intellectual property

[adrock3215]

from a moral perspective you should not eat the sandwich,

Not that I disagree with you, but how do you arrive at this conclusion? The more common problem, which I myself have encountered often, was whether or not I should buy a bike which was more than likely stolen. Another common situation is when one stops at a gas station in a rough area of an inner city (DC in my case), oftentimes people will approach you offering to put gas in your car. Give them $10 they say, and they will swipe a credit card and you can fill up your tank. Of course, the fact that the credit card is stolen is all too obvious in this case. But the bike is slightly harder to detect. If a man comes by and offers to sell me a bike and I weigh the probabilities and conclude that there may be a chance its stolen, but I'm not certain, does that mean I should investigate further before committing to the purchase?

[DavidOdden]

Not that I disagree with you, but how do you arrive at this conclusion?

Theft is bad for children and other living, rational things. Opposing theft is an act of self-preservation, since it makes it less likely that you will be an actual victim of theft. Theft contradicts man's nature, and evading that fact in accepting a stolen sandwich requires you to suspend your faculty of reason, to maintain the contradiction.

If a man comes by and offers to sell me a bike and I weigh the probabilities and conclude that there may be a chance its stolen, but I'm not certain, does that mean I should investigate further before committing to the purchase?

I can't say. I wouldn't have any question in that context that I was acting as a fence. Strangers don't just come up to people and whisper "Hey buddy, I got a great deal on a bike. Hardly used, I just decided I didn't want a bike. Yeah, that's the ticket. Got tired of it". But maybe DC is strange.

[TuringAI]

I think the problem lies in our understanding of property as a whole. What defines something as being capable of being owned? Furthermore what is the metaphysical status of abstractions?

I think our mistakes with regard to intellectual property stems from an incomplete understanding of universals.

[DavidOdden]

What defines something as being capable of being owned?

Surely you mean, what is the nature of things that can be owned. Definitions don't enter into it. It (the ownable thing) is distinct from other things, thus you can say "this is mine, that is yours".

Furthermore what is the metaphysical status of abstractions?

An abstraction is a mental representation. Does that help?

[TuringAI]

Surely you mean, what is the nature of things that can be owned. Definitions don't enter into it. It (the ownable thing) is distinct from other things, thus you can say "this is mine, that is yours".An abstraction is a mental representation. Does that help?

That mental representation must have a usable form otherwise it would be a floating abstraction. Those usable forms and any subsequently caused facsimiles which originate from the usable form in question can be pointed to as distinct from other things. The token is owned by me, and that means anything it causes unto what is unowned is the domain of potential ownership in the same way that if I build a house I also own the foundation, and to some extent what is beneath it because if that was gone my house would fall down. If it affects other people without an agreement between me and them then it's a force external to markets and therefore is the subject of civil law.

The 'external to markets' is the part that gets my attention every time. Why should certain kinds of causes and effects be ignored by law when they clearly do exist? I say if you try to use me and don't treat me as an end in itself or if you fear conflict of interest and thus try to harm me, you are not entitled to invade my privacy or spread it to the public. The public doesn't own my secrets simply because they exist, and individuals don't have the right to know so much as they have the right to pursue that knowledge.

[trivas7]

Since you've a priori rejected the notion of intellectual property and thus you reject the position that a man can own the product of his mind, nothing that you've said here has any use in understanding the objective basis for propetcing such property.

How can there be an objective basis for protecting a non-entity? What can possibley qualify as objective re an abstraction?

[DavidOdden]

How can there be an objective basis for protecting a non-entity?

Following your line of argument, can't you simply ask "How can you claim that a non-entity exists"? Doesn't your position simple reduce to claiming that only entities exist? I can't make any sense of your question -- I can't even begin to uncover the presuppositions. So I'm asking you to explain what you are asking.

[Marc K.]

What can possibley qualify as objective re an abstraction?

This is the question isn't it -- and intellectual property rights answer it. The answer is: an actual working prototype demonstrating the idea of which you claim to be the originator.

[trivas7]

This is the question isn't it -- and intellectual property rights answer it. The answer is: an actual working prototype demonstrating the idea of which you claim to be the originator.

My point is that any objectivity lies in the prototype, not in some supposed right to an idea, What do you mean that intellectual property rights "answers it"?

[trivas7]

Following your line of argument, can't you simply ask "How can you claim that a non-entity exists"? Doesn't your position simple reduce to claiming that only entities exist? I can't make any sense of your question -- I can't even begin to uncover the presuppositions. So I'm asking you to explain what you are asking.

You are claiming an objective basis for protecting IP, are you not? I'm asking what constitutes it, what is that objective basis?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do believe that only entities exist, but that is probably for another thread.

[DavidOdden]

You are claiming an objective basis for protecting IP, are you not? I'm asking what constitutes it, what is that objective basis?

I don't know where to start. Do you know CUI? That (plus of cours "The Objectivist Ethics" is the essential background. Let me know if I can assume familiarity wouth the foundation.

