Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 114. (Read 105875 times)

I am not preventing you so I use no violence - the society you are a part of is preventing you from stealing intellectual property.  If you persist to the point that you get arrested, thats due to your taking something that was not yours and trying to profit from it.  Thats aggression.  

Research is a good thing; I can't think of any reason why you feel that rewarding people who invest large sums of money to invent useful things like computer chips or medicines is in some way a restriction of your freedom.  A simple example; IBM invested $5 billion if 1950s dollars in the original System 360 architecture.  It was the basis of all computing since then.  If IBM had not the exclusive right to resell that technology since the 1960s, there never would have been a computer revolution.

Frederic - your reply was very long.  Are you saying now that you have the right to copy someone else's research and sell it a profit?  Or have you conceded that point?


ag·gres·sionNoun/əˈgreSHən/
1. Hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.

No.  Taking someone property without permission is aggressive.

Doesn't aggression imply some sort of force, and isn't force measured in Newtons, or more specifically kg*m/s^2.

If the aggression isn't measured in those units, what units of force are we going to use?

It certainly couldn't be just the opinion of the day, should it? That could make for some serious confusion I would think.

Last I checked, we had this force problem solved about 300+ years ago. Why are we trying to redefine it now? Did I just wake up and the world of physics change on me?

This must be like some overnight Jonny-Appleseed-Alice-in-Wonderland-Wizard-of-Oz "awakening" I'm having here. Very confusing problem it seems.

If i'm not using violence to prevent you from doing anything but you are using violence to prevent me from doing something, I find it odd to accuse me of aggression. Also, what's the big deal about society? Do you get extra rights over others just because you include some of your friends in the discussion? If you can't steal from me, it seems irrelevant how many friends you consult.

Surely that depends where you started from?  And we are not talking about the product of individual work - we are talking about serious research with labs and teams of researchers or developers.

If we are in a society where research is desired and I have invested money based on the intellectual property rights I will own if my investment generates a new useful product, then its aggression on your part to open a factory and sell the product I have invented.  I'd lose my investment.  You are free to do your own research and invent your own product.  But not to copy mine.

The important point here is freedom.  We all exist in societies.  We can move between societies.  It is raw aggression on the part of someone who dislikes intellectual property to say they will deprive the rest of society of its freedom to have innovative research.

I guess if we're going to pick nits, a butterfly flapping it's wings in Brazil will affect me. In fact, a butterfly thinking about flapping it's wings in Brazil also affects me. Albeit negligible, but true.

No, wrong. Society doesn't want things. The people in society want things. Society is an abstraction. Individuals want things. Some individuals have similar beliefs and wants and they organize in an attempt to achieve some of their goals, other don't.

I'm not attacking anybody. That would imply I'm applying a force (as in Newtons or Pounds). Ever heard of F = ma? You know, the physics stuff? As in their intial state or conditions are changed because I imparted energy into their environment where one didn't exist before? Lets not make something from nothing.

I also don't deprive the researcher of his profit, the market, or more specifically the individuals which comprise the market, decide whether or not the researcher directly profits or not. For the right price...

You could have the best product in town, but if nobody buys it, whatever you've got invested becomes a loss to you until the market changes its mind.

I'm only entitled to the property physically in my possession. I cannot take the physical objects others own from them, and they shouldn't take the objects in my possession from me. Simple as that.

Value is in the eye of the beholder, and only measureable by the owner/traders at the moment of exchange.

Everybody learns from everybody. We don't live or learn in a vacuum. We all stand on the shoulders of others work. By that logic, were I the first man to invent mathematics I could dominate the world as they would owe me nearly everything they interact with.

Of course your going to disagree with me because some esoteric law says that algorithms don't count. Okay, I'll give you that one. But what if I was the first man to walk out of a cave and invent the first house. Is that good enough for you?

Where ya gonna draw the line?

Which is more aggressive, reading a chemical formula, buying the raw ingredients, mixing them together and selling the resulting product or waiting for someone to do that and then confiscating the product, by force if necessary? If I write some idea down using my pen and my paper, isn't it more aggressive to demand that you now control my piece of paper simply because it contains an idea that you originated?

Wrong.  It directly affects you.  If a society wants medicines to be developed, and it chose to use intellectual property as the way to encourage that development, then you are aggressively attacking that society if you illegally copy the medicines and resell them depriving the researcher of his profit.  And from your list of principles, you seem to think you are entitled to do just that!  

You are free not to use the medicine.  You are free to agitate to change the law so that investment in research is not protected by intellectual property.  But you are not free to take the result of the research, copy it and sell it for your own profit.  Its value was not created by you.  Why should you be able to profit from it?  Its very aggressive to say that you have some ideology that says people have no right to create structures to encourage research.

Fergalish,

I know nothing of Libya. I didn't know I was asked any questions in that regard; at least I didn't know they were directed at me, but whatever it is, they can keep doing what their doing, independent of me. I have no skin in their game whatever it may be.

All humans have different DNA. Should we enslave them because they're are different from us. In fact, no two persons are the same. Could I justly enforce a law that allows everybody who has different genes from me, to become slaves of mine? No. I'm not sure where we're going here as this diverges significantly from IP law subject matter.

My references to anything-goes-kinda-laws was only a rhetorical question, but one made to evince the reasons why a law should even see the light of day including IP laws.

We should have very concrete laws. Laws that don't change with the prevailing winds. Is it not the mission of the law to prevent murder/injury, enslavement and plunder? Start there and try to justify half the laws we have on the books.

I hope it wouldn't be that difficult to arrive at similar results.

I think you don't understand the cultural context in which slavery existed.  Back then, Africans were ruthlessly imported to the Americas as slaves to the colonists.  Before that, the native Americans were ruthlessly massacred.  The reason isn't purely because the colonists were sadistic murderers - it was partly because *they believed that "negroes" and "redskins" weren't actually people but savages*.  Read Huckleberry Finn if you need convincing.  It wasn't considered murder or enslaving any more than whipping a mule to carry a load, or shooting a gorilla that threatened you, would be today.  The people weren't wrong - the whole damn society was wrong.

Of course, we're more refined now, and it's clear that Africans, Caucasians, Hispanics, Orientals, Arabs, are all the same species (Homo Sapiens, right?), so, no, you couldn't bring back slavery.  You'd have to convince the society of which I am a member to do it first, and you'd have to show why the gene for eye colour is enslaveable when it expresses blue eyes, and not when it expresses brown.  Notably, euthanasia *is* legal in some places, and the eugenics of Nazism weren't all that long ago.  Some substances *are* made illegal with the stroke of a pen, but, ideally, such decisions should be based on a rational and public discussion of the merits of such substances.  In other words, *you* shouldn't decide, *your society* should, and it should have expert advice to draw upon.

More or less as expected, you didn't answer my questions on Libya.

Let me ask you another question then.  Suppose scientists were to discover complete DNA of, and successfully recreate, Neantherdal man.  Or Homo Erectus, or Homo Abilis.  Similar to us, but which different genetic codes, therefore, NOT human.  They'd probably be much stronger and less intelligent than present-day Homo Sapiens.  Would it be acceptable to enslave them?

Intellectual Property, in the case of patents, might damage society now because (e.g.) medicine is expensive or unavailable.  But it will certainly have a long-term benefit as that same medicine eventually becomes cheap and widely available.  In the case of copyrighted music or suchlike, the benefit of 100+ year long copyright is a little harder to swallow, unless you think music, as art, is a very important contribution to human happiness.  Software, I think, probably stands somewhere between these two - having a word-processor certainly benefits the company using it but, after some time has passed and the developer has recouped the research investment, it's hard to see how piracy could be harmful (though perhaps I can imagine investors in "softdev.com" not being happy with its soft attitude to piracy, withdrawing their investments, and "softdev.com" ceasing to trade and ceasing to develop wonderful new, presently unknown, software).

The only reason "society" has any say in an individuals life is because collectively they have more force than a person does individually.

I only fear for my life because "society" thru it's superior weaponry, not necessarily it's justice, convinces me to comply.

If society decides tomorrow that yellow shirts are the "right" color, do you honestly think I'm going to wear anything other than the color yellow? Duh, of course not!

Just because you create intellectual property "rights" doesn't make them automagically justifiable. Just because you spent a million dollars or one dollar on an idea has nothing to do with me. Don't make your stuff about me and mine.

I would like to think justice is well defined and is constrained only to those who provoke or initiate acts of aggression against others. If it isn't that, then you can make justice anything you want and there would be no end to the violence you could commit.

Collectivist attitudes and beliefs are extremely dangerous thinking.

Hawker,

All of my quotes, even though they may not have directly responded to your posts, are apropo to the subject matter at hand, that being IP.

They aren't random. All laws are force including IP laws. All of my quotes address that, albeit indirectly.

If we're going to talk about IP laws, is it not true that what we are really saying is what force/violence can I apply to you if you don't comply with the law? Forced restitution?

The final quote directly addresses IP laws. Maybe you just ignored it? If you're not going to read my responses, then we can just stop right now and move on.

