Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Remaining Principled with 3D Printing

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

 

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.

I was unclear. I'm claiming the bike example is a rights violation. I wrote it to illustrate an example of theft that involves no loss as you defined. I think that hacking in my example is a rights violation too. I'm writing the hacking example as perhaps an exaggeration of your view that I think is logically entailed by what you've said so far. All I'm asking is what the loss (in your mind) is in hacking then copying.

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).

 

I'd like an example. I suspect if we examine any given example we can tease out a violation of the contract. For the record, I like the Objectivist argument for IP (that it's about recognizing the creation of a value) but I am unconvinced that the conclusion follows properly. Not that I think it's the wrong conclusion, but I think a more solid argument runs through contract. Perhaps you can convince me otherwise by giving me an example of what you mean.

 

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.

I only assume IP because IP laws actually exist. It's an example of the state implementing something imperfectly. Think of IP law as a standardized process of recognizing a type of contract. Or, forget IP laws. Imagine a society where books and songs were sold with the verbiage, "by purchasing this item you agree to our terms of use." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean:

Not necessarily insane, but does this argument come from a concrete bound, nonintegrated , unprincipled view, yes I belive it does. In what sense could the retalitory use of force ever be a rights violation? Other than from a view that does not or can not integrate concepts like: retalitory, aggressor , and rights. Which is the same view that can not see property as anything but a material object. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eioul,

You're really onto something with your hacker scenario.

 

Why settle with pulling a part off the car and putting it into the replicator. After all, manufacturing processes vary, and the part you pull may be near one of the extremes as far as being viable to the function of the vehicle. The replication process is going to have variation and could easily produce a bogus part relative to the overall function of the car.

 

Your work around could procure a 3d print-ready file that was used in the process of fabricating the part to begin with. Thus, the 3d printers variation in the fabrication process would be based on the nominal specification of the part, producing a non-genuine part closer the mathematical specifications of the genuine OEM version. Then all you have to worry about is if any other deviations from the material alloy specifications,  heat treatments, plating, surface finishes etc. are mission critical to the functioning of the decoy part. (I'd recommend not replicating parts for your braking system without a good working knowledge of what is required.)

 

Edited: Added

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily insane, but does this argument come from a concrete bound, nonintegrated , unprincipled view, yes I belive it does. In what sense could the retalitory use of force ever be a rights violation? Other than from a view that does not or can not integrate concepts like: retalitory, aggressor , and rights. Which is the same view that can not see property as anything but a material object. 

This sort of psychobabblistic epistemological diagnostics are what "objectivists" do when they run out of logic.  Ayn discussed - at great length - the idea of a "floating abstraction".  A perfect example is the abstraction of pattern or motion floating free of the object of which it is an attribute.  To claim that you can own a pattern when the object forming that pattern is not your property is a prime example of a floating abstraction.  Objectivism is so named because it begins with objects.  To claim that you can own the attributes of objects without owning the objects is to float free of Objectivism, logic, and property rights. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sort of psychobabblistic epistemological diagnostics are what "objectivists" do when they run out of logic.  Ayn discussed - at great length - the idea of a "floating abstraction".  A perfect example is the abstraction of pattern or motion floating free of the object of which it is an attribute.  To claim that you can own a pattern when the object forming that pattern is not your property is a prime example of a floating abstraction.  Objectivism is so named because it begins with objects.  To claim that you can own the attributes of objects without owning the objects is to float free of Objectivism, logic, and property rights.

My recollection was the primacy of existence being the fundamental attribute of her system, but not wanting the connotations of other philosophic schools associated with the term existentialism, so she named it Objectivism.

Is your use of her first name intended to display a familiar relationship? Did she relate to you that the name emphasized material objects , was that the reason for the name? The primacy of atomistic composition, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you can?

Howard probably means that you can't reach into someone's head and take the idea for yourself.  I have an idea that IP is legitimate, and it's my idea, and you as well. In either case, our ideas are our own, but that isn't the same sense of "own" as in owning a story, land, a table, etc. In fact, I go further and say concepts and your body are not owned at all, you can only own things as a means to interact with reality. You may have a concept of table, but merely having the concept doesn't enable you to do anything until you devise a method of making or using tables.

 

Howard's point is not too relevant - IP is about the real implementation of ideas, not ideas as such. It only makes sense to own implementations since ideas can't really do anything until implementation; implementation is needed to actually benefit your life. As far as I've seen, anti-IP arguments often are at least implicitly based on self-ownership, if not explicitly. I think self-ownership is a stolen concept fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard probably means that you can't reach into someone's head and take the idea for yourself.  I have an idea that IP is legitimate, and it's my idea, and you as well. In either case, our ideas are our own, but that isn't the same sense of "own" as in owning a story, land, a table, etc. In fact, I go further and say concepts and your body are not owned at all, you can only own things as a means to interact with reality. You may have a concept of table, but merely having the concept doesn't enable you to do anything until you devise a method of making or using tables.

 

Howard's point is not too relevant - IP is about the real implementation of ideas, not ideas as such. It only makes sense to own implementations since ideas can't really do anything until implementation; implementation is needed to actually benefit your life. As far as I've seen, anti-IP arguments often are at least implicitly based on self-ownership, if not explicitly. I think self-ownership is a stolen concept fallacy.

I see the anti IP arguments coming from a strict materialism, from a perspective that only material objects are usable and therefore "ownable". It must be frustrating(yeah psychologizing here) to be forced to speak of ideas as if they were existents, identifiable entities, and have to use possessive pronouns.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tad said:

. It must be frustrating(yeah psychologizing here) to be forced to speak of ideas as if they were existents, identifiable entities, and have to use possessive pronouns

You are equivocating entity with existent. Concepts are not entities. There is no need to do this to repudiate the type of eliminativism you are referring to.

