Intellectual property

[DonAthos]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

How was it that he got the idea - how was it that he was able to see Machine A doing something useful? It's not like the SteakSabre materialized out of nowhere and started slicing steaks like a Dr. Seuss story. Knorks and fnifes are that way, too. You're not talking about inspiration for a SteakSchimitar, you're talking about recreating a SteakSabre. So, how is Man B able to value SteakSabres? Not literally -that- SteakSabre, but SteakSabres in general.

Eiuol, I've tried answering your question, though apparently not to your satisfaction. I don't know how to answer it any better than before. So if you have an argument to make, it would probably (hopefully) save a deal of frustration and time for you to make it directly, rather than trying to tease it out with (what I suppose are meant to be) leading questions. So please tell me, according to your thoughts on the matter: how was it that he got the idea? And how precisely do you believe that relates to property right?

[Devil's Advocate]

We can agree that wheels and mouse traps would have been invented regardless of who first delivered them to the marketplace.  Innovation responds to a need or a niche that doesn't require a particular person to fill it.  Being first to market is its own reward; its own form of monopoly, and one that can be maintained naturally, provided that person retains a competitive advantage by his own efforts over all who follow him to market.

So the moral question to respond to isn't who owns the first product*, but who owns the patronage of that product.

--

* No one appears to be arguing that product doesn't belong to the one who created it.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Devil's Advocate
to clarify a point

[dream_weaver]

DonAthos,

We seem to be at an impasse here. I see pieces of the IP puzzle that are scattered throughout Rand's books. Spooner's "The Law of Intellectual Property", and Adam Mossoff's "What is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together." are two pro IP presentations, although I'm not understanding Mossoff's take on it yet.

I see Mossoff also has an mp3 available on ARI "Intellectual Property Rights: Securing Values of the Mind" which I've added to my wishlist for now.

While this is tangential, I see another ARI writer, Amanda Maxham, received a mention on Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property. Her article gives a bit of history leading up to the Plant Patent Act, and is geared more toward providing information toward undermining the anti-GMO movement than upholding IP, specifically.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I have yet to see in Spooner's arguments, or those that have followed, how a right to property preempts the right of others to create similar property by using apparent knowledge combined with their own effort.

 

[dream_weaver]

46 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

I have yet to see in Spooner's arguments, or those that have followed, how a right to property preempts the right of others to create similar property by using apparent knowledge combined with their own effort.

The key search word would be "incorporeal".

Edit: Careful though, it would seem that the "find" function in Adobe 20.15 skips over a few, as Spooner's article is formatted.

Another edit; And as pointed out on page 35, point 3. "To deny the right of property in incorporeal things, is equivalent to denying the right of property even in corporeal things." This in particular from Spooner, resonates strongly with me with regard to Rand's third from last paragraph in the CUI: Patents and Copyrights article.

And yet another edit, echoing the same: Spooner states it again near the beginning of page 36: "The necessary consequence, therefore, of denying the right of property in incorporeal things, as labor, for example, is to deny the right of property in corporeal things ; because the right to the latter is only a result, or consequence, of a right to the former. If: therefore, we deny the right of property in incorporeal things, we must deny all rights of property whatsoever.

Edited December 1, 2015 by dream_weaver

[DonAthos]

3 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

DonAthos,

We seem to be at an impasse here.

I understand. This may be no great misfortune; what currently seems to be an impasse may ultimately prove to have been the early stages of an ultimately rewarding journey. Or at least, I have had that experience in the past. Once again: so far as I know, I'll be available to discuss the topic further, should you wish to engage with me on it.

[Devil's Advocate]

Not that I can't appreciate a defense of incorporeal things, but I believe the missing keyword is exposure. You are entitled to keep your secrets and profit from them, but I am under no obligation to avoid profiting from the use of apparent things.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Devil's Advocate

[Devil's Advocate]

Invisible fences denying access to incorporeal things sounds like Heaven to me

[dream_weaver]

7 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Invisible fences denying access to incorporeal things sounds like Heaven to me

Hmm. Heaven as an analogy to capitalism.  Perhaps, but you would have to respect the "fences" to get there.

Edited December 1, 2015 by dream_weaver

[Harrison Danneskjold]

What moral principles are implied by the political fact of Intellectual Property Rights, if true?

[DonAthos]

10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

What moral principles are implied by the political fact of Intellectual Property Rights, if true?

