After an Olympic break last week, we present you some Laughs Lite today. Two Night’s Watch themed pieces first (at least one of them featured earlier on our Tumblr, check it out); the first is a design by Baz for TeeRaiders, the second by Philip Haragos.
Dany Pixar-style (brought to our attention by @Pizama) by the artist Jordi Gonzales, I recommend checking out his art blog:
Loading ...
67 Comments
Every time you link to something from 9gag, God kills a direwolf pup.
9gag, really?Quote Reply
There’s good 9gag and there’s bad 9gag.
Hear Me RoarQuote Reply
9gag, really?,
Hear ye, hear ye
KarikkiQuote Reply
I would love to see a Dany Pixar-style movie! Maybe “how to train a dragon 2″? ;)
G_LeeQuote Reply
How to Mother a Dragon, mayhaps?
NinepennyQuote Reply
Just found this. Its like 2 months old but I dont think its been posted on SGoTL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-oZ4Bug_zA&feature=g-vrec
G_LeeQuote Reply
Dry week for Game of Thrones “humor”, huh?
I am always amazed when a website that produces original content has no issues supporting another website (by advertising it) that steals content.
There’s a good chance that anyone 9gag created or got permission to rebrand and repost those images, and they — and Wic, for that matter — is likely making money off of someone else’s work without credit. That’s sketchy at best.
AlanQuote Reply
wheres the final parody video for episode 10???? me wants it
TheFlayedLadyQuote Reply
Alan,
We always name the author and link to them when we can. This time, I only had the 9gag version available (I could crop out the tag, though), because – unfortunately – those are the ones making rounds. Please point out the original artist to us if you find them, and we will of course post those instead. The talented Philip Haragos, smartly, stamped his own design.
Hear Me RoarQuote Reply
I will if I happen to stumble on them.
It’s just something I think you guys should think about when posting something from a site like 9gag. I try to avoid sites who are proven to steal content (even big ones like ESPN who have been caught plagiarizing and lying about sources). Just a thought for the future – I realize reasonable minds may differ on this.
AlanQuote Reply
Maybe it’s time to expand the scope of the posts on Saturday to include things that aren’t necessarily humor-related, but fandom-related.
Music video entitled “Keep the Streets Empty”:
http://youtu.be/JNP4o4uKsFA?hd=1
Another titled “Between Heaven & Hell”:
http://youtu.be/aNzholysPhI?hd=1
And since we all seem to love non-reader reactions of Ned losing his head…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUcuTJnv1JE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNIyzN9eDz0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSEm5ZMdc_0
“Name of Thrones”:
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2012/06/04/game-of-thrones-spoof-whats-in-a-name-pretty-much-everything/
The opening title music played with floppy disc drives:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgfPYetWWJw
Very cool House posters:
http://theawesomer.com/game-of-thrones-house-posters/120920/
And finally, “How ‘Game of Thrones’ Should Have Ended”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=babT8hR924w&feature=share
Pastor_of_MuppetsQuote Reply
I’m a bit over the Nintendo pixel art, there seems to be alot of it going on, I wouldnt mind seeing some abstract game of thrones art..
The mighty hodorQuote Reply
Alan,
I’d understand if say, Hear Me Roar claimed she did the image herself or something, but just finding a funny image on the web and posting it for others to enjoy is deffinitely at the light end of “Plagarism”.
I’d be quite interested to see Pixar do Game of Thrones, at any rate :P Pixar doing an adult movie…That would certainly be something.
AndrewQuote Reply
Jack is quite the comedy genius as well!
Love the change in his eyes when he becomes evil guy
http://vimeo.com/43403658
Red PriestessQuote Reply
Ok we have a new person playing in GOT s3. It’s Elisa Lasowski playing Mirelle: http://www.curtisbrown.co.uk/elisa-lasowski//works/
bonQuote Reply
Alan,
Copying is not stealing. Stealing involves property an you can’t have property rights in non-scarce resources. If we call it theft to take potential profits from somebody then it could be considered theft to open up a new grocery store because it takes potential profits away from existing grocery stores.
If an idea taken to it logical conclusion is absurd then there is something wrong with the premise of the idea. http://mises.org/document/3582
DanQuote Reply
That is the worst argument I have ever heard. Should I be able to republish ASOIF under my name, copying it word for word, and sell it at a profit?