And besides you keep speaking as if society is what rules, and individuals rights can be sacrificed. That's why the quotes make sense. In that context they are obvious.

Hawker,

One question per post. Fine.

Define private property. Try to stay within the confines of the known universe. Don't make up stuff. If it doesn't incorporate something definable and divisible using the laws of physics it probably won't fly.

To wit, you can't say property is one thing one day, and then have it become something else by mere legislative proclamation the next. That's what we call legislative fiat.

Is there a reason why instead of answering my logic, you post random quotes?

For clarity, the subject here is intellectual property and why society enables it. 

A few revealing quotes:

"There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because the law makes them so." --Frederic Bastiat.

"It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons or property, since they preexist, and his work is only to secure them from injury. It is not true that the mission of law is to regulate our consciences, our exchanges, our gifts, our enjoyments. Its mission is to prevent the rights of one from interfering with those of another, in any one of these things." -- Frederic Bastiat.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent "moral" busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." --C.S. Lewis

"The harm done by ordinary criminals, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional "do-gooders," who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others -with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means"

"All acts involve altering physical matter. If you claim that there is property in physical matter, that already covers all physical phenomenon and thereby all possible actions related thereto. However, if you claim that you have a right on benefits derived from physical property that do not alter the physical property you own, it logically follows that it is a "right" to alter physical property belonging to someone else."

On the internet, its best have 1 point per post   So I deal with the first point you made.  No idea why you are asking about contracts or free markets - there is no free market if there are no property rights. 

steal/stēl/
Verb: Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it

We, as a society, have decided that we want innovation.  For example, we want new and better medicines and we want people to invest millions making those medicines.

Your first question is "Can you have private property coexist with intellectual property without imposing your will on other people?"

Yes of course.  If you have a trademarked property, for example a new cancer treatment, and someone is making bootleg copies of it, you can contact the authorities and they will close his operation down.  No need to impose your will - all you need to do is defend your property rights.

Hawker,

I see you didn't feel the need to answer my questions. A bit too revealing perhaps?

Define stealing. Try to be concise.

Of course, society describes its members. So what. Just because a group of people does something doesn't inherently make it right or wrong.

We could bring back slavery. I could make a law that all geriatric men and women be killed because they are a "drain" on society. I could make any substance illicit with the stroke of a pen. I could give privileges to anybody in any industry so as to reduce competition. I could put a star of david on your arm and send you to the gulag. I could do lots of things...

Quoting a true intellectual (sorry not sure who he is as I lost the reference):

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

Is that crystal clear enough for you?

I never said anything was of equal importance, only that software which is removed from the computing environment in which it is used, typically has less value (in my mind). I can have a pile of software CD's and no computer and not get much personal utility out of it. I never said the software itself was worthless.

I also said nothing of remunerations except to mention that whatever you can bargain or negotiate for, is what you get. If your price isn't right...

It's for the most part, about the contract. Contracts are about mutual consent betwixt persons of interest. Contracts are not between me and someone not privy to the terms. That's all I was trying to convey.

I see no contradictions anywhere.

Hawker,

Doing anything requires effort (energy and materials). Some products and services require more effort than others to manufacture and distribute. Why should there be any special privileges given to some "inventions" or "discoveries" over others?

Your intellectual property has some problems, namely: It violates or nullifies private property rights. It censors speech and other types of expression. It violates contract. And ultimately it manipulates free markets.

Private Property: The right of property is simply the right of dominion. It is the right, which one man has, as against all other men, to the exclusive control, dominion, use, and enjoyment of any particular thing. The principle of property is, that a thing belongs to one man, and not to another —mine, and thine, and his, are the terms that convey the idea of property.

Here's a few questions:

Can you have private property coexist with intellectual property without imposing your will on other people?

If a contract is mutual consent between 2+ persons, and their property has the appearance and likeness of your property how do you not affect their contract?

If an individual wants to express himself in a similar manner to you, or to provide presentations which mimic yours, how do you not censor their speech/expression if you find it offensive?

If a free market is a market of freely exchanging individuals for products and services, how can you prohibit any type of expression or composition of matter without simultaneously removing or diminishing competition thru the use of monopoly privilege?

Is the current rendition of intellectual property incongruous with the tenets of private property, or is private property something else altogether?

Why does government (or anybody else) need to decide what characteristics private property has when their opinions and definitions don't change the outcome of the PMM itself?

Is not intellectual property effectively a body of law comprised of prohibitions and penalties associated with the characteristics and descriptions other individuals property appear to convey?

Do you want private property, contract, free markets, and freedom of speech?