Ok, so, let's say I am a business owner running a fast food restaurant. My restaurant is a typical fast food joint run just like any other. Some week ago, I realize an ingeniuous way in which I can improve my business productivity and profits by changing how I am managing and compensating my employees, and the positions they are in while assembling burgers. This takes some time thinking the idea out, and then some time implementing it. As a result, my restaurant profits increase, and my business becomes much more profitable than other standard fast food joints.
Is the way my employees are positioned, or the way I now compensate them, something I can copyright, or is it even intellectual property? Like with books and music, this is something I spent time thinking about and creating entirely out of my mind in hopes to get compensated for it. So, it certainly fits your IP mold, but what kind of recource should I have if the fast food joint across the street sees the way I'm doing things and starts doing the same thing (i.e. if they steal my business management practices)?
Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 15. (Read 105875 times)
Because you can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that data isn't property, so that any business model based upon the use of force to treat data as property is fundamentally unjust.
In an analogous way, humans are not property, so any business model based upon the use of force to treat humans as property is fundamentally unjust.
In summary: to copy a very large number is to steal it, because the notion of copying a number is meaningless mathematically. Owning a DVD which contains the number is only ownership of the plastic DVD, not the number.
Stealing a physical object deprives the legitimate owner use of it.
Copying a very large number only deprives the legitimate "finder" of his claim to control the use of it.
Why does the finder deserve to dictate the ways in which the number he found is used?...snip...
Because he pays the salaries of the scriptwriters, directors, producers, actors, cameramen, scenery staff and other people who "find" the movie and unless he has a way to get paid, there will be no movie.
We've discussed this - why are you going back over it?
Because you can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that data isn't property, so that any business model based upon the use of force to treat data as property is fundamentally unjust.
In summary: to copy a very large number is to steal it, because the notion of copying a number is meaningless mathematically. Owning a DVD which contains the number is only ownership of the plastic DVD, not the number.
Stealing a physical object deprives the legitimate owner use of it.
Copying a very large number only deprives the legitimate "finder" of his claim to control the use of it.
Why does the finder deserve to dictate the ways in which the number he found is used?...snip...
Because he pays the salaries of the scriptwriters, directors, producers, actors, cameramen, scenery staff and other people who "find" the movie and unless he has a way to get paid, there will be no movie.
We've discussed this - why are you going back over it?
In summary: to copy a very large number is to steal it, because the notion of copying a number is meaningless mathematically. Owning a DVD which contains the number is only ownership of the plastic DVD, not the number.
Stealing a physical object deprives the legitimate owner use of it.
Stealing a very large number deprives the legitimate discoverer of it his earnings from expending the effort it making it available to everyone else, because it wouldn't be available otherwise. We're done here.
In summary: to copy a very large number is to steal it, because the notion of copying a number is meaningless mathematically. Owning a DVD which contains the number is only ownership of the plastic DVD, not the number.
Stealing a physical object deprives the legitimate owner use of it.
Copying a very large number only deprives the legitimate "finder" of his claim to control the use of it.
Why does the finder deserve to dictate the ways in which the number he found is used?
While useful numbers may be scarce, copies of the number are not. For something to be scarce, it means that no more than one person can use it to their full desire at any time. A lawnmower is scarce because we cannot both mow our lawns with it. However, if I could make a copy of your lawnmower, we could both mow our lawns simultaneously. How are you being harmed that you get to dictate that I cannot use the copy of your lawnmower?
This is what renders all small numbers generally uncopyrightable - say numbers less than 2^1000.
At least you admit that it's completely fucking arbitrary.
Also, please don't forget to respond to my above posts (1 (the first two parts) and 2), unless you enjoy being a hypocrite.
Ok, so i read that Library of Babel thing... Not sure how it's relevant to protecting copyright.
Because you don't want to see. How many books are in The Library of Babel? How much effort does it take to find a book in the library that is actually meaningful, literary, coherent, complete, etc? What is the value of that search? You can think of that interesting book (as well as all the ones that are not interesting) as a unique number. Does that number exist independent of its discovery? It does, but in the same sense as a nugget of gold buried deep in the ground. Naturally, there are permutations of some particular number, but we'll leave that to the mathematicians to decide what constitutes a largely similar work. Moby Dick with a few misspelled words and a deleted paragraph or two is still Moby Dick.
