Intellectual Property: A Thought Experiment

[howardofski]

Further up in the thread DonAthos provided an eloquent description of why bicycle theft is immoral.

 

I do not steal bicycles because there is a law against it, I refrain from theft on moral grounds.

 

I would not use a widget design , a song, or a novel without the owner's permission on moral grounds. I recognize the creation of those things as being attributable to a functioning mind and treat them as property.

 

Leaving aside the legal implementation of IP, is IP differrent at heart from this?

Your question has been answered numerous times by numerous writers in this thread, and you neglect to answer questions put to you.

[JASKN]

No, all businesses do not measure mental effort on a daily basis, since that is not possible.  Yes, this is consistent with my previous posts.

How do you explain wage discrepancies, project timelines, hiring practices, and disciplinary decisions?

Not to hijack the thread... I suppose though that it is consistent with the way in which you discount human mental effort across many of your views, including IP.

[DonAthos]

Further up in the thread DonAthos provided an eloquent description of why bicycle theft is immoral.

 

I do not steal bicycles because there is a law against it, I refrain from theft on moral grounds.

 

I would not use a widget design , a song, or a novel without the owner's permission on moral grounds. I recognize the creation of those things as being attributable to a functioning mind and treat them as property.

 

Leaving aside the legal implementation of IP, is IP differrent at heart from this?

Hey, Tad -- I think this is a pretty fresh approach. I don't think that it will necessarily qualify as an argument one way or the other, but it might be insightful to consider our own scruples and experiences with IP. And hey, if I'm a barbarian, initiating force against people left and right, maybe it's best to lay that card on the table so that you can shun me properly.

I know that you meant to say that you *don't not* steal bicycles because there's a law against it -- you don't steal bicycles because you find it immoral. That's my experience of it, too. I don't take others' things because those things do not belong to me, and I do not want to hurt anyone. I find theft generally revolting.

While legality is sometimes a factor in my moral reasoning (as, all else being equal, I'd like to avoid jail or fine), I make choices as they seem moral to me. I sometimes speed on the freeway, and though that is illegal, I don't feel any guilt for it. There are a great many things that are legal, but I do not find them moral. I have held jobs that have asked me to do things that I considered immoral, and I have resigned from those jobs or otherwise suffered penalty for refusing to do what was asked of me. I take my own moral compass very seriously.

Before I was an Objectivist, and in my youth, I participated in an amateur acting troupe. We decided to perform Agatha Christie's "The Mousetrap." Though to do such a thing is probably some violation of copyright, that thought never crossed my mind at the time. I had no thought to ask anyone's permission, and would probably have considered the notion that we ought do so fairly silly. It was a pleasant experience, seemingly for everyone involved (troupe and audience) and I do not regret doing it. I don't believe I harmed any soul, but I made my life better and had a hand in improving the lives of others that I cared about. I would happily do such a thing again without moral compunction.

Though I don't personally participate in uploading or downloading music illegally, I recognize that a great deal of the music online stands in violation of copyright. And yet, when I am watching a YouTube video that has some musical score attached -- doubtless without permission -- I do not immediately switch the video off or turn the volume down. I watch it without guilt. When I watch a video that incorporates some film footage or other, I act similarly. Sometimes I even seek this material out.

When I have a choice between watching some original YouTube content on the channel of the person who has created that content versus someone else who has simply uploaded a duplicate of the very same footage, I watch on the original channel.

When I was young (and I've relayed this anecdote before in another thread, probably a couple of years ago, so long have I been discussing IP here), I once saw a classmate reading a book that I found intriguing. I decided to get a copy of the book and read it as well, though I was accused of "being a copycat" for doing so. I didn't consider what I'd done at the time to be wrong and I don't consider it wrong, now. I do not consider it immoral, or parasitical, to imitate others for the purpose of leading a better life -- I consider it intelligent.

If I were a farmer and involved in plowing my fields, and if I saw that my neighbor had discovered some better way to plow fields, I would adopt that methodology without a moment's hesitation (assuming that such a thing otherwise made sense for me to do). I would not feel guilty for having done so. (Rather, I would feel guilty if I didn't.) Though I might feel appreciative towards my neighbor, and his ingenuity, I would not feel that I somehow required his permission to improve my own lot, or to make use of what I had witnessed. If I wanted a piano, and it occurred to me that I could build one for myself, and if that were more sensible to me, given my context, than buying one on the market, for instance, I would go ahead and build one and damn the supposed consequences. I wouldn't care whether my design might have already been created elsewhere, in someone's opinion. If someone came to me and said, "hey wait a second -- *I* own that piano! It was my mind that created it!" I would dismiss him as a lunatic, knowing full well that it was not his mind that created this piano, but my mind and my hands. If he engaged the government to come after me and the piano that I had built -- my property -- I would account that the initiation of force.

