Mnrchst
-
Posts
319 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mnrchst
-
-
"As far as I'm concerned" isn't an argument, so I can't respond to that in a meaningful way.
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.
And you can tell people to not use your idea even if they know what it is.
You sure could. But you couldn't prevent them from using it without the barrel of a gun.
-
That's only true if you totally ignore the change in context that a business transaction is a VOLUNTARY exchange of value.
A person who invents something and tells people about the idea is doing so voluntarily.
I wouldn't want to think you are being deliberately obtuse in this argument, but between this and your confusion with why people are not property, it appears you are forgetting gaping amounts of Objectivism in order to poke holes in other's arguments.
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.
-
But you may will be deprived of the VALUE of the idea, the VALUE which has been created by the originator's reasoning mind. Think of this less in terms of property and more in terms of the value that has been created. Think more in terms of what is EARNED versus what can be taken without EARNING it.
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?
-
Because people aren't property.
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."
-
You have already benefited financially by downloading the song without paying for it, you have "made money off of it."
If the harm here is "benefiting financially", then every free business transaction where financial values are exchanged is bad because both sides benefit financially.
You violate the patent by using it without permission.
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?
You can't precisely because it is no longer under your control. Control is what matters.
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.
No, an indefinite patent term would be impractical and unjust and not objective. Patents require disclosure in exchange for a time-limited right to control the invention. Disclosure is also logically necessary in order to define what exactly the patent right is limited to.
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.
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.
How is there no legal right for me to listen to an un-copyrighted song or an un-patented invention?
-
The important point is that property rights all are about products are the result of thinking, not just grabbing something and calling it yours.
"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?
Someone has to think of a plot, characters, words to use, seeing the project to completion, putting together ideas in a variety of new ways even if derivative, all that. Without an individual to spend mental effort to create that book, there is no book. Also note that I said "seeing the project to completion." I can't write a paragraph of said story then try to sue you if you try to make a 500 page novel based on my idea. I have no product to speak of or plan to make my idea into something real. It's not ideas alone that we're speaking of being property, but the realization of that idea into something real. However, if I wrote a 500 page book and you changed maybe 1 chapter in the whole thing, then sold that book as your own, you'd be using my idea that I've developed, benefiting from my labor.
I've already addressed this point.
I've heard of arguments like "if he sells more than you, he deserves money because he's better at marketing." Still, it's a ridiculous argument.
I didn't make that argument.
Another example, not related to commerce: suppose you took my manuscript for your entertainment and nothing else. You might not have damaged anything, but a person similarly could take your car when you're asleep and return in the next day.
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.
The idea of property is that a person has a moral right to do whatever they want with their property and set terms of use, because it's how they WANT their value to be used.
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.
I would actually claim that poor IP attitudes result in degradation of artistic quality, the same way lack of respect for property like land leads to degradation of the geographical area (tragedy of the commons), so it's not like there are no practical negative consequences in the long-run.
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.
If you don't mind people going for joyrides without your permission, that's fine, but it's up to you if you permit that. It's your property and you can do what you want with it.
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"?
-
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. If someone else sells it, or does not buy it because he already has it, or performs it instead of you, then you are harmed if it was your intention to use it in commerce.
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.
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.
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.
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, and in the context of property and contract law consent refers to a "concurrence of the minds" between owner or author and the other party.
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.
-
It's the pre-purchase bargaining process that allows each person to agree on a mutually beneficial price. If you cut that out of the process, there is no mechanism to guarantee he reaps a reward commensurate to what he's provided.
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?
-
Rights of a human cannot be compared to rights of an object or idea.
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.
-
This is the fundamental principle and since you've accepted it here I'm not sure where the disconnect is.
- Man is a rational being
- he survives by using reason
- in order to survive he must create the values upon which his life depends
- he is entitled to keep the fruits of his labor
- the fundamental labor he performs is thinking, even the physical labor he performs originates in his mind by volitional action
Given the above, if you agree with it, why should we treat a man's intellectual property any differently than his physical property? If the government should not allow others to trespass, use or dispose of your physical property why should they allow others to trespass, use or dispose of your intellectual property?
Once you've subsumed all property under the concept of "intellectual property", as you properly do above, then there is no reason to treat some kinds of property fundamentally differently than others. Since I have a right to the exclusive use and control of my land I should also have the right to the exclusive use and control of my intellectual property, the fruit of my most important labor, the fruit of the thing that keeps me alive.
Here is a good lecture on IP and an excellent Q&A, many of your questions are answered there.
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.
-
To use your examples, songs and inventions are property because they are a direct product of the man who produced it. The originator of an idea deserves recognition for what he/she has done.
That argument is incomplete--children are direct products of their parents, yet they aren't the property of their parents.
-
The reason there is a difference between mathematic/philisophic discoveries and technological discoveries is this: one discovery involves identification, the other creation. Mathematic discoveries are important and require mental effort, but man-made things wouldn't exist in reality without someone doing the work.
That makes sense. Thanks.
Just as the farmer deserves to reap the rewards for the crops he grows, so too does the inventor deserve the rewards for his invention. This analogy is somewhat unclear on a concrete level but works if you keep in mind the economic idea that relative supply determines cost. Johnny-come-lately copying an inventor's idea and then competing for market share is similar to Johnny walking on to a homesteader's farm during harvest season to reap and sell the crops. Its easy to see material loss when you steal physical goods from a farm. But when you reproduce an invention, you drive down the price of the invention - resulting in a material loss. Not only does the original inventor make less on the inventions he sells, he also sells fewer items. You've already recognized this fact when you mentioned economies of scale making donations easier, but you neglected to mention the inventor's lost value.
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." ?
-
I apologize for posting a meaningless reply.. but I read this paragraph in the library and burst out laughing and everyone looked at me. Those crazy psychics are stealing my property!!
What if this becomes possible? We're already getting close.
Isn't it also an initiation of force to tell someone to get off of your property? Property rights exist to protect individual's property and those laws need to be upheld.
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?
-
Let's say we somehow did perfect our understanding of the law of causality. Would we then be able to causaly instill that understanding and the ideas and principles in such a manner as to eradicate murder, poverty, sickness, etc.?
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
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?
Why should there be patents and copyrights?
in Political Philosophy
Posted
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.