When you copy a number, it's not really a copy, as you believe it is. For example, 3,453,232,343 copied results in 3,453,232,343. According to mathematical theory, it's the same entity. There really is only one 3,453,232,343. While the number used as an example here is too small to warrant copyrighting, the size of a number representing a book or a film does, due to the fact that it can be mathematically proven that it is statistically unlikely (impossible for all practical purposes) that any other human being ever born would ever discover it, or produce it again.
A filmmaker or an author is really just someone exploring that space within The Library of Babel. The space is so huge, there's enough to go around for everyone. The resources so vast, it makes the resources of our planet, even the Universe appear minuscule by comparison. Therefore, if you argue for ownership of physical property (something which is very limited in extent), then it is rather hypocritical to deny the value that should be accorded to those who discover or produce a meaningful number.
In summary: to copy a very large number is to steal it, because the notion of copying a number is meaningless mathematically. Owning a DVD which contains the number is only ownership of the plastic DVD, not the number.
If you wish to think of it as homesteading, then by all means, think of it that way. This is what renders all small numbers generally uncopyrightable - say numbers less than 2^1000.
If the recipient uses the information in the white cube, they will become aware of what it is, at which point, they should question the legality of it by researching its source. We do not live in a world in which individuals are generally not aware of such things, and it will take some significant demonstration on the recipient's part to demonstrate their ignorance of such things.
What the fuck?
Not worth answering. Argue against it if you can.
It doesn't even make any sense to me. Can you rephrase?
Ok, so i read that Library of Babel thing... Not sure how it's relevant to protecting copyright.
If the recipient uses the information in the white cube, they will become aware of what it is, at which point, they should question the legality of it by researching its source. We do not live in a world in which individuals are generally not aware of such things, and it will take some significant demonstration on the recipient's part to demonstrate their ignorance of such things.
What the fuck?
Not worth answering. Argue against it if you can.
Also, from a moral standpoint, none of you against intellectual property rights have any case. This is easy to demonstrate. If you wish to think philosophically about it, then become familiar with The Library of Babel and its ramifications, which I have mentioned a few posts back.
How about you paraphrase the important parts?
If you're too lazy or not able to digest the wikipedia link and draw some conclusions regarding it, then I don't think you're intelligent enough to engage in this discussion.
Yes. First, you're in violation, as you have indicated.
Agreed. Standard contract law, as enforced by various state and non-state systems of law.
Second, upon copying the contents of the white cube, you violated my property.
That does not follow. We agree that I have violated our agreement, you have not demonstrated that I've violated your property.
If the recipient uses the information in the white cube, they will become aware of what it is, at which point, they should question the legality of it by researching its source. We do not live in a world in which individuals are generally not aware of such things, and it will take some significant demonstration on the recipient's part to demonstrate their ignorance of such things.
What the fuck?
Also, from a moral standpoint, none of you against intellectual property rights have any case. This is easy to demonstrate. If you wish to think philosophically about it, then become familiar with The Library of Babel and its ramifications, which I have mentioned a few posts back.
How about you paraphrase the important parts?
Also, from a moral standpoint, none of you against intellectual property rights have any case. This is easy to demonstrate. If you wish to think philosophically about it, then become familiar with The Library of Babel and its ramifications, which I have mentioned a few posts back.
Is this the post you're referring to? (I have no way of knowing since you won't do the courtesy of being specific)
If I then make a copy of the black cube and its contents and give the copy to someone else, I have indeed violated the terms of our contract, but they have done nothing of the sort. If they then make further copies and give them to others, they still have done nothing wrong. Pretty soon, everyone in the world has a black cube with a white cube inside and none of them are bound by your agreement. Problem?
Let's say I sell you a black cube, 3" on a side with 1/4" thick walls. Inside the black cube is a white cube, 2 1/2" on a side, with 1/4" thick walls. Although I have sold you the black cube, I have specifically stated that the sale does not grant you ownership of the white cube or its contents. However, by virtue of taking possession of the black cube, I give you permission to transport the white cube where you wish, but I do not give you permission to inspect the contents of the white cube, as it is my property. Do you have any disagreement with this?
