Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

intellectual property

Rate this topic


trivas7

Recommended Posts

If I am privy to information, however obtained, in what way do I thereby violate someone else's right to their property? Doesn't this amount to a claim to a part of my mind? E.g. if I inavdertantly whiste a musical tune I didn't compose walking down the street, haven't I expropriated someone's property thereby? But then I am not the owner of all my mind? On what objective principles can how, when, and why information in my possession violates someone else's rights be determined? Thanks for your time and consideration.

Edited by trivas7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If I am privy to information, however obtained, in what way do I thereby violate someone else's right to their property?
The "however" matters. BTW this is an abuse of the concept "intellectual property": information is not what intellectual property refers to.
E.g. if I inavdertantly whiste a musical tune I didn't compose walking down the street, haven't I expropriated someone's property thereby?
This isn't "information", it's form. IP pertains to the property right of the creator of content to exclusively control (own) the right to make copies of his work. Whistling a tune when you're walking down the street isn't making a copy of the tune.

Try reading Rand's chapter on patents and copyrights in CUI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "however" matters. BTW this is an abuse of the concept "intellectual property": information is not what intellectual property refers to.This isn't "information", it's form. IP pertains to the property right of the creator of content to exclusively control (own) the right to make copies of his work. Whistling a tune when you're walking down the street isn't making a copy of the tune.

There is an inherent conflict between intellectual property rights and freedom of speech, a tension between your right to control a story you've written and my right to use it as raw material for my own work. When the government tells us we can't use scraps of popular myths without permission from Disney, Fox, or the Sherwood Anderson Trust, it constrains our creativity, our communications, and our art. It tells us that we cannot draw on pop songs the way we once drew on folk songs, or on TV comedy the way we once drew on vaudeville; it says we cannot pluck pieces from Star Wars the way George Lucas plucked pieces from foreign films and ancient legends.

Few would argue that artists shouldn't be able to make a living from their work, or that customer confusion is a good thing. But we've stood those ideas on their legal heads. Rather than promoting enterprise and speech, copyrights and trademarks often restrain them, turning intellectual property law into protectionism for the culture industry.

I'm still looking for a case for the objectivity of IP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the government tells us we can't use scraps of popular myths without permission from Disney, Fox, or the Sherwood Anderson Trust, it constrains our creativity, our communications, and our art.

I'm don't see where you make the case that you should have unfettered creativity at the expense of another person's creativity. I've typically found that the most creative work is the ORIGINAL work. There is an unlimited about of potential out there for original creativity. Why must any artist DEPEND on the creative ability of another artist in order to express his "creativity"?

Past that, David provided a good starting reference for the Objectivist argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "however" matters. BTW this is an abuse of the concept "intellectual property": information is not what intellectual property refers to.This isn't "information", it's form. IP pertains to the property right of the creator of content to exclusively control (own) the right to make copies of his work. Whistling a tune when you're walking down the street isn't making a copy of the tune.

Okay, whistling a tune while walking down a street is not copying. How about playing it on a clarinet while walking down the street? How about playing it on a clarinet in a concert hall? How about playing it in a radio studio that broadcasts it across the continent? At what point exactly when does a repeated tune become a copy?

More importantly, if I am the composer of the tune and I “exclusively control (own) the right to make copies” of my work, why shouldn’t I be the one who decides whether this whistler or that clarinet player gets to reproduce the tune?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an inherent conflict between intellectual property rights and freedom of speech, a tension between your right to control a story you've written and my right to use it as raw material for my own work.
I don't think there is, because "freedom of speech" doesn't mean that you can say anything you want, it means you can express any idea that you want. If "freedom of speech" meant that you can do anything you want as long as it's speaking (or whistling), then you could commit treason, engage in fraud, and perjure yourself in court all in the name of freedom of speech.
When the government tells us we can't use scraps of popular myths without permission from Disney, Fox, or the Sherwood Anderson Trust, it constrains our creativity, our communications, and our art.
No it doesn't, it stimulates your creativity. It encourages you to come up with your own way of expressing an idea, rather than mindlessly, uncreatively copying the expression of someone else.
I'm still looking for a case for the objectivity of IP.
It lies in the concept of "property", especially the idea that a man owns the product of his work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More importantly, if I am the composer of the tune and I “exclusively control (own) the right to make copies” of my work, why shouldn’t I be the one who decides whether this whistler or that clarinet player gets to reproduce the tune?
Are you familiar with what copyright law actually says? Your question suggests that you're just making stuff up as you go along.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you familiar with what copyright law actually says? Your question suggests that you're just making stuff up as you go along.

One could be well versed in copyright law and have no clue as to the moral foundations of it. Now if in fact it is legitimate for the law to enforce the creator's right to make copies of his work, we should be able to point to some ethical principle as to why whistling the Fifth Concerto by Richard Haley is not making a copy of a tune, but performing it at the Hollywood Bowl or on PBS is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intellectual property is the only thing you can give away and still get to keep, without needing any consent from the person to whom it is given and from whom it is taken.

The idea behind intellectual property is that someone owns a specific arrangement TYPE rather than a rearrangement itself. I've never been fond of today's interpretation of intellectual property. If you get to keep what you gain, that's one thing. Why should other people be obligated to a specific rearrangement being blocked off from their actions simply because someone shouts one at them?

If you want a better incentive for intellectual accomplishment, why not simply treat privacy as a right? Secrecy and confidence are not only effective ways to distribute rearrangements without making them public, but they are just as enforceable as current intellectual property, if not more. The idea that I am responsible for setting up procedures by which my creation, when distributed, not only is distributed according to my consent of who gets to have my creation, or a copy thereof, but the consent of others to accept the terms and conditions I set when they voluntarily accept it, is perfectly enforceable and solves the third party problem.

The third party problem is as follows: If someone creates something, and I am not privvy to it, or are made privvy to it without my consent, why should I be kept from engaging in the activities that lead to the creation of something with the same characteristics, and why shouldn't I keep the fruits of MY labor?

The specific form that intellectual property protection takes should be considered an application of Objectivism, not part of Objectivism itself. Objectivism should say "A person has a right to what he or she creates, discovers, or acquires through trade" but how any property is actually enforced should be a study of law issue, where objectivity applies from an Objectivist standpoint but where disagreement with it does not become disagreement with Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your original question carries a false presupposition, and I was just wondering if you knew where your error was.

I see. Not to change the subject, but I was wondering if you could see the contradiction between the principle that a composer “exclusively controls the right to make copies” of his work and the actuality that there is copying that exists legally beyond his right to control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intellectual property is the only thing you can give away and still get to keep, without needing any consent from the person to whom it is given and from whom it is taken.
There are no things, including intellectual property, which you can give away and not give away. There are no contradictions. You can physically give away stolen goods so you don't need permission to give something that isn't yours -- you just have no right to do so. OTOH, you do not need permission from the recipient to give something to a person, if you own the thing -- but you can't force them to accept it.
If you want a better incentive for intellectual accomplishment, why not simply treat privacy as a right? Secrecy and confidence are not only effective ways to distribute rearrangements without making them public, but they are just as enforceable as current intellectual property, if not more.
I vaguely recall that you were previously confused about this problem. There is no such thing as a "right to a fact". If I'm 5 foot tall, that's a fact, and I have no "right to privacy" that prevents others from knowing that I'm 5 foot tall. The only way to secure that desired privacy is to not be seen and therefore provide people no basis for knowing this fact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no things, including intellectual property, which you can give away and not give away. There are no contradictions. You can physically give away stolen goods so you don't need permission to give something that isn't yours -- you just have no right to do so. OTOH, you do not need permission from the recipient to give something to a person, if you own the thing -- but you can't force them to accept it.I vaguely recall that you were previously confused about this problem. There is no such thing as a "right to a fact". If I'm 5 foot tall, that's a fact, and I have no "right to privacy" that prevents others from knowing that I'm 5 foot tall. The only way to secure that desired privacy is to not be seen and therefore provide people no basis for knowing this fact.

