Mnrchst

Yep.

Morally? Sure. Legally? No. If you don't bother to get the government to recognize it, you've got no legal recourse. I'm talking about whether or not there should be patents and copyrights, which is the law. If someone says to you "I'll let you have a copy of my song if you promise not to make a copy of it in exchange for me such and such" and you make a copy of it, you did something bad (betraying their trust), but I wouldn't say you did anything that should be illegal. The essential issue here is whether or not songs/inventions should be property, not if it's a bad thing if someone betrays another person's trust. Should cheating on your spouse be illegal?

An idea is a concept which exists in a consciousness's mind. It refers to something physical behaving in a particular way. There's a distinction between physical matter behaving in a particular way (the concept) and a particular collection of matter that happens to be behaving that way (a brain containing concept.) Me having an idea in my head isn't the exact same thing as the idea itself because it's not impossible for the idea to exist in someone else's head. Just because I own all my thoughts (because I own my body) doesn't mean the own the thoughts themselves. Ideas are like a sequence. But the sequence itself doesn't exist--it's a way matter behaves. In other words, you can say sex occurs with two people, but not that sex can occur by itself. Does love exist by itself, or is it a way of describing what a person feels? Can laughter walk around and give you a hug? If you own an idea (a sequence of matter behaving in a certain way), then you're owning someone else's property if they use the sequence you came up with. But only one person can own property. So you can't own an idea without owning property that isn't really yours. And if you can own a song, why not a particular style of clothing? Property is something possessed by someone with legal sanction. A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a person’s freedom of action in a social context. Is voting your "property"? Is having sex your "property"? Is walking down the street your "property"? Your argument is incomplete. It seems to me to be: a - You need X to get Y. b - Someone should own Y. c - Therefore, someone should own this other thing which is similar to X. In other words, you need labor to get a car, and labor in incorporeal, and someone should own the car. Therefore, you should also own an idea, because it's also incorporeal. But should someone own a particular form of labor? Or, you need an idea to get a car ("I'm gonna make a car"), and ideas are incorporeal, and someone should own the car. Therefore, you should also own a different kind of idea (a song). But should someone own the thought "I'm gonna make a car"? The non-aggression principle. I know. My point was that Spooner's argument was: All property comes from labor. Therefore, if you say labor doesn't necessary mean the fruits of it are property, then you're saying there should be no property. And I'm pointing out that the idea that "all property comes from labor" is false. The right of property, in material wealth, is acquired, in the first instance, in one of these two ways, viz.: first, by simply taking possession of natural wealth, or the productions of nature; and, secondly, by the artificial production of other wealth. True.

You never mentioned a contract. You said "If I invited a musician to play at a birthday party he could set the condition that I not reproduce his work for commercial purposes". Obviously, if he makes a contract with you to that effect, you'd be obligated to adhere to it if the government recognizes it. But you'd be unable to use a recording of the concert for commercial purposes, not necessarily the song itself (like playing a concert with your own rendition of it). You could only be prevented from doing that if copyright exists.

If there is a song that has a copyright, it would make sense that all anyone has to do is look it up, the same way any property titles are stored in some kind of database or information storage system. I was talking about new songs. If there is no means for anyone to have this information accessible to anyone, yeah, that's a big problem, but that's a big problem for any and all law or property issues. My point was there's no clear answer to the question of whether a new song violates copyright or not. Property doesn't arise from what you define to be property. I didn't say that. My point was that there's no way to define what constitutes a copyright violation and what doesn't objectively, and, therefore, objectively defining it is required for it to be property, but it doesn't arise from that (as if it's the only requisite). I mentioned this originally as an explanation for why copyrights are bad legally even if you make a moral case for ideas as property. I said in my original post, "Even if patents are legitimate, I'm not sure how copyrights could possibly be legitimate because there's no way (I can think of) where you can demonstrate a copyright violation." In other words, if ideas should be property, then patents are OK, but copyrights aren't necessarily (because people shouldn't be penalized for creating). This issue isn't critical to my (moral) case. I'm not saying "Ideas (including inventions) shouldn't be property because there's no way to know when your song is original or not." Example of this type of thing: Rand said people deserve death if they kill someone (morality), but they don't deserve the death penalty (politics) because there's a chance that people might put someone to death who's innocent. So even if there's a moral case for why songs should be property (which I doubt), there's not necessarily a political case for it. By what standard is a new song "too similar" to another? Think of all the variables involved. If I couldn't get in touch, well, too bad for me. Yep. I thought Grames gave a pretty good idea of what such standards could be/are. Which post?

The original thought(n) are the artists property because they're a part of their brain. The original recording is in a physical form comprised of property owned by the artist (in this case). But this doesn't necessarily mean the song in and of itself is anyone's property.