These are some of my experiences and opinions, make of them what you will.

[howardofski]

Muhuk, in Posts #91 and #93, offers many quotes from Ayn that clearly present the physical basis of property rights. The anti-IP position is that she then contradicted herself by supporting IP. Debates about what Ayn did or did not say are therefore moot. She can be quoted to support either side of the debate.

But it is very invalid for the pro-IP debaters to claim or imply that the anti-IP debaters lack any reasonable basis for property rights (hinting that if you don't believe in IP, you don't have a basis for property rights). The anti-IP basis has now been spelled out in detail in two separate threads; it is the basis commonly accepted for hundreds of years, and it is the basis clearly stated by Ayn herself.

 

The basis is not mental, it is physical - non-property becomes property when it is put to use. That using anything requires intelligence is true but irrelevant to the question of property. It is the physical act of using an un owned object that makes that object the property of the user. The pro-IP debaters want to make the claim that since to use something requires thinking, it is the thinking, not the using, that causes an object to become property, so that they can then claim ownership of ideas and therefore claim that ideas can be stolen and therefore declare their right to initiate the use of force to interfere with the property uses of others.

 

In substance, this thread is merely a continuation of a previous thread but started with a repeat of the pro-IP argument based on a new example. That previous thread is:

 

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27229&hl=printing&page=10

 

In that thread, SpiralArchitect, in Post 246, point 1, opens by speaking of stolen ideas as if he has not read any of the previous posts. For something to be stolen, the owner must be deprived of it. Imitating does not = stealing. I refer you to the dictionary and to Ayn's definition of logic: "The art of non-contradictory identification". To "identify" is a linguistic act. Non-contradictory identification means, for instance, to stop calling imitation "stealing", so that you can thus continue advocating the initiation of violence.

 

　

In point 2, he writes: "You're the only one discussing force, which I guess is natural since you are the one that thinks you have a right to act on someone else's mind." Yes I do have a right to imitate you. Re-naming imitation as "acting on another's mind" is fascinating rhetoric, which sort of hints at trespassing, but obviously imitation has no direct effect on the imitated, is not trespassing, and obviously is not an instance of force.

 

There's more to that post, but I'm not confident I understand it.

 

In Post #249 of that same thread, StrictlyLogical offers excellent general advice on how to think, but 249 being such a large number, I fear he has failed to read all the previous posts, where he would have seen that his advice is not needed. At any rate, his concern with "somethings that are physical and somethings that are not" is addressed in this present post (see above), as well as numerous other posts in both threads.

 

In Post #245 of that previous thread, Jaskn suggests that I have "sidestepped" because I define property rights as physical (as outlined above in this present post) and don't include the mental justification for IP. Yes, I did that. It isn't sidestepping his question, it's disagreeing with him.  Characterizing disagreement as sidestepping suggests that I secretly agree with him, but don't want to admit it.  I don't secretly agree with him. 

Edited May 1, 2014 by howardofski

[tadmjones]

DonAthos

re#228

 

I was complimenting your eloquent description of the immorality of theft, full stop

(and inferring my lack of such a description)

I did not mean to imply an actions or motivations on your part in reference to theft, my bad ,sorry for that impression, there again my lack of eloquence rears its ugly head.

 

I agree with all of your sentiments in your post above. Yet I still see patents and such to be useful, moral 'things'. I also like your approach to discussing the foundational principles of IP , things like owernship and property, fleshing them out and then applying them to a wider context.

[New Buddha]

Thank you very much. But you did not answer my question: Do you agree that force is only justified for self-defense (in which I include defense of property)? If not, might you outline any additional justification?

Your statement assumes that a violation of my copyrights is not theft.  I hold that a violation of my copyrights is theft, and therefore it's moral for me to seek a way to prevent you from doing so.

 

 

That's the point on which we disagree, not whether the use of force is moral to protect life, liberty and property (IP or Real property).

Edited May 1, 2014 by New Buddha

[howardofski]

How do you explain wage discrepancies, project timelines, hiring practices, and disciplinary decisions?

Not to hijack the thread... I suppose though that it is consistent with the way in which you discount human mental effort across many of your views, including IP.

 

I explain all those items as judgments about behavior, not mind-reading.

 

I have never discounted mental effort - I have claimed that you cannot measure it.  You are circling back to the same point that you have made before - my saying that you can't read minds = my saying that minds don't exist or don't count.  Misrepresentation is a silly debate tactic.

[howardofski]

Your statement assumes that a violation of my copyrights is not theft.  I hold that a violation of my copyrights is theft, and therefore it's moral for me to seek a way to prevent you from doing so.

 

 

That's the point on which we disagree, not whether the use of force is moral to protect life, liberty and property (IP or Real property).

