Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Remaining Principled with 3D Printing

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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.

I know calling someone brain dead is rude, thanks. I'm fine with being rude to people who make conversations personal every chance they get. I'd be more curious where I was rude back when you first decided to, once again, make this thread a debate about my person instead of my point. Back before I called you brain dead.

As for the other thing, it's not obtuse to ask for clarification instead of guessing what someone's referring to. If I had gone ahead and just assumed to know for a fact what he's talking about based on incomplete information (the way you and most on this forum operate), that would've been a strawman argument. Asking someone to explicitly state their position isn't obtuse, it's the basic requirement of a rational conversation.

Frankly, I still have no idea what Robert means by NAP. The only one who actually stated a version of it, thus moving the conversation forward, is howardofski.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Objectivism defines property in terms of right to actions. So, your question in fact should be "can thinking an idea one came up with be an exclusive right?". The answer is no.

A different, more relevant question is "can creating a material object that is based on one's idea be an exclusive right?". The answer to that one is yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

The debate about IP is whether ideas can be property.  Only after you've accepted that premise can you claim that ideas can be stolen.  However, if I have stolen your idea, you must have lost something that was your property.  What was it that you lost, which you were the owner of? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 And where, in Libertarian literature, does anyone define individual rights objectively?

In The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray Rothbard, one of the most widely read and influential libertarian writers, and a one-time friend of Rand.  Rothbard derives rights as Rand does, from man's nature.  And many Libertarian writers agree with Rothbard's and Rand's derivation.  The concept of 'natural' law is also built on the nature of man and his circumstances. 

 

The term 'rights', though a noun in form, is an adjective in meaning.  It merely refers to what is right for an individual, given his nature.

 

Libertarianism gets this question right when it adopts NAP as it's basic principle, just as Rand did.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A different, more relevant question is "can creating a material object that is based on one's idea be an exclusive right?". The answer to that one is yes.

 

Why?  If I imitate you, how does that harm you?  Why is an idea in my mind that I employ using my materials somehow a violation of your property rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate about IP is whether ideas can be property.

A debate, any debate, is between two positions: one stated by one side, the other stated by the other side.

When a person sees fit to define both positions in a the debate, that person is committing the straw man fallacy.

In this particular debate, one side must define what intellectual property is, and the other side must argue against the morality of that proposition. You are on the side which argues against the morality of the proposition.

If you wish me to state the proposition again, just ask. I'll be happy to. But DO NOT state it for me. It's not your place to do so. Not unless you wish to debate yourself.

Why?  If I imitate you, how does that harm you?  Why is an idea in my mind that I employ using my materials somehow a violation of your property rights?

Because property means control of the fruits of my labor. And creating intellectual property is what I do. If it wasn't for intellectual property, I'd be broke.

Are you claiming that I'm not being productive, because I only do intellectual work, not manual labor?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

snip

Your response here is appropriate. That is much more effective than calling me "brain dead". Non-aggression principle in this context is just that no one should initiate force. That no one should initiate force is a principle, and is basically non-aggression. The wiki you linked said 'or' in the definition, not 'and', so is not necessarily all those bad characterizations. If you sincerely want a person to answer what they mean, be aware of how you ask the question, like "I'm not sure what you mean" is better than "mind explicitly what <scarequote>X</scarequote> means?" You said there is "no non-aggression principle common to..." and say you don't know what Robert means - that doesn't make sense, you can't say what something isn't then say you don't know what something means. It's a contradiction, an indication of an insincere question, or not realizing it is very snarky to put it that way. If I was rude first, that only means you didn't realize your first posts were in fact a terrible way to start a conversation.

That's not a debate about your person, it's just saying that you've done contradictory things such that I don't know what point at all you're making about NAP. Plus asking you to proceed more consciously about whether anyone would want to respond to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 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?

Aside from infinite replication leading to bigger questions than IP violations, it would be denying someone control of a very particular item they created and made possible. Maybe you used some of your labor, but I doubt you can say you used anywhere near as much thinking to replicate a person's mental labor to develop that o-ring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from infinite replication leading to bigger questions than IP violations, it would be denying someone control of a very particular item they created and made possible. Maybe you used some of your labor, but I doubt you can say you used anywhere near as much thinking to replicate a person's mental labor to develop that o-ring.

If I imitate your idea, how is it that you lose control of anything?  What was it that you controlled, which you now do not control?  What did you own that you now have lost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is nothing to lose, what does imitation gain?

