According to you, copyrights provide more utility to people than not having copyrights, so we must respect copyrights.

Now what is “misuse of ideas of charity”?

I’ve got my answer(s) and I’m satisfied.
Goodnight, Lady and Gentleman!

I answered Alok and you both allready.
And you cannot attack individual liberty anywhere. Neither here, nor at any other place.

I allready said, I am not at all against OpenSource systems.

OpenSource systems are neither anti-copyrigt act, nor are they anti-capitalism.

open Source systems just signifies that In a Capitalistic free-market system, Individual is free to make his effort available as charity.

There is no force against it.

Volluntary system means, if you want to share/provide freely without obligation, than you are free to do so.

But there can be no force making it compulsory on you to pay for your own inalieanable Individual rights.

Why linux Mozilla etc are more popular than IE or Windows?

first of all, it is highly contradictory that Linux or Mozilla are more profitable.

Because even if it is considered that they are profitable, then for whom they are profitable? You will have no answer for it. Who is making profit of them?
Linux was generated by a software engineer who freely distributed it. It was his free-will his choice.
IS he making profits of it? No he is not.
Now at various stages linux kept improving with various Individual’s individualistic efforts. None was compulsory and all was volluntary.
No-compulsion signifies it that it is simply pro-capitalist.

“If open source contribution model is more successful than property rights model, then how come you think Property rights based Capitalism is better and more successful than non-Property rights based Socialism”

So please don’t attack Open Source or copyleft here, its not that debate here.
If you really think copyrights must be acknolwedged in intangible property then try answering Alok’s question your way.

My question was simple:
If Open Source gives me better results, why should I support Capitalism? Why should I pay for something when I can get something much better for free?

I had the answer while typing the comment here, but posted it anyways. The answer is simple: The software market is not at all a free market. Microsoft, with it’s monopoly and unfair practices, has steered the Software market off the very roots of Capitalism.

The difference is clearly visible when I compare Gimp (A graphics editing software that is Open source, usually provided with Linux) with Adobe Photoshop (which is the product of a competitive and quite capitalistic market).

The problem lies not with Capitalism, the problem lies with the fact that the ideals and values of Capitalism weren’t sufficiently enforced on the Software market, enabling Microsoft to establish a monopoly and hence leading to stagnation in the quality of their products (why should they produce something better if nobody could provide them competition?).

Look at Google, Adobe, Mathworks… their products are top-notch, and Open Source, I believe, can never equal what they have to offer, because of the very reason you’ve given (which I’ve quoted at the beginning). Instead of being User-oriented, the Open source products are developer minded.

NO!
Copyright is not government granted monopoly.
Copyright is Individual freedom, An Individual’s right to deny, to refuse to share his personal skill, his medium to make a living.
It is his right.
And this right is followed by contract!
A contract is enforcible. There is no need of government to do so.
Copyrights will be accepted and followed completely in anarchocapitalistic system.
Obviously you can violate a contract. But remember, you will have to pay for the violation of the contract under the anarcho-capitalistic contractual property system.

@Alok Meshram said
If Capitalism is the best economic system, why is the Open Source system so successful?
How is it that Mozilla Firefox is a better browser (Available for free) than Internet Explorer (Developed by Microsoft, a capitalist corporation)?

As the author of this article lemme take the Liberty of answering it.

“Capitalism is the best economic system” here you are implying utility based argument of Capitalism. You see there are two major type of Capitalist arguments, Utilitarian and Natural Rights based. All the authors on this site are Natural Rights based Capitalists. We believe that the Capitalism is the best system for the natural rights of man(that is his right to live without aggression initiated towards him).

This does not mean that we do no acknowledge or understand utilitarian arguments, but in fact since the biggest anti-Capitalist arguments come on utilitarian basis(we must redistribute wealth to help the poor), so we have specialize in utilitarian based arguments too.

