. I did my job and sent in the initial purchase order, another normal practice with a new vendor, even though they didn't have a signed contract from us yet. As it turned out, they sent the product! We paid. We sold the stuff and I kept sending purchase orders even though the contract was never signed (they kept sending back the contract with that line and we kept sending it back) and this went on for about a year, after which they reviewed our sales and one item (of many) didn't sell well and they sent us a second invoice for the retroactive pricing. I leave it to you to guess if we paid.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    How is that interpretation any better than "If the contractee buys anyway he's obligated to the contract".
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Ah, but you see, there is always a contract. Even in the above example the purchase order was the contract. And in a store, if you buy something, you own it. If you own it, you can do with it as you please. Even copy it.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    If you don't like the terms, either try to negotiate better, or don't buy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Why? If the seller will sell even if I don't agree to the terms, why should I re-negotiate? If they sell it, I own it.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    Don't buy and then try to claim you're not obligated to follow the terms because you don't agree with them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    But that is precisely how contracts work. If I don't agree to the contract, but you sell anyway, I'm not obligated to follow what I didn't agree to.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    So, in my initial post I mentioned contracts. You disputed me on contracts. And now as it becomes more and more clear that you're talking out the side of your neck on contracts, you want to claim you were actually talking about transactions, not contracts?
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    I'll take your word for it. But it isn't that big'a deal since all transactions include a contract they will be used in such a way that only context can separate the meaning of the two words.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    Does the phrase "Moving the goalposts." mean anything to you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Ah, I see you feel you are losing the argument. Better than that, consider that I might be right.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    But fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you can dispute my argument on contracts, backed up by evidence as I provided in the links in an previous post, do so.

    Or if you want to claim you weren't talking about contracts at all, then we have no dispute as I was discussing contracts.

    Just decide which it is; contracts or transactions?
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    But fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you can dispute my argument on contracts, backed up by evidence as I provided in the links in an previous post, do so.

    Or if you want to claim you weren't talking about contracts at all, then we have no dispute as I was discussing contracts.

    Just decide which it is; contracts or transactions?
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Both.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    And so now you want to move the goalposts some more. Since you are demonstrably wrong on contracts you want to say we shouldn't consider the law at all, just right and wrong.

    The problem with that is that the example I offered that you disputed me on was about contracts, not morality. (Though I wonder how someone can consider falsely entering into a contract moral, but I'll leave that for another time.)

    You want to say that contracts as regard IP materiel are morally wrong and should be changed, go right ahead. But that was not the nature of our dispute. Our dispute was and is about how contracts do operate. I said they operate a certain way, you said they operated differently. You were, and are wrong on that score.

    And you have not disputed the evidence I provided in the links. Why? Because you can't. So at first you tried to pretend that you never really were talking about contracts at all.

    When I called that out for what it was, you decided to lay low for a few days and then lay out this bunch of nonsense.

    Pathetic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    Say I write a novel, with copyright I have a certain amount of control, over that particular novel. But I don't have a monopoly on novels. If you don't like the terms I proffer for the novel, you're free to go buy someone else's.
    And thus we enter the world on contracts.

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    Right here is where you initially disputed me. Just so it's clear that you are the one who decided to focus our debate in the realm of contracts and law. A realm you now want to run away from as fast as you can.

    Notice there is not a single word about morality and right or wrong, your dispute was all about the ajudicability of a contract.

    Your own words give you the lie.

    Here is the situation. You do not know how contracts operate. You were under the illusion that you did. So you disputed what I said. But as I not only explained how you were wrong and provided the evidence for it (in the aforementioned links) you started to realize you were wrong.

    But instead of having the simple integrity to admit you were wrong about contracts, you squirm every which way trying to pretend that you really meant something else.

    The problem with that is that there is a record of it all.

    So squirm as much as you want. The record will still be there. It's not going to change, no matter how often your story does.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  13. #13
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,851
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 198 Times in 158 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    248499
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    What a mess. I don't even know what you are arguing about any more. That my view of contracts is wrong per your links?

    So let's see if we can do this one step at a time. I've only been arguing about one thing in regards to copyrights and contracts. That is, that all contracts have to be agreed to before the sales transaction takes place, and copyrights don't do that. Can we agree with that much?

    BTW, if we say that the act of purchasing is the agreement to the contract, then any contract can be forced on the buyer. Isn't that obvious?
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  14. #14
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,851
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 198 Times in 158 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    248499
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    What a mess. I don't even know what you are arguing about any more. That my view of contracts is wrong per your links?

