I forgot about this thread until it was referenced in another thread today but I thought some of this was worthy of a response.
Long offered nothing defensible in this day and age and the age he referenced was the age that inspired intellectual property rights to begin with so his dog doesn’t hunt in that era either.
For proof of my assertions one need travel no further than Tijuana to see name brands marketed with fake products, I understand the streets of New York are ripe with this as well but I cannot confirm that personally.
Where intellectual property rights are not enforced, fraud is rampant.
I read this imbeciles piece and many of his other ramblings as well, the “peaceful use” garbage changes nothing.
I either have a Right to my own creations and ideas or the collective has a Right to my creations and ideas, what a thief uses my property for is irrelevant.
Do I have a Right to your house if my intent is “peaceful”? How about your car?
What is “Fraud” then and how does it change anything from the perspective of the owner?
Yes, you have stolen my property to profit from it if you did not have my permission in the first case and in the second case you have used my reputation to market a false product in which case you both made money off my reputation and you damaged my reputation simultaneously.
Hence my “Communist” accusation, Long sees my property as collectively owned by everyone so the offense you described in your hypothetical can only be a crime to the collective and not to me.
It sounds like we both understood exactly what this imbecile meant.
You may have defrauded your customers but that does not in any way change my Rights, I am not part of any “class action” because the “class” had no claim of ownership to my creation or reputation.
Nobody has ever claimed that defrauding customers cannot coexist with Intellectual Property Rights, Long is introducing a Red Herring with this because defrauding a customer is also against the law now.
These are two entirely different legal concepts and they are NOT mutually exclusive, no creator must lose his Rights to his property for a customer to obtain their Right to not be defrauded.
Long has no argument short of the standard arguments that are always made in defense of Communism, that is why he attempts to justify his position with a completely irrelevant rabbit trail like “defrauding customers”. These are two separate crimes with two separate victims and neither need be stripped of their Rights to protect the other.
I understand Long’s argument perfectly, it is indefensible within any concept of Individual Liberty and Free Market Capitalism.
Nobody has any claim on anything that I create or have worked to own, my property is under my authority and your property is under your authority.
Protecting these Rights is the proper use of Law and the most vital check and balance to insure opportunity for all.