Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 2. (Read 105899 times)

Bro' you can't win whatever logical argument you bring.
It's like arguing with priests that god doesn't exist. You can't win. You can't win not because you aren't smart enough but because he will loose all his power if you do.

In the end it's only fiction like all the laws . and you are capable to not believe it . Just be cautious .

There will always be fanatic believers that scream blasphemy and will want to burn you on the stake , when your beliefs don't agree with theirs.

There is no god , no state , no law , no IP , just people that believe in their existence and people that profit from their beliefs.

I find it useful not to think in terms of labor but capital.

Labor is just the act of transforming and mixing the capital that you own, to form new capital.

You can only own capital.  You cannot own labor because labor is an action and not a thing.


Hawker, when you pay your computer programmers to make a product, do you really think it is a product of their labor?

Really? Do they start from scratch and write it in machine code?

No, presumably they use a higher level language such as C++. Well, C++ is information capital that was created by somebody else.  Do you pay the people who made C++?  C++ itself was created from previous capital. C++ was written in assembly language. Do you pay the people who wrote assembly language?

Presumably your programmers use libraries. Presumably they use design patterns.  Presumably they use concepts like recursion that were invented by other people.   They make liberal use of information capital that is not owned by you, without compensating the creators.

What percentage of the final product is really a result of your own effort rather than the effort of others?

You claim exclusive ownership over information capital the same way you claim exclusive ownership over you car.  I will respect that the day you grant others exclusive ownership of information capital, ie the day you write all your software in machine code and use different programming methods from the ones taught at universities.

You know, your whole thing about IP rights and PP rights creating a legal mess would be great if the present system wasn't working so well.  We live in an age of unprecedented innovation and its all happening in countries with strong protection for intellectual property rights.  You may argue that is a co-incidence but you can't argue that the system is a mess.  The present system is working great - if you want to replace it, the onus is on you to come up with something that works even better.

Someone could copyright the pattern of tire threads in your car and then prevent you from selling it.  Assuming that the tire threads were "unowned" when you bought the car.

Thus they are infringing on your physical property rights. They have been allowed to homestead property that was previously homesteaded by you (let's just say for the sake of argument that you built the car yourself). 

You give an example of how people exercising their rights doesn't contradict the simultaneous validity of IP and PP(physical property).

But exercising rights is not the same as having rights. Rights grant you a maximum scope of action. Whether you chose to exploit that maximum is up to you. In practice people rarely do.  That's why contradictory rights can often work so-so in practice and give an appearance of of being consistent.

Simultaneous validity IP and PP creates a legal mess. It is always up to the subjective whim of some judge or politician to decide which right comes first, and which one is to be violated.  It opens up the door to corruption and to a situation where some humans are more equal than others.
 



I might consider it immoral, depending on the circumstances, but it's not aggression.

as I said before,

Morality != Justice

Research is expensive and IP laws aim to encourage it to continue as fast as possible.  A 20 year patent is nothing compared to centuries of utility if the research is successful. The point is that if the research is going to cost millions and if we want that research done as quickly as possible, we have to offer a way for the investor to get his money back, don't we?

Making something of my own by using the knowledge that I've obtained requires the knowledge of my forebears, the shoulders they have stood upon, and those that came before them, ad infinitum. It is impossible to create something without having relied upon someone else for that knowledge. And if not from them, then from your own observations of nature. You can't own an observation, or a law of physics, or any intangible (idea or concept). You can't control an intangible without effecting the physical and tangible to do it, and if that tangible object doesn't belong to you, it belongs to somebody else.

You can't divorce the idea or pattern from the physical matter to which it is attached without destroying the concept of divisible and easily observable material boundaries by which physical ownership is defined; as all things ownable, are physical. Attempting to own a pattern or composition is tantamount to surreptitiously acquiring property not in your possession. Intellectual property has no physical boundaries like ordinary physical property does.

IP enforcement is nothing more than the right to commit theft and censorship, and in the extreme, bodily imprisonment. That is the end result every time. You are merely giving the right to some people to control the property and speech of others and thus ultimately their person, because of the composition and patterns of physical material matter resembling yours. Last I checked that's called slavery. Clandestine and indirect slavery, but slavery nonetheless.

If you have information and I have the same information, it is not theft. I have not taken something of yours because I merely know about it, or because I imprint it's pattern onto objects in my possession. I can only take a physical thing. There is nothing to take if it's not physical.