    So let's see if we can do this one step at a time. I've only been arguing about one thing in regards to copyrights and contracts. That is, that all contracts have to be agreed to before the sales transaction takes place, and copyrights don't do that. Can we agree with that much?

    BTW, if we say that the act of purchasing is the agreement to the contract, then any contract can be forced on the buyer. Isn't that obvious?
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    No a contract can not be forced on a buyer if purchasing is agreement to a contract because if you do not like the terms you do not buy. Again and again you keep saying forced this and forced that, are you claiming someone's made you buy a book or a song? Did a G-man put a gun to your head and make you buy a videogame?

    What you have been arguing is that if someone disagrees with a contract, even in thought, then they are not bound by it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    Say I write a novel, with copyright I have a certain amount of control, over that particular novel. But I don't have a monopoly on novels. If you don't like the terms I proffer for the novel, you're free to go buy someone else's.
    And thus we enter the world on contracts.

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    The only thing that is required is that the purchaser understand the terms before he purchases. If he understands the terms and he purchases then he has obligated himself to follow the terms.

    I'm saying your view of contracts is wrong, the links are evidence I've offered to back that up. Something you still have not done.

    I have made my argument. I have offered proof supporting it. Try reading that proof. Here's an idea, try offering some of your own. If you are correct on how contracts operate, it should be easy enough to provide links to documentation to support it.

    It took me no more than a few minutes to find my proof. Where is yours?

    My argument has stayed the same throughout. Yours has changed with every posting. Pick an argument, and then provide evidence to support it. Is that too difficult for you to understand?
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  15. #15
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,851
    Thanks
    117
    Thanked 198 Times in 158 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    248499
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    What a mess. I don't even know what you are arguing about any more. That my view of contracts is wrong per your links?

    So let's see if we can do this one step at a time. I've only been arguing about one thing in regards to copyrights and contracts. That is, that all contracts have to be agreed to before the sales transaction takes place, and copyrights don't do that. Can we agree with that much?

    BTW, if we say that the act of purchasing is the agreement to the contract, then any contract can be forced on the buyer. Isn't that obvious?
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    No a contract can not be forced on a buyer if purchasing is agreement to a contract because if you do not like the terms you do not buy. Again and again you keep saying forced this and forced that, are you claiming someone's made you buy a book or a song? Did a G-man put a gun to your head and make you buy a videogame?

    What you have been arguing is that if someone disagrees with a contract, even in thought, then they are not bound by it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    Say I write a novel, with copyright I have a certain amount of control, over that particular novel. But I don't have a monopoly on novels. If you don't like the terms I proffer for the novel, you're free to go buy someone else's.
    And thus we enter the world on contracts.

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    The only thing that is required is that the purchaser understand the terms before he purchases. If he understands the terms and he purchases then he has obligated himself to follow the terms.

    I'm saying your view of contracts is wrong, the links are evidence I've offered to back that up. Something you still have not done.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    No. The seller must get positive agreement to any terms before the purchase. Here's another example. Let's say the seller is selling a chair. The salesman let's the purchaser know before the sale that if the purchaser buys he is agreeing to not copy the chair. Later, a copy of the chair is found in the purchaser's home.

    The chair maker takes the purchaser to court, but the purchaser says he did not agree to the terms, but when he gave the salesman the money, the salesman gave him a receipt and loaded the chair into the purchaser's van. Is the purchaser liable? It's rhetorical, the answer is "no".

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by rk3001
    I'm saying your view of contracts is wrong, the links are evidence I've offered to back that up. Something you still have not done.

    I have made my argument. I have offered proof supporting it. Try reading that proof. Here's an idea, try offering some of your own. If you are correct on how contracts operate, it should be easy enough to provide links to documentation to support it.

    It took me no more than a few minutes to find my proof. Where is yours?

    My argument has stayed the same throughout. Yours has changed with every posting. Pick an argument, and then provide evidence to support it. Is that too difficult for you to understand?
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    I haven't changed my argument, I've been arguing this subject for years. Also, I've checked my posts, and I never confused transactions with contracts. They are similar in use, but I didn't confuse the two terms.

    You must understand that you don't need a lawyer's opinion before you can understand contracts. They aren't that difficult. In the absence of gov't, contracts would still be used and they would still work the same way. Can you admit that contracts, even in the absence of gov't would work the same way they've always worked since transactions were a part of human activity?
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us