Edit: tad said:

My recollection was the primacy of existence being the fundamental attribute of her system, but not wanting the connotations of other philosophic schools associated with the term existentialism, so she named it Objectivism.

There are two senses of objective and the mind independent sense is what he was referring to. But the primacy of existence is relevant to the fact of entities as primary. Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard, you are making a false analogy with concept as "pattern". Abstraction is what conceptual entities do. You would have to draw a comparison between entity and action to make your point meaningful, but that doesn't get you where you want to go.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was unclear. I'm claiming the bike example is a rights violation. I wrote it to illustrate an example of theft that involves no loss as you defined. I think that hacking in my example is a rights violation too. I'm writing the hacking example as perhaps an exaggeration of your view that I think is logically entailed by what you've said so far. All I'm asking is what the loss (in your mind) is in hacking then copying.

 

What is your point?

 

If I must answer of your question: there's no loss of value*. But it's not a valid argument. It's like saying what would you have lost if I shot you dead and then took all the money in your wallet. By hacking into my computer you have violated my property rights already.

 

But what is your point? You have presented a fallacious bitcoin example, now you are asking an irrelevant question**. Can you give me an example to a loss that doesn't involve physical property violations?***

 

*: We don't make valuable information publicly available. It's called a secret. If it's public, it's not a secret.

 

**: Irrelevant because you have already violated my property rights.

 

***: Asking this 2nd time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only assume IP because IP laws actually exist.

 

Is-ought fallacy. Just because IP laws exists doesn't mean they are moral.

 

 

Imagine a society where books and songs were sold with the verbiage, "by purchasing this item you agree to our terms of use." 

 

It wouldn't be any different than what we have today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muhuk, I'm not sure what you mean by is-ought fallacy. I'm not saying, "because the US implements a form of IP laws, that's the way it ought to." I'm drawing attention to the part of IP law that is relevant to my argument; that before you buy something, you know how the author and his publishers want you to use the product because you see a copyright symbol somewhere on the product.

You're right about my example being not so different than we have today. But you didn't tell me how you feel about it. Let's say you copied and distributed something after purchasing a product that said  "don't copy and distribute" in the terms of use. Have you initiated force?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tad said:

You are equivocating entity with existent. Concepts are not entities. There is no need to do this to repudiate the type of eliminativism you are referring to.

Edit: tad said:

There are two senses of objective and the mind independent sense is what he was referring to. But the primacy of existence is relevant to the fact of entities as primary.

I was refering to a discrete, unique idea ,  like the specific design of a particular widget and how or why, in principle , given a division of labor society, that idea can be treated as property just like a bike.

As to equivocation , in the second edition of ITOE in the question and answer section , Rand speaks to 'mental entities'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My recollection was the primacy of existence being the fundamental attribute of her system, but not wanting the connotations of other philosophic schools associated with the term existentialism, so she named it Objectivism.

Yes, existence is primary and what exists are objects.  Their attributes are abstractions, not separate entities.  Objectivism was a philosophical term before Ayn adopted it - quite accurately - to refer to her position.  Objects can be owned by one person, excluding ownership by another - this concept usually being referred to as 'scarcity'.  But attributes can apply to unlimited objects - objects can share the similarity of an attribute.  Attributes are not 'scarce'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard, you are making a false analogy with concept as "pattern". Abstraction is what conceptual entities do. You would have to draw a comparison between entity and action to make your point meaningful, but that doesn't get you where you want to go.

A pattern is an arrangement of objects or parts of objects or the actions of objects and their parts.  Action, pattern, color temperature, size - and dozens of other descriptive terms are all abstractions referring to attributes of objects.

 

An idea is an attribute of a body.  It is a pattern of action taken by a body.  An idea is not an object.  A pattern can be imitated, but it can't be stolen.  I can take an object away from you.  I cannot take an idea away from you.

Edited by howardofski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly - there you have it.  You just can't own an idea in my mind, much as you may wish to own it.

 

It's not your idea.

 

Your desire for the unearned is alarming.  Your desire to seperate mind and body so you can own the spiritual effort of others is even worse. and make no misteake, this is the spiritual version of "You didn't build that"

 

Ideas belong to the village?

You didn't think that?

 

Outside of the ethical concerns, like I said in my earlier post under such a I have no reason to waste years of my life comming up with an idea since it will not repay my time/work.  I might as well do something simple and feed off the creative work of those who want to sacrifce their time to the collective. 

 

 

Someone should write a book about people trying to own someone's mind and what happens if the victims remove their mind from society.

 

Oh, wait...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An idea is an attribute of a body. It is a pattern of action taken by a body. An idea is not an object.

Actually, an idea is an object. It is a collection of firings contained in your brain. Everything is an "object," in that it exists in reality. What is your body, your car, your farmland? An enormous collection of tiny objects. An idea "rests" on tiny objects in the universe, contained in your brain.

There's no point in drawing inessential distinctions between brain firings and physical land, on the topic of property. We know an idea and land are literally different physical things, but what we're talking about is how they're related to a man. A man needs to use parts of the universe for survival, and he does that using his brain by his own effort. This is the basis for the concept of property, rights, intellectual property, and everything else. It's an individual man's requirement set for his own life.

In society, men survive by trading with other men. Laws were created, reflecting requirements of men needed for this to happen, in order to enable and support individual autonomy. IP is simply a recognition that men think in order to survive, and that by using an idea formed by another man that was intended to be sold to support him, it is the same thing stealing his car, as taking his land, as cutting off his arm.

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...