Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why should there be patents and copyrights?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I'd like to point out that since I posted my (moral) case for what is and isn't property, no one has argued against it. Furthermore, no one has provided a counter-standard.

Only because I got bored, not because there is no such case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 339
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 th

I will be more exact and precise in my expression. Please be literal in trying to understand what I write. You claimed it was possible to download a copyrighted song and then not make money

Only because I got bored, not because there is no such case.

That's fine. It's just that if people keep trying to poke holes in my case, all that convinces me of is that my case is false, but not that my position is false. If people want me to reverse my position on this issue, I need a counter-standard that is specific.

Edited by Mnrchst
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, wtf, we gave you one repeatedly:

You have a right to the product of your mind, therefore you have a right to intellectual property, therefore you have the right to exclude others from your intellectual property, therefore others that infringe your intellectual property are violating your rights, therefore you have a right to sue them in court.

Your only objections were a question begging assertion that only physical property deserves to be protected because only physical invasions count as invasions, and secondly that people come from people, therefore it would reduce to people being property. Both those objections have been demolished. Where does that leave your argument? So far, you're just arguing from repetition pretending nobody has offered anything against what you have to say, until we grow tired of dealing with it. For like 7+ pages now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean when you say copy?

What the hell do you think copy means? We've been using "copy" and "reproduce" in this discussion for pages now...

Someone else could come up with the same idea, so you won't be the only person who controls it any more.

You are dropping context - we're talking about in the case where you haven't come up with the idea and I have.

Remember: you have already conceded that if you saw the original before coming up with your own version you cannot make a reasonable claim to have come up with it first.

That's true. How is it relevant to this debate?

AND you have already conceded that my idea cannot be taken from me by force:

I agree with you and I've already covered this point.

So once you've seen my invention you can't reliably claim to have come up with it myself, and I have the right not to share access to my invention, and you (as you conceded) could not come up with it on your own then the ONLY way you get my invention is from me.

"Someone" could come up with the exact same idea - and that's a different problem - but YOU could not - so I have it, I made it, it's the only one, I can give you a copy of it and will if you agree not to reproduce it - and otherwise you'll NEVER HAVE IT. A right is that which cannot be taken from you - you don't have the idea and never will on your own, so you have no right to it, and I have the idea and never have to share it, so I do have a right to the idea. So in the specific, clear, exact context of you and me, yes, I can require you not to reproduce my idea, because you got it *from me*.

You have the right to not tell anyone your idea if you choose not to.

Precisely.

BTW since you like the pragmatic considerations - have you considered what would happen to music, literature, the fine arts, cinema, etc if artists didn't have a right to own their creations and the right to the profit from the enjoyment others gain from them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a right to the product of your mind, therefore you have a right to intellectual property, therefore you have the right to exclude others from your intellectual property, therefore others that infringe your intellectual property are violating your rights, therefore you have a right to sue them in court.

What does "the product of your mind" mean in this context? This is something I've asked several times, and all anyone has done is just refer me to some page that doesn't explain it in moral terms. What counts as the product of your mind, in this context? What doesn't? Why? Why can't I copyright "Fo shizzle dizzle"?

people come from people, therefore it would reduce to people being property.

I pointed out that "The mother has to feed herself and drink water for 9 months for the fetus to survive. That takes effort. That's how she's there every step of the way." Please read over this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell do you think copy means? We've been using "copy" and "reproduce" in this discussion for pages now...

You are dropping context - we're talking about in the case where you haven't come up with the idea and I have.

I was wondering because you were talking about something we've already covered (that mind reading without permission is bad), so it's no longer relevant to this discussion.

And my reasoning is in my long post on what qualifies for property and what doesn't.

once you've seen my invention

How did I see it? Did you build your invention from scratch in plain view, or was I trespassing?

BTW since you like the pragmatic considerations - have you considered what would happen to music, literature, the fine arts, cinema, etc if artists didn't have a right to own their creations and the right to the profit from the enjoyment others gain from them?

No, I don't like "pragmatic considerations". Where are you getting that from?

And I've already covered this utilitarian point. Please read over this thread and not just the posts where I respond to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I pointed out that "The mother has to feed herself and drink water for 9 months for the fetus to survive. That takes effort. That's how she's there every step of the way." Please read over this thread.

