tadmjones
-
Posts
2044 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Posts posted by tadmjones
-
-
jeez
I hope that a personal endorsement of a youtube video doesn't lead to a spontaneous happening attributable to a person of responsibility, keep an ear out for black heliocopters
-
No, I'm sure not. But at present I am more interested in arguments (and preferably good ones) rather than what Rand, or anyone else, may or may not have felt.
Rand argued for IP in "Patents and Copyrights." I hold that her arguments there do not stand on their own merits, and moreover that they "do not fit" generally with her other arguments regarding force, morality, rights, and property. That is, I believe that there is an inconsistency, and it is to that inconsistency that I have been directing my arguments.
In the context of this discussion of IP in this thread , I gather you do not believe an idea should be recognized as property. That suggests to me that you think only physical entities should be considered as property.
If that assumption on my part is correct, why is a novel( the specific text of a creative work) not to be considered an entity that could be owned?
-
DA
I think that... the reason why IP often seems such a poor fit when applied to those things that Rand generally has to say about force, morality, rights, and property, is because: it does not fit.
So Rand would have been ambivalent to Atlas Shrugged by Norman Mailer?
-
DA I apologize if my poor attempt at humor came across as an insinuation of dishonesty , I certainly did not mean that.
In your subsequent posts you have likened copyright/patent infringement to rape and murder. I am not a legal expert, but I believe there is a distinction between laws as it concerns the prosecutorial nature of the state. Meaning the murderers and rapists are charged by the state( acting as an agent for the whole of society against the criminal), while other violations of law have to have the victim come to the state in order for prosecution take place. The state is the ultimate authority in both types , but does not have sole prosecutorial discretion in both types.
Prosecution of IP infringement would originate from the novelist/inventor proving their property was stolen, and then only if they wanted to bring suit. Violent crime is prosecuted regardless of the victims desires.
If a novelist had their work copyrighted, or a pencil sharpener inventor had the devise patented, they would then decide whether or not they wanted to protect their rights in property that claim someone has infringed on. Their right to property would be enforceable at their sole discretion. The copyright/patent is their claim to a specific idea(as their property) they could then seek restitution if their rights were violated, or they may even not seek such protection in the first place, just simply write a novel/ invent a devise and not care if someone else used their idea.
-
The reason I wanted to use a novel as an example was precisely because there is a very discernible difference between a physical copy of a text, and the text(the sequence of words) in itself. i wanted to explore if there could exist a principled way to treat these distinctions. It seems almost as if you want to avoid this context.
-
DA
While I appreciate your diction and so forth, I may hazzard a guess that you would be a poor fruit merchant. It seems at times the apples and the oranges are almost purposefuly comingled.
-
Naive materialism heh , the implication of that phrase is basically that the material universe is not to be used a guide to truth.
Mathematic 'laws' are not man made, that too is quite a mouthful. Isn't true that the symbol '2' stands for, corresponds to(whichever ) a perceivable quantity of things? So at base all mathematics is naive materialism, no? The whole of math is either true or not based on the idea of quantity(of things), from arithmetic to calculus or do some just not see it?
-
I for one can't wrap my head around the particular example of tshirt sloganeering(printing) as falling into the realm of IP, until I have a better handle on the issue. I do not want to play gotcha either.
I am trying to understand the idea of IP(which I think , as far as I understand it, I agree IP is a value that in a division of labor society should be protected by property rights). I am not sure if I have a good handle on what particular ideas would fall under such protection. The example I come to in my mind is that of a novel. I think it can be a example to help flush out the principles eg the actual printing and distribution of the physical copies in conjunction with 'what' a novel is.
Aside from a physical copy, I think a novel can or should be legally defined as the actual sequence of words, the idea taken as the complete creative work of the author. Would this be a suitable example, to start with?
-
If you've been following the thread, then you'll recognize that my reply to Dante's initially proposed scenario (Individual B innocently working a plot of land that does not/will not ultimately belong to him) was that there must be something like a "compromise" where we recognize that Individual B does still have some sort of property right, on the basis of his honest effort, in the name of justice. So I think I was proposing something very similar to your response here -- let's be reasonable, recognize that this second society has something of an actual claim (on the same basis that we would recognize a claim by the first party; one works to create something, and thus one deserves to reap the fruit thereof), and "work something out."
But Dante wanted a scenario in which it is simply "winner take all," because anyone who isn't "first to file" at the patent office has no right to those ideas he does not own, and therefore no right to any of the profits or rewards of his labor incorporating those ideas, even if he has acted innocently (i.e. without knowledge that those ideas were somehow off limits to him). Dante claims that this is fully just. ("[W]e don't need to be concerned about the innocent inventor from a justice standpoint.")
My purpose in constructing this example is to put such an idea to as extreme a form as I can manage and ask "is this truly what we mean by 'just'"?
Well, yes and no. I think that my arguments throughout this thread do absolutely question the legitimacy of intellectual property -- not with this scenario, per se, but this scenario was developed to probe Dante's position on a specific aspect of the discussion. And I also want to know how such a thing may be objectively implemented. Even if IP of some sort may be justified in theory, if we do not implement it in an objective fashion then we are still talking about injustice, and every attempt I've seen to discuss implementation strikes me as nebulous at the least. When Mossoff talks about protecting "all values created by all types of productive labors," well damn, there's a lot of possible implication there. I'd like to know exactly we're talking about, and I'd like to see the reasoning, and work out scenarios to test these claims.