 

Thanks for your reply, both clear and brief.  Theft means that something which is your property has been taken from you.  "From you" means you no longer have it.  In the case of copyright, what is that something which you no longer have?

[DonAthos]

DonAthos

re#228

 

I was complimenting your eloquent description of the immorality of theft, full stop

(and inferring my lack of such a description)

I did not mean to imply an actions or motivations on your part in reference to theft, my bad ,sorry for that impression, there again my lack of eloquence rears its ugly head.

Not at all, Tad -- I didn't take anything amiss from what you said. And thank you for your compliment. For what it's worth, I know that opposing sides of an issue are often cast (and treat one another) as enemies. But I don't think it always has to be that way.

I account those who have shown me the errors of my ways to be some of my greatest benefactors, and it is in that spirit that I try to argue.

 

I agree with all of your sentiments in your post above. Yet I still see patents and such to be useful, moral 'things'. I also like your approach to discussing the foundational principles of IP , things like owernship and property, fleshing them out and then applying them to a wider context.

I hope we can continue to probe these ideas and come to greater understanding.

[howardofski]

...I know that opposing sides of an issue are often cast (and treat one another) as enemies. But I don't think it always has to be that way.

I account those who have shown me the errors of my ways to be some of my greatest benefactors...

Exactly right.

[JASKN]

I have never discounted mental effort - I have claimed that you cannot measure it. You are circling back to the same point that you have made before - my saying that you can't read minds = my saying that minds don't exist or don't count. Misrepresentation is a silly debate tactic.

If you can't "read" my mind or otherwise know my motivations, how could you say whether I posted in knowing misrepresentation or in honestly mistaken interpretation?

[howardofski]

If you can't "read" my mind or otherwise know my motivations, how could you say whether I posted in knowing misrepresentation or in honestly mistaken interpretation?

I did not say "knowing", did I? "Misinterpretation" means you missed on your interpretation. The term does not address motives. Sorry if you took it otherwise. For the record, I do not claim to know anything about your motives. I simply see that you repeatedly summarize my view inaccurately. If it's an innocent mistake, so be it. As a tactic, it is silly, as I said.

Edited May 1, 2014 by howardofski

[JASKN]

I did not say "knowing", did I? "Misinterpretation" means you missed on your interpretation. The term does not address motives. Sorry if you took it otherwise. For the record, I do not claim to know anything about your motives. I simply see that you repeatedly summarize my view inaccurately. If it's an innocent mistake, so be it. As a tactic, it is silly, as I said.

I'm finding it impossible to formulate a reply in which I can't imagine you coming back with something like, "We can't know each other's thoughts," which, as I'm discovering, actually means, "There is no way for us to communicate."

[howardofski]

That's the point on which we disagree, not whether the use of force is moral to protect life, liberty and property (IP or Real property).

Pardon the wise crack, but "IP or Real..." kind of gives away the point doesn't it? :-)

[howardofski]

I'm finding it impossible to formulate a reply in which I can't imagine you coming back with something like, "We can't know each other's thoughts," which, as I'm discovering, actually means, "There is no way for us to communicate."

It means that, does it? And here I thought writing back and forth to one another was communication. Who'd have guessed?

[JASKN]

It means that, does it? And here I thought writing back and forth to one another was communication. Who'd have guessed?

A tactic is "an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end." How could I plan as an argument tactic to accidentally misinterpret?

"Misinterpretation is a silly debate tactic" was a jab at me, saying that I'm trying to misinterpret you to win a debate. It's dishonest to make jabs and then claim that there's no way to know whether it was a jab or not because nobody can know what anyone else was thinking. This is what I mean by it's impossible to communicate. Assuming is a part of communication, and to say that we can't assume really means communication is going to become endlessly convoluted, complicated, confusing.. And all along the way we'll be assuming things anyway!

You want to ignore the human element of human communication, and I can't think of a way to communicate effectively with you like that. It's like a horse putting on his own blinders.

[howardofski]

Jaskn,

We don't share consciousness - we each have our own and it is private and not knowable to others. What we share is physical reality - it's the same reality for us all. We can debate by sending one another messages. The messages have meaning independent of the minds that composed them. So you can respond to the meaning of my messages even though you do not know what my motives or thoughts are, nor do you need to.

That physical reality we share is such that if I eat your lunch, you cannot also eat it. That's why we need property rights. That's the subject of this thread and it relates to when it is justified to use force against one another, so it is very important to establish a correct rule. It is not necessary to read each other's minds, just carefully reading the posts will do.

[howardofski]

"Misinterpretation is a silly debate tactic" was a jab at me, saying that I'm trying to misinterpret you to win a debate.

No it wasn't. It was a warning not to do that.

[JASKN]

No it wasn't. It was a warning not to do that.

This is just more of the same, changing your meaning after the fact. I could be wrong, but how would I ever know since, as you say, it's not possible to figure out what you're really doing in your head, or why you're doing it?

