Mnrchst

Why is a person using an idea I told them about voluntarily theft? Is it because my idea is my property? If so, why? If I put a song on a CD and leave it lying around unsupervised and someone takes it, that's stealing because the CD itself is my property. If I put a song online (which is what we're actually debating), I shouldn't be surprised if a musician plays it at a live concert (thereby making money off of it). And I can still play the song because my knowledge of it hasn't been taken from me. If I leave my wallet lying around and someone takes it, I no longer have my wallet.

I agree. I've said that I believe an inventor has consented to people using their idea if they tell people about the idea because they do chose to do so voluntarily. You sure could. But you couldn't prevent them from using it without the barrel of a gun.

A person who invents something and tells people about the idea is doing so voluntarily. I never said "I'm not sure if people are property or not." I said it makes no sense to say "A person's product = their property" because children are a product of their parents.

How is the creator of an idea deprived of the value of the idea without patents and copyrights? Why do I not necessarily earn the use of an idea if the creator of the idea tells me about it?

I agree. My point is they're the product of their parents, so it makes no sense to say "A person's product = their property."

If the harm here is "benefiting financially", then every free business transaction where financial values are exchanged is bad because both sides benefit financially. I "violate the patent [i assume you mean copyright, since we're talking about a song] by using it without permission" eh? Um, duh. I'm arguing that copyrights are bad. Did I ever say that downloading a copyrighted song isn't a copyright violation? The question I have is does telling people about an idea you have constitute consent for them to use it? I think this is the case. If this isn't the case, why isn't it so? If it's because a song is property, why is this so? I thought you said control doesn't matter. You said earlier that: "Your analogy with the car has the exact same relation to necessity. Maybe you loaned your car out, and while you don't have it you can't use it. This example establishes that the (ill-formed) conversion does not follow: if you don't have your car, it is not necessarily true that your property rights are being violated." So, you're saying that control doesn't matter, right?. You're saying the issue is whether or not an idea is property or not, and whether I "control" it doesn't matter (because I don't really control a car I've loaned out which is still my property). So even though I'm right when I say you can control an idea by deciding whether or not to tell people about it, that isn't the essential issue, because even though I can control the use of the idea, my telling people about it alone doesn't constitute consent to its use. It's my property because [?] and even if I tell people about it that doesn't mean I'm consenting to their using it. Why it this so? The way I look at it is a person's thoughts are their property, but an idea in and of itself isn't the property of whoever came up with it. If they're deprived of the idea, they're being deprived of their thoughts--their body--their property. If someone uses an idea they came up with, they're not being deprived of their idea because they still have the idea. If I loan my car out, I'm not being deprived of it because I've allowed someone to use it. I don't "control" it, but I allowed them to control it, so I haven't been deprived of anything. I'm deprived of my car if someone controls it without my consent. The rationale for copyrights and patents seems to be "You shouldn't be deprived of your idea. Therefore, you should control its use." But you already do control its use because you can decide whether or not to tell people about it. I'm not talking about indefinite patent terms. Where are Earth are you getting this from? The point I'm making is that I get to listen to my song or use my invention as long as no one else discovers it. It's not illegal for me to do this because there's no copyright or patent on it. How is there no legal right for me to listen to an un-copyrighted song or an un-patented invention?