I come from a position hostile to IP, so take this for what it's worth, but I've come to believe that IP casts man in a very negative light, turning learning into "mindless" activity, "copying," and "theft," which is horrible because the way that men survive (including the innovators) is by learning from the examples of others, and then putting that learning to productive use in the service of our own individual lives. For the vast majority of what we do, and what we produce, it robs the actual creators of the value of their creations, implying that the value of their creations doesn't properly account to them and their labor, but to whomever they learned from or wherever they gained inspiration. I think it turns the world into a vast cesspool of moochers, parasites and victims.*

I further think that IP is destructive to actual property rights (and thus life), that it undermines the reason which is otherwise characteristic to Objectivism, and that it reintroduces a mind/body split which Ayn Rand worked so hard to dispel.

__________________________

* To clarify: I don't believe that those who advocate for IP necessarily see all of this implication to their (or Rand's) arguments, yet I think it exists.

[dream_weaver]

Nice lead in for two relevant citations I've been pondering from Atlas Shrugged. The first, from Dr. Ferris, following the outline of Directive 10-289, Atlas Shrugged, pg. 501:

"Genius is a superstition, Jim. There's no such thing as the intellect. A man's brain is a social product. A sum of influences that he's picked up from those around him. Nobody invents anything, he merely reflects what's floating in the social atmosphere. A genius is an intellectual scavenger and a greedy hoarder of the ideas which rightfully belong to society, from which he stole them. All thought is theft. If we do away with private fortunes, we'll have a fairer distribution of wealth. If we do away with genius, we'll have a fairer distribution of ideas."

The second, from Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged, pg. 979:

"In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most of all those below him; but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains.

I might add that studying and learning from a new invention that is out there is not what I think is being discouraged. Such activity helps to sow new ideas and inventions. Just as the mark of a civilized society (and most collectivist societies on a citizen to citizen basis) discourages stealing material goods, the mark of an advance society ought to include extending that in some form of IP, reasonably applied, to reward such innovation, and thus encourage more of it.

[Devil's Advocate]

If you limited protection of IP to identifying the source of an invention in order to prevent fraud, and allow anyone to generate their own version based on the limited knowledge made apparent by unveiling the original*, has a moral right been transgressed?

* unveiling being presumed to be an action controlled by source of an invention, either by marketing or personal use, and not by trespass of ones home, office, lab, warehouse, etc.

[DonAthos]

17 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Nice lead in for two relevant citations...

Do you truly think so?

17 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

...I've been pondering from Atlas Shrugged. The first, from Dr. Ferris, following the outline of Directive 10-289, Atlas Shrugged, pg. 501:

"Genius is a superstition, Jim. There's no such thing as the intellect. A man's brain is a social product. A sum of influences that he's picked up from those around him. Nobody invents anything, he merely reflects what's floating in the social atmosphere. A genius is an intellectual scavenger and a greedy hoarder of the ideas which rightfully belong to society, from which he stole them. All thought is theft. If we do away with private fortunes, we'll have a fairer distribution of wealth. If we do away with genius, we'll have a fairer distribution of ideas."

If it needs to be said (a depressing possibility, at this point), I'm not arguing that "genius is a superstition" or that "there's no such thing as the intellect," or etc., etc., etc.

Such a citation at this late stage in the thread, and the implication that this has anything to do with the arguments I've advanced, truly is upsetting. But to clarify, for those who need further clarification: far from arguing that "all thought is theft," I am arguing that "no thought is theft." Neither is any creation of wealth.

17 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

The second, from Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged, pg. 979:

"In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most of all those below him; but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains.

Yes, quite (with some reservation at the idea that an innovator "gets nothing except his material payment"). But none of this is at issue.

17 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

I might add that studying and learning from a new invention that is out there is not what I think is being discouraged. Such activity helps to sow new ideas and inventions. Just as the mark of a civilized society (and most collectivist societies on a citizen to citizen basis) discourages stealing material goods, the mark of an advance society ought to include extending that in some form of IP...

Unless the enforcement of IP is, itself, "stealing material goods," a violation of individual rights, and thus a descent from a "civilized society," as I argue that it is. Then an advanced society ought not do that.

17 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

...reasonably applied...

If there is some consistent, objective, reasonable application of IP--either in theory or in practice--then I do not believe it has yet been demonstrated. Or at least, not to my satisfaction.

17 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

...to reward such innovation, and thus encourage more of it.

