Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Remaining Principled with 3D Printing

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

My idea is my idea.

After you reveal it to me, it then becomes one of my ideas as well.  If you want to be paid for revealing it to me, get a contract first or keep it to yourself.

 

There is a political system that says government will decide who can make what and who can trade with whom, but it isn’t Capitalism. 

Edited by howardofski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imitated you and now I am competing with you. Since we don't have IP laws, you don't have the monopoly. You could have sold M more units and you could have made more money. But now I'm making that money and since that money must come from somewhere, I am practically reaching out to your pocket and snatching the money that would have been there.

I do not own what "could have been".  I do not "lose" when I do not get what "could have been".  To claim that I am losing because I have competition and would do so much better without the competition is absurd.  To claim that customers have been "stolen" from me is absurd.  I do not own potential customers.  You are not "practically" taking money from my pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muhuk, I think this is what you claim addresses the problem of lost revenue:
 

If someone steals your idea and profits from that, how can you claim that if he didn't do that, you would have made that profit? Perhaps you would, perhaps you wouldn't. A market crash, new product/competitor, personal issues, etc.. are factors that would affect it.

By violating the contract you are conceding that there is value in what you stole. You've affirmed that I've provided you a value, and that you've refused the terms by which I was willing to provide that value. You've committed a blatant fraud, depriving me of revenue. Financial rape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The contract argument doesn't really work (you can steal someone's IP without dealing with them directly, at which point there is no contract, implicit or otherwise).

IP is a form of property, not contract enforcement. It is justified by the concept of individual rights directly, exactly the same way land or physical resource ownership is justified.

I'm amazed there even are Libertarians who believe in property, at all (though many don't, Noam Chomsky for instance is a Libertarian who could care less about any kind of property). It really is a silly ideology.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

howardofsi #65 said

Your life is filled with the benefits of the thinking of other people, which you received for free. That is one of the wonders of being human. We learn from others and humanity progresses. Referring to learning as "stealing" so as to excuse the desire to get rich by means of a coercive monopoly is not rational or moral. 

 

 

 

This is one of the wonders of living in a societal context and being able to enjoy such benefits ie accumulation and communication of knowledge, culture, division of labor ect. Not of 'merely' being human.

That is a huge context to 'blank out' on.

Ideas as property are rational and moral in the 'arificial' context of living in a society. The govt guslingers having a monolpoly on the use of force in retaliation against aggressors is a rational principle when used to thwart rights violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to note that the ideas of Objectivism have been published in book form, aspects of them are freely available on the web, and have various people that understand ("own") them to varying degrees. There are even places on the web where these ideas are discussed, parsed, dissected, and reassembled.

 

Just because an idea is "revealed" to someone, does not ensure they can walk away with it. I think when you consider this case in point relative to Objectivism, it demonstrates this quite admirably.

 

Edited: Added.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come printing a story counts as an implementation but writing down equations don't?

 

 

 

I think you are missing the point here. There would be one couch, if I take yours, you will no longer have it.

Equations aren't created as much as they are discoveries. Unless it is something like a recipe to create a specific thing.

 

Of course if you take it then I don't "have it", you lose control of the property in question. If they take it while I'm on vacation, well, I don't "have" it because I am not there. You can use it, and I am literally unable to use it. As it stands, property of any kind can be used by more than one person at a time. That's a negation of what you said, i.e. property can't be used by two people, or more, at once. Sometimes you can't in a legal sense, but sometimes you can't in a legal sense. So, "only one person can use X at a time" is not a reasonable statement - it's not important, not all property only permits one user at a time. All you can truly lose is the ability to use property in any manner you want.

 

IP is only really supposed to be about creation. Call it creation property if you prefer. Creation applies to the ideas used to create some entity, so all I refer to is an individual benefiting from that creation as they choose. I think that it is probably legitimate to imitate for personal use, meaning no distribution/sharing/selling of the idea implementation. For example, photographing your book for an ad-hoc digital version for yourself. Creation is more than manual labor, and there are different kinds of creating. Clearly, direct labor is one kind, such as knitting a  scarf. There is also creation of a specific knitting pattern distinct from the resulting scarf. There is even using the knitted scarf to be a blanket for a baby, a  different purpose than the scarf was made for. These creations are all different, and land ownership is another kind of creation (good ol' fashion farming). 

 

A good example of IP is money in a digital economy as today. Change that to bitcoin if you prefer, even. If I hack into your bank account, what do you lose? You don't lose paper, you don't lose coins. Your body is not harmed. All your tangible items remain. All you lose is complete control over a series of bytes. Where does the comparison of IP to money breakdown, if at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your definition of "property"? What is the relationship of property, human action, and human thought?

In addition to our own bodies, all physical goods that we have traded for or homesteaded or received as gifts. 

 

We own our own minds and have the right to use our property in accordance with the best of our knowledge.  If someone tells you that you may not use your property to the best of your knowledge because he owns your knowledge, explain to him that he will never own anything that is in your mind, that he does not own your physical property and does not "own" your use of it.   Explain to him that he has no right to force you to do what is stupid with your property because he claims to own what is smart.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My monopoly control of my possessions is a violation of whose rights?