I brought up monetary compensation to demonstrate how inventors/artists are indeed harmed by IP theft if they choose to sell. I agree with this point in this respect: If an artist puts an album online and says "Donate if you want, if not, it's cool." then some guy might say, "You know, I'll donate $7." And if an artist has their album copyrighted, that same guy might say, "Man, he didn't donate it to the world? I'm gonna torrent it. Too bad he wasn't cool enough to donate it, because I would've totally donated $7 if that was the case." I would be surprised to find that you object to such arrangements with regard to physical property. I definitely don't. If I invited a musician to play at a birthday party he could set the condition that I not reproduce his work for commercial purposes He could. Do I think you should be legally obligated to obey? No. or videotape him while he is performing. That I think you could be legally obligated to not do, provided it's not taking place in "public property" (which shouldn't exist, but I don't see how we could morally prevent people from videotaping in such areas since it's supposed to be everyone's). I think you could require by law that cameras be present in certain locations that are sensitive to national security though, like airports. I also think we should be able to videotape police officers in certain situations. If I asked an inventor to create a device for me (using my materials) he could set the condition that I not reproduce it, and that I require any potential buyer to follow the same conditions. Similar conditions could be set if the service is rendered by way of a blueprint or computer file. Again, I don't see how it would be moral to have that be the law. We add "intellectual" to the term to distinguish it from regular, run-of-the-mill, physical property. Yeah, but all property is fundamentally intellectual because you have no property without government, and a government is an intellectual construction. Come to think of it, any possession could be considered intellectual in the sense that you've got to think about what to do to continue to possess it in order to do so.

I don't see why you couldn't. Call up the government and ask "does anyone own this particular song?" If there is no kind of copyright, then you're good to go. I do not work in a field of law nor do I study law, but you are able to tell what violates copyright if you read the law. You haven't quoted any laws which are defined in such a way that there is no way to judge if you are out of bounds in what is legally permitted. If I play a song to a government person, they're going to know if it's copyrighted? Only if they can recall every copyrighted song in existence. Anyway, I'm talking about if I make a new song. I can't call up someone and ask "Would this NEW song violate a copyright even if you can recall every copyrighted song in existence?" and get a for sure answer. Because it's not your property. All you could say is "I wish I was more careful." I think something is only your property if you can make an objective law to define it (including whatever is similar enough to violate the copyright). There ARE complex factors, that's why law is such a large field. My point is, I don't see how there can be any objective standard for what violates copyright and what doesn't. I don't mean a foolproof system for determining every case, but standards which are specific enough that you can read them and make a clear distinction between a copyright violation and something "original".

You said "Lets approach the question from another direction" so I assumed you were trying to make an argument. My bad. If I write a piece of software, or design a new widget, do I have the right to sell either of those to you with a clear requirement that you NOT reproduce my efforts without my permission? No. And if you refuse to my terms, do I have the right NOT to sell my invention to you? Yes. Now assuming I do have that right, then can I further require that not only do you not reproduce that item, but that if you sell OR give that item to someone else, that you do so only on the condition that you make the SAME requirement of whoever receives it? No. And again, if you refuse to those terms, do I have the right not to sell the product of my creative effort to you? Yes.

But even with respect to children it is not the case that parents are indistinguishable from all other persons in their relation to their children. Fo sho (DNA testing). I’m not sure what your point is. To connect those two propositions logically, you can only be assuming that property must be corporeal. Yep. I take your meaning to be that the brain is corporeal and the contents are not. No, I accept that the contents of my brain are my property and that the contents of everyone else’s brain are their property. In other words, my knowledge of an idea is my property, but not the idea itself. The contents are corporeal because the brain itself is corporeal. An idea, however, isn’t corporeal. If someone reads my mind without my permission, they should be in trouble because they used my property without my permission, but not just because they know my idea without my explicit permission granted on a case by case basis. Property cannot be restricted to only corporeal things, because the labor which rearranges the matter of corporeal things is itself incorporeal. Labor isn’t property. There are rights to actions (working, smoking meth, voting, etc.) as well as property. In other words, just because you need incorporeal things (labor) to make [physical] property doesn't mean that there's an incorporeal thing that can be property. Also (this is a tangent, it's not critical to my case), I don't actually have to do any labor for a meteor to fall onto my land. Wouldn't that be my property? Ideas ultimately are physical, and so there is no reason to treat them differently from the other things physical that can be property. Their expression is, but not the ideas themselves. To say ideas exist physically in and of themselves reminds me of Plato honestly.

I can call up the local government office and ask "So who owns that mine?" I can't call someone up, play the song, and get an immediate answer about whether or not it will violate a copyright. And someone releasing a song that's very similar to another and getting sued really isn't all that rare. Why should I "deal with it" when there's no non-incredibly time consuming way of covering my ass? Also, all I have to work with for whether or not there will be a copyright violation is previous court decisions. But (1) All the different factors at work with comparing songs/stories are insanely complex and (2) the judge could always break precedent. That's why I see it as analogous with antitrust.

What I meant is that I think the phrase "steal an idea" (objectively) means to read someone's mind without your permission and find out about one of their ideas (regardless of whether or not anyone else has the idea is their mind). I didn't mean "Oh, so you mean mind reading and not copyright violation when you talk about stealing an idea."