[New Buddha]

Thanks for your reply, both clear and brief.  Theft means that something which is your property has been taken from you.  "From you" means you no longer have it.  In the case of copyright, what is that something which you no longer have?

I don't see much point in continuing this debate.  Your convinced that the unauthorized use/reproduction of patents, trademarks and copyright protected material is moral and should not be prohibited by law.  I disagree.

 

Here's another example.  Suppose that you wanted to open a coffee house.  You could, in your world, open a Starbucks without paying a franchise fee.  You could recreate the signs, call your business Starbucks, use the same logos, cups, call your coffee "Starbucks" coffee, etc. and this would be moral.  Starbucks cannot prohibit your use of the Starbucks brand, because this is IP and not real property and to do so would be a use of force against you.  This is the same for Levi's Jeans, Nike shoes, etc.  Brands cannot be protected by law. 

Edited May 1, 2014 by New Buddha

[howardofski]

This is just more of the same, changing your meaning after the fact.

That you interpret my meaning one way, and I then correct your interpretation, is not a case of me "changing the meaning after the fact". It is a case of me correcting your misinterpretation.

I could be wrong, but how would I ever know since, as you say, it's not possible to figure out what you're really doing in your head, or why you're doing it?

Exactly, so why do you waste so much time trying? Why not just address the posts, stay on topic, and leave it at that. We are discussing the morality of IP law.

[JASKN]

As to your point about and justification for property rights, that is not Rand's reasoning behind it -- it's almost the inverse of her reasoning. Rather than a fight against other people for the same space in order to struggle for survival, she identified the purposeful use of the universe for the achievement of survival. Human action in the negative, as framed by you, is an emphasis on consumption in a nobody-wins game. Action "in the positive," however, emphasizes the continual improvements in the shaping of the universe by individuals. The same elements of the universe which were once scarce, ready to be consumed into oblivion, are later used in ever more productive ways. In essence, there is no scarcity in the universe in the sense that things will "run out" of being useful. And in the sense that "we can't be both here and there, and use that simultaneously," well, who cares? So what. IP supporters wouldn't disagree with you anyway.

Your reasons for supporting any property at all aren't legitimate because they ignore the source of property to begin with -- human ingenuity. And who is the source of all ingenuity? One person. So, it's not surprising that you reject IP, which refines further the reasoning behind property which you reject or ignore.

[howardofski]

I don't see much point in continuing this debate.  Your convinced that the unauthorized use/reproduction of patents, trademarks and copyright protected material is moral and should not be prohibited by law.  I disagree.

 

Here's another example.  Suppose that you wanted to open a coffee house.  You could, in your world, open a Starbucks without paying a franchise fee.  You could recreate the signs, call your business Starbucks, use the same logos, cups, call your coffee "Starbucks" coffee, etc. and this would be moral.  Starbucks cannot prohibit your use of the Starbucks brand, because this is IP and not real property and to do so would be a use of force against you.  This is the same for Levi's Jeans, Nike shoes, etc.  Brands cannot be protected by law.

You didn't answer my question. You tell me what I am convinced of (psychobabble). You ask more questions.

How about we take turns answering questions and skip the psychobabble. It's more fun that way.

[New Buddha]

I didn't use the term psychobabble.  I'm truly interested in your position.  Is my example of franchising an accurate depiction of your position?  That the government protection of trademarks is immoral and a Statist abuse of power? 

 

 

Added, I'm not BS'ing you.  I'm trying to understand the full implications of your position as it would apply to the current economic system.

Edited May 1, 2014 by New Buddha

[FeatherFall]

Muhuk, your post #91 quoted three parts of the lexicon. They don't really support what you're trying to say - that Rand thought property was only material. To be fair to you I'll address each passage individually, starting with the following two:
 

 

[it] is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values

 

 

Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property--by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.

Your use of bold text emphasizes material over "to use and to dispose." Use and disposal include setting conditions by which others may interact with your property - including whether they may use it as a template for reproduction. If I want to stipulate that those who interact with my property refrain from reproducing it, my desire is protected by my right to use and disposal. That you would quote from the lexicon to support your assertion without at least acknowledging the entire entry on patents and copyrights strikes me as dishonest. The relevant section of that entry is:
 

 

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 the 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

 

 

You also quoted this passage:

 

 

 

A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one's own effort. . . .

 

Quoting this passage in the way you did is a particularly egregious context-drop. That passage is meant to be an argument against any alleged right to have another person produce a value for you... Which is exactly what you advocate when you attempt to deny the right to restrict imitation! If you want to be taken seriously from here on out, I suggest you acknowledge that your position against IP is directly opposed to Rand's. Then, maybe you could quote the lexicon's patents and copyrights section and explain why you disagree.

Edited May 1, 2014 by FeatherFall