You did not say "my monopoly control...".  You said "The govt gunslingers having a monopoly on the use of force in retaliation against aggressors...".

 

You are dropping your own context.  A gang calling themselves government does not have a right to monopolize the use of force - for any purpose.

 

You of course have a right to monopolize your use of your property.  But ideas are not your property when they are in someone else's head.

Edited by howardofski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did not say "my monopoly control...".  You said "The govt gunslingers having a monopoly on the use of force in retaliation against aggressors...".

 

You are dropping your own context.  A gang calling themselves government does not have a right to monopolize the use of force - for any purpose.

 

You of course have a right to monopolize your use of your property.  But ideas are not your property when they are in someone else's head.

I dropped the context of the govt use of force ,because I thought you were making a blanket statement about monopoly as such.

But.. "A gang calling themselves..." I see where you are coming from, so yeah ok, I had the idea your beef was with such a gang and the discussion on IP was just a vehicle to get there, so have fun with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Law is no longer protecting my ability to act for myself, but forcing me to act for you. 

 

No, the law doesn't force you to innovate or invent.

 

 

I do not own what "could have been".  I do not "lose" when I do not get what "could have been".  To claim that I am losing because I have competition and would do so much better without the competition is absurd.  To claim that customers have been "stolen" from me is absurd.  I do not own potential customers.  You are not "practically" taking money from my pocket.

 

I was just stating explicitly what has been implied. I completely agree with you on this.

 

 

By violating the contract you are conceding that there is value in what you stole. You've affirmed that I've provided you a value, and that you've refused the terms by which I was willing to provide that value. You've committed a blatant fraud, depriving me of revenue. Financial rape.

 

You assume IP laws. Without IP laws, there would be no implicit contract and I wouldn't be committing fraud. Of course with or without the IP laws, I enter a consensual agreement, then I must follow the rules.

 

Also the value is not zero sum since conceptual things are not limited resources like physical things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These creations are all different, and land ownership is another kind of creation (good ol' fashion farming). 

 

Really? To own land, you just need to pay for it and go through the legal process. You don't need to utilize it in any way to be counted as a land owner. Where's the creation in that?

 

 

A good example of IP is money in a digital economy as today. Change that to bitcoin if you prefer, even.

 

Digital money, as a system, is a contract. A single bitcoin can be defined as a hash, but the bitcoins you own is nothing but a form of a contract. Even though a contract is essentially a conceptual thing, I'm reluctant to classify it with the other things we classify as intellectual property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But.. "A gang calling themselves..." I see where you are coming from, so yeah ok, I had the idea your beef was with such a gang and the discussion on IP was just a vehicle to get there, so have fun with that.

 

Does this mean:

 

I see where you are coming from therefore you are wrong? And possibly insane.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? To own land, you just need to pay for it and go through the legal process. You don't need to utilize it in any way to be counted as a land owner. Where's the creation in that?

The first owner. Ownership is transferred with trade, but it had to be created, i.e. used.

 

Bitcoin was a bad example, but I'll rephrase it: what about if I hacked into your computer and copied a digital document. There is no contract with me and your computer is not harmed. All I do is copy a document. Is this wrong? Why or why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bitcoin was a bad example, but I'll rephrase it: what about if I hacked into your computer and copied a digital document. There is no contract with me and your computer is not harmed. All I do is copy a document. Is this wrong? Why or why not?

 

Do you mean what's wrong with you accessing my physical computer using a physical internet connection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well actually it wouldn't involve doing anything other than communicating with your computer. You don't lose anything, at least not in terms of damage or loss of money. So I would "use" your computer, but it does not harm you or stop you from using your computer. Your argument involves saying IP involves no loss. So, I am providing a case where you'd probably say loss is not involved if I went by your previous statements regarding loss. My scenario is realistic - hacking only involves abusing what a computer explicitly allows, often with no side-effects on the computer if the hacker is good.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well actually it wouldn't involve doing anything other than communicating with your computer. You don't lose anything, at least not in terms of damage or loss of money. So I would "use" your computer, but it does not harm you or stop you from using your computer. Your argument involves saying IP involves no loss. So, I am providing a case where you'd probably say loss is not involved if I went by your previous statements regarding loss. My scenario is realistic - hacking only involves abusing what a computer explicitly allows, often with no side-effects on the computer if the hacker is good.

 

I can't accept your example as an argument because it involves using my physical property without my consent. Hacking my computer is a violation of physical property. If you don't hack my computer you can't copy my file.

 

If you can provide an example that demonstrates loss without utilizing my physical property then I might be convinced that IP is a form of property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't accept your example as an argument because it involves using my physical property without my consent. Hacking my computer is a violation of physical property. If you don't hack my computer you can't copy my file.

Why must I ask for consent? What's the violation if there is no direct harm or damage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why must I ask for consent? What's the violation if there is no direct harm or damage?

 

 

if someone rides your bike when you're asleep, does not damage your bike, then returns it before you wake up.

 
There's a contradiction here. You used the bike example earlier, to demonstrate a property rights violation. And now you are suggesting there is no violation when you hack into a computer.
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...