"Grabbing" to me would mean reading someone's mind without their consent and then using their idea. If someone tells people about an idea and they use it, how are they "grabbing" it? I've already addressed this point. I didn't make that argument. So we're talking about a physical copy of a manuscript? Yes, obviously that's theft because the owner doesn't have the manuscript. If I use an idea you told me about, you haven't been deprived of your idea. I agree. If I read your mind without your consent and then use your idea, I've used your idea without your consent. If you tell people about your idea, you have, as far as I'm concerned, consented to them using it. The critical issue here is what makes property property. I think what makes property property is that you earned it and only you can have it. I'm not the only person who can have an idea because I can tell people about it. Even if I let people live in a tent in my backyard, it's still my backyard and I can tell those people to get lost any time I want. Other people using my idea doesn't necessarily mean I can't use my idea. There's no discrepancy between morality and practicality, right? So what you're saying is that a lack of copyrights and patents would be immoral. Why? Also, you didn't explain why a lack of copyrights would necessarily lead to this "degradation." Why would it? People have free will, so I don't see why this is necessarily the case. Also, even if it's probable that that there would be this degradation, why is it relevant? All that matters here is what's moral or not. You could say that a lack of taxation would lead to "negative consequences in the long-run" because a bunch of people wouldn't pay taxes and they'd be free-riders, but taxation solves this problem. But does that make it moral? This "degradation" argument seems like a utilitarian one to me. In other words, "If you don't mind people doing stuff without your permission, it's fine if you give them permission." Huh? Do you mean "It's okay for people to take your car without you giving them your explicit personal blessings if you sign some court order saying, in effect, anyone can come and drive off with your car and it's all good"?

No, it means "use the idea." A copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to the creator of an original work or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a public disclosure of the work. This includes the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. Copyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright. A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to an inventor of an invention or their assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a public disclosure of the invention. Patent infringement is the commission of a prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder. If I download a copyrighted song and don't try to make money off of it, it's a copyright violation. If I build a patented invention and don't try to sell it, it's a patent violation. What I meant was my property rights have been violated because it 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. You exclusively control the use of your invention from the time you have invented it to the time someone else invents it. I think you're consenting to other people using your work when you tell them about it--they can't use it if you don't tell them about it. It's not like everyone finds out about your invention the moment you invent it.

That's true. Why does he deserve the guarantee? If it's because it's his property, why is it his property? If it's because it's a product of his mind, see my above comments. With respect to my statement "Why not say 'Just as we deserve to have a government, so too do we deserve to live in a society with taxes.' " here's what I mean: Some people say we need copyrights/patents to guarantee that someone who provides value (via screenplays and inventions) gets what they deserve. However, we also deserve a government. Government requires funding. Under Objectivism, there's no guarantee the government will get funded. Specifically, there's no guarantee that people who benefit from the military/police/courts/limited zoning/etc. won't do so without payment--just like people who benefit from inventions and (might) not pay for it without patents. I understand why taxes are immoral. I also understand that all property (whatever qualifies as such) is fundamentally intellectual. I understand that if songs/inventions are property, then the guarantee should exist. I'm don't understand why they qualify as property. Taxes are bad because even if someone doesn't pay taxes, they're not harming you--we shouldn't equate a zero with a negative. If someone isn't a terrorist or a criminal, they aren't contributing to the problems of terrorism/lawlessness--they aren't tangibly harming you. How are you tangibly harmed if someone uses an idea you tell them about when you have the option of keeping it a secret?

I agree, but the argument as stated is "songs and inventions are property because they are a direct product of the man who produced it." This needs to be refined into something like: "Property is [definition]. Songs and inventions are property because [argument] and children aren't because everyone is an end in themselves and deserve to live for their own happiness. Another issue I have with the argument as stated: Let's say there's a big asteroid coming towards Earth which will kill us all unless we stop it and we have no technological capability to do so. Then, some guy invents photon torpedos which will vaporize the asteroid and he patents it and says "I will not let anyone use this invention." Even if I support patents/copyrights, I can't see how it makes sense to say "inventions are property because they are a direct product of the man who produced it"--it's way too simple to be correct.

I agree that all property should be treated fundamentally the same. I'm just not convinced songs/books/inventions are property. I don't see how your argument (as stated) shouldn't apply to children. I've watched that lecture before, and all he did (as I recall) was explain that all property is fundamentally intellectual. He didn't provide an argument for why songs/books/inventions are property (that I can recall) which hasn't already been presented in this thread. Here's how I look at it for the time being: If someone takes my car, I no longer have the car. If someone uses my idea, I can still use the idea. How am I tangibly harmed? It's possible I'll make less money on an idea without patents/copyrights, but it's not necessarily the case. However, if I don't have my car, I necessarily can't use it.