AlanQuote Reply
bon,
Actually I picked that one up the the other day. It’s in the Tom Brooke comment thread and here: http://wicnet.tumblr.com/post/28602608763/casting-tidbit-i-came-across-a-cv-for-an-actress
Ours is the FuryQuote Reply
Seeing all this GoT video game art really wants to play one of them. I would pay booku cash to play Night Watch Bros. Also, that street fighter looking one from a few months ago.
JoeQuote Reply
Hear Me Roar,
Think I found the original creator, an artist called Jordi Gonzalez: http://jordigart.blogspot.com/2012/06/khaleesi.html
Tom StorvikQuote Reply
This one is foooony! Also from 9gag
9gag/gag/4927943
Aegon the ConquerorQuote Reply
Alan,
First, let me point out that questions are not arguments. It’s fine to ask questions and I encourage them, but when you say someone just made the worst argument that you’ve ever heard you should probably make an argument that counters theirs.
That said, I think you should legally be allowed to do what you suggested. I think it would be stupid considering people would immediately point out that you plagiarized it and you would be ostracized, but I don’t think you should be criminally culpable for stupidity as long as you don’t aggress against another’s person or property. I would also point out that you could do that right now with Shakespeare. Go copy his works, write your name down, and try to sell them. Let me know if that makes or costs you money.
Still, assuming you believe it should be illegal to do what you suggested above, what exactly is the crime? My guess is that you would say its theft. If that is the case then what is stolen? No physical property like paper and ink are stolen. GRRM would not have any less physical property if you were to start doing this tomorrow. Are you saying potential profits are property? If so, then you are taking a position that leads to an absurd conclusion when taken to its logical conclusion.
If you actually read the short book I linked to then you can get a better understanding of what the anti-IP advocates believe. Not only are questions like your answered, but every objection that has been raised over this has been answered. Stephan Kinsella is one of the more authoritative figures on the topic of IP. If you’re interested in IP theory then I would recommend reading his short book and googling his name and watching his lectures. This is one of those issues where I did a complete 180 on what I believed after hearing Kinsella’s arguments.
DanQuote Reply
I’m sorry – yes, IP and copyright laws are ill-suited to digital media, but there’s really no defending ad-supported content reposting sites. They are complete scum and utterly undermine the open nature and goodwill of free content providers on the internet. I really hope WIC will make the effort to amend the link to go to the original artist’s site linked to above in the comments.
If you ever need to find where an image came from, Google reverse image search is a great tool:
http://www.google.com/insidesearch/features/images/searchbyimage.html
Morgan KingQuote Reply
Dan,
Yeah, I’m sure that a world where authors and inventors remain in poverty while publishers and others with capital benefit wildly from their talent would be for the best interests of all.
havok_Quote Reply
It’s one of the worst arguments I’ve ever heard because it relies on an obtuse understanding of what IP is and then creates a ridiculous slippery slope argument.
This statement you made has so many logical issues: “If an idea taken to it logical conclusion is absurd then there is something wrong with the premise of the idea.” You take this idea as fact when it is not. First, there’s the assumption of just what a ‘logical conclusion’ is — in your case you seem to taking it something closer to one of many ‘similar extremes’. People present these arguments as if we don’t live in shades of grey constantly, as if in a society we can’t draw lines when we constantly do — and need to do so. Slippery slope and logical conclusion arguments are bunk because they are proven practically irrelevant. Is the outlawing of murder somehow wrong because it’s absurd to say defending yourself, your family in the face of death is completely wrong?
This is generally where Libertarianism fails — it deals in absolutes when life isn’t like that.
As for the IP discussion itself, it’s not theft of potential profits; it’s theft, in this case, of the story and characters. Just because they aren’t tangible doesn’t mean that they can’t be property. In fact, nearly every nation in the world deems the concept of intellectual property viable. Martin created something; for you to claim it as your own is theft. Just saying it isn’t because it isn’t a physical object doesn’t make it true.
From a practical standpoint, losing IP in a capitalist society is disastrous in any arena. It creates a situation where artists cannot support themselves and where companies and individuals cannot justify the investment for new technologies. In your example, Martin is not even a writer — as there would be no publishing houses. It would not be a profitable business since people could legally undercut any profits the house may make.
Interestingly, there are examples where allowing IP into the public domain has greatly benefited society. Bell Labs in the 50s and 60s is a perfect examples. They invented the transistor, and companies like TI and HP benefited greatly from the government not defending the patents and releasing the tech.
But that only works b/c the government was investing in innovation. Which most libertarians would despise.
I’ve read plenty of Libertarian texts, and for the most part I simply find their grasp of real life incredibly un-nuanced. And quite a bit of it are simply hypocritical.
Like the link you posted: this is a copyrighted document that the author is charging for. For a PDF. Really? I mean, what is he copyrighting? He doesn’t believe in IP but protects his own? Hard to take anyone like that seriously.
AlanQuote Reply
Tom Storvik,
Thanks, Tom! This must be him, since the art is also signed Jordi.
Everyone else,
I fully agree with what should be done, and we share the view on the policy that should be employed. I take my personal responsibility for that one, I could have made even more effort tracking down the original artist, thank you all for the help. Hear Me Roar has learnt a lesson.
At no point has, or will, WiC.net take(n) credit for someone else’s work (or, as in this instance, suggest that 9gag or other sites are the primary source of it – we know that is not the case).
Hear Me RoarQuote Reply
The dragons have arms, the dragons have arms! *eek*
ArvinQuote Reply
OT : Saw an Ours is the fury Baratheon T-shirt wearer clearly seen in the crowd during the post 800 meters heptathalon final celebrations! Some one please cap that!
Ser Lemon CakesQuote Reply
Alan,
Argumentum ad absurdum is a common tactic to disprove an argument. reductio ad absurdum: Disproof of a proposition by showing that it leads to absurd or untenable conclusions. I find it interesting that you would state my position has many logical issues when I used a common tactic of logicians. I am not sure you have actually studied logic.
I’m not sure you understand how to implement an argumentum ad absurdum. Murder does not include self defense. So if you defended yourself or your family from being murdered by killing your assailant then you would not be guilty of murder. If all KILLING were made illegal then that would lead to the absurd conclusion that defending yourself or family by lethal means, if necessary, would be illegal. So your statement doesn’t do anything to disprove what I said above and only shows you are not thinking deep enough in this regard.
1. You didn’t show where libertarianism (you don’t capitalize libertarianism or libertarian) fails. You tried to use argumentum ad absurdum but failed at it. That says nothing about libertarianism.
2. Libertarianism doesn’t deal in absolutes. Libertarianism deals in political theory. The basic tenants of libertarianism are a belief in the NAP and Lockean Homesteading Principles. The non-aggression principle simply is an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate. “Aggression” is defined as the “initiation” of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The homesteading principle is a theory of property rights. Libertarians basically say that you should keep your hands off innocent people and don’t steal. So when you say there are shades of grey, I take that to mean that you believe there are times when putting your hands on innocent people is necessary or that stealing other people’s property can be necessary. If that is your argument then I disagree.
I have claimed that you can’t own an idea. I explained that when you claim that non-scarce resources are property it will lead to an absurd situation if you take it to its logical conclusion. I also linked to arguments that would further delve into why I don’t believe ideas can be owned. You have yet to make a counter argument. You make the statement that “just because they are tangible doesn’t mean they can’t be property.” But that isn’t an argument. As you would say, just saying it doesn’t make it true.
This is known as an appeal to authority. It is not a proper argument.
Here you finally begin to make an argument but it is completely fallacious. First off, some of the most highly regarded literature, music, etc. was created before intellectual property rights were established. Second, if you want to make this utilitarian argument in favor of IP then you should be the one responsible for showing the studies that show that IP is a net benefit to society. Third, the studies that have been done on IP have all either shown a net negative impact or were inconclusive. No study has demonstrated a net benefit for IP. Finally, even if IP laws resulted in a net benefit I would oppose them on moral grounds. You mentioned a slippery slope before, and the fact that you don’t realize how far down it we are is telling, so here is just one of thousands of absurd cases being fought over absurd IP battles. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120801/16302119909/richard-branson-claims-people-may-confuse-i-am-not-virgin-jeans-with-his-virgin-properties.shtml
Seriously, this is what really annoys me about people like you. You have no idea what you are talking about, clearly have spent no time studying the issue, but are very opinionated about it nonetheless. You don’t apply for copyright. It is granted automatically. When you create an original work, which can be art, books, articles, etc. then it is instantly copyright protected. If you had known anything about IP theory you wouldn’t have said something so foolish. Also Stephan Kinsella is not charging for a PDF. It is free to download. I have no idea where you came up with the idea he was charging for the PDF I linked to because there is no price listed at all. It seems the only reason you think libertarians were being hypocritical about this was because you don’t understand how copyright works.
