Remaining Principled with 3D Printing

[brianleepainter]

When 3D printing becomes readily available how will its users remain principled with copyright and patent laws?

(I'm simply trying to understand IP)

 

For instance, may I take a component from under the hood of my car,perhaps a throttle position sensor ,duplicate it with my 3D printer and use it, even perhaps sell it to my friends without recourse from law? 

Actually, to word it better, would this be principled,therefore legal, in an LFC society?

 

Thank you

 

 

[Robert Baratheon]

Intellectual property is a moral and legal fiction. It violates the nonaggression principle on multiple levels and grants monopolies that interfere with a free market. If you own a 3D printer, there is no reason the government or any person should control what you may or may not create with it.

[Nicky]

3D printers are just another way to create something you can already create (no one patents designs that are impossible to materialize). The current rules would apply the same way (basically, you wouldn't be able to sell copies on any significant scale).

Intellectual property is a moral and legal fiction. It violates the nonaggression principle on multiple levels and grants monopolies that interfere with a free market. If you own a 3D printer, there is no reason the government or any person should control what you may or may not create with it.

Mind explicitly stating this "non-aggression principle" you're referring to?

[Robert Baratheon]

Also known as non-initiation of force, a core principle in both libertarian and Objectivist philosophies.

[FeatherFall]

IP violations are not the same as other thefts. I can't speak to how our current system treats IP, but in an LFC society IP law more closely resembles contract law.

[Nicky]

accidental double post, sorry...does this happen to others too, btw., or is it because I'm using Opera (I hit post, nothing happens, so I hit post again, thinking I must've mis-clicked the first time, only to realize I just double posted).

Edited March 28, 2014 by Nicky

[Nicky]

Also known as non-initiation of force, a core principle in both libertarian and Objectivist philosophies.

Should I take that as a no, you're not gonna explicitly state what you're referring to?

There is no "non-aggression principle" that is common to both Libertarian and Oist philosophy. Ayn Rand and Libertarians were irreconcilably at odds over the role of the concept of non-aggression in political philosophy.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Nicky

[Robert Baratheon]

Nicky - Instead of being argumentative for the sake of it, you could simply Google or Wikipedia either term and educate yourself:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Your assertion is not true. Rand endorsed the non-aggression principle and so do most libertarians. Simply Google the term and Ayn Rand for many examples.

[brianleepainter]

Thank you all for the responses.

 

Here's a relevant example of what I'm interested in: Perhaps an individual borrows a friend's Iphone case,made by Apple, then uses his 3D printer to replicate the item for his own use.

 

In an LFC society, would product replication be legal? What about product replication with the intent to mass replicate and then turn a profit? If not, why?

[Eiuol]

Nicky - Instead of being argumentative for the sake of it, you could simply Google or Wikipedia either term and educate yourself:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

 

I'm pretty sure Nicky is just suggesting that since Rand didn't use that term, it's not "real". Pretty rude way of him to discuss the topic; it's just a way to say "don't initiate force".

 

Anyway, you say IP is a moral fiction, but how is it an initiation of force? I suppose you mean that if you have a 3D printer, you should have the right to create anything you want with it. But you could just as easily say property is a legal fiction. Wouldn't it follow from your point about the printer that it is an initiation of force to be prevented from driving your car anywhere you want at any time? Or that any property of others is inherently constraining all actions, so is always a violation of rights? If you only mean to say you should be able to use materials to make whatever you wish, then I totally don't see how you can own the 3D printer if you didn't build it. Presumably it was only ownership transfer. Yet the maker of the printer didn't make all the parts, that involves acquiring materials of the printer parts. So on down the chain until you reach natural resources, which no one created.

 

By making an argument based on creating an item yourself, that's validating labor theory of value, going far enough that capitalists are necessarily exploiting workers because those workers are creating the goods - property is a capitalist fiction ultimately!

[Nicky]

Nicky - Instead of being argumentative for the sake of it, you could simply Google or Wikipedia either term and educate yourself:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Your assertion is not true. Rand endorsed the non-aggression principle and so do most libertarians. Simply Google the term and Ayn Rand for many examples.

From you link :

 

"The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force principle—is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. "

I suppose that's what you mean by the non-aggression principle?

If that is so, then Objectivism rejected that statement as undefined, undefinable, and arbitrary. From the same article you just linked to:

Ayn Rand rejected natural or inborn rights theories as well supernatural claims and instead proposed a philosophy based on observable reality along with a corresponding ethics based on the factual requirements of human life in a social context.[9] She stressed that the political principle of non-aggression is not a primary and that it only has validity as a consequence of a more fundamental philosophy. For this reason, many of her conclusions differ from others who hold the NAP as an axiom or arrived at it differently. She proposed that man survives by identifying and using concepts in his rational mind since "no sensations, percepts, urges or instincts can do it; only a mind can." She wrote, "since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it [i.e. initiatory force or fraud] is the evil."

