Post by sin on Nov 23, 2011 10:26:22 GMT -6
I'm always amazed at the number of Satanists claiming to be Libertarians that defend things like Intellectual Property. I find that calling Intellectual Property a 'Right' (whether legal or natural), is just a way to justify servitude to a system the Libertarian is seeking to be liberated from.
Nietzsche referred to this as SLAVE MORALITY.
The slave justifying the role of his Master.
Libertarian values have been lost in the 'Political Arena', more recently its understood to mean "The Tea Parties", wtf. As a Libertarian myself I seek to be autonomous, with less government control and more personal liberties. It runs parallel in some cases with LIBERTINE values.
The founding fathers of the United States. did not view IP as a natural right, instead it was meant to encourage innovation and progress in this country.
Ask Not what your country can do for you,
but what you can do for your country. -JFK
This sentiment was meant to convey that as we progress together as one nation, each citizen may reap the benefits of prosperity.
It was a policy tool. The current Copyright/patent policies equate to censorship and retardation of progress and innovation in this country. Patent/copyright holders use the force of the government to defend against competitors. You can't have it both ways. You can not take a position that you are against the control of the government, while defending the increase in control and enforcement.
More recently I have been asked why I put my writing out for FREE, why I don't sell my art, and why I take such a hard-line position on IP. I plan on covering this topic on my podcast to elaborate but I wanted to add a few points here:
LINK to the show:
www.blogtalkradio.com/poisonappleradio/2011/11/26/intellectual-property
1. My art is not for sale
[refer to past discussions and podcasts on my position on ART]
My art is my process, what I produce is merely a bi-product of that process. In my personal view point, the 'artist' which seeks to make a name for themselves, to 'earn' a hefty price for their 'artwork', those are retailers, not artists. I think if the artist is producing for the sake of financial gain, this is a retailer not an artist. I am actively engaged in the ART WAR.
2. Why don't you try to get paid for your writing?
My writing is a form of expression, it is part of my art. Not just as an artist, but an occultist as well. I provide my writing FREE of charge, for public access.
3. Why don't you try to get published with a reputable publisher?
That is not autonomy, that is servitude to a publisher and the capitalist system I detest.
4. You put your writing and artwork on the Internet, so obviously you are trying to gain fans, to get paid right?
Wrong. I express myself in many mediums, the Internet is simply a tool. I publish my writing and artwork for public access to my expressions. [See: The Book of SIN] I also do this with FULL-AWARENESS that it may be used by the public. I grant permission for public use, when I publish it on the Internet.
5. Do you judge people you know who stand behind IP?
Yes. I judge everyone, not just by their thoughts but more importantly by their actions. I observe, note and form an opinion about a person's character. I don't have to agree with a person to find them a likable personality. As a self-awareness measure, I keep the 'character' of the person I know, who I may find likable - in mind. People are not fixed nor are they absolute.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
“
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
This clause is abused and often misappropriated.
Intellectual property is built around a fundamental tension: ideas are public but creators want private returns. To overcome this tension, a distinction developed between ideas and their expression. Ideas could not be copyrighted but their expression could. This peculiar distinction was tied to the romantic notion of the autonomous creator who somehow contributes to the common pool of ideas without drawing from it. This package of concepts apparently justified authors in claiming residual rights—namely copyright—in their ideas after leaving their hands, while not giving manual workers any rationale for claiming residual rights in their creations. -Edwin C. Hettinger
Additional Reading:
1.
2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
3. academy.mises.org/courses/ip-reconsidered-intellectual-property-austrian-economics-and-libertarian-theory/
4. deoxy.org/aip.htm
5. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy
6. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_right
7. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute
8. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
9. www.stopfakes.gov/sf_why.asp
10. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
11. www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-ip/en/iprm/pdf/ch4.pdf