I believe that there is a long tradition of "encouraging" various activities and industries through governmental action, the granting of coercively acquired funds, monopolies, protectionary tariffs, etc., yet none of that is moral, no matter the supposed benefit to the automobile industry or the textile industry or whomever is deemed beneficiary. I think we all like innovation, and admire inventors in that capacity, but I do not believe that such innovation ought to be "encouraged" at the cost of violating anyone's individual rights. The janitor at the bottom of the ladder in Rand's factory may not have much going for him in his hopeless ineptitude, but at least he has that.

[Devil's Advocate]

"... I think we all like innovation, and admire inventors in that capacity, but I do not believe that such innovation ought to be 'encouraged' at the cost of violating anyone's individual rights... " ~ The Original DA

Indeed, and it would be very helpful at this point to have an advocate of IP clearly identify what moral principle supports it without impeding everyone else.  All of the quotes from AS don't get around the fact that a legal monopoly is a unilateral right.  That alone ought to give pause to reflect on the apparent contradiction of imposing such a right against everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[dream_weaver]

I am apparently not being very effective in presenting Rand's side on this topic. I'll toss one more set in the ring. This is from The Journals of Ayn Rand, Part 4 - Atlas Shrugged, 11 - The Mind On Strike pg. 422

To be exchangeable among men, a creation has to be put into a material shape—and only that material shape is exchangeable (through a material medium of exchange, like money). The spiritual is non-exchangeable. Is it collective? Quite the opposite; it is completely individual, and not subject to exchange. A man who reads my book can get out of it only what he is able to get; I can give him nothing more; and he can give me nothing in exchange; he can give me appreciation and understanding, which are of value to me as a person, but he can give me nothing to help me with that book, or with the next one; my contribution has to be made by me alone, and those who want it, take it, for whatever they can get out of it. [...]

Skipping two paragraphs on the writer and composer she continues.

An inventor sells the physical machine he has devised (or the right to use his idea by putting it into a physical shape or machine). He cannot sell the idea.

A philosopher or theoretical scientist can only sell the book in which he presents the new knowledge he has discovered. He cannot sell the knowledge. In economics, the realm of material exchange, collectivists demand that a man give his idea as well as its physical consequences or manifestations, keeping none of it for himself. He can't get any spiritual payment for his creation—and he is expected to renounce even the physical payment. The physical objects of exchange among men come from someone's ideas, but all men are expected to share in them equally—which [implies] a complete denial of the source of physical wealth and of the rights of its creators. The creators, then, keep the others going for nothing—receiving neither spiritual nor physical reward. And the parasites get the material benefits for nothing, for the mere fact of being parasites—and enslave the creator, besides.

I tend to tie these and other passages together with man's mind is is basic means of survival, that even the products of the mind take mental work and effort to arrive at.

To take a stab at one of your points Don, on the mind/body split (these quotes have been more toward a general support of IP, rather than targeting your posts specifically),Isn't trying to differentiate and uphold the work of the hands while downplaying the work of the mind essentially introducing the wedge here?

 

 

[DonAthos]

14 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

I am apparently not being very effective in presenting Rand's side on this topic.

Throughout my ongoing participation here at OO, I've found it increasingly useful to consider things not only in terms of content (do I really and truly understand my interlocutor? am I right, or wrong? am I communicating myself fully and clearly? am I being as polite as possible without losing salient meaning?) but also the terms of that participation. What do I mean to accomplish, and why? Am I merely giving voice to my thoughts for some personal emotional satisfaction (e.g. "ranting" or "venting")? The joy of conversation with another intelligent mind? Or am I looking to sharpen my rhetoric? Am I speaking to my "opponent" in an effort to persuade? Or punish/be cruel? Am I primarily speaking to others (perhaps those not even on the board yet)? Am I seeking to learn what someone else believes in order to disprove it? Or am I open to the possibility that my "opponent" may be right, and if so, am I taking the steps (internal and external) necessary to be able to understand that, should it turn out to be the case? Is it likely for me to get what I want out of this particular conversation? Does it serve my life overall?

Though I do not always answer these questions correctly (and my goals vary from time to time), asking them of myself and attempting to answer has, I believe, helped me to make better decisions regarding my participation here.

I bring all of this up, both to set it down somewhere (because I've never examined this process I've just now described explicitly), and also because I note that you've included (actually, led) with an emoji of "Atlas shrugging." I don't know precisely what you mean by it, if anything, but I'd like to make this clear: you're not being asked to carry anything on your shoulders. As is appropriate to the nature of this forum, I expect that you would only engage a particular conversation if it serves your life. I don't expect you to do this for me or to sacrifice on my account. In particular, I do not call upon you to "present Rand's side on this topic." For what it's worth, I believe that I already understand Rand's side, and... I think that her side is in error. I mean to demonstrate this error, as I find it, and to consider argument to the contrary.