 

Even that quote is too kind, Ayn Rand actually tended to characterize the Libertarian position in much harsher terms than that.

 

I'm pretty sure Nicky is just suggesting that since Rand didn't use that term, it's not "real". Pretty rude way of him to discuss the topic; it's just a way to say "don't initiate force".

No, what I'm suggesting is that the notion that Ayn Rand ever supported the "non-aggression principle" Libertarians do is false. Not true. Utter nonsense. Not even close.

Objectivism defines moral interactions in terms of individual rights, not the non-aggression principle. Ignoring the former and using the latter to draw conclusions about the morality of human interactions is wrong.

And refusing to track back on your false assumptions (and instead going around calling people who try to help you do it rude or argumentative) is just brain dead.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Nicky

[Nicky]

Thank you all for the responses.

 

Here's a relevant example of what I'm interested in: Perhaps an individual borrows a friend's Iphone case,made by Apple, then uses his 3D printer to replicate the item for his own use.

 

In an LFC society, would product replication be legal? What about product replication with the intent to mass replicate and then turn a profit? If not, why?

No, in a LFC society intellectual property would be protected by law, just like it is today. So replicating patented designs would be just as illegal as it is today.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Nicky

[howardofski]

"The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others."

- Ayn Rand

 

This IS the non-aggression principle.  On what grounds does anyone claim that Libertarians and Objectivists disagree about this?

 

IP law violates this principle.  Libertarians and Objectivists who defend IP law are caught in a contradiction.

[howardofski]

There is no "non-aggression principle" that is common to both Libertarian and Oist philosophy. Ayn Rand and Libertarians were irreconcilably at odds over the role of the concept of non-aggression in political philosophy.

This is the first I have heard of this irreconcilable difference.  Libertarians and Objectivists, as far as I have ever read, both agree with Ayn Rand's prohibition of the initiation of force.  That is what the NAP refers to.  Could you possibly summarize these two positions to illuminate this irreconcilable difference which you believe exists?  Thank you.

[howardofski]

No, what I'm suggesting is that the notion that Ayn Rand ever supported the "non-aggression principle" Libertarians do is false. Not true. Utter nonsense. Not even close.

Objectivism defines moral interactions in terms of individual rights, not the non-aggression principle.

 

The non-aggression principle IS a statement about individual rights.  The NAP is "the basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics", according to Rand.  What NAP do libertarians support that Rand did not support?

[Nicky]

This is the first I have heard of this irreconcilable difference.  Libertarians and Objectivists, as far as I have ever read, both agree with Ayn Rand's prohibition of the initiation of force.  That is what the NAP refers to.  Could you possibly summarize these two positions to illuminate this irreconcilable difference which you believe exists?  Thank you.

The disagreement is about whether the statement you just quoted is sufficient to explain a political system, by itself. 

 

Libertarians claim it is, Ayn Rand pointed out that it isn't. It obviously isn't. It's not just IP rights that would make no sense, if all you had to work with was "non-aggression". Physical property rights would make no sense either. All "non aggression", by itself, means is that I can't use physical force against your body. It does not, and cannot, explain how we determine what is your and what is my property, beyond that, because material objects and space (outside one's body) don't inherently "belong" to anyone. (for example, if we both landed on a desert island, how would you determine what is who's property, with the non-aggression principle? if I decided to claim property on that island, and enforce it, how would you determine whether I'm initiating force or retaliating to you invading my property?).

 

Ayn Rand defined property rights first (in terms that have nothing to do with non-aggression), and then stated that the only way through which one person can violate another's property rights is through physical force. That is true for intellectual property the same way and for the same reason it is true for physical property. And it has no meaning whatsoever, unless you are working with a definition of property that doesn't depend on non-aggression. 

 

The statement you quoted assumes that definition. You're welcome to look for that definition, in the same book you got that statement from. I assure you, it's there. And when you find it, read it carefully. Then consider whether it allows (and calls) for intellectual property or not. I assure you, it does.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Nicky

[Nicky]

"The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others."

- Ayn Rand

The non-aggression principle IS a statement about individual rights.

I don't know what you meant by "it's a statement about individual rights". It's vague wording, that implies a connection but says nothing about what kind of connection, so let's instead make things clear: Between individual rights and the statement above, which is hierarchically superior in your opinion, within Oist Philosophy? Which is the primary idea?

Whichever that is, that's the idea you should be looking at in determining whether something's a right or not. And then, you should try to reconcile the lesser ranked idea with it, if possible. If not, you should either dismiss the lesser ranked idea, or you should dismiss the whole philosophy.

What you cannot do, however, is dismiss the higher ranked idea, but still claim to accept the philosophy based on your interpretation of the lesser ranked one.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Nicky

[howardofski]

The disagreement is about whether the statement you just quoted is sufficient to explain a political system, by itself. 

 

Libertarians claim it is...

 

No they don't.  They simply agree with Rand that the NAP is the "basic political principle".  Nobody thinks that is all there is to a political system.   And everyone - Libertarians as well as Ayn Rand - understands that physical force refers to stealing and threatening, not just striking another's body.  And everyone - not just Ayn Rand - understands that there needs to be a philosophical basis for property rights.  Where on earth do you get the notion that Libertarians are lacking in all these simple philosophical skills?

 

If your answer is that you happen to know of one idiotic libertarian, believe me, I know of at least one idiotic objectivist.  But that is no way to describe Objectivists or Libertarians.  Neither are idiots.

 

IP law cannot be defended without violating the NAP.  If you think otherwise, the floor is yours.....   

[howardofski]

Nicky,

 

What you appear to be claiming is that one needs to understand individual rights in order to derive the NAP.  OK, no argument.  The NAP recognizes individual rights and forbids their violation.

 

When it comes to naming a basic political principle, NAP works well.  And it is presumptuous to assume that when someone voices NAP, they are failing to understand its foundation in individual rights.

 

I have read widely in Libertarian literature and know of no thinker who fails to understand such obvious derivations.  The NAP is a political principle, and neither the beginning nor end of all ethical thinking.  Politics is the subject of Libertarianism - not the whole of philosophy, but this does not mean that Libertarians are somehow failures as philosophers - they are excellent philosophers taking a political position.  If you think their political position is wrong, the floor is yours, but you seem to be accusing them of being right for the wrong reasons, which I think you would have a hard time proving.    

[Eiuol]

 

IP law violates this principle.  Libertarians and Objectivists who defend IP law are caught in a contradiction.

That's the question this becomes: why is or is not IP an initiation of force?

[muhuk]

That's the question this becomes: why is or is not IP an initiation of force?

 

I think the question is; is an idea a property?

 

In the example above, the replication of car part. You have the original part, you have the raw materials and you have a machine that can build another copy. So far, you have the capability to do something and everything is according to the book. But once you act on it, you break the law and the government can now hurt you.

 

You can gather the materials to make a bomb legally, and then I would understand if it was a crime to actually go ahead and build one. But manufacturing the car part is legal for some people and (apparently) illegal for everyone else. Why?

[Eiuol]

I think the question is; is an idea a property?

 

The implementation of an idea, not of an idea. Your example of capability would also apply to all property or any action that would be a rights violation. So of course the government can "hurt you" if you act on your capability. That's not unique to IP. That's how law works.

 

Property is anything that you produce with your mind, into a realizable form - i.e. story into a book, an invention that can be reasonably built, land you use, televisions you bought with earned money, etc. If you don't think of property in that way, then I fail to see how you can defend property at all, as I alluded to in my first post.

[Eiuol]

And refusing to track back on your false assumptions (and instead going around calling people who try to help you do it rude or argumentative) is just brain dead.

Help me? Sorry, but calling a post of mine "brain dead" and obtusely saying you don't know what NAP is, then posting as though you knew what NAP meant, is at best rude, and at worst dishonest. No one said or implied that NAP ought to be the sole moral principle. Say what you mean, don't post a snarky "mind explicitly stating this "non-aggression principle" you're referring to?" when you already have a fully developed thought about it - and I doubt you were being Socratic.

[muhuk]

Your example of capability would also apply to all property or any action that would be a rights violation. So of course the government can "hurt you" if you act on your capability.

 

I don't understand what you mean here.

 

Let me give a more concrete example: I remove an o-ring from my car and place into a Replicator9000™ I own. I also re-fill the liquid plastic container (whatever it's called), using the materials I own. I push the Replicate button and out comes another o-ring just like the one I removed from my car. Assuming the design of the o-ring is under protection (patented maybe), could you please explain to me where I made a moral error here?

[Nicky]

Nicky,

 

What you appear to be claiming is that one needs to understand individual rights in order to derive the NAP.  OK, no argument.  The NAP recognizes individual rights and forbids their violation.

Yes. And stealing someone's intellectual property is a violation of individual rights.

/thread

P.S. This is for Oism, though. I would be curious how you decided the NAP does that as per Libertarianism. Where, in Libertarian literature, does anyone say that the NAP forbids the violation of individual rights? And where, in Libertarian literature, does anyone define individual rights objectively?

Edited March 31, 2014 by Nicky