I have effectively granted ownership to you only the mass and volume of the black 1/4" thick shell.
I have effectively granted ownership to you only the mass and volume of the black 1/4" thick shell.
If I then make a copy of the black cube and its contents and give the copy to someone else, I have indeed violated the terms of our contract, but they have done nothing of the sort. If they then make further copies and give them to others, they still have done nothing wrong. Pretty soon, everyone in the world has a black cube with a white cube inside and none of them are bound by your agreement. Problem?
Yes. First, you're in violation, as you have indicated. Second, upon copying the contents of the white cube, you violated my property. You can bear the burden of violating my property rights in full, or you can stand behind my rights and support them by adopting the following:
If the recipient uses the information in the white cube, they will become aware of what it is, at which point, they should question the legality of it by researching its source. We do not live in a world in which individuals are generally not aware of such things, and it will take some significant demonstration on the recipient's part to demonstrate their ignorance of such things.
Is this the post you're referring to? (I have no way of knowing since you won't do the courtesy of being specific)
If I then make a copy of the black cube and its contents and give the copy to someone else, I have indeed violated the terms of our contract, but they have done nothing of the sort. If they then make further copies and give them to others, they still have done nothing wrong. Pretty soon, everyone in the world has a black cube with a white cube inside and none of them are bound by your agreement. Problem?
Let's say I sell you a black cube, 3" on a side with 1/4" thick walls. Inside the black cube is a white cube, 2 1/2" on a side, with 1/4" thick walls. Although I have sold you the black cube, I have specifically stated that the sale does not grant you ownership of the white cube or its contents. However, by virtue of taking possession of the black cube, I give you permission to transport the white cube where you wish, but I do not give you permission to inspect the contents of the white cube, as it is my property. Do you have any disagreement with this?
I have effectively granted ownership to you only the mass and volume of the black 1/4" thick shell.
I have effectively granted ownership to you only the mass and volume of the black 1/4" thick shell.
If I then make a copy of the black cube and its contents and give the copy to someone else, I have indeed violated the terms of our contract, but they have done nothing of the sort. If they then make further copies and give them to others, they still have done nothing wrong. Pretty soon, everyone in the world has a black cube with a white cube inside and none of them are bound by your agreement. Problem?
And Rassah, I see you're online. Feel free to address the posts I made a week or more ago.
If they're that salient, you can repost them in terse form so we don't have to dig through the thread.
Just go to the prior page and start scrolling. It will take you four seconds.
And Rassah, I see you're online. Feel free to address the posts I made a week or more ago.
If they're that salient, you can repost them in terse form so we don't have to dig through the thread.
And once you've solved that equation, you might want to consider this number as well: 2^43,486,543,900,000,000,000.
That's a really big number. And your arguments need to address the size of that number.
That's a really big number. And your arguments need to address the size of that number.
2^43,486,543,900,000,000,000 + 1
My number is bigger.
And Rassah, I see you're online. Feel free to address the posts I made a week or more ago.
Fred,
I take it you haven't read the short story "The Library of Babel"? Tell me now, did you see "Pride and Prejudice" starring Keira Knightley? What's significant about these two products, and why do they essentially make your points pointless? Furthermore, why haven't you addressed my latest posts in this thread?
I take it you haven't read the short story "The Library of Babel"? Tell me now, did you see "Pride and Prejudice" starring Keira Knightley? What's significant about these two products, and why do they essentially make your points pointless? Furthermore, why haven't you addressed my latest posts in this thread?
Even if I did read it, it wouldn't change my mind. I've read enough about the basic principles, concepts and purpose of law that any book written about it (if that's what your referring to), would change my mind.
If you can't actually address even some of the content written by someone else, then how possibly can you believe that anything you write is relevant? The Library of Babel is hardly a book on law. And incidentally, a book on law would be irrelevant in the absence of a universe to apply knowledge of law to.
Here is a synopsis of The Library of Babel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel
Jump to: