Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 13. (Read 105899 times)

It is an argument against the idea that IP laws are the only, or even the best, way for creators to get compensated for their intellectual creations. Also I guess pointing out that the idea of intellectual property is meaningless if no one is willing to pay for it, even if its creation involved over ten years of very rigorous work.

So now you're saying that you do want IP laws, but in greater force than already exist?

Or are you saying that if IP laws exist for movies, then they should exist for recipes? That might indeed be a valid question, but it certainly is not an argument against IP laws for movies.

IP law is intended to be of benefit to society.  If you can't persuade your legislature that granting IP protection to recipes is a good idea, you are stuffed.

None of the above is an argument against the value and utliity of protecting the hard work of others.

You have it wrong. If my book is protected, so is yours. Same for movies. It is not the case that my movie will be protected and yours will not.

You're relying on the "because that's the way it is in current law" fallacy again. My recipe may be the thing my restaurant or soda is dependent on, and is thus of great value to me and my company. So why can't I get protection?

Not correct.  Some ideas, for example machinery designs, are of value and supported by IP laws.  Others, for example food recipes, are not.

Just a personal anecdote:

I have a patent for revolutionary new technology, one that has long been dismissed as impossible. The estimated value of that patent is in (tens) of millions of dollars. Problem is, no one really knows or understands it, so we've been having a very difficult time trying to find a buyer.
My other option is to just give it away to my university's research department, in exchange for me working with them, developing a full scale system, and making millions as either a consultant or a manager of the business based on that tech (path I'll be likely pursuing). Problem is, since it's my family pattent, everyone in my family would instead prefer I sell it and split the money. Selling still sucks, more so in this economy.
So, my options are rely on IP laws, hope the estimated value is correct, and keep trying to sell it to wealthy tech companies, likely getting nowhere, and making a profit of $0, or screw the IP laws, develop the technology myself, and make money from my own work and from providing intellect as a service (consulting/management), which will likely pay out more, since even if the patent tech descriptions are easily copyable, they're not exactly easy to understand.

That reminds me, a lot of bands make way more money from their service of playing their own music live (concerts) than from CD sales...

You either allow all forms of patent, copyright and trademark use on all forms of ideas and patterns or you disallow all of them (logically speaking). You aren't allowed to pick and choose. That would be nothing more than sheer capriciousness. It does not follow that you can have your information protected and not mine. Or likewise, you shouldn't have any greater permission granted to you by your government bureaucrat than mine for any collection or combination of information.

It seems to fall back again on the majority vote or monopoly privilege via an oligarchy control structure. Your idea is only valued more than mine because more people or elite governors in high places said so. If your supposed IP property can't stand on it's own two feet sans government intervention (monopoly blessing) and because only you can own it and nobody else, it doesn't deserve discussion. Stupid and illogical.

Despite your intense desire for this argument to be related to cotton farming slaves, it is not. I in fact addressed this in the third and fourth paragraph of my second to last post.

They can come up with their own ways of getting compensation without IP laws (like cotton farming slave owners had to)



They can come up with their own ways of getting respect without IP laws, examples of which were provided.



Because the number creators can come up with their own ways of getting respect and compensation without IP laws, even if their work is freely duplicated.

My mistake in terminology. You know what I mean, so let's not continue with the mincing of words.


Trademarks protect logos, slogans, etc. And in fact, they largely adhere to the idea of homesteading. But frankly, my interest is in books and movies, due to their size. There simply isn't any mathematical possibility within reason of the same book or movie being created simultaneously by two separate entities, therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to accord the creator ownership.

A media is what the idea is put on. Paper, plastic, hard drive. The idea is what words should describe a setting, what pattern the notes should go in, how the computer code should execute. We protect some ideas with copyrights and patents, and ignore others. That seems rather arbitrary. Why would my recipe, or my restaurant design, or my new business practice not be protected if I spent time thinking it up and creating it, and may also depend on it for profits?

Conversely, how come some ideas are not protected by specific IP laws, and yet the people who came up with them can still profit? If your assertion is true, then those ideas should be easily copy able, and their ownwrs shouldn't be able to make any money?

Also, 104 pages.

Maybe you as well would like to comment on the following statement by me:

If you wish to address why you believe a particular film would just magically come into being in the absence of those who created it, or wish to address why you believe you can deny compensation to those who put forth a huge effort to make a film, then do so.

Either a film exists or it does not. If it does not exist, then nobody is duplicating it. Once the film exists (by virtue of effort), then why can't you respect the individuals who made it, by continuing to enforce a policy that only seeks to prevent others from doing what they never could've done before anyway?

In other words, it's physically impossible to duplicate that which does not exist. Clearly, this is nobody's fault, and those who do not have the number to duplicate cannot lay blame on others for not having said number to duplicate. Why should it be the case then, that when some group of individuals create the movie (discover the number out of thin air, so to speak) should cry foul when they are told that they still cannot do what they weren't doing in the first place? Only by virtue of the efforts of others, do these number duplicators even have the opportunity to duplicate the work of others.

103 pages of mental masterbation as two ideological sides talk past each other, neither side willing to consider the position of the other, because they have mutually exclusive principles.

I already presented my arguments. Feel free to go back and reread them. I don't hold that your current arguments need addressing. For example, if I presented an argument to you regarding this topic, and you came back and started discussing the length of giraffe necks, I'd just shake my head and move on.

If you wish to address why you believe a particular film would just magically come into being in the absence of those who created it, or wish to address why you believe you can deny compensation to those who put forth a huge effort to make a film, then do so.

As it stands though, your arguments just aren't worth much.

Can you please do me the courtesy of responding to my arguments, the same standard to which you hold me, instead of dismissing them?

You're confusing a lot of things here. Honestly, it all sounds like a grab bag of half assed arguments to try and bolster your belief that you can disrespect the efforts of others.

So are you're referring to a magical mystical (MM) kind of force? So what are the units of this force? Oh, and if it isn't this new MM force and it's still about "degrees" of force in Newtons (kg*m/s^2), what is the approximate measure and quantity of force as applied in my example? I do understand a proportionality of punishment (force applied), so I would be willing to accept that proportion I'd be found guilty of.

You're confusing copying with plagiarism.


What? No. Continue reading. Freeing slaves "harms" the slaveowner's ability to own slaves, but it was never their right to own slaves in the first place.


It does not. Fucking. Matter.

Demonstrate to me that it is statistically likely in the next trillion years or so that the number a method of picking cotton without slaves would've been found otherwise.

Anyway, your fundamental premise is wrong. Ideas are simultaneously discovered all the time.


So? You may, someday, benefit from us dropping logic bombs upon you as we have been doing for the past 50 pages or so. Does that entitle us to some sort of payment? NO.


Ugh. No, numbers do not "exist once". If I think of a brand new number, it only exists in my mind. If I share it with others, it simultaneously exists in their minds. The fact that it exists in some other mind does not diminish the fact that it still exists in mine and I can use it. Contrast this with any physical property.