Earlier I referenced a case that was brought up in the Sandefur essay where Peikoff apparently sought to stop someone from selling, among other things, items marked with a "No Kant" sign. I asked the thread whether this actually happened -- and maybe it did not, so perhaps this is moot -- but if it did happen, I think it would be a great test case to try to define what we're actually talking about, because it strikes me as so very foreign to anything I would instinctively proclaim defensible. So if I'm wrong here, I figure there's a lot for me to learn by those who claim to believe in IP and know what they're talking about (which should be everyone who claims to believe in IP, frankly). What would be the specific nature of such a claim? What is the "property" being stolen in that case, and in what way?
It it that your objection to IP stems from seeing its proponents using a position similar to the Millsian-esque flawed moral defense of capitalism a la 'to the greater good'?Mixed with a smattering of property only exists in physical matter, since force is the only way to violate rights, property rights can only apply to physical matter?
-
I will have respond at a different time, but I think it would be helpful for you to investigate the concept of intregration, and how the law of identity applies in this aspect(noncontradiction).
-
I think that Rand's case does not admit such a distinction:
Whether on the farm or in the factory, B.C. or A.D., I expect that mental effort should hold the same "paramount role...in the production of material values," and thus be worthy of the same protection, whatever we ultimately decide that to be.
Further, there is Mossoff's case:
If we seek to secure rights pertaining to "all values created by all types of productive labors," then, there again, I don't find a principled distinction accounting to the level of technology involved.
So rightfully possessing and consuming a particular apple is analogous to the vulcanization of rubber?
-
I do not mean to be rude , but how would you define epistemology?
-
I am not avoiding the book or discussing your reasoning. Electricity has identity , as does every entity. Understanding electricity is more of a scientific pursuit, than a philosophic one.
-
You have quite the grasp of american idioms with a stated less than able 'handle' on the language. But regardless, understanding electricity has nothing to do with understanding epistemology.
-
From what I know of Islam, an Islamic theocracy is a double affirmative.
-
DA in #31
When you create a pencil sharpener (even if the very first pencil sharpener), I would argue that the "product" you have created is: one pencil sharpener. And yes, you do "thereby acquire all imaginable rights to that product by the fact of creating it." And thus there are absolutely "rights associated with the creation of a product." You create a pencil sharpener? You own a pencil sharpener, and the rights thereto.
But you do not therefore own "pencil sharpeners," as such. You own the specific material wealth that you have created, but you can not lay claim to owning the ideas behind it. You cannot own an idea. And if somebody else creates a pencil sharpener thereafter, you continue to own only what you yourself have created, the one pencil sharpener, and no more or less than that.This example seems to me to suggest that your line of reasoning sees no distinction between subsistent level crop production and technological applications in a division of labor society. While both(crops as food and applications of technology as property) can be moral applications of the principle of property rights, I do not see them as analogous, do you ?
-
If objective law is to be the final arbiter of rights violations and civil disputes, doesn't that make it(law) a monopoly power? I doubt anyone would agrue that civilised society could exist without objective law and institutions that are designed to preserve it. Market anarchy or quasi-autonomous polylegal systems or arguements for them seem to come from the idea that a profit can be derived from their adminstration of 'justice'. But isn't the protections provided for by such agencies necessarily all cost , pure consumption ? How could any agency or institution perform any of the required actions on a profit motive? Is there profit in crime?
-
Similar scenario , yes no?
I go into the kitchen, pull a nanner from the rack and hear a tiny voice that says "Don't peel me", remember I'm hungry so what do I do ?
-
Is it incorrect to state that any defense of the ASD must rest on a primacy of consciousness pov?
And further I think logic should be seen as an explicit recognition of the law of identity. When 'using' logic one means that they are consistently aware that any and all propositions or statements are formed by only including 'proved' facts.
-
I think you would have to determine if disemination of information of any particular kind is in fact the use of force. As to the practical aspect of banning, how do you(? government?) stop or prohibit internet posting control all individuals with access or owners of sites/servers?
-
Circassians in Israel are an interesting example of Muslims that do not pose a threat to infidels. Just watched a PBS show on their culture, I do not think they are well received in the Umma.
-
Laws in a rational society are not for prevention of crime. They are for justified punishment. Period.
-
I think Rand's and other prochoice arguments stem from a response to the legality, and not necessarily the morality of abortion. Her argument was from the perspective that you can(should) not say it is illegal and/or equatible to murder because rights apply to individuals and a fetus is not an entity that exists separately from the pregnant female.
There is a distinction between morality and legality , it seems discussions about abortion very often blur and/or obliterate this distinction on both sides of the argument.
-
Is it a violation of rights to not provide a man with food?
Just had an epiphany - why people are confused and helpess
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
Explicit understanding of philosophic axioms is a product of integration. Given what most of us ( other than Rand) started with it ain't no small accomplishment. Keep epiphanating!!