Yes, as a matter of fact I do believe that only entities exist, but that is probably for another thread.

No it is not. It is central to your problem. Given that belief, I can't see how you could have any ethics at all or how the notion of objectivity makes any sense to you. Let's say you've got a car and I want it. I can just take it from you, right?

[trivas7]

No it is not. It is central to your problem. Given that belief, I can't see how you could have any ethics at all or how the notion of objectivity makes any sense to you. Let's say you've got a car and I want it. I can just take it from you, right?

This evidences a confusion between discrimination and reality. If you think there is something objective re ethics or the tenets of Objectivism, so be it. But please don't tell me I have no notion of objectivity simply because I disagree with you.

[DavidOdden]

This evidences a confusion between discrimination and reality. If you think there is something objective re ethics or the tenets of Objectivism, so be it. But please don't tell me I have no notion of objectivity simply because I disagree with you.

Please don't attribute to me reasons for which there is not a shred of evidence. I claim that because you claim that only entities exist, it is actually impossible for you to have a concept of objectivity or ethics, and thus you don't understand the concepts of objectivity and ethics if you think that such notions are possible (obviously they are not possible because they don't exist, as you say) in a universe where only entities exist. This is an invitation for you to ground the concepts of "objectivity" and "ethics" purely in entities.

[trivas7]

Please don't attribute to me reasons for which there is not a shred of evidence. I claim that because you claim that only entities exist, it is actually impossible for you to have a concept of objectivity or ethics, and thus you don't understand the concepts of objectivity and ethics if you think that such notions are possible (obviously they are not possible because they don't exist, as you say) in a universe where only entities exist. This is an invitation for you to ground the concepts of "objectivity" and "ethics" purely in entities.

I don't claim to ground notions of objectivity and ethics in entitiies. Invoking Objectivist literature to ground the notion of objectivity evidences a type of rationalism whereby you think that propositions and mental entities participate somehow in metaphysical reality.

[DavidOdden]

I don't claim to ground notions of objectivity and ethics in entitiies.

I not only realise that, I more or less asserted that myself. Now what need to do is define and justify your definitions of "objective" and "ethics" in your alternative universe where only entities exist. I believe that the reason why you are evading this point is that you have stared to grasp the hopelessness of your position, that you are starting to realise that it is completely impossible to even have a well-defined notion of "objective" or "ethical" if only entities exist, and now you're stuck because you can't admit that you just made a mistake. But this isn't important, since the point of this thread is not whether entities are the only existents, so further pursuit of the "what exists" question really ought to be in a different thread. It is sufficient for this thread that the source of your error regarding IP has to do with a mistake in metaphysics, which we can't fix.

[TuringAI]

I not only realise that, I more or less asserted that myself. Now what need to do is define and justify your definitions of "objective" and "ethics" in your alternative universe where only entities exist. I believe that the reason why you are evading this point is that you have stared to grasp the hopelessness of your position, that you are starting to realise that it is completely impossible to even have a well-defined notion of "objective" or "ethical" if only entities exist, and now you're stuck because you can't admit that you just made a mistake. But this isn't important, since the point of this thread is not whether entities are the only existents, so further pursuit of the "what exists" question really ought to be in a different thread. It is sufficient for this thread that the source of your error regarding IP has to do with a mistake in metaphysics, which we can't fix.

Can't information be an entity? I mean we can measure how much information is in something and we need to in order to calculate entropy.

[DavidOdden]

Can't information be an entity?

We can't even tell what information is. Information has no mass and it has no energy, so it isn't an entity. Of course a thing claimed to have information in it, such as a book, can have mass, but the information itself doesn't. How much information is in the sentence "Pi is an irrational number"?

[TuringAI]

We can't even tell what information is. Information has no mass and it has no energy, so it isn't an entity. Of course a thing claimed to have information in it, such as a book, can have mass, but the information itself doesn't. How much information is in the sentence "Pi is an irrational number"?

The FACT that pi is an irrational number is something without mass. However it's true that there is a minimum amount of bits necessary to convey information, and that isn't even talking about the minimum number of bits necessary to put it into context. This means that in any medium, there is a minimum amount of energy/mass required to contain said information.

Information represents something about the physical. Intellectual property exists not as an ownership of a fact, and it can never be that. It exists as owning effects of certain types of which the owner is a cause. The effect given in modern day intellectual property is the effect of generating an idea, working on said idea, and cultivating something unique and valuable.

In effect, however, it is the owning of a quality of a potential state of a person as a whole within a given context.

Since I believe that ownership/responsibility of a cause means ownership/responsibility of the effects provided that there is no fusion of multiple causes to which the effects cannot be distinctly linked, I hold that secrecy is a state that can be maintained provided we accept the notion that stolen goods must be returned even if sold to another, and that cause/effect streams count as a good.

It's a difficult to grasp concept, I know, but just imagine that you don't own the fact, but rather there is a delta like river complex of influences that something has on the world. Like a river, if you stop it at the source the delta dries up. If you stop it past any subsequent fork, however, only what is beyond that side of the fork will dry up. I'm not saying that others can't have identical river complexes. I'm saying that so long as you own the source of the river, you have the right to put stops at any of its subsequent forks.

[FeatherFall]

My understanding of the Objectivist position on IP is as follows:

If man is to live, he must be able to dispense with the values that he achieves or creates. This precludes another man from dispensing with the same value. If a man creates an idea that others value, they must treat that value much like a material value - they must recognize he created it and act appropriately. This means that if they are to use it, they must offer a value in return that he deems acceptable. By reproducing IP without the consent of the creator they have devalued his creation (if you disagree on this point, I refer you to established economic theory). While the finer points of IP law are arguable (something I would like to explore in my next post), the theory of IP law is sound - it guarantees that the creator of a value reaps the reward.

There is no way of objectively determining whether or not someone has taken enough effort to protect their privacy. Simply shutting one's self in one's home doesn't protect from thermal imaging. Replacing intellectual property with privacy rights seems sinister. The people who advocate this seem to be looking for a justification to download music and movies without recognizing or rewarding the creators. This amounts to, "The technology allows me to get away with it, and therefore it is right."

[DavidOdden]

If man is to live, he must be able to dispense with the values that he achieves or creates.

Yes, that is the correct basis. Rand's specific statement (CUI 130) on the nature of that value is important, because it reins in the domain of intellectual property in a very important way, emphasis added.

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 (

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 attempt to deny the property status of a man's created values is evidence of a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of "property".

[TuringAI]

My understanding of the Objectivist position on IP is as follows:

If man is to live, he must be able to dispense with the values that he achieves or creates. This precludes another man from dispensing with the same value. If a man creates an idea that others value, they must treat that value much like a material value - they must recognize he created it and act appropriately. This means that if they are to use it, they must offer a value in return that he deems acceptable. By reproducing IP without the consent of the creator they have devalued his creation (if you disagree on this point, I refer you to established economic theory). While the finer points of IP law are arguable (something I would like to explore in my next post), the theory of IP law is sound - it guarantees that the creator of a value reaps the reward.

There is no way of objectively determining whether or not someone has taken enough effort to protect their privacy. Simply shutting one's self in one's home doesn't protect from thermal imaging. Replacing intellectual property with privacy rights seems sinister. The people who advocate this seem to be looking for a justification to download music and movies without recognizing or rewarding the creators. This amounts to, "The technology allows me to get away with it, and therefore it is right."

The point is not to deny current people with intellectual property, but to create a system whereby IF one wanted, one COULD create the infrastructure necessary to ensure that the creator of a book or of an invention could properly keep their book or invention in the same way that intellectual property does now. It also would NOT amount to forcing people to practice falsehoods, because if something was true, anybody would have the right to discover it. Nobody would have the right to USE another operson as a MEANS to the discovery. Nobody can own that to which the discovery pertains if it is a natural law. But people would be able to own any and all MEANS to the discovery in question. Any one person would own any and all means deriving from them specifically.

You have to accept the premise that all types of intellectual property derive from the same root, IE the right, with respect to any kind of information, to shut people off from sources of information. There exists confusion when one asks "Can I own this idea?" and that confusion arises because people can't own universals of any type whatsoever. Yet ideas do exist in some form in the specific. Since all ideas can be reduced to sensory input in some way harvested by the human mind, it is within the context of that which provides the sensory input on the external end AND the internal end, both of which exist in the specific, that these ideas exist. You own your own self, and you can own physical things aside from any self.

Yes, people can thermal image your house, but what if there existed the technology to cut off light and sound of all sort from entering and exiting your house? Or perhaps some kind of jamming electromagnetic and kinetic field so that nobody would be able to make out the light and sound coming out? A lot of what I'm talking about becomes visibly doable only through the use of technology, but the principle behind it remains the same.

I will try to explain more by addressing the various issues people have with my theory of rights.

[DavidOdden]

Since all ideas can be reduced to sensory input in some way harvested by the human mind, it is within the context of that which provides the sensory input on the external end AND the internal end, both of which exist in the specific, that these ideas exist.

Objectivism reduces this reductionist view of ideas, because it is false.

You own your own self, and you can own physical things aside from any self.

In addition, you can own non-physical things: specific forms of mental expression abstracted from the physical token.

[trivas7]

.In addition, you can own non-physical things: specific forms of mental expression abstracted from the physical token.

What is being abstracted from the physical token? An idea, I assume. Isn't the specific form the physical token?

[Greebo]

What is being abstracted from the physical token? An idea, I assume. Isn't the specific form the physical token?

Is a performance of a play physical? Certainly, the manuscript is physical - but what if I'm edidic (I THINK thats the right word - photographic memory), and can watch a play and go to my own theater, teach it to my performers, and then perform the play again?

I haven't copied anything materially, but i have copied the product of the mind - the performance of the play - which isn't mine to do without paying for it.

[FeatherFall]

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?