I'm kind of unsure if you're just not listening or what. Mere effort alone is not the point, but a certain kind of effort. I already said we're referring to creative processes rather than biological differences. You are trying to figure out what we're saying based on a definition, but that's really a poor way to analyze anything. There is no reference at all here to automatic biological processes. The topic is volitional non-automatic creative processes. Making a baby is at best partially volitional, but in no way is that part of what is being referred to here. On top of that, kids are a whole different kind of entity. By referring to products of the mind, there is also a reference to non-volitional entities, such as books, songs, cars, tables, and chairs. Those are the things that count as "products of the mind" here. It's a strange sort of rationalism to argue from definition like you are. The best I can do is show you different KINDS of production, then point you towards WHICH kinds of production we're referring to here. Baby making is NOT the type of production we're talking about, nor blood production in your body, nor saliva production. There is no evidence that those types of production are fundamentally the same as the creation of books and songs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're saying you have to be there every step of the way (creatively) in order for it to be your property. My question then is why this doesn't apply to certain things where you're creatively involved the whole way (like a new fashion style, or a simple phrase). What's our standard for determining what this applies to and doesn't?

Edited by Mnrchst
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're saying you have to be there every step of the way (creatively) in order for it to be your property. My question then is why this doesn't apply to certain things where you're creatively involved the whole way (like a new fashion style, or a simple phrase). What's our standard for determining what this applies to and doesn't?

A phrase can be protected. Haven't you heard of Trademarks?

Can't speak for fashion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's our standard for determining what this applies to and doesn't?

I'd say a fashion style is way too generalized. There is no particularization of a fashion style beyond some general principle. When it comes to fashion design though, that is a specific realization of a principle. Basically, I see a fashion style as essentially the same as identifying a fact of physics; we're speaking more of some aesthetic effect than a specific demonstration of a principle. If you have a *specific* setup of clothing, that can be treated as a trademark in some circumstances. A fashion designer on the other hand is applying principles of aesthetics and style, so their creations ought to be copyrightable.

Trademarks would be valid if the phrasing or logo is unique and can be demonstrated that you came up with it. That's the kind of standard I'd use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For society to function, rational beings must be treated primarily as ends in themselves (rational beings have rights, rights must be applied universally, etc). Therefore, even if a rational being was grown entirely in a lab, it would be an end in itself and therefore could not be property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't you heard of Trademarks?

I was assuming y'all thought trademarks were ridiculous. My bad.

The weird thing about some trademarks is sometimes they're phrases that are so simple that many people have been using that phrase somewhat often for a long time, so we can't say that the people who trademark it are really copyrighted the fruits of their labor.

Edited by Mnrchst
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trademarks would be valid if the phrasing or logo is unique.

Again, I'm not sure how we're supposed to draw the line between unique and not-unique.

I understand the basic idea of "people deserve the fruits of their labor". What I'd need to be convinced of pro-IP is the reasoning behind what what this applies to what it doesn't.

Edited by Mnrchst
Link to post
Share on other sites

Eiuol, I'm honestly not sure how baby-making doesn't apply to your definition of creative work:

A creative process is something you directly or indirectly participate in in its entirety, guided by mental effort, and can only be brought to completion by my own efforts.

Isn't feeding yourself a creative process, in the sense that you're thinking about eating different types of foods precisely because you're pregnant?

Edited by Mnrchst
Link to post
Share on other sites

Eiuol, I'm honestly not sure how baby-making doesn't apply to your definition of creative work:

Because people were making babies long before there was a mental thought process behind it.

Stop being absurd or you're going to simply cause people to conclude you're deliberately trolling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eiuol, I'm honestly not sure how baby-making doesn't apply to your definition of creative work:

I cannot put it any more simply than I have. There's a difference between the volitional and the automatic. That's what I've tried to point out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Primitive humans had no mental thought process?

You are, again, dropping context, or possibly you are that much of an idiot and simply cannot read simple sentences and comprehend them, so I will eliminate the articles from the previous statement to make it absolutely crystal clear.

Because people were making babies long before there was a mental thought process behind the making of babies.

The biological predecessors of human beings have been making babies with no mental thought process - sex in the animal kingdom is an automatic function for the most part. As we developed the ability to think, it stands to reason that while we eventually figured out that sex leads to babies, we didn't figure it out BEFORE we started making babies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because people were making babies long before there was a mental thought process behind the making of babies. The biological predecessors of human beings have been making babies with no mental thought process - sex in the animal kingdom is an automatic function for the most part. As we developed the ability to think, it stands to reason that while we eventually figured out that sex leads to babies, we didn't figure it out BEFORE we started making babies.

That doesn't mean there's no thought process behind people making babies today. In fact, there usually is. If the argument for IP is that you deserve what you create through volitional thought because you created it, the argument is therefore incomplete because people create babies through volitional thought all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mnrchst, it is not proper for a society to treat a rational being as anything other than an end in himself. Therefore a child (even if grown entirely by design in a lab) retains his rights. This completes the argument and was explained earlier.

Link to post
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...