DanQuote Reply
havok_,
Authors and inventors existed long before intellectual property rights were devised and they didn’t live in poverty. Well, unsuccessful ones may have but not all and certainly not successful ones. Just like today. Try studying an issue before developing your opinion next time.
DanQuote Reply
Saturday’s GoT Laughs ? ! Well I suppose it is Sunday now …
YvyBQuote Reply
YvyB,
Why? It was published on Saturday, 4th August (both in European and US timezones). See the time stamp.
Hear Me RoarQuote Reply
Hear Me Roar,
Ahh. My comment was on title as in the laughs.. it was aimed at the heavy discussions above ^^^ is all.My poor attempt at humour
YvyBQuote Reply
YvyB,
Oh, I get it now :) Sorry for that.
Anyway, everything is open for discussion, as long as you operate with arguments. Hopefully readers enjoy the illustrations, the content of the comments notwithstanding.
Hear Me RoarQuote Reply
Hear Me Roar,
No problem , just living up yo your name :D
YvyBQuote Reply
YvyB,
Hope I wasn’t roaring too much or impolitely :)
Hear Me RoarQuote Reply
Hear Me Roar,
Being a Leo I can withstand a pretty loud roar ;p
I am grateful , however, for your concern :)
YvyBQuote Reply
Dan,
Absurdists arguments are a common tactic of logicians, and I’m aware many of them find it perfectly acceptable. That doesn’t make it right or proven. There are a million proofs over thousands of years intending to prove the existence of God with accepted logical arguments — and disprove, for example — and neither is necessarily right.
My point — which I’m sure I don’t communicate well — is one that you demonstrate well when you attack my murder example.
That is, there are a million ways for a smart person to come to the logical conclusion on something. You spend your time arguing that Self-Defense isn’t Murder; I saw that barring people from Killing Other People in most situations has a logical conclusion of disallowing any killing ever. Heck, I could argue any killing at all — even of plants! — is wrong (not Murder, but Killing). That would lead to the death of all life, of course.
You would say Murder is not Killing in Self – Defense (and yes, I actually do agree) but the reality here is we’re both drawing a line — there is a difference divided by circumstance and we can tell the difference. We can draw that line.
From a quoted article on Wikipedia about the author you are referring, he references an example: “[I]magine the time when men lived in caves. One bright guy—let’s call him Galt-Magnon—decides to build a log cabin on an open field, near his crops. To be sure, this is a good idea, and others notice it. They naturally imitate Galt-Magnon, and they start building their own cabins. But the first man to invent a house, according to IP advocates, would have a right to prevent others from building houses on their own land, with their own logs, or to charge them a fee if they do build houses.”
And so here’s the rub: just like with murder, with IP, we can draw that line. No one has patented the idea of a grocery store or living near his crops. No doubt there are patents given for things I am uncomfortable with, but as people, whether it’s the definition of murder or just how far intellectual property goes.
This style of argument is invalid to me and most people because in life we draw these lines all the time. The logical validity of the argument is essentially a slippery slope. Why, when something is taken to an extreme, if it is absurd, is it invalid? And it is an extreme — no one is saying that Martin can copyright the idea of fiction or the idea of a story set in a fantastical world. Why would we evaluate the validity of that to justify whether he has rights to an incredibly detailed story that is obviously his?
If you want to argue about the margins around which are society is currently functioning, that’s wonderful. I would find it an interesting debate on how far we’ve let it go. But I find your arguments stated above impractical and therefore unconvincing. To invalidate something like this because, yes, allowing for say, the idea of a PB&J to be patented, or the idea of eating food to be patented would be absurd is cute, but pointless in making real choices about how a society should run. These arguments take the discussion away from the actual discussion at hand and to an extreme with the intent of oversimplifying a complex topic in the hopes of winning an argument.
As for the pragmatic, yes, before IP laws plenty of authors and inventors did go hungry. While they were often not protected by IP laws, they were protected by practical limitations — the lack of a spread of ideas, the greater difficulty in back engineering some things.