Now coming back to your point. Lemme ask you, have you read 7th part of this legal-illegal series where I dealt with the issue of Copyright? The other author(Freesoul) and I heavily disagree on this issue just like most of the Capitalists.
Leaving her viewpoint for her, I do not believe that Intellectual Property should be acknowledged as property rights(I know it may sound like I am not dealing with the right issue, but lemme establish the relation). The reason I gave in that article are simple, Intellectual Property is a intangible thing. Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer are intangible products. They can be copied zillion times without diminishing the original product. So artificial monopoly on information should not be created.

Here is a bit more detailed ans:
Tangible products: Tangible products are those like real property, land, house, iphone, computer.
Intangible products: These are the products which are merely information. Like software, a book’s content(not the book itself), an idea, a formula to make coke(coca cola or cocaine). A photograph(not the actual physical paper on which its printed, but the information of a photograph.

Tangible products cannot be recreated, or summoned with the blink of an eye. If I take your lawn mover, you cannot simply blink and summon another one. You will have to go to market and buy another one, or lets say market does not exist, then dig down a iron mine, make steel, make all the components and make the lawn mover.
On the other hand, intangible products can be recreated with little or no effort. If I read your poem, and write it down on a piece of paper, I haven’t devoided you of your effort. You still own the poem. You are still free to enjoy the fruits of that poem. You don’t have to go and write a new poem since old one was taken away from you.

Now since the difference between tangible and intangible products is clear, lemme proceed. Property rights must be established among tangible products because when a person does labor on a tangible product, he will be devoided of it if its taken away from him.
If a person is devoided from the fruits of his labor, he has no incentive to produce more of it. If I grow 100 tonnes of wheat, and you take it and distribute it among other people, against my consent, then there is no incentive for me to produce more of it. I am devoid of my labor. This is the classic reason why in a society of complete redistribution, productivity falls massively.

Since the productivity falls, and the people are left with no incentive to work, to make them really work, you will have to force people to work, so a society of complete redistribution tends to becomes a dictatorship to succeed.

On the other hand property rights must not be established among intangible products such as software, text, ideas, information. A copyright is merely a govt granted monopoly on information.

Your example of Mozilla Firefox and IE is of tangible products. If everybody was Jesus(who could create 100s of breads and fishes out of only a handful of bread and fish) or tangible property could be copied around like a song on youtube, or a software on file sharing network, then Socialism would be the best way to go. If someone made food at the starting of human civilization, that food could be copied around and distributed like nothing, nobody would be left hungry. In fact following Capitalism then would be counter-productive.
Now you may say well how come Firefox programmers don’t run out of incentive to produce? Well for the starters, every line of code a FF programmer writes he can be a direct beneficiary of that code. Even if nobody uses Firefox, he can still use a better browser.
A programmer may not make a software explicitly for Cocoa industry when he himself is not associated with that industry at all, or nobody is paying him to do so. He might still release the code under GPL if someone pays him to write the code, because he is not losing anything by making it opensource. But Firefox, Linux, Gimp, OpenOffice etc are all common utility programs, he programmer who writes them also hope to use them, and they are successfully able to use them.

This is the core reason why the argument about success of Firefox(which is factually incorrect considering the fact that IE is still the most used browser, and both are free, though I would agree that FF is way better than IE) cannot be used to to demonstrate the success of equivalent concept in real tangible property.

Today being a programmer when I start using Linux, I can enjoy the marvel this software is for all the programmers out there, and even considering that I have never contributing anything in development of Linux I also realize that if I just contribute a little, of only what I want from it, say I just want better support for IMs, I can contribute it for my own sake, and unintentionally end up benefiting millions of other individuals. Same thing is simply not true with farming and growing wheat.

Hope that answers your questions.

Do read it again and answer.

Why do you think that Mozilla Firefox is Anti-Capitalistic?

The question is same as why Wikipedia is more popular than Microsoft Encarta.

First of all, Wikipedia is not anti-capitalistic. It is basically free, volluntary source provision. It defies none of capitalistic mode.

I wonder why people considers that Capitalism means corporatization.
No, it is not. Capitalism is your free will.
Capitalism never defies volluntary charity or Philanthropy.
Capitalism defies compulsation.
There must not be any compulsory force any obligation on anyone.

I couldn’t find another place to pose it, so it had to be an off-topic comment.