Response to Spooner's arguments: This is a very shallow objection, since it is founded ‘wholly on the assumption, that if a man once in trust his property in another man’s keeping, he thereby loses his own right of prop­erty to it; whereas men are constantly intrusting their property in other men’s hands, in many different ways, and for many different purposes. I'm saying I don't think a song/invention is property. Obviously there is no more ground, in nature, or in reason, for presuming that a man intends to part with his right of property, in an idea, simply because he describes it, or makes it known, to another person, than there is for presuming that he intends to part with his right of property, in any corporeal commodity, simply because he describes it, or makes it known, to another person. Again, I'm saying I don't think a song/invention is property. And I'm not parting with my use of my idea if I tell someone else. Basically, Spooner is saying "If X is your property, then it's still your property if you tell someone about it, because it's your property." But I'm saying it isn't their property. And the fact that you can tell someone about something certainly doesn't make whatever you're telling them about your property just because you're telling them about it. This objection [#11] lays wholly out of consideration the fact, that the idea has been produced by one man’s labor, and not by the labor of all men. Nope. Things that are produced by people includes children as well, so saying "It's not necessarily your property if you made it" isn't the same as saying "Nothing you make is your property." the objection [#11] plainly denies that any exclusive rights of property whatsoever, can be acquired by labor or production The doctrine of the objection, therefore, by denying that any right of property can originate in labor or production, virtually denies all rights of property whatsoever, not merely in ideas, but in all material things Nope. You can still say "A physical thing that isn't a person and isn't necessary for general human survival (i.e. the air) is property, but an idea isn't." It's not the same as saying "Hey, anything that anyone creates isn't property." It is plain that the principle of the objection would apply, just as strongly, against any right of exclusive property in corporeal commodities, as it does against a right of exclusive property in ideas; because, 1st, many corporeal commodities, as roads, canals, railroad cars, bathing places, churches, theatres, &c., can be used by many persons at once This is a misrepresentation of the argument. If someone else is standing on my property, I've been denied my right to have no one (or no one besides me) standing there. In other words, there can be someone else on my road while I'm also on the road, but we can't both occupy the same space on the road at the same time. However, two people can have the same idea at the same time. It's my land, so I get to decide who's there and who's not--I can invite people over or not. I also get to decide what to do with my idea, which is contained in my brain (which is my property)--I can tell people about it or not.

Yes, if I sell a CD with an exact copy of a copyrighted song. But what if I sell a CD with a song I made that's very similar to a copyrighted song? What if I make another song that's more similar to the copyrighted song than the other song I made in some respects, but more different in others? Example: How pixelated does Miles Davis have to get before it's original? http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/ I did. I also think the nature of songs/inventions are different enough from a car or a piece of land to be considered property. * * * Seriously, do I really have to just hope my new song/book isn't too similar to another copyrighted song out of all the copyrighted songs/books? There's no sense in me playing/reading each individual song/book to 1,000 different music/book aficionados before I try to copyright it. What if there's an obscure/unpopular song out there that few people knows about? Do I have to take the risk of losing $50,000 for each song/book?

I'd also like to point out that (so far) no one has responded to this point: Since antitrust is illegitimate because there's no way anyone can know when they're violating the "law", do I really have to go through every copyrighted book where it's plausible that there could be a copyright violation before I try to release a new book? What if (by a dramatic coincidence) there's a number of similarities with some book written 20 years ago? How am I supposed to avoid this? Maybe no one figures this out until a few months after it's released and I get sued big time. Is that really fair?

You clearly miss the point that I was making about what constitutes permission in terms of communication. If I upload a song onto the internet, I’ve told you about it AND you have it and can listen to it without tangibly harming me. If I tell you about my hot wife, I’ve told you about her AND you’re not fucking necessarily able to consentally fuck her. Perhaps, but this isn't just about you, it's about all creators of products. Really dude? I’m trying to be concise and not write in a cumbersome way. Look at it this way: “If ANYONE voluntarily uploads a song they created onto the internet, someone else can have it on their computer without tangibly harming the person who created the song, like how someone is tangibly harming someone else by using that person’s car by taking it away from them so they don’t have it.” Creating a new idea and making money from that does not restore the value lost from the original idea. I’m not talking about new ideas restoring lost value of a previous one. This is like saying that if your car is stolen, you can always get a new car to restore the value lost. Huh? If someone steals my car, I no longer have it. If someone listens to my song, I can still listen to the song. Non-sequitur to the point I've made. So you’re saying “They lose sales even if they make the same money in donations.” Okay, I agree. But how are they harmed if they make the same amount of money off the idea regardless of whether it comes from donations or not? I see. Rather than acknowledging a person's right to the fruits of their labor, you would rather not have them produce their work in digital form because it becomes easy to steal. If they make it easy to steal, it must therefore be moral to steal it. Gotcha. This principle carries over to material products as well. If I leave the keys in my car, it is now moral to steal my car. No. I’m saying that the issue is whether or not songs/inventions are property. If a song is property, no one should play it without the creator’s explicit consent on a case by case basis regardless of whether or not they make it only on vinyl or put it in digital from. Furthermore, if a song isn’t property, people should be able to listen to it without the creator’s explicit consent on a case by case basis regardless of whether or not it’s in a digital form. I never said something isn’t property if it’s “easy for someone else to use.” I’m pointing out that if a creator chooses to give a copy of their song to someone else, they’re enabling everyone else in the world to hear that song, because whether or not that happens depends on what the other person does, and they can only prevent that person from telling the whole world AFTER they voluntarily gave them the copy by controlling them with the use of force. If they don’t want the possibility to exist that somewhat-wealthy people listen to their song and don’t pay them, then they can decide to not tell anyone else about the song. If people are selfish, they voluntarily donate to the creators just as they would voluntarily donate to their government. More non-sequitur. How so? You were saying, in effect: “People shouldn’t download a song without paying the creator even if they would’ve never listened to it if they could only listen to it if they paid the creator money.” So I’m pointing out why not also say “People shouldn’t be allowed to benefit from a government without paying for it even if they could only benefit from it if they would’ve never benefited from it if they could only do so by paying taxes”? It’s like saying “People should pay taxes because there are taxes.” The issue here is whether or not songs/inventions are property or not. Just because a society says “You shouldn’t download a song without paying the creator.” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong to do so. The fact that there are taxes doesn’t make them moral.

