One-on-One: An Austrian Perspective on IP

Status
Not open for further replies.

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
This started at WND columnist's Vox Day's blog. This was the original blog entry:

Vox Day said:
"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.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
rk3001 posted in the comments:
rk3001 said:
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.
Yorzhik said:
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.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
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.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
rk3001 said:
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.
Yorzhik said:
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.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
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.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
rk3001 said:
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.
Yorzhik said:
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.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
rk3001 said:
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.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
rk3001 said:
If the contractee and contractor do not agree to the terms, then they don't complete the transaction. ap
Yorzhik said:
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).
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yorzhik said:
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).
rk3001 said:
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?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
rk3001 said:
The meeting of the minds is contract law. Try actually following the links I provided.
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
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.
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
"If the contractor sells anyway", What, did the contractee have his fingers crossed?
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
How is that interpretation any better than "If the contractee buys anyway he's obligated to the contract".
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
If you don't like the terms, either try to negotiate better, or don't buy.
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
Don't buy and then try to claim you're not obligated to follow the terms because you don't agree with them.
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
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?
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
Does the phrase "Moving the goalposts." mean anything to you?
Yorzhik said:
Ah, I see you feel you are losing the argument. Better than that, consider that I might be right.
rk3001 said:
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?
Yorzhik said:
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?
Yorzhik said:
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
rk3001 said:
The meeting of the minds is contract law. Try actually following the links I provided.
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
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.
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
"If the contractor sells anyway", What, did the contractee have his fingers crossed?
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
How is that interpretation any better than "If the contractee buys anyway he's obligated to the contract".
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
If you don't like the terms, either try to negotiate better, or don't buy.
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
Don't buy and then try to claim you're not obligated to follow the terms because you don't agree with them.
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
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?
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
Does the phrase "Moving the goalposts." mean anything to you?
Yorzhik said:
Ah, I see you feel you are losing the argument. Better than that, consider that I might be right.
rk3001 said:
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?
Yorzhik said:
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?
Yorzhik said:
rk3001 said:
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.
Yorzhik said:
rk3001 said:
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.
rk3001 said:
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.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yorzhik said:
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?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yorzhik said:
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?
rk3001 said:
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.

Yorzhik said:
rk3001 said:
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.
rk3001 said:
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?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yorzhik said:
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?
rk3001 said:
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.

Yorzhik said:
rk3001 said:
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.
rk3001 said:
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.
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
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?
Yorzhik said:
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?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yorzhik said:
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?
rk3001 said:
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.

Yorzhik said:
rk3001 said:
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.
rk3001 said:
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.
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
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?
Yorzhik said:
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?
rk3001 said:
Yet again a change of argument.

Yet again a lack of proof.

And I am not a lawyer.

Btw, I didn't say you confused the two terms. I said you were trying to change the terms of the debate. While a contract requires a transaction, a transaction does not require a contract. There is a difference between the two terms. And when you used transaction you were not trying to use it as a synonym for contracts as you later claimed, you were trying to use it instead of contracts.

But let's look at your example.
Yorzhik said:
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.
rk3001 said:
What you're describing is the difference between an oral contract and a written contract. Your answer may be rhetorical, but it's also wrong. If the chair maker can prove that the purchaser knew the terms before he bought, then as a matter of fact the purchaser would be liable.

As a practical matter oral contracts are very difficult to prove, but if proven they are as legally binding and valid as written contracts. (Something you would know, if you actually bothered to read the evidence I provided.)

As an analogy, I would guess millions of people get away with smoking pot every year, but that doesn't mean smoking pot is legal. It just means they weren't caught. You might believe smoking pot should not be illegal (and I would agree), you might think the government making smoking pot illegal causes far more harm than good (and I would agree), but it does not change the fact that smoking pot is indeed illegal.

You say "in the absence of gov't", huh?

A contract is an agreement that is legally binding, exactly how is that even meaningful without government?

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.

Now, without government what good does that contract do me?

I can try to take the chair, or take the rest of the money you owe me, but I can attempt that without a contract, and having a contract in no way guarantees I'll succeed.

I can tell others you've cheated me, and perhaps with a contract they'll be more likely to believe me, but that certainly wouldn't obligate them to help me get my money. At most they might decide to not deal with you so they won't be cheated, which is good for them, but doesn't help me at all.

I am libertarian by temperament, but that doesn't mean I'm an anarchist. Government does have it's uses, limited though they may be. And one of those uses is to be an independent arbiter in disputes.

You mentioned not needing a lawyer's opinion. Which is true as far it goes. The problem is you seem to believe that the way contracts operate is a matter of opinion. It's not. It is a matter of fact how a contract functions.

It seems to be your opinion that contracts need a signature to be valid. This is wrong. There are both oral and implied contracts, neither of which need a signature.

And there's more. But why go on? You show no interest in the facts at all. Which is why despite my repeated requests you have not produced one shred of evidence to support your contentions.

So I ask again, why? If you are correct, then why no evidence to support it?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yorzhik said:
First, I'd like to say that you appear to be winning the argument. With that in mind, we could take this to a more formal setting. I know a forum where we can get on a thread where only you and I would be allowed to post (and the admin, of course). It would simply help with formatting and readability. I promise to begin using links to support my position. How 'bout it?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
rk3001 said:
You say I "appear to be winning the argument. Your use of the word appear suggests to me you believe you have some secret weapon to unveil which will trump me. Sheer curiosity to see what that might be inclines me to say yes.

So what the hell, I'll give it another whack.

How do we go about this?

And here we are!
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
First, I'd like to thank rk for taking the time and inconvenience of coming over to a forum to continue the conversation. Hopefully the transition wasn't too stressful. I'd also like to thank Vox Day for not minding that we took a conversation of his to a different venue.

Back to the show:
rk3001 said:
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.

Here's what I meant: If you made a contract (let's say you didn't want someone to copy the chair you were selling), and said that whoever buys the product agrees with the contract by buying it, I wouldn't have to tell you I disagreed with the contract in order for the contract NOT to apply. I would only have to NOT give you positive agreement. Now, if I said "I agree", then we have a verbal contract.

And let's add one thing, if I said I disagreed with your contract, and gave you the money and you took the money and gave me the chair, I would not be liable if I copied the chair.

This is why no one currently attempts to claim that the act of buying something means that you agree to the contract for regular goods.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
rk3001 said:
You say "in the absence of gov't", huh?

A contract is an agreement that is legally binding, exactly how is that even meaningful without government?
You have a point. Fine, so there is always a government to enforce the contract.

What I mean is that contracts are the same no matter what the government, even if you change from one government to another while a transaction is taking place. For instance, the mafia makes all kinds of transactions (product, not killings), and it stays out of court if the contract isn't upheld. There are 2 ways they reduce problems with their contracts, one is to make transactions simultaneous (money and product change hands at the same time), and the other way is the threat of violence in that they make themselves their own government in a way.

So from this point on we can say there is always a government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top