That argument is incomplete--children are direct products of their parents, yet they aren't the property of their parents.

That makes sense. Thanks. You're assuming the inventor won't get donations of equal or greater value. Why not say "Just as we deserve to have a government, so too do we deserve to live in a society with taxes." ?

What if this becomes possible? We're already getting close. I understand this. My question is why a book (itself), song (itself), or invention (itself) is property. If it is, then patents are moral, but if it isn't, then patents are an initiation of force. If no one forces you to tell people about your idea, how are you harmed if people use it?

I didn't say that. I'm saying what if we could only predict murders, but not other things?

Let's say we somehow have a method for predicting when murders will occur, who the victim(s) will be, who the perpetrator(s) will be, and there is every indication that this method is 100% accurate. Should we arrest the would-be murderers, even when there is no clear indication (other than the prediction) that they're going to do something illegal?

I have a few problems with the idea of patents and copyrights. I'm hoping someone can explain a rationale for them that's a little clearer than Rand's in her essay on the subject. 1. Rand said that patents and copyrights are a recognition of the idea that people have the right to the product of their own mind. Ignoring exceptions Rand did or would've made to this (children, mathematical discoveries, or a laser which is our only hope of saving the Earth from a giant asteroid on a collision course with our planet) doesn't this just mean that it should be illegal for someone to read your mind and use one of your ideas (which no one else knows) without your permission? 2. 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? I don't see how you're being harmed by people using an idea you came up with if you voluntarily tell them about it. Someone might argue that without the inventor, the idea couldn't be used by the society at large. However, the other element is them telling people about it, which is a choice. Furthermore, couldn't someone invent a new type of metal and sell it without telling anyone how it works and make a lot of money off of it before it gets reverse-engineered? It seemed to work for Henry Rearden (until he gave it away). I have no problem with a person inventing something, not telling anyone how it works, and selling it to people (unless there's a plausible national security risk involved in our not understanding it, like if it's a cold fusion reactor instead of a metal or a faster processor), but it's not like the moment you invent something it automatically becomes known to the general public. What about someone getting donations for inventing something? There's no reason why they necessarily would make less money off their invention if there's no patents or copyrights. If everyone could use the a machine which improves economies of scale, there would be the potential for a greater increase in productivity than if it's use is limited. If everyone who could implement the new technology did, and everyone who would've paid the inventor's asking price if s/he held a patent and set a price still did despite the lacks of patents, and someone else who used the invention donated something (however small), the inventor would make more money because s/he didn't/couldn't set a price to keep people from using the invention. 3. Rand said a mathematical or philosophical discovery is about the nature of reality, but a new machine isn't. Therefore, mathematical and philosophical discoveries aren't copyright-worthy, but machines are patent-worthy. But doesn't the machine also concern the nature of reality (i.e. if you put these things in this arrangement you get this result)? I'm not sure how we draw the line between what's copyright/patent-worthy and what isn't. Is a new style of clothing copyright-worthy? If not, how is it fundamentally different from a song? 4. 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. At what point does the new song/book/screenplay become similar enough that there's a violation? By what standard? What about "fair use"? How can we draw the line between satire and non-satire? I think it's ridiculous to say "Oh, well that's not an issue for philosophy. There's some line somewhere, and we'll just let the courts figure it out." Can't philosophy at least provide us with some guidelines on this issue? And, if so, what are those guidelines? 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? * * * Just in case it gets made if I don't already respond to it, I want to address a utilitarian argument I often hear on this subject (I'm guessing it wouldn't, but I still want to cover this just in case). "But people won't be motivated to invent without patents and copyrights" Wouldn't it make just as much sense to say "But people won't voluntarily donate to the government without taxes"? I'd say that if people are self-interested, they'll donate to inventors/artists. As far as the "free-rider problem" goes with respect to taxes, I suppose most Objectivists would argue (and I agree with them) that you shouldn't trade/hire/work for the non-totally broke people who don't donate to the government. I apply the same argument to the non-totally broke people who don't donate to inventors/artists. * * * Finally, while this is a bit off-topic, since all property is fundamentally intellectual, isn't the term "intellectual property" a redundancy (like "rational self-interest" or "ethical egoism" or "individual rights" or "laissez-faire capitalism")? Shouldn't we just say something like "ideas property"?