I'm pointing out that just because you create something of value doesn't necessarily mean you own it. Do people have value? If yes, then the argument "You own what you create that has value" is incomplete. I think this is a pretty simple point.

Yes. Gifts are given not taken/illicitly downloaded so why even bring this up? How do I “take” the song from someone if they can still play it? If it’s because they didn’t consent to me hearing it, why should they be able to determine who uses their idea in such a way? It’s not because it’s impossible for them to keep their idea a secret. If it’s because it’s property, why is that? Why does a restaurant not have to pay royalties to Snoop Dogg if they say “Fo shizzle dizzle” in their birthday song? If it is kept secret then he can't trade it for money or make a living as an artist. That’s true. My point is I don’t think it’s theft if the creator can still use the idea (again, this is different from the car). I think you’re implying “The creator should make money off the use of their idea if people like it.” I agree. Isn’t it possible that people can donate to the creator? And if the creator doesn’t think they’ll get enough for the invention, they can just not tell people about and/or never create in the first place. I think if people are selfish, they’ll donate to the creator in the same way they’ll donate to a government. But if the user of idea isn’t preventing the creator from using their creation, why should we use force to prevent them from using the idea? Why not throw people who don’t pay the government in prison? No, I said that. You said “What does "use the idea" mean in relation to copyright? It means selling that particular sequence of words or notes, or performing it for compensation” and I pointed out that a copyright violation can include NOT SELLING the song but still listening to it. Therefore it means "using the idea without the explicit permission of the creator on a case by case basis" and not "selling that particular sequence of words or notes, or performing it for compensation” Furthermore, the importance of that phrase is that it describes how the author uses his property. The same actions by others can constitute copyright violation because they diminish the author's ability to use his property. You mean, “We shouldn’t let people listen to a song without the permission of the creator because it’s his property.” So why is it his property? And, again, the creator has the ability to use the property and determine whether others will use it or not. If I drive my car onto your land and I refuse to leave and the government uses force to get it off, the ability to use my property has been diminished, but your’s has as well (there’s a car on your land now). ) I shouldn’t be allowed to keep it there because I initiated the act which put the car on your land (putting it there. If I initiate the act which puts a song on your headphones (giving a copy to someone else, who can then give the idea to others) and you listen to it and I don’t want you to, the ability for me to control the use of the idea hasn’t diminished because I could’ve not told anyone about it. If I use the government to control the use of the idea (by preventing you from listening to it), then I’ve diminished your ability to use your property (the headphones). The exact part that applies to this portion of the sentence you want to nitpick is "... or does not buy it because he already has it". Assuming you understand nothing, I will spell out that the reason this is so: because a thief has stolen it already the thief has to need to buy it, and is enjoying the benefit of possessing it without compensating the creator. This applies to government as well: Once a citizen is enjoying the government’s services, they have no “need” to donate to it. But, of course, they do, because they need it. People need creators to enjoy life (music) and take care of existential threats (a cure for cancer, renewable technologies to use after the oil’s gone, getting off of Earth before the sun cools down too much, ect.). They also need government. Objectivists don’t want to force people to pay for the government which enriches their lives (who have “no need to buy it”). If someone enjoys the art they listen to or the invention which makes their business more productive, and they think rationally, they’ll voluntarily donate to the creator. Otherwise, creators might stop creating, and we’ll descend into total chaos when oil becomes scarce enough, and there’ll be no now films to go see. The same applies to government. If enough people don’t pay for the government, there’s no government, and we got anarchy. If people don’t want anarchy, they pay for government; if people want to enjoy art and inventions, they pay for them. Read up on design patents and trade dress. Crudeness doesn't matter, originality does. What do you think is the standard for originality? And why? Do you agree with the existing standards? Are they bad in some respects? If so, how? Also, when I said “crude” I meant “very simple, but still unique from all other copyrighted drawings”. If I make a simple drawing, it could be original. Should that be copyrighted? If not, what about a more complex one? Where do you draw the line? What about a unique combination of 50 words? If not, what about 100? Is a somewhat original combination of 100 words more copyright-worthy than a very original combination of 50 words? What’s the standard? You merely equate property with possession. The truth is that property rights are not rights to things, they are rights to actions with those things as objects of the those actions. No, if someone possesses my idea by reading my mind without my permission, I regard that as immoral. The right to act to use, sell, dispose of a song is impaired when others unrightfully reproduce it. Use? No, the creator can still use it. Sell? Yes. And only property can be sold. Why do songs and inventions (as such) qualify as property? Dispose? No. The creator can dispose of the song before anyone else hears of it, or their only copy of the song while others have their own copies. I take an unrightful reproduce it to