Your question implies that imitation can not benefit the imitator without harming the imitated.  That is clearly not so and you have answered a question with a question.  Try a real answer:  what is lost through imitation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IP law does not involve contracts.  It is a claim of property rights to ideas.

Says you. I'm arguing differently. When you "buy" a video game you might read the fine print and find out that you're not actually making a purchase, but rather licensing the rights to use the software in a limited capacity. If you later copy that software and distribute it, you are likely in violation of the terms of the contract you agreed to upon "purchase." You've initiated force against the licensor. That's the proper way to treat IP, in my opinion.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...what is lost through imitation?

Time, money, resources... An idea doesn't materialize out of thin air. IP's whole purpose is to let the idea's originator get the benefit of his efforts, not some guy who thinks the product is obvious, once he's seen it.

"But he IS benefitting!" Not if he intended to sell his idea, he isn't. And that's the context in which we find ourselves. IP is sought out really only with the intent to sell the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Says you. I'm arguing differently. When you "buy" a video game you might read the fine print and find out that you're not actually making a purchase, but rather licensing the rights to use the software in a limited capacity. If you later copy that software and distribute it, you are likely in violation of the terms of the contract you agreed to upon "purchase." You've initiated force against the licensor. That's the proper way to treat IP, in my opinion.

And so you would agree that we do not need IP law since your concerns are cared for through contract law.  Says you and I agree.

Edited by howardofski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time, money, resources... An idea doesn't materialize out of thin air. IP's whole purpose is to let the idea's originator get the benefit of his efforts, not some guy who thinks the product is obvious, once he's seen it.

"But he IS benefitting!" Not if he intended to sell his idea, he isn't. And that's the context in which we find ourselves. IP is sought out really only with the intent to sell the idea.

Pro-IP thinkers really should be able to answer the simple question:  what is lost to the originator of an idea when his idea is imitated?  What did he used to own, that he no longer owns.  Pro-IP thinkers consistently fail to answer that question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time, money, resources... An idea doesn't materialize out of thin air. IP's whole purpose is to let the idea's originator get the benefit of his efforts, not some guy who thinks the product is obvious, once he's seen it.

"But he IS benefitting!" Not if he intended to sell his idea, he isn't. And that's the context in which we find ourselves. IP is sought out really only with the intent to sell the idea.

Time, money, resources are not lost to you if I imitate you.  If I benefit from your idea, how is it that you lose?  Can you name what you used to have, that you no longer have - what you used to own, that has now been taken from you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

what is lost to the originator of an idea when his idea is imitated?   

 

The IP owner has lost whatever value he gave when he licensed the use of his idea, for starters. By breaching the contract you have effectively made him work for you without his consent. You've either destroyed his capital or made him your slave. He also loses some margin of value in proportion to what you eventually do with his product; if you put it on bit torrent and thousands of people decide to abet you in your act of fraud, then the IP owner loses potentially great value. Just how much is up for debate. The courts will hash that out.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro-IP thinkers really should be able to answer the simple question:  what is lost to the originator of an idea when his idea is imitated?  What did he used to own, that he no longer owns.  Pro-IP thinkers consistently fail to answer that question. 

 

Why would I create something new if I wasn't going to benifit from it? Would plant a farm is someone will take it?  Why write a book if someone just takes it?  Why think if I cannot act on what I think?

 

Your question is not answered because the context of political thinking never gets to it. 

 

Force destroys value, and the mind worse of all.  A free mind can think than act on it's judgement.  A mind that can think but has no value in acting is simply a floating conciousness with no purpose.  A ghost.  A body that needs others to think for them to fill the void where the mind should be is a zombie.  There is probably a good link between the popularity of zombie films and the disolving of propoerty rights for reasons like this - People what to act but without the reason.   

 

A right is a right to act, but it is a right to act on your judgement.  You can't put a block in between and expect a mind to think but not benifit from it's actions.   What do I loose?  The life that should have been mine - That is what I loose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The IP owner has lost whatever value he gave when he licensed the use of his idea, for starters. By breaching the contract you have effectively made him work for you without his consent. You've either destroyed his capital or made him your slave. He also loses some margin of value in proportion to what you eventually do with his product; if you put it on bit torrent and thousands of people decide to abet you in your act of fraud, then the IP owner loses potentially great value. Just how much is up for debate. The courts will hash that out.

 

What contract are you referring to?  If I imitate you, I have not breached a contract unless I signed a contract in advance. 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...