Thank you. I'll post again when I've read all this.

I'm an anti-taxation minarchist and a big fan of Ayn Rand. I convinced of Rand's metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical views, but I'm not sure of some of her political views. One of them is her belief that all property should be privately owned. I don't think the idea is outrageous, but I'm just not convinced of it. Why should all property be privately owned? I honestly haven't (to the best of my recollection) come across an argument by Rand for why this should be the case. I listened to a podcast http://www.peikoff.com/2008/08/04/in-ayn-rands-definition-of-capitalism-she-says-that-all-property-is-privately-owned-is-that-really-true/ by Peikoff about this subject. He says "Collective ownership doesn't mean anything." I suppose he means "collective ownership" is a contradiction in terms. Why is this the case? Here's the rub for me: Suppose someone owns the roads and sidewalks of a neighborhood. This means that if people who live in the houses want to get around, they either (1) must have permission by the road-owner to walk/drive on their property or (2) use alternate means of getting around (using a jetpack, a helicopter, flubber-boots, or tunneling, although I suppose most Objectivists would say tunneling under someone's property violates their property rights, while flying above it doesn't). If the road owner decides that you can't use their roads/sidewalks, how are you going to get around? Do you really have to try as best you can to live off of your own (small) bit of land? Or are you just supposed to go with the jetpack option? I surmise some Objectivists at this point might say, "Other people could bring you food." Let's suppose the road/sidewalk owner doesn't allow anyone to travel on the roads and that the road-owner is wealthy enough to keep this up indefinitely (I'm guessing maintenance costs won't be very high if no one's using the roads). When I say wealthy, I don't just mean "has a lot of money." If a person with a lot of money owned these roads, they would quickly become hated and no one (or almost no one) would trade with them. Perhaps they would quickly starve. However, let's say this person controls enough productive property that they're getting all their short-term needs met without trade (they own a good deal of arable land, for example). Therefore, even if no one decides to work for them, they can still survive. Is the inconvenience you're being subjected to because you can't use the roads really moral? Do you have to jetpack around now? Why not have the roads which are public now remain public and be maintained by voluntary donations by people (the same way the military, police, and courts would be financed)? Since rights are contextual, I'm thinking having public roads might be compatible with Rand's ethics. For example, someone has the right to their life, but not if they carry a virus which will quickly wipe out the human race unless they're killed. Or, you have the right to operate a bar on your property (without having to deal with zoning), but you don't have the right to disturb the peace. Couldn't it be reasonable to say the opportunity to keep people from moving around on foot/with a car is bad? Some Objectivists might at this point say "So why not make all roads public?" I think this is like saying there shouldn't be any zoning whatsoever, because if you allow some zoning, then there's no good answer to why you shouldn't have more zoning than X amount of it. Yet, I believe Rand herself said (I think this is in the Ayn Rand Q&A book) something to the effect of "An industrialist shouldn't be allowed to manufacture explosives near a crowded residential area with schools." I surmise some Objectivists might also say "This sounds incredibly unlikely. Why would a road-owner not want to profit from their property by letting people use it?" To me, that's just a utilitarian argument, and not substantively different from an anarchist saying "But why would a private defense firm/court behave badly if they need a good reputation to stay in business?" Or, they might say "This sounds like a fantasy." But it's certainly within the realm of possibility, which I think is all that counts. All the people in this neighborhood can't get around (easily). They could then sell their property, but who would buy it if they couldn't use the roads? I suppose if the roads get privatized, we could have a homestead-ish system where the people living nearby get shares in a roads corporation. But what about when they move? And wouldn't a requirement that only people living nearby get shares in the road corporation be anti-capitalistic (at least, according to Rand). And where do you draw the line between one zone and another? Would we have to allocate shares to everyone in the country for all the roads?