mean you read my mind without my permission and then use it. If I tell people about my idea, I can’t control what they do with it unless I control them—and they have the right to use themselves (their property) how they want to as long as they don’t violate other’s property rights. So why are songs and inventions property? And since neither action is remotely possible, then taking an idea is impossible. Just because it isn’t possible right now doesn’t mean it never will be. Someone could just as easily have asked Rand in the 1960s “Do property rights apply to a spaceship capable of traveling at .9 the speed of light?” And she says “Yes” and then you say “But there’s no such thing! Therefore, it’s not remotely possible. Therefore, property rights don’t apply to spaceships that go that fast (or the moon because no one’s colonizing it, etc), or, at least, we won’t be able to figure that out until it becomes possible.” You’re saying, in effect, there’s no property rights violation if someone reads your mind without your permission because it’s not currently possible. But what if it becomes possible? Is it not a property rights violation because it used to not be possible? And how do you know it will never be possible anyway? What is taken is one's ability to put a protected work to use. Using a song means selling it or performing it. Or listening to it. When others reproduce the song without authorization then sales and the value of a performance is diminished. And why does the creator deserve the value of the performance in a selling sense? Is it because a song is property? If so, why? I certainly think they deserved to be rewarded for their work and I don't think we should force people to pay for their work if the creator tells people about it, just as I don't think people should be forced to pay for their government. You didn't have control when the car was stolen. Ah, I see. My bad. So since this is a reference to the car which was stolen (“It’s only your property if you control it, control includes consent”) then you’re saying “You should be able to control your own property.” But why are songs/inventions property? See post #42 above for a review of the criteria in the paragraphs starting with the words "Objectivity in intellectual property is established by ..." "Objectivity in intellectual property is established by only protecting particular expressions" Which ones? By what standard? Why is it good? Why are other standards bad? "Copyrightable works must be original." By what standard? Why is it good? Why are other standards of originality bad? "The question of what is copyrightable and patentable is a solved problem." What's the (correct) solution? Why is it good? Why are other standards bad? try to inform the police that your valuable secret invention was stolen, and see what they can do for you when you refuse to tell them what it looks like or does. Gotcha. They have every right to do so because songs and inventions are property, and property necessarily comes along with a right to exclude. Why are they property? When you claim things like songs and inventions are not property you are claiming they cannot be used and disposed of. That makes no sense, because they obviously can be used and disposed of. That is what also makes them property. There are things which aren’t property which can be disposed of (like people or the oxygen in the air). The only way your statement makes sense is if only property can be disposed of, which I never said. Yeah, they can be disposed of if other things get disposed of. But they can’t be disposed of by themselves. It’s not like an idea is some floating cloud that follows me around. The materials which make up the invention can be disposed of. The manuscript which explains the invention can be disposed of. A digital copy of a song can be disposed of. The pages with the notes can be disposed of. My car can be crushed into a cube. The part of my brain which contains the information about the song or the invention can be disposed of/altered. The song/invention can’t be disposed of without disposing something else (which is someone's property). "If you can use it, it's your property" and "If you can dispose of it, it's your property." "Hey, guess what? Even though you can hardly believe it, that is the argument. I would add "If you created it, it's your property." Parents create their children, yet children aren't their property. And children can be disposed of. Also, a person could dispose of your car. Does that mean it’s their property? There are limits, see post #42. It said “Here’s the limits” but not a justification for those limits (or even a little specificity about them). If artists and inventors have to hide their works they may as well not even be any artists and inventors. That’s true. If they want to benefit from the invention, people have to know about it. So why does that make it their property? There’s nothing preventing people from donating to them. The concrete, tangible items within arms reach. That is what your understanding of property as possession instead of a right to action would reduce us to. A backpack may be within by “arms reach” but that doesn’t mean I should take it. I don’t think of leaving the backpack there as an endorsement of people taking it because once it’s taken, the original possessor can’t have it anymore. If someone puts a song online, I’d say that’s an endorsement of people using it because it doesn’t deprive the originator of anything. By destroying a critical source of wealth in a capitalist society How so? and by being an attack on the same principle underlying all property rights to even tangible, physical property. How so? Citizens voluntaily donate to artists and inventors by paying the price asked for them or not buying the products offered. You’re conflating “buy” with “donate” Not buying but still taking against the consent of the artist or inventor is theft. Again, I take this to mean unpermitted mind reading. We don’t know that that’s “impossible”. Even if it is, it has nothing to do with whether or not using an idea without explicit permission by the originator on a case by case basis is theft.

I said "<Featherfall> made the argument that inventors would make less money without patents and copyrights, ignoring the fact that people have free will and can donate money to inventors." because you said: "Not only does the original inventor make less on the inventions he sells..." I took that to mean that without patents they'd necessarily make less money. I don't see why that's necessarily the case. Only if the value is worthy of being property. Why are songs/inventions worthy of being property? Post #42 was by Grames. Why are inventions property? What do you mean by transfer? Do you mean: If someone says "Hey, I'm gonna let you borrow my car (and drive it wherever) for the next 30 days if you pay me $50 now and we agree that you pay for whatever damage happens to it." and the other guy's like "Okay." is it okay for the owner of the car to tell the "renter" of the car a few days later "Oh yeah, now you can still drive it wherever, but now you can't put gasoline in it"? Well, if there's no legal agreement at work here, then I'd say that's fine. However, let's say they make a contract that says "There will be no adding of stipulations by the owner or renter during the 30 days once the contract is signed unless they both agree to it." In that case, no it's not okay, Anyway, what does this have to do with whether or not a song in and of itself is property? It's like you're saying "If someone lets you borrow your car and then tells you you can't use it in such and such a way, and you think that's okay because it's the original controller's property, why can't you allow that the original controller (creator) of a song should be able to tell people they've allowed to have a digital copy of their song not to upload the song to others?" Well, it's because I don't think a song qualifies for being property. I think something is property if it isn't a person and isn't infinitely reproducible (in other words, it necessarily can only be controlled by one person--if I build a house, I've only got the house itself and if I make a song, the song can be reproduced into millions of digital copies with my consent if I put it online). Since there should be no such thing as "public property" because there isn't an individual controller over a given amount of the property, why should we have a person be the owner a song/invention if it isn't definable in material terms? You own your mind/brain (which is thinking of the song) and the file on your computer (which can play the song) and the invention you made (because it's your [physical] property) and the manuscript which explains how to make the invention (because it's your paper) because it's definable in material terms. But you can't say "Yea, that there's my public property." Can you sell it? If not, how is it your property? You could tell someone about your idea and then have them erase it from your mind, which would be the closest you could get to "selling" the idea, but in that case you've had your body (your brain) altered. But the idea itself hasn't been altered. The idea itself still won't be altered when the whole world knows about the idea. But I can alter material things (like my car) and only one person can necessarily control my car and the car is definable in material terms, while the song/invention can only be expressed with physical things (the brain waves, sound waves, paper, computer screen, etc.). Yes, people should be able to control the use of property. But why are songs property? I know it's not because the creator loses value without patents/copyrights because people have free will and can donate to the creator. And I know it's not because the creator created it, because people create children. I take the initiation of force to mean "Force is used against you (harm) when you haven't harmed anyone." How have you harmed anyone if you use an idea the creator allowed to potentially be known to you? The creator doesn't actually lose anything. They haven't lost money because people can still donate to them. And they haven't lost the ability to control the idea because they could've not told anyone about it. Are we supposed to think "But they can't control exactly who listens to the song if they put it online"? Why should they? They should only be able to if it's their property. But why is it their property?

Do you mean "You own a value your create"? A person could create a child via sex and sell it into slavery. Where do you draw the line between original and not original? So what makes something patentable? Do you mean correctly solved? Okay, what's the answer? What are the standards for what is copyrightable and patentable? What is the standard for originality in art? Children can be crafted by "the hand of man"...literally. I agree.

If I voluntarily tell you about my hot wife, you can't have her sit on your dick without her permission unless you rape her. If I voluntarily upload a song onto the internet, you can have it on your computer without tangibly harming me. Also, the only way the fucking of your wife could be up to is if she's your property. Not necessarily. An artist can have people pay them to put on a concert which includes new songs. People have free will. They can choose to donate to the artist. You might as well say "Once a society eliminates taxation, that society WILL lose the value of money being spent on government services." Not all of them, that's true. But there doesn't have to be anyone who spends less than what they would've without the possibility of media "piracy". Not everybody who lives in an Objectivist society and doesn't donate to the government falls into the category of "well they wouldn't have been taxed anyway." Should we have taxes then? By this rationale, doesn't someone who doesn't donate to an Objectivist government deprive us of the value of our work as well? In either the case of someone using an invention without paying the inventor or someone benefiting from an Objectivist government without donating to it, no one is tangibly harmed by the person who isn't donating. They aren't depriving anyone of something (like a car). They aren't necessarily a terrorist (contributing to the need for a military) or committing crimes (contributing to the need for police) or suing/getting sued by anyone (contributing to the need for a court system). So if a person not paying for their government should be legal, why should a person not paying the artist/inventor for a somewhat recent song/invention they're using not be legal?