But the point still stands: there is no objective criteria that determines whether or not I've violated someone's property rights re IP -- that is entirely legally determined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want a better incentive for intellectual accomplishment, why not simply treat privacy as a right? Secrecy and confidence are not only effective ways to distribute rearrangements without making them public, but they are just as enforceable as current intellectual property, if not more. The idea that I am responsible for setting up procedures by which my creation, when distributed, not only is distributed according to my consent of who gets to have my creation, or a copy thereof, but the consent of others to accept the terms and conditions I set when they voluntarily accept it, is perfectly enforceable and solves the third party problem.

The third party problem is as follows: If someone creates something, and I am not privvy to it, or are made privvy to it without my consent, why should I be kept from engaging in the activities that lead to the creation of something with the same characteristics, and why shouldn't I keep the fruits of MY labor?

Your statement in bold above is incorrect for anything which when sold embodies the rearrangement itself. Secrecy is impossible, and such products can be reverse-engineered and/or copied. Process patents can be effectively kept secret. Composition of matter and/or copyrighted material cannot. The third party problem as you state it is wide open.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea behind intellectual property is that someone owns a specific arrangement TYPE rather than a rearrangement itself. I've never been fond of today's interpretation of intellectual property. If you get to keep what you gain, that's one thing. Why should other people be obligated to a specific rearrangement being blocked off from their actions simply because someone shouts one at them?

Would you agree that the man who copies Atlas Shrugged and sells it for his own profit has stolen the product of someone's mind? If so, then has the original author of Atlas Shrugged stolen from everyone else in writing the original novel?

Answer to the second: nothing

This is because the products of the mind are essentially limitless. A specific arrangement is a product, but that product does not limit another in any way from using his mind to create.

Therefore it would see that it is the actual production of the arrangement that brings a possible claim into being, not the potential in the future to create the same arrangement. Such a claim does not limit others in any way!

The whole idea that the possiblity that I might create Atlas Shrugged in the future consitutes a claim to it (or a prevention of anothers claim to it) would be valid if man were avolitional (i.e. could not control the products of his mind - i.e. Atlas was going to pop out of my head as my life's work and there was nothing I could do about it) and the products of his mind were in some way limited. But then he'd be an animal and woudln't have a need for a concept like intellectual property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand, "Patents and Copyrights," Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 130

What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind's contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.

An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object's value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.

It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b ) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it—but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in nature—an object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed.

The government does not "grant" a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner's exclusive right of use and disposal.

Read more from the Ayn Rand Lexicon

Edited by ifatart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the point still stands: there is no objective criteria that determines whether or not I've violated someone's property rights re IP -- that is entirely legally determined.
That's a false dichotomy. All enforceable claims of right must be expressed in term of law, which is the means of stating objectively what is allowed versus forbidden, and what the penalty will be for doing something forbidden. In the same sense, there is no "objective criterion" that tells you what the penalty for theft or assault is -- that is, as you put it, entirely legally determined. There is no "objective criterion" that tells you that fraud is a violation of a man's rights (after all, the fraud victim wasn't physically forced to give money to the salesman without sufficiently checking the deal). There is also no "objective criterion" that allows vs. prohibits the keeping of found items. Law is the means of making enforceable principles objectively known in a rational society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no things, including intellectual property, which you can give away and not give away. There are no contradictions. You can physically give away stolen goods so you don't need permission to give something that isn't yours -- you just have no right to do so. OTOH, you do not need permission from the recipient to give something to a person, if you own the thing -- but you can't force them to accept it.I vaguely recall that you were previously confused about this problem. There is no such thing as a "right to a fact". If I'm 5 foot tall, that's a fact, and I have no "right to privacy" that prevents others from knowing that I'm 5 foot tall. The only way to secure that desired privacy is to not be seen and therefore provide people no basis for knowing this fact.

That you're 5 feet tall is a fact that, if you were to take steps to hide it, you would have the right to as a secret.

If you were, say, 3 feet tall and didn't want anyone to know that, and your parents agreed to keep it a secret, they could get you an internet connection and you'd never have to be seen. If they signed a contract with you when you were an adult agreeing not to disclose this fact to others without your consent, you would have complete right to the privacy of being 3 feet tall so long as you stayed away from public and didn't choose to confide in anyone without making them sign a non-disclosure contract. However you would lose this right the moment you went in public and someone saw you, or when you told somebody without making them sign the requisite contract.

This is what I mean by privacy being a right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I mean by privacy being a right.

This isn't a right in any sense of the concept. It simply recrafts the facts of reality as a "right."

As I've said above, a trade secret is already coverd as one aspect of IP. It is an insufficient category.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That you're 5 feet tall is a fact that, if you were to take steps to hide it, you would have the right to as a secret.
I don't see that at all -- where's your justification for this supposed "rght"? Now of course I do have property rights as well, which mean that nobody can trespass on my property to measure me. But there's no such thing as a separate "right to not have people know".
If you were, say, 3 feet tall and didn't want anyone to know that, and your parents agreed to keep it a secret, they could get you an internet connection and you'd never have to be seen. If they signed a contract with you when you were an adult agreeing not to disclose this fact to others without your consent, you would have complete right to the privacy of being 3 feet tall so long as you stayed away from public and didn't choose to confide in anyone without making them sign a non-disclosure contract.
Yes, fine: this reduces to contractual agreement and specific no-trespassing rights. As long as I manage to stay indoors.
This is what I mean by privacy being a right.
Okay, so it's not a separate right, it's just another way of describing something that you could do with contract rights and property rights. Now observe that if the 'rents violate the contract and advertise the fact that I'm 3 ft. tall, my right to privacy is basically in the trash, because once others know this fact, they have no legal obligation to care about my interest in keeping my height secret. That's where IP can't be reduced to this so-called right to privacy, because even if you receive a copy of a protected work from a person who has violated some secrecy contract, there is no such contract between the author and you, but protection of intellectual property goes beyond contractual conditions, and in principle, IP cannot be treated the same was as the so-called right to privacy. You can acquire a copy of IP without a contract and without trespass, so IP has to be recognised as an independent kind of property right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see that at all -- where's your justification for this supposed "rght"? Now of course I do have property rights as well, which mean that nobody can trespass on my property to measure me. But there's no such thing as a separate "right to not have people know".Yes, fine: this reduces to contractual agreement and specific no-trespassing rights. As long as I manage to stay indoors.Okay, so it's not a separate right, it's just another way of describing something that you could do with contract rights and property rights. Now observe that if the 'rents violate the contract and advertise the fact that I'm 3 ft. tall, my right to privacy is basically in the trash, because once others know this fact, they have no legal obligation to care about my interest in keeping my height secret. That's where IP can't be reduced to this so-called right to privacy, because even if you receive a copy of a protected work from a person who has violated some secrecy contract, there is no such contract between the author and you, but protection of intellectual property goes beyond contractual conditions, and in principle, IP cannot be treated the same was as the so-called right to privacy. You can acquire a copy of IP without a contract and without trespass, so IP has to be recognised as an independent kind of property right.

First, a right to information doesn't imply a right to not have people know. It's a right to not LET people know. There is a huge difference between these two concepts. The first implies a right to other people's minds, to eliminate their knowledge of something that is naturally acquired. The second implies a right to your own mind, and entire self, in that you have a right to avoid other people seeing and hearing. Likewise others would have a right not to see and hear if they do not want to, since they have a mind as well. Both parties would have to consent to sharing or trading the information, because otherwise you're giving one party or both parties a completely unjust deal, since they cannot control what comes in or goes out of their mind. Just like you have a right to hoard the CO2 you breathe out and to reject the O2 you would otherwise breathe in, you have a right to display or not display, to sense or not to sense.

Your argument that if someone finds out they will maintain a right to it is not necessarily a given. The law's response to any such privacy violation would be to require the one who violated the right to give restitution, to the privacy keeper for giving away what was formerly a secret and to those who are the unknowing and/or unwilling recipients to that secret because now their mind is tainted with information that they have but that they cannot use. One objection to this would be that the ones who have the secret either have the right to spread it or are denied the right to their own mind. This is a false alternative. They have no right to spread it insofar as the know it's a secret that the originator did not want to be spread, but they DO have a right, even if they are tainted, to acquire the secret in a legal manner and THEN use it.

Feel free to argue with me. I am constantly trying to find ways by which this would not work and try to 'fix' them, so to speak. I think our main confusion here is the equivocation of concrete evidence type information and abstract essence type information. The first kind you can own because evidence is an entity and thus can be hidden, provided one understands the context of said evidence and doesn't try to equivocate one piece of evidence with another in different contexts even if the features of said evidence highly or exactly mimics one another. The second kind you cannot own because it is conceptual, IE it doesn't draw upon any particular source or set of sources, and because owning it in one context automatically entails owning it in all contexts, or rather, no contexts, since the idea behind an essence is that there need be no context to the information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, a right to information doesn't imply a right to not have people know. It's a right to not LET people know. There is a huge difference between these two concepts. The first implies a right to other people's minds, to eliminate their knowledge of something that is naturally acquired.
A right to information could arise, for example I might have a right to certain test results from my doctor, or to know what theories a credit tracking agency had about me. In that case, my right to information implies an obligation for those parties to tell me, and it properly arises either by contract or by law when the government takes actions (such as condemning my property or, simply, passing a law). I think the expression "right to information" is a misnomer, since it is in fact an obligation for someone else to tell (an obligation for them to act, not a right of yours to a thing). It is misleading to talk about a "right to not LET people know", because it's hard to see how there could be the negation of that right. The word "let" is too vague. Once a person knows something, they can have and act on that information unless it is prohibited by law (something int he realm of espionage) or contract, or if the information has a property status such as IP. In no case is there any claim on another person's mind -- just on their actions (you may not spy, copy IP, or divulge contractually protected information).

I have a suggestion. Would you restate your position, but express it entirely in terms of a person's right to act, or his obligation to act? For example, a "right to a car" is a right to keep a car. This is the proper way to talk about rights, and it makes it clear that there is no such a thing as a "right to not be seen", since that can't be reduced to your right to act in a particular way (you have a right to wear a bag, which might have the effect that nobody would see you, but it might not). That will eliminate many of the bogus rights, like the right to not hear or generally to not perceive, or the right to not breath air that someone else has breathed. There is no such a right per se, but you do have the right to wear a breathing apparatus, which if it works could mean that you won't breath someone else's air.

Any insistence that there is a right to not X, whatever your X is, is going the wrong way. It is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of living in a civilized, rights-respecting society, because it asserts that you have no right to act if another person can perceive or be affected by your action, unless they consent in advance. But you cannot ask permission, because you have no right to ask permission (either by actually speaking, or by implanting thoughts in their mind).

Your argument that if someone finds out they will maintain a right to it is not necessarily a given. The law's response to any such privacy violation would be to require the one who violated the right to give restitution, to the privacy keeper for giving away what was formerly a secret and to those who are the unknowing and/or unwilling recipients to that secret because now their mind is tainted with information that they have but that they cannot use.
Well, there is no penalty for tainting a mind. A person under contractual obligation to not divulge some fact may be liable to civil action because of the contract, but it stops there. As a third party, I have no obligation to ignore that information (such as hearing that Skybus is going to go bankrupt next week), and if it is useful information to me, I may use it, regardless of the contract between A and B.
One objection to this would be that the ones who have the secret either have the right to spread it or are denied the right to their own mind. This is a false alternative. They have no right to spread it insofar as the know it's a secret that the originator did not want to be spread, but they DO have a right, even if they are tainted, to acquire the secret in a legal manner and THEN use it.
More specifically, they have no obligation to forget or not act on that information, which means that if they do act on that information, it is their right. Even if you know that the originator of the information wished it would be a secret, that doesn't create an involuntary obligation on you.

I think the core of the disagreement is that you apparently hold that a man has no right to act, if it can affect another man, unless the other man gives permission in advance. Go ahead and state your general position in your own words. I am saying that you have the right to act according to your own judgment, as long as you are not contractually or legally prohibited from doing so (obligated to refrain from X). Contractual obligations aren't contagious, and legal obligations are (or should be) narrowly delimited, essentially just prohibiting force or fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A right to information could arise, for example I might have a right to certain test results from my doctor, or to know what theories a credit tracking agency had about me. In that case, my right to information implies an obligation for those parties to tell me, and it properly arises either by contract or by law when the government takes actions (such as condemning my property or, simply, passing a law). I think the expression "right to information" is a misnomer, since it is in fact an obligation for someone else to tell (an obligation for them to act, not a right of yours to a thing). It is misleading to talk about a "right to not LET people know", because it's hard to see how there could be the negation of that right. The word "let" is too vague. Once a person knows something, they can have and act on that information unless it is prohibited by law (something int he realm of espionage) or contract, or if the information has a property status such as IP. In no case is there any claim on another person's mind -- just on their actions (you may not spy, copy IP, or divulge contractually protected information).

Why intellectual property but not any other pattern of elements? I'm not in the position where I say you have NO right to any information, whether acquired legally or illegally, but why is intellectual property the only type of pattern that one can have rights to? That to which Intellectual Property applies is not properly an entity, regardless of how delimited it is, because it is transcendental. It exists, but it isn't an entity.

I have a suggestion. Would you restate your position, but express it entirely in terms of a person's right to act, or his obligation to act? For example, a "right to a car" is a right to keep a car. This is the proper way to talk about rights, and it makes it clear that there is no such a thing as a "right to not be seen", since that can't be reduced to your right to act in a particular way (you have a right to wear a bag, which might have the effect that nobody would see you, but it might not). That will eliminate many of the bogus rights, like the right to not hear or generally to not perceive, or the right to not breath air that someone else has breathed. There is no such a right per se, but you do have the right to wear a breathing apparatus, which if it works could mean that you won't breath someone else's air.

Alright. I believe that intellectual property contains a package deal. The idea is that the 'it', the thing, the intellectual property, is simultaneously here and there, now and then. No other form of property has this quality. Why should you be allowed to dictate what a person does then and there simply based on what you do here and now? What if the other person doesn't want to use your intellectual property but rather create their own?

My solution to the problem of localization is to establish protocols which resemble intellectual property but which are not exactly the same. The reason is this: Certain forms of intellectual property have a quality that a person can, indeed, force upon others an obligation to them to which one did not consent. If I put up a billboard somewhere with my art, the other person driving by does not consent to seeing it, yet is obligated to respect their intellectual property. If I shout out my poem in a megaphone, the person walking nearby do not consent to hearing it, yet is obligated to respect their intellectual property. This allows a nonlocal effect that is not seen in other properties. If I were to put money in someone else's hand and then tell them that as a condition they must spend it only on certain things, they are free to hand it back. The case is not so with intellectual property. I cannot choose to have it forgotten so that I may do whatever I wish with my own mind. It is stuck there forever, and the person who did this to me is rewarded rather than punished.

There is another thing to be considered. What if I happened to move into town. I do not want any spam mail, spam calls, or spam anything. I make a contract with whoever I deal with such as the post office, the telephone company, et cetera to not release any information. They do. How am I ever going to get my right to be free from spam back? It was clearly a value, and I clearly exhibited the virtues associated with such, but I was treated unjustly and all I got was a measly settlement, when what I truly value is my privacy. Why can't I legally stop people from trading my information?

These two issues are resolved if we accept a different view on intellectual property, one as privacy. The details aren't exactly hammered out yet but eventually I will develop a strong argument for it. Much stronger than my two examples.

Any insistence that there is a right to not X, whatever your X is, is going the wrong way. It is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of living in a civilized, rights-respecting society, because it asserts that you have no right to act if another person can perceive or be affected by your action, unless they consent in advance. But you cannot ask permission, because you have no right to ask permission (either by actually speaking, or by implanting thoughts in their mind).Well, there is no penalty for tainting a mind. A person under contractual obligation to not divulge some fact may be liable to civil action because of the contract, but it stops there. As a third party, I have no obligation to ignore that information (such as hearing that Skybus is going to go bankrupt next week), and if it is useful information to me, I may use it, regardless of the contract between A and B.More specifically, they have no obligation to forget or not act on that information, which means that if they do act on that information, it is their right. Even if you know that the originator of the information wished it would be a secret, that doesn't create an involuntary obligation on you.

The idea isn't that they are affected. The idea is that they are affected in a particular way, a way that's wrong, but that can be righted without violating anyone's rights.

In your Skybus example, why do you have the right to the information? It isn't yours. Why does the nature of the information change whether or not you can be legally compelled to not act on it? Why are some things considered trade secrets and other things not?

I think the core of the disagreement is that you apparently hold that a man has no right to act, if it can affect another man, unless the other man gives permission in advance. Go ahead and state your general position in your own words. I am saying that you have the right to act according to your own judgment, as long as you are not contractually or legally prohibited from doing so (obligated to refrain from X). Contractual obligations aren't contagious, and legal obligations are (or should be) narrowly delimited, essentially just prohibiting force or fraud.

That is a weak substitute for my actual argument. My argument is two tiered: That all information is potentially property, in the sense that if one keeps it within the context of privacy others outside of this context not only have no right to it, but can be penalized for violating the context of privacy. On the other hand, information given to someone without their consenting to the context of privacy is free for use by the receiving party, precisely because said context of privacy would be coercive to enforce upon others without their consent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were to put money in someone else's hand and then tell them that as a condition they must spend it only on certain things, they are free to hand it back. The case is not so with intellectual property. I cannot choose to have it forgotten so that I may do whatever I wish with my own mind.

The part in bold is the rationalistic part. Doing whatever you wish, versus, keeping the product of your mind as the basis for your survival and flourishing. The first is disconnected from any purpose, context, and standard. The second is in fact contextual in the basis of rights in the first place. The first is whim based, the second is rights based. The second is not violated by the senarios you give. The first is.

The difference is that since you volitionally direct your mind, your freedom to keep the product of your mind is not at all impinged if you see a painting (by creating a similar but not identical painting), but when the standard becomes the whim to do anything you wish with your mind, well that is violated by all sorts of physical property as well. ["I wish to rid my mind of these thoughts of hunger, why is your particular assemblage of matter, a sandwich, limiting me from doing that."] All sorts of property creates obligations on the state of your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why intellectual property but not any other pattern of elements?
I'm sorry, but I can't make any sense of your question. I'd be happy to address your question, if you could restate the question so that I could figure out what your "why" refers to. The other point is that I don't believe your theory of rights is correct, so addressing matters of IP is probably doomed because the basic shared foundation of property rights that would be needed for a productive discussion of the role of IP simply isn't in place.
The idea is that the 'it', the thing, the intellectual property, is simultaneously here and there, now and then. No other form of property has this quality. Why should you be allowed to dictate what a person does then and there simply based on what you do here and now? What if the other person doesn't want to use your intellectual property but rather create their own?
As a matter of fact, real estate is a good example of something that is now and then and it is about the only form of property that isn't also here and there. The fact that you created the IP is the basis for it being your property, which means that you have the right to "dictate" (that's what it means to own something). If you want to create a novel that expresses the same truths as are expressed in Atlas Shrugged, that is perfectly okay, so copyright does not constitute a claim on another person's mind. It simply says that you cannot copy Ayn Rand's novel, so it's a restriction on your action (that you may not take her words for your own).
If I put up a billboard somewhere with my art, the other person driving by does not consent to seeing it, yet is obligated to respect their intellectual property.
This is where you're making a major mistake. Consent is implicitly given, when the driver enters your property.
If I shout out my poem in a megaphone, the person walking nearby do not consent to hearing it, yet is obligated to respect their intellectual property.
Consent is implicitly given when they enter your property. The way for them to avoid hearing your shouted poetry is to stay on their own property, or the property of people who they trust to not tolerate poets. Or they can wear earplugs, or drive with the windows rolled up. They are free to act in quite a number of ways to avoid perceiving the universe.
My argument is two tiered: That all information is potentially property, in the sense that if one keeps it within the context of privacy others outside of this context not only have no right to it, but can be penalized for violating the context of privacy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...