If Capitalism is the best economic system, why is the Open Source system so successful?
How is it that Mozilla Firefox is a better browser (Available for free) than Internet Explorer (Developed by Microsoft, a capitalist corporation)?

A very common argument given by the people, especially with the brainwashing in India is “OH socialism fails, but Capitalism is bad too, lets have a middle-of-the-ground approach”, but the dilemma posed here is the same as dilemma between consensual sex and rape!

Thats the problem with an ideal libertarian system. People arent willing to risk a system in whcih the bottom line rests on that. The idea that ‘morals’ need to be enforced and are not inherently strong enough as a system to govern behaviour runs rampant in society. Will being ‘humane’ stop existing if the fear of legal punishment is taken away?

Is the right to use property untrammelled and absolute?

Yes! The right to use your property is untrammeled and absolute provided that usage does not infringes the rights of another person’s property rights.

does the consortium that built the road outside his house have the right to refuse him custom, and to refuse usage to anyone who might deliver him food or water?

Yes! They have a right to refuse the kitten slaughterhouse to refuse road access, food or water access(provided kitten factory brought the food and water).

If so, then the market is not free.

Market is free, but not dumb! There will not be any sales of a property where the neighbors can not allow them from using the property. Basically nobody will buy a property without a contract from the neighbors that they will provide him access to a private road network, the cost of that service will be included the cost of that house. It would be as standard of a deal as it is asking your realtor whether a house has water and electricity supply, and this question is like “Oh our current property rights are really weak, an electricity supply company has a right to cut your electricity, and they can do it anytime or refuse to provide you with electricity” Well its true that no law forces a power company to provide electricity to people, but then such a house is not sold or that never happens.

When does property become person? Is an unborn child “property”?

This is a bit complicated question and quite heated one. An unborn child can be either treated as property or as a person, it will be decided by the private courts in a society of pure liberty. But in either case, the right to abort the baby will be with the mother, if the child is mere property, then mother has a right to use her property in a way she wants including abortion. If the child is treated as a human being, then he is a parasitic creature and no human has a right to enforce itself on feeding on another human being, in which case the baby must leave the property that is his mother’s body. If baby survives the eviction, he becomes a human being not aggressing towards anyone.

How about a born child?

Born child is a potential self-owner. So on a future date he will acquire all his human rights. I wanna quote John Locke on this, in his book Two treatise on Government

Children I confess are not born in this full state of equality (of right to their natural freedom), though they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them when they come into the world, and for some time after, but ’tis but a temporary one. The bonds of this subjection are like the swaddling clothes they are wrapt up in, and supported by, in the weakness of their infancy. Age and reason as they grow up, loosen them till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free disposal.

Coming back to your comment

Or an Imbecile?

Imbecile is a human being. He cannot be allowed to aggress towards another human being. He cannot be allowed to do things no other human being is allowed to do just because of his mental condition. He has all the rights of any other human being. In fact in objective terms he is no different than an unemployed guy. If someone wants to charity on him, they are free, but he cannot be imposed on anyone else, his parents, siblings etc against their wish.

Or a wife (continuing the concepts in Roman Law)? Is Slavery allowable, or does that infringe on personal liberties of one party (I think it does)? But how to define a person?

A wife is just another human being, no concepts of Roman law which aggress towards an individual are allowed. Slavery is not allowed, voluntary or not. A Man’s will is inalienable to him, a man may sell himself to you as a slave, but the moment he decides to not be a slave to you, he becomes free, so any contract he did with you becomes unenforceable. In fact you won’t be even able to recover your money from him. Slavery is a far fetched scenario, a more day to day scenario would be, that any contract which makes a person works for someone else for a specified period of time, with or without his will are unenforceable. Take for example, if your employer asks you to sign a bond that you will work for him for 3 years, and you walk out of the job in 1, then he cannot claim a violation of contract. That contract is unenforceable, his will is inalienable to him. Even he cannot wish to sell his will to someone else, because then he would be willing again!

Your posts are always informative and provocative…
i didnt knew until now that clothes are being made from kittens!!!

Dude I never said that Kittens are being used to make clothes, read the article man!