There’s a lot for me to untangle here: When you say "value for value" are you excluding gifts/charity? Certainly someone can make something and give it away and that's fine. How is it theft if the creator willingly reveals the song to the general public? I don’t see how the creator is violated in this way. If the creator doesn’t want people listening to the song without paying for it, then the creator has the option of not revealing the song to the general public. You said that a copyright violation means: “selling that particular sequence of words or notes, or performing it for compensation” and I pointed out that it means to “use the idea” and you responded: “You have already benefited financially by downloading the song without paying for it, you have made money off of it.” but what you actually said was “selling that particular sequence of words or notes, or performing it for compensation” Which is different from saying: “You have already benefited financially by downloading the song without paying for it, you have made money off of it” As for your point about patents, I recognize now that you had moved on to a separate issue (patents instead of copyrights). What confused me was that you said it right after saying “You have already benefited financially by downloading the song without paying for it, you have "made money off of it” which doesn’t square with “selling that particular sequence of words or notes, or performing it for compensation”. Basically, I thought you were saying, in effect “It made sense when I said: “You have already benefited financially by downloading the song without paying for it, you have made money off of it” As an explanation of why a copyright violation means “selling that particular sequence of words or notes, or performing it for compensation” Because You violate the patent by using it without permission.” My confusion was basically that I don’t see how “You have already benefited financially by downloading the song without paying for it, you have made money off of it." Is an explanation for why a copyright violation is limited to “selling that particular sequence of words or notes, or performing it for compensation” In effect, you were saying “A copyright violation is when you sell that particular sequence of words or notes, or performing it for compensation” and I was pointing out you also can “use the idea” without SELLING it to someone. I’m already aware that a patent violation is “using it without permission” (as in express permission granted on a case by case basis). My saying that “If I build a patented invention and don't try to sell it, it's a patent violation.” is correct because it’s patented. You said in response “You violate the patent by using it without permission” which I understand. I was pointing out that I don’t have to sell something patented/copyrighted to violate a patent/copyright, hence the “and don’t try to sell it.” I wasn’t saying a patent violation is limited to when I use a patented invention without selling it (that would mean it’s okay as long as I try to sell it). Does this include a new style of clothing, or a crude drawing? If not, why not? What makes an idea worthy of copyright/patent? No, I’m saying property is property if it can be deprived of the owner in and of itself. If I put a song online (which is telling people about it) I’m not deprived of the song. If I tell someone “I have a car” and they drive off with it, I’m deprived of it. If someone “takes” my idea, I understand that to mean they’ve either read my mind without my permission or have erased the idea from my mind. Grames, on 24 June 2011 - 12:16 PM, said: “It is not the possession that matters for either the car or the copyrighted work, it is the control that matters. Control includes consent of the owner or author” Mnrchst, on 24 June 2011 - 12:37 PM, said: “What I meant was my property rights have been violated because it [the car] was stolen. If I loan it out and say "I'll be wanting this back soon. I'll call you when I want to use it and you bring it back to me." then I can still use it when I want to. I can't do this with a criminal who stole it.” Grames, on 24 June 2011 - 01:55 PM, said: “You can't precisely because it [the car] is no longer under your control. Control is what matters.” Grames, on 25 June 2011 – 12:07AM, said: "Control it" does not mean you can still drive it remotely, it means you can delegate authority to drive it to someone else without forfeiting your right and title to the car.” So, you’ve gone from “Control means consent” to “Control doesn’t mean consent” and back to “Control means consent.” You said “You can't precisely because it [the car] is no longer under your control. Control is what matters.” But I loaned that car out. The guy is using it with my permission. So, if control means consent, then I still control it because I consented to the guy using it. You see why I’m confused here? So what makes an idea worthy of copyright/patent? But it hasn’t been patented. That was my point. If I invent something and don’t tell people about it, I control the use of the idea until someone else invents it because I’m the only one who knows about it. If I invent something and don’t tell people about it, it obviously hasn’t been patented. I’m getting it from you. The reason I asked the question “How is there no legal right for me to listen to an un-copyrighted song or an un-patented invention?” is because you said “Keeping your invention a 'trade secret' can potentially preserve the exclusive advantage of an invention for longer than a patent term but there is no legal right to the invention in that case.” So, you said, in effect, “You have no legal right to use an invention you invented if you don’t patent it” And, I’m like, “Why?” And you ask “Now it is my turn to ask where are you getting this from?” Well, you’ll notice that when I said that, there’s this quote bubble right above it where you say an inventor has no legal right to use an invention s/he invented if you s/he doesn’t patent it. I know it’s not the law. How is that relevant? I’m saying the law should be changed. Why? I'm not sure you're even making an argument about what's property and what isn't. What I meant was "what makes one thing worthy of being of property and another thing not worthy of being property?" not "So what does the word property mean anyway?" I'm aware that property should be used and disposed of by the owner. I'm guessing you're not providing an argument for what is property-worthy here. If so, then I'd say the argument would wean that "If you can use it, it's your property" and "If you can dispose of it, it's your property." The creator can exclude everyone from their discovery by not telling them about it (never letting anyone else listen to their song or using the new metal to build their own factory but not selling it to anyone else). What do you mean by "immediate possessions"? Do you mean physical property? If so, how does a lack of patents/copyrights lead to egalitarianism? If a society should have its citizens voluntarily donate to a government, why shouldn't it have its citizens voluntarily donate to artists/inventors?

I started this discussion thinking patents and copyrights are immoral. I also like to think I've got an open mind. If I'm wrong about something I want to know why I'm wrong so I don't think the wrong thing anymore. I'm open to persuasion here, y'all. I say this because there seems to be (a little) hostility directed towards me by some users which I'm bothered by. I've been accused of dropping huge parts of Objectivism and ignoring the context of this discussion (without explanation). If nothing else, everyone will be able to defend copyrights and patents better in the future by debating the issue with me. Also, I'd say there's been a general lack of persuasive argumentation here. There's been a lot of evasion and overly simplistic argumentation, in my opinion, actually: * I asked "How is telling someone they can't use an invention someone else came up with not an initiation of force if the person who invented it willingly told other people about it?" and <OCSL> said "Isn't it also an initiation of force to tell someone to get off of your property?" as if to say "I think you're saying the initiation of force is just using force. You fail to understand that ideas are property and that property must be protected with force." But s/he didn't say why ideas are property. * <Featherfall> made the argument that inventors would make less money without patents and copyrights, ignoring the fact that people have free will and can donate money to inventors. S/he made a utilitarian argument (which I'm not sure is even true--I refer you to Radiohead's "In Rainbows" and the many charities around the world). The issue here is whether or not ideas are property. * <OCSL> said that "songs and inventions are property because they are a direct product of the man who produced it." and <Marc K.> said that "people are entitled to the fruits of their labor." This ignores the fact that this applies to children (as well as an invention necessary to save the human race from extinction). * <Featherfall> said that without patents and copyrights "there is no mechanism to guarantee he [the inventor] reaps a reward commensurate to what he's provided." But s/he didn't say why this is bad or why this means ideas are property. * <Greebo> made a post that I don't know what to make of. S/he asked 4 questions and provided no answers to them. * <Grames> said a copyright infringement or a patent infringement means someone making money off a copyrighted/patented idea (which isn't true). Later, s/he said this statement still makes sense because it's bad when people make money off an idea without paying an inventor who voluntarily tells the general public about it. But s/he didn't say why. S/he also said that "You violate the patent by using it without permission" as if I'm not aware of this, that I was arguing in favor of indefinite patents and copyrights (when I wasn't, because I was arguing against any patents and copyrights, and I already said I read Rand's essay), and that people have no legal right to play an uncopyrighted song (which isn't true). * <Eiuol> talked about all the work that goes into making a book without explaining why that means a book should be property (raising a kid is a lot of work, too). * <RationalBiker> said "Because people aren't property." in response to my statement that OCSL and Mark K.'s argument that "people are entitled to the fruits of their labor" such as "songs and inventions" because "they are a direct product of the man who produced it" was incomplete because it ignores the fact that this also applies to children. I assume s/he wrote this because s/he didn't understand that I was pointing out that someone else's argument, as stated, was incomplete, as if I somehow demonstrated that I think people are property. I know people aren't property. What makes ideas property? It's obviously not that they require intellectual and physical effort to produce, because kids do, too. S/he also said that the creator is deprived of the value of their idea without patents and copyrights without explaining why. S/he also said "That's only true if you totally ignore the change in context that a business transaction is a VOLUNTARY exchange of value." in response to my statement that "If the harm here is "benefiting financially", then every free business transaction where financial values are exchanged is bad because both sides benefit financially." without explaining why using an idea an inventor told you about voluntarily isn't a voluntary activity. If I tell the general public about an idea, why is it bad for them to use it without my permission on an individual basis? If I tell people about my idea, and I only tell the people I want to use the idea, and I tell them all it's okay for them and only them to use the idea, why should the state use force against those who use my idea without my permission if they find out about it from one of the people I told? S/he also made the petty statement "Actually it does, if you don't drop the context of the discussion." Are children products of their parents? Do parents decide (intellectually) to make a kid, then (physically) make the kid with their labor? Doesn't this mean that the statement "A person owns the product of their thinking/labor" is incomplete? * <Dante>'s argument about the wallet/iPod doesn't apply to ideas (in my opinion) because inventors who tell people about their ideas do so voluntarily. What would be comparable would be a CD with a new song on it. In that case, my property--the CD--has been stolen because I've been deprived of it. * <Eiuol> said "You seemed to grasp and agree that property best refer to the fruits of one's labor" but I already explained that I think property is something you earn and can be deprived of (in and of itself), and that this doesn't apply to ideas because the only way you can be deprived of them is if someone uses it without your consent (and I think consent applies to telling people about it, because you don't have to do so). Another example I just thought of would be if someone erased the idea from your mind. In that case, part of your brain has been altered without your permission, and your brain is your property because it's part of your body. s/he also said "or what a person trades in order to receive a value as well." This ignores the fact that someone can charge people tickets for a concert and play new songs at the concert. * * * Can someone please just tell me why what makes property property isn't that you can be deprived of it (in and of itself)? And if you really think I'm obtuse, please review this entire thread and tell me why in plain and respectful language. What is it I'm not getting?

I said "Why do I not necessarily earn the use of an idea [key word] if the creator of the idea tells me about it?" I didn't say "Why do I not necessarily earn the use of anything anyone tells me about?" The only way to prevent people from using an idea you tell them about is to use force. Therefore, the issue is why ideas are or aren't property. I'm saying property is something you can be deprived of. If someone uses an idea you tell them about, you haven't been deprived of your idea. If someone takes my car, I've been deprived of my car. I thinks it ridiculous for someone to say "Hey, I know I could totally not tell you about this idea, but I'm going to go ahead and tell you about it, thereby enabling you to use it...but don't use it!" If we're preventing people from playing a song on their computer, we're controlling the use of their property (the computer). This is only justified if the song is property of the creator. Why is it the property of the creator?

What does that even mean?