If you want to go with is/ought, you need to provide some justification why people ought to take a lower standard of living as a result of losing the benefits of IP law.  You are free.  Being told you can't take other people's property is not an infringement on your freedom.  Nor is being told that you can't profit from patented inventions without a license.  The sad thing is that you think you need to be able to copy other people's work in order to get by.  Just take a stab at making something of your own and selling it - you may be surprised how easy it is.

No not written in the stars nor anywhere else for that matter, at least not from the perspective of what is, as opposed to what ought to be. All I'm saying is your logic is broken. Laws can be anything, of course. But if you want to make them consistent and logical, you wouldn't say half the things you do.

A right is an is/ought construction. Using logic helps make sense of what is vs. what ought to be. No logic, makes for a big mess because one rule violates another to the advantage of one person over another. Creating advantages and disadvantages creates classes of persons, and the longer you have one class with greater privilege and authority over another, you will eventually produce monolithic power concentrated into the hands of the few. This is what most (if not all) governments do that don't protect the rights of the individual.

Power is a great temptation when wielded by the few against the many in an involuntarily way (monopoly privileges). I like the freedom of choice to do what one wants with oneself and one's things as long as it doesn't interfere with the supremacy of others to do the same with theirs. Why is that such a bad thing? Freedom is a bad thing? Let me think about this for a moment... I don't get you Hawker. I really don't.

You seem to have the delusion that rights are written in the stars and that all humans do is discover and enforce them.  I see that rights are human creations.  All rights are created by human law and limited by concepts such as prevention of cruelty to animals and eminent domain as part of the same legal structure.  To call that a contradiction is to fail to understand what a right is.  The problem is not logic - its your acting on a false premise and thus using faulty logic.

Am I to assume there is no such thing as logic then? If logic is opinion, then just about anything could be construed as opinion (excepting actual physics). Can we not agree, based on the basic rules of logic, that your logic is fallible?

And yes the right to security on one's own property is contradicted by eminent domain which is why it is capricious and should be done away with. Duh.

Ditto. Looks like Hawker's actually getting somewhere. Maybe he should look up the definition of impose.

I'm glad we agree.

Fred you have already made clear that if you have to choose between innovative research and your freedom to copy other people's work, you will choose your freedom.  Your pseudo-logic that laws that contradict one another is also your opinion.  The right to security on your own property is contradicted by eminent domain.  Does that mean people should no longer be allowed own their own homes?  Of course not.

You have to accept there are other positions and you don't have the right to impose yours on other people.

Everybody profits from other people's work. Where do you think their or your knowledge came from? A vacuum? Everything everybody learns, mimics, copies, or observes is either going to come from somebody that told them, taught them, or they observed from nature.

In which case, everybody living is "stealing" from everybody all the time and everybody should be in jail. Lovely logic. Give it up Hawker, your logic has failed you. Physical property and intellectual property conflict in their implementation. They are logically inconsistent.

Physical property: Control over physical material matter to the exclusion of all other persons. To wit, physical material matter can only be in one place at any one point in time under the dominion of that person.

Intellectual property: Control over patterns and compositions of physical material matter contained in all physical property owned or otherwise (by you and others). This equates to ownership of physical matter due to its composition and characteristics, regardless of the current physical possession of the owner.

Intellectual property is in constant conflict with physical property. IP and PP are logically inconsistent. Any law that conflicts with another law, is either not a law, or the other law with which it is incompatible, must be abolished.

A good example would be slavery. I know you don't like the analogy, but it works well. If one human can own another human, then skin color should be irrelevant, in which case blacks could own whites and vice versa. The only determining factor here now is superior force or majority rule - which is the same.

The people stopping you are likely to be the people you are trying to rip off by selling their work for your profit.  The important issue here is that you will be stopped because society values innovation.  Which takes us back to where you came in...

I can profit off whatever I please. It's only a matter of who is going to stop me and my preferences. I prefer not to deny people rights to their actual property.

And rightly so.  Do your own research and stop looking for excuses to profit from other people's work.

It doesn't because I'll be arrested at the expense of society. Enjoy fighting for your life for overpriced vaccines and treatments in the future.

Sorry but you have no right to force others to give up medical research for the sake of someone who is a quack.  You may support his quackery - every quack has supporters - but that doesn't give you the right to copy the research work of people who are not quacks and resell their work for profit.

Oh, he's no quack. The FDA and the corporations have made him labeled as such but there are many people and many medical charts that can claim he has saved countless lives. His drugs have a 25% rate of resolving all types of cancer.