But here’s the rub — many of those inventors and authors did end up poor. You are not wrong that there are other protections, but the market doesn’t solve everything. (And moreso, the idea that the ultimate aim of all society should be an efficient market is not one I hold).
More importantly, the level of scientific advancement was much slower in non-IP times. There’s a lot of reasons for that, of course, and IP is not the biggest, but while profit motive is not the major driver for most artists or scientists in my opinion, it does drive capital into the markets to fund research and work.
I hope that makes my position clear. It’s not something I’m good at communicating. I’ll let this board get back to Game of Thrones because I doubt it’s something we’ll ever convince each other about — especially over a message board.
AlanQuote Reply
I read this site to get away from legal jargon!
LordStarkingtonQuote Reply
I’m not sure the Starks of Winterfell understand how to implement a proper punishment. Murder does not include flaying. So if you defended yourself or your family from being murdered by flaying your assailant then you would not be guilty of murder. If all KILLING were made illegal then that would lead to the absurd conclusion that defending yourself or family by flaying, if necessary, would be illegal. So Eddard Stark’s statement doesn’t do anything to disprove what I said above and only shows he is not thinking deep enough in this regard.
Sincerely,
House Bolton.
Morgan KingQuote Reply
i bet the artist is super concerned his/her work is being promoted across the internet. People are posting something i made.. damn them.. damn them!!
hiQuote Reply
Even if yesterday’s laughs weren’t super funny … some of the comments made up for it. The sheer length of them.
PepiQuote Reply
Alan,
You said that my position had many logical issues, so I brought up how logicians use the same tactic because there is nothing wrong with my position logically. You can argue that pragmatically you think my position is wrong but it is incorrect to say my position has logical issues.
I’m not sure why you believe this bolsters your point. I use argumentum ad absurdum to show how IP laws lead to absurd situations when taken to their logical conclusion, and you go and provide another argumentum ad absurdum to show how disallowing all killing leads to absurd situations when taken to its logical conclusion. It’s because all killing, even of plants, leads to absurd situations that all killing is not prohibited. If it were, just like with IP laws, then using the tactic above is a very useful way to show why that would be wrong. It is weird that you would denounce argumentum ad absurdum in one breath and then use it to make a point in the next breath. This helps make my point, not yours.
This is a common point a lot of pro-IP advocates like to make. They don’t believe in bad IP laws, they believe in good ones. If I show them absurd cases like this one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_8UHX8FRGY, they inevitably say, “well I don’t believe in that being protected by IP.” But when asked how the system should operate they always say they don’t know because they’re not patent attorneys. You believe in IP but you haven’t shown that you understand it or that you have a system in mind. Do you believe the IP laws we have today are beneficial on net today? If so, can you show me a study that is done that shows this because I can show you numerous studies that show the opposite. If you don’t believe it is beneficial on net today, then how should they work? If you don’t have a system in mind then it baffles me that you would be so opinionated on a matter that you have not studied and don’t even have a theory to offer in return.
I’m not oversimplifying anything. It is you who has not put forth a theory for IP. As far as I can tell the only position you have put forth is you don’t believe in bad IP laws but you do believe in good ones. That is oversimplifying things. I follow Stephan Kinsella’s theory on it. The theory he put forth has well defined property rights, follows the non-aggression principle, has an ethical argument, has a historical argument, has a economic argument, and has a pragmatic argument. You seem to be under the impression that the only argument people like me are making is IP leads to absurd situations when taken to its logical conclusion, but the truth is this issue has been written about and discussed from every angle you could take on it. It is only because you have never studied the issue that you think we are the ones who are oversimplifying things.
The system we have today is atrocious. There thousands of absurd IP cases going on all the time. People like to say that the costs of IP are outweighed by the benefits but no studies are done to demonstrate this. If someone wants a system that creates government created monopolies then the onus should be on them to show why restricting freedom is beneficial for society. I often hear people state that it is beneficial but never do they try to show this statement to actually be true. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/questioning-copyrights-trade-off
DanQuote Reply
Alan,
You have too much time on your hands to type all this out.
AshQuote Reply
hi,
Haha, bet they are furious!
AshQuote Reply
I’m starting a ban ‘Alan’ petition, who’s with me????!!!!!! ;)
AshQuote Reply
Is it weird that i find that Dany pic kind of hot? >.>
John-Michael LelievreQuote Reply
Nooo. That’s fine … I used to have a thing for He Man… and in my youth Marine boy , but no-one probably remembers him. ;p
YvyBQuote Reply
Eh, there are tons of awful product liability lawsuits as well; that’s hardly an argument against product liability laws as a concept.
Either way, we’re boring the audience.
In other news, I just watched the Breaking Bad episode “Salud” and the similarity to another episode that Michelle McLaren may be directing is pretty awesome. I hope it is in her episode — she’s super capable and I can’t wait to see her take if it is indeed her responsibility.
AlanQuote Reply
Dan and Alan,
Get a room! You two are like Kate Hudson and Hugh Jackman at the beginning of a romantic comedy. We all know where this ends…
Dan, you argue very sexily. I’d throw myself at you if Alan weren’t so clearly smitten.
David ThomasQuote Reply
Hands off! He’s mine!
AlanQuote Reply
David Thomas,
That’s pretty friggin funny.
I have been at a loss to describe the way I argue but you have just solved that problem for me. I argue sexily.
DanQuote Reply
Dan, Alan,
So that’s all sorted then! LOL
David ThomasQuote Reply
Dan,
For someone seemingly so into the art of argument, you’d think you wouldn’t fall back on the old ‘if you can’t disprove my position I must be right’ dodge. If there’s not a study on the merits of intellectual property that shows how it can benefit people, if I had to hazard a guess, I’d bet it has something to do with the millions of working artists who make their living and continue creating because, at least to some extent, its working for them. I don’t think anyone’s arguing that IP law can’t be improved for an era of infinitely-reproducible digital media, but it’s not exactly a fundamentally failed construct that begs for scientific validation.
Moreover, of course you can have property rights in non-scarce resources – they just don’t bear any sort of intrinsic trade value – that doesn’t strip you of ownership, though (unless you are arguing against the very concept of ownership of anything?). And, you can call it ‘argumentum ad absurdum’ if you want, but Alan never said “it’s theft to take potential profits from somebody” and attacking that premise as if he was is a classic example of a strawman argument. This has nothing to do with the artist’s ‘potential profit,’ but the artist’s ownership of their work. The artist created an original, non-commercial work (making it fair use) of a character owned by GRRM. 9gag rehosted and watermarked that work specifically to generate ad revenue which is a different scenario – your ad absurdum grocery store comparison (reduction?) just isn’t applicable to this.
Anyway – I don’t really want to get into all this and continue making WIC’s humor thread so dreary, but I felt someone should say it. (apologies to all for belaboring the discussion after it had probably concluded itself!)
Morgan KingQuote Reply
Morgan King,
Well, I’m not going to be able to just let that comment just pass but I’m about to see a movie and I’ll have to respond later. It’s safe to say I won’t be agreeing with you.
DanQuote Reply
Dan,
Don’t worry about it, man – it’s highly unlikely I’ll ever check this particular thread again. Enjoy your movie! We can argue about it on an art philosophy board somewhere else, some other time – artphilosophyiscoming.net?
Morgan KingQuote Reply
And that, ladies and gentlemen, has been a polite discussion supported by arguments, in good style. The internet should learn from them. *claps*
(Widely off-topic of course, but that’s another matter :P)
I actually like the civility of this one, no sarcasm involved.
Hear Me RoarQuote Reply
I know this is a Game of Thrones forum, but I thought it might interest some of the readers here of some odd news that I just read: the CW is remaking George Martin’s “other” show, Beauty and the Beast… but this time replacing Vincent with a guy who has scars.
To me, this is like having an adaptation of Terry Pratchett’s Mort, and replacing Death with “some guy who wears black a lot.”
Nigel BradleyQuote Reply
Morgan King,
I haven’t claimed that if you can’t disprove my position then I must be right. I have tried to give a brief summary of my beliefs and to link to information that more thoroughly fleshed out those beliefs. I also pointed out that no alternative theory was being offered. I think it is fine to disagree, but I also think that you should have an alternative theory for you to have any confidence in your opinion. There are plenty of things that I don’t agree with based off my natural intuitions but if I can’t offer an alternative theory then I keep an open mind to the possibility my intuitions are wrong. And it’s a good thing I don’t trust my intuition because it has been wrong a lot. My gut instincts on IP were that people like Kinsella were wrong, but after studying the issue I came to the conclusion that I was the one who was wrong.
I’m not really sure what you are getting at here. There are plenty of cost/benefit analysis on IP. It is just that when those studies are done they inevitably lead to the conclusion that there is a net negative impact created from IP law or that the results were inconclusive. Sure, some people benefit from the current structure but there are also many who suffer. So if you want to make a utilitarian argument in favor of IP then the onus is on you to show how there is actually a net benefit. I’m merely showing that the utilitarian argument for IP is very weak considering there is no information showing how society is benefiting from IP laws. In fact, there is so much information on the negative effects that I can’t really understand why someone who believes in utilitarian arguments wouldn’t immediately become anti-IP after seeing it all.
Two things.
1. People like to say that they don’t believe in this or that bad IP law but they do believe in good ones. OK, so what is the theory of IP rights that you believe is the correct one? How do we determine what constitutes intellectual property? Are there limits on how long these supposed rights exist? If so, how long? There are many unanswered questions and it’s not much of an argument when someone says they believe in some IP laws and not others without explaining what their theory actually is.
2. It most definitely is a fundamentally failed construct that begs for scientific validation. People are literally dying because of the horrendous and destructive IP system we have.
http://archive.mises.org/14949/patents-kill-compulsory-licenses-and-genzymes-life-saving-drug/
This is a much more important topic than you may realize.
No, I’m not arguing against the concept of ownership. As I stated above, my theory on what constitutes a property right comes from the Lockean Homesteading Principle. Here is a good article that explains why I believe non-scarce resources should not be considered property. http://mises.org/daily/4630/
I don’t think I am guilty of the strawman fallacy. What initially got me to comment was Alan accused WIC of supporting someone who was “stealing content”, and that WIC was likely to make money off this stolen content. I think accusing someone of stealing or making ill gotten gains is something that needs deeper discussion. I happen to really enjoy this site, as I’m sure we all do, and I felt that since I’ve taken courses on IP theory and studied the issue more than most, although I’m not an expert by any means, that I could offer some insights that others might not have thought of in defense of WIC.
Also, when I brought up the thing about potential profits, Alan didn’t say I was misinterpreting what he had said earlier. In fact, he implicitly agreed with my assessment when he asked, “Should I be able to republish ASOIF under my name, copying it word for word, and sell it at a profit?”
Now, I will also say that when I pushed for him to elaborate his position he ended up saying that it was theft of story and characters. OK, but how is that theft? Does GRRM lose something if someone copies his work, uses the characters he created in another work, or writes a story that takes place in an imaginary world he created? The only thing I can see that GRRM has lost out on is potential profits. If you can show me what he has lost in physical property other than potential profits, in this scenario, I would love to hear it.
DanQuote Reply
Hear Me Roar,
I was actually thinking I could’ve been a little more polite in my responses. But I think neither Alan or I are leaving with any hurt feelings. Most of the people I have debated over this or that on this site have kept it pretty civil. The GoT community seems to have an abundance of really cool, nice people.
DanQuote Reply
This place needs a forum.
Pastor_of_MuppetsQuote Reply
G_Lee,
Thanks for posting that! This shit is the bomb, so funny! Hope these guys do the other houses too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-oZ4Bug_zA&feature=g-vrec
ArthurQuote Reply
Arthur,
Was posted about two months ago, has been on my phone ever since.
Aegon the ConquerorQuote Reply
Oddly enough I found the exchange between Alan and Dan very entertaining and informative as well.
fuelpaganQuote Reply
Am I the only one who finds it funny/ironic/ridiculous that two people were vociferously arguing the IP rights of a guy who “stole” a character from a novel he didn’t write.
Dark StarQuote Reply
Pastor_of_Muppets,
Thanks for the links, the first one is soo arrestingly beautiful and haunting. Loved it.
Tír AirgidQuote Reply
G_Lee,
Ha yea except it seemed to never occur to Danys to train the Dern dragons until book 5! That was one thing I just kept wanting to scream at her reading the books..
Forget about all this mummery Dany! You need to learn how to control your weapons of mass destruction!!! She never even spent any time with them it seemed… Just odd
Dfg421Quote Reply