Yet, if every member of the group helped instead of hoping to get the cure for free, the research would go faster.
Helping the effort should be voluntary though. Intellectual property is non-voluntary because even if you procure a product through your own labor, you don't actually own it because you're bound to whatever IP restrictions the rights-holder attached to it. Anyway, most members of healthy, IP-free societies will voluntarily contribute, according to the best of their abilities, to beneficial causes. The thought of a few slackers not contributing to a good cause seems less harmful than lucky creators using government force to ransom good ideas that are otherwise free to share. 
Topic: Intellectual Property: Intellectually Bankrupt - page 2. (Read 3976 times)
You own the energy, not the pattern. Also, once you release energy back into the environment it becomes unowned abandoned property.
You come up with these as we go, don't you? And still, according to your rules, I can own that environment.
Quote
Do you think you can leave your bike on my property forever and I shouldn't be able to claim it?
Who said I'd leave it in your property? And even if it was, your only right is to remove my property from yours, not to bestow it upon yourself. Or else, are you going to claim what is mine simply because you touched it?
If you don't know that electromagnetism is one of the four fundamental physical forces found in nature then... 
That is not what I asked of you. I asked you to document me on how the application of an electric field with a magnetic field producing a electromagnetic force normal to the plane of those two fields consists in matter. There is a clear difference between fundamental and quantum physics.
Since energy is matter, then I own this energy. The fact that it is out in the public doesn't mean you can just take it. If I leave my bike next to a wall, would you take it? According to your very own point, that matter and energy are but the same, then an original energy pattern, where ever it stands, belongs to the designer.
You own the energy, not the pattern. Also, once you release energy back into the environment it becomes unowned abandoned property. Do you think you can leave your bike on my property forever and I shouldn't be able to claim it?
People will contribute to the best of their ability. Plenty of researchers use funds that come from voluntary, non-refundable contributions already.
Yet, if every member of the group helped instead of hoping to get the cure for free, the research would go faster.
Yes. Don't take my word for it. Look it up.
It is your part to provide documentation on that...
If you don't know that electromagnetism is one of the four fundamental physical forces found in nature then...
cannot do with my own brain.
First of all, I'm not trying to control anything. Your stance that IP defenders will resort to force is oblivious to the concept that IP and non aggression are perfectly compatible. If you don't respect IP, I simply stop considering such endeavor as profitable and will naturally reduce my output of such content to strict necessary levels.
Also, in this argument, I am not trying to control what you can do or not do with your brain, since you couldn't do it without my brain coming up with it first.
The point about the chair is that modification of shape does not nullify property. The design is an energy pattern in my head. Since energy is matter, then I own this energy. The fact that it is out in the public doesn't mean you can just take it. If I leave my bike next to a wall, would you take it? According to your very own point, that matter and energy are but the same, then an original energy pattern, where ever it stands, belongs to the designer.
Naturally, if a group of people is affected by some illness and there is no cure, it is possible they'll pool their resources to fund the research of such a cure. The question is, how many of these people will participate in the funding, knowing that they could get the cure for free once it is discovered.
People will contribute to the best of their ability. Plenty of researchers use funds that come from voluntary, non-refundable contributions already. I own my brain. I formulate a design with it. By your standards, it belongs to me.
A design in your brain is simply a configuration of neurons in your brain. You own your neurons and your brain. I own my neurons and my brain therefore I can put them into any configuration I want even if it's functionally identical to yours. If I was extracting your gray matter with a cerebral bore then you'd have a grievance. As things stand, you're trying to control what I can and cannot do with my own brain.
Yes. Don't take my word for it. Look it up.
It is your part to provide documentation on that...
Right, so radio waves are physical?
Yes. Don't take my word for it. Look it up.
How do you argue against IP if you stand by that point anyways? If all forms are of either energy, matter, or both, and that energy and matter are equivalent, then intellect is as much of a property as anything else.
Am I sucking energy from your brain like some sort of psychic vampire? No. I get energy from the food I eat. I'm not sure what you're driving at.
Simple. You own a piece of wood. You shape it into a chair and it stills belongs to you. The only thing you applied upon it is work.
I own my brain. I formulate a design with it. By your standards, it belongs to me.
Right, so radio waves are physical?
Yes. Don't take my word for it. Look it up.
How do you argue against IP if you stand by that point anyways? If all forms are of either energy, matter, or both, and that energy and matter are equivalent, then intellect is as much of a property as anything else.
Am I sucking energy from your brain like some sort of psychic vampire? No. I get energy from the food I eat. I'm not sure what you're driving at.
How do you argue against IP if you stand by that point anyways? If all forms are of either energy, matter, or both, and that energy and matter are equivalent, then intellect is as much of a property as anything else.
Perhaps you have to reject or at least redefine property then in order to reconcile the issue.Something of that magnitude at least, indeed.
I should add that the author suggests government subsidy (instead of patent rights which are another type of subsidy) as a model for pharmaceutic research, which I now disagree with. I still think patents are bad though.
Naturally, if a group of people is affected by some illness and there is no cure, it is possible they'll pool their resources to fund the research of such a cure. The question is, how many of these people will participate in the funding, knowing that they could get the cure for free once it is discovered.
How do you argue against IP if you stand by that point anyways? If all forms are of either energy, matter, or both, and that energy and matter are equivalent, then intellect is as much of a property as anything else.
Perhaps you have to reject or at least redefine property then in order to reconcile the issue. Energy is physical. Basic science isn't serious enough for you?
Right, so radio waves are physical?
How do you argue against IP if you stand by that point anyways? If all forms are of either energy, matter, or both, and that energy and matter are equivalent, then intellect is as much of a property as anything else.
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm
That's a good book on the topic. You can buy the print version if you want. It has lots of good examples explaining how IP harms us and why we're better off with out it. I got into it about two years ago and it definitely affected my beliefs, to say the least.
I should add that the author suggests government subsidy (instead of patent rights which are another type of subsidy) as a model for pharmaceutic research, which I now disagree with. I still think patents are bad though.
That's a good book on the topic. You can buy the print version if you want. It has lots of good examples explaining how IP harms us and why we're better off with out it. I got into it about two years ago and it definitely affected my beliefs, to say the least.
I should add that the author suggests government subsidy (instead of patent rights which are another type of subsidy) as a model for pharmaceutic research, which I now disagree with. I still think patents are bad though.
I produce electricity, which is immaterial, at the cost of my resources.
Electrons are physical. Matter and energy are equivalent. Your argument fails.
You're going after the energy that is loaded in those electrons...
Quote
Matter and energy are equivalent.
Keep this serious please.
Energy is physical. Basic science isn't serious enough for you?
I produce electricity, which is immaterial, at the cost of my resources.
Electrons are physical. Matter and energy are equivalent. Your argument fails.
You're going after the energy that is loaded in those electrons...
Quote
Matter and energy are equivalent.
Keep this serious please.
I produce electricity, which is immaterial, at the cost of my resources.
Electrons are physical. Mass and energy are equivalent. Your argument fails.
Jump to: