TuringAI Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 When does the technological cold war end? Why can't a destitute person with no home or sci-fi light-shield simply patent or copyright his IP? Why does he have to first become fabulously wealthy and develop new tech before he can dispense with and protect what he created? Patents are immoral, because rather than attaching an invention to its creator, they DETACH it. That is to say, a person owns not just their own invention, but the right to impose the context of their invention onto others. That a person does not have to consent to the patent and yet they cannot, completely independently, invent something with the same basic characteristics because they won't be allowed to use what they created with their own mind is coercive. Copyright is not immoral per se, but it can be used in immoral ways, IE when it infringes upon other's right to not see or hear. If a person absolutely refuses to see or hear a copyrighted material then they at least get the chance to create their own work, and if by happenstance it is similar they still get to keep it. Of course if a person forces you to see or hear it then they have indeed violated your rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 TuringAI, I'm confused. Under current IP laws, it doesn't matter how you generate a duplicate idea; the first copyright/patent stands. Are saying that under your laws, so long as I can prove that I wasn't exposed to a copyrighted/patented thing before I duplicated it, that I should have a share in the profits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuringAI Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 TuringAI, I'm confused. Under current IP laws, it doesn't matter how you generate a duplicate idea; the first copyright/patent stands. Are saying that under your laws, so long as I can prove that I wasn't exposed to a copyrighted/patented thing before I duplicated it, that I should have a share in the profits? There IS NO duplication if you weren't exposed to a copyrighted or patented thing. It's called a coincidence. You would be expected to generate your own profits from your own labor. Say some business discovered a room temperature superconductor. Not more than 3 months afterward you discover the same fact based on your own research. Upon starting a business you find out that someone else discovered it before you. This is often the case. To make things unambiguous let's say they call their product Super-Rail and you call your product Float-Rail. You would have no claim on Super-Rail's profit but you yourself would maintain the right to Float-Rail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarIs4Profit Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 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. I belive a major distinction, being a material quantity in the eyes of the law, is whether you make a material profit through infringing on the copyright. People often cover modern songs they didnt write at concerts, yet you dont see those covers recorded on rock albums very frequently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 I'd say, "coincidental duplication". I don't see a moral reason why we should use your system. I'd like to do something I usually don't do; defend IP on practical grounds. How can you expect people will be able to create new technologies when they are shutting themselves off from the rest of the world? Every potential producer would have to live in a fortress of ignorance. The only person who would be rich is the wall-builder and the guy who invents the light shield. In other words; the only way to profit would be to invent a new way of barring information transfers. Do you really see anybody producing anything in such a system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 Patents are immoral, because rather than attaching an invention to its creator, they DETACH it. That is to say, a person owns not just their own invention, but the right to impose the context of their invention onto others. That a person does not have to consent to the patent and yet they cannot, completely independently, invent something with the same basic characteristics because they won't be allowed to use what they created with their own mind is coercive. This has been debunked above several times. Please see any of my posts on the topic. The volitional aspect of man's consciousness prevents coercion in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 Say some business discovered a room temperature superconductor. Not more than 3 months afterward you discover the same fact based on your own research. Upon starting a business you find out that someone else discovered it before you. This is often the case.It doesn't matter if the late-comer claims that he coincidentally created the same substance, because the law properly gives priority to the first guy to stake his claim. The same goes for staking real estate claims for unowner land in the old days, that the property right goes to the first person, not every person who feels like making a claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 David, I like the content of your last post. I was thinking about taking the discussion in that direction also... I suppose that makes me partly responsible for your post, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuringAI Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 It doesn't matter if the late-comer claims that he coincidentally created the same substance, because the law properly gives priority to the first guy to stake his claim. The same goes for staking real estate claims for unowner land in the old days, that the property right goes to the first person, not every person who feels like making a claim. That's a false analogy. Intellectual property is not like real estate. Two people can't work on a piece of real estate without interfering with each other. The same cannot be said for intellectual property. Furthermore, we have to define real estate acquisition by specific locations upon which some kind of work was done, even if the only work done was to discover it and to prove said discovery. If two people discover an island from opposite sides at roughly the same time why should the first person get the whole island? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 Intellectual property is not like real estate.The important way in which is it like real estate is that it is property; something that can be owned. Who? The man who {claims/creates} it. How do we deal with contadictory claims of ownership? By law: referring to the filed claim or patent.Furthermore, we have to define real estate acquisition by specific locations upon which some kind of work was done, even if the only work done was to discover it and to prove said discovery.Intellectual property similarly has a definite extent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc K. Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 trivas7: It may be too late to say this because the moment has passed, but I think you were getting caught-up in the moment. Think about this a second, when you say: Yes, as a matter of fact I do believe that only entities exist, you are denying that ideas exist. Ideas are the things that David Odden is asking you to define. And since, according to you, they don't exist, he is saying you are going to have a hard time defining them. Now. I thought you had identified an important question here: What can possibley qualify as objective re an abstraction? But what you imply is that property is something hard, something you can hold in your hand. That IP is just a figment, that ideas don't look like other property. That since you can't put your finger on it, it cannot be property. And besides, ideas don't really matter much, as far as sustaining your life is concerned anyway. But all of this is wrong because of where it stops; what it doesn't acknowledge, and that is: our nature. Yes, action sustains our lives -- but where does all action originate? In the mind. And since we are rational animals with a conceptual consciousness, what is the product of our minds? Ideas. So because of his nature, the only way man survives is via ideas. And if we have a right to the fruits of our labor and all labor originates as ideas, then we must have the right to the fruits of our ideas. It is an inescapable consequence of our nature. In answer to your question above: there is an objective way to determine the existence and value of an idea. You prove its existence by producing it and the market will determine its value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuringAI Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 (edited) The important way in which is it like real estate is that it is property; something that can be owned. Who? The man who {claims/creates} it. How do we deal with contadictory claims of ownership? By law: referring to the filed claim or patent.Intellectual property similarly has a definite extent. That's a circular argument. If something is property, that something must not only exist, but exist AS something. Real estate was unowned land before it was real estate. What was IP before it was property? Edited April 24, 2008 by TuringAI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 Perhaps it's unconnected root concepts? The work is in extrapolating from less abstract ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trivas7 Posted April 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 you are denying that ideas exist. Ideas are the things that David Odden is asking you to define. And since, according to you, they don't exist, he is saying you are going to have a hard time defining them. My point is that ideas exist as mental existents, not as causal entities in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trivas7 Posted April 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 That's a circular argument. If something is property, that something must not only exist, but exist AS something. Real estate was unowned land before it was real estate. What was IP before it was property? Property is the right to a action, the right to the consequences of producing a form or tokenization of an idea in the case of IP, Before IP was property it was an idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuringAI Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 Property is the right to a action, the right to the consequences of producing a form or tokenization of an idea in the case of IP, Before IP was property it was an idea. So what is the similarity to land and to an idea? One is something that exists as part of this Earth and one is formed by cognition. An idea is not like an oil well, where it is something you tap into. The only thing that goes away as an idea is used is the demand, and since demand is man-made and not metaphysical you cannot own it. A right to demand of a product is just like the right to a job. It doesn't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc K. Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 My point is that ideas exist as mental existents, not as causal entities in the world. And my point is that ideas are the most important existents in the world -- they are what allow us to survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc K. Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 An idea is not like an oil well, where it is something you tap into. Just like all property an oil well was an idea before it existed. and since demand is man-made and not metaphysical you cannot own it. Perhaps you should rephrase this since I don't think you mean to say that one cannot own anything that is man-made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 Turing, it seems to me that your position is that IP rights are very easily infringed, therefore they don't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuringAI Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 Turing, it seems to me that your position is that IP rights are very easily infringed, therefore they don't exist. My position is that it's NOT an infringement simply to come up with a coincidentally similar product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.