What I do ask of you, if possible, is to set aside your conviction that I must be wrong on this topic, howsoever temporarily/for the duration of this conversation. I ask this because I have come to believe that it is reflective of a particular mindset that is necessary (or at least very helpful) in order to assess an "opponent's" argument properly/fairly. If you can't do this, or do not wish to, that is equally your prerogative, but this forms part of what I normally look for when I engage in conversation on this site. I'm not looking to be taught, or corrected, per se, but listened to and engaged and, where appropriate, challenged.

If in saying all of this I am belaboring the obvious, making mountains of molehills, or otherwise insulting you, I apologize.

14 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

I'll toss one more set in the ring. This is from The Journals of Ayn Rand, Part 4 - Atlas Shrugged, 11 - The Mind On Strike pg. 422

To be exchangeable among men, a creation has to be put into a material shape—and only that material shape is exchangeable (through a material medium of exchange, like money). The spiritual is non-exchangeable. Is it collective? Quite the opposite; it is completely individual, and not subject to exchange. A man who reads my book can get out of it only what he is able to get; I can give him nothing more; and he can give me nothing in exchange; he can give me appreciation and understanding, which are of value to me as a person, but he can give me nothing to help me with that book, or with the next one; my contribution has to be made by me alone, and those who want it, take it, for whatever they can get out of it. [...]

Skipping two paragraphs on the writer and composer she continues.

An inventor sells the physical machine he has devised (or the right to use his idea by putting it into a physical shape or machine). He cannot sell the idea.

A philosopher or theoretical scientist can only sell the book in which he presents the new knowledge he has discovered. He cannot sell the knowledge. In economics, the realm of material exchange, collectivists demand that a man give his idea as well as its physical consequences or manifestations, keeping none of it for himself. He can't get any spiritual payment for his creation—and he is expected to renounce even the physical payment. The physical objects of exchange among men come from someone's ideas, but all men are expected to share in them equally—which [implies] a complete denial of the source of physical wealth and of the rights of its creators. The creators, then, keep the others going for nothing—receiving neither spiritual nor physical reward. And the parasites get the material benefits for nothing, for the mere fact of being parasites—and enslave the creator, besides.

I agree with Rand's phrasing here in part and disagree in part, as well. I can parse this fully if you'd like, though I believe that my commentary would be somewhat reiterative of the arguments I've already made throughout the thread and below. Yet if you believe it would help your understanding of my arguments, or if you think I will discover something meaningful in the exercise, please say so, and I'll attempt to come back to it soon.

14 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

I tend to tie these and other passages together with man's mind is is basic means of survival, that even the products of the mind take mental work and effort to arrive at.

Let us agree that "man's mind is his basic means of survival" and that ideas, which is what I take "products of the mind" to mean, do take mental work/effort to arrive at. Anyone who holds an idea in his mind only does so as the fruit of some labor, and what is more, he is entitled to it.

Agreed?

14 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

To take a stab at one of your points Don, on the mind/body split (these quotes have been more toward a general support of IP, rather than targeting your posts specifically),Isn't trying to differentiate and uphold the work of the hands while downplaying the work of the mind essentially introducing the wedge here?

I agree that differentiating and upholding the work of the hands while downplaying the work of the mind would introduce the mind/body wedge; I disagree that this is what I'm doing! Rather, it is my contention that in her essay "Patents and Copyrights," it is Rand who introduces and relies upon just such a wedge by differentiating between the work of the hands and the work of the mind, downplaying the work of the hands to uphold the work of the mind, and awarding property right on that very basis.

But examine her argument again (through this mind/body lens) for yourself:

Quote

Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind.

The product of his mind? (Note the differentiation being introduced: it is the product/work "of the mind" as opposed to "of the hands.") Insofar as the "product of his mind" are his ideas, there is no disagreement. Every man has the right to his own ideas. But this is not what patents and copyrights assess, or form the subject matter of Rand's essay, which are the rights to material goods/physical wealth/property. Yet property is not alone the "product of the mind," but as it must be turned into physical reality in order to be of use, all material wealth is equally the product of the hands. Thus Rand's argument for IP elevates the work of the mind and downplays the work of the hands.

Here, too, and explicitly:

Quote

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 that 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.

The "physical labor of copying"? Do you see? The wedge is already at work. It downplays the so-called work of the hands by reducing it to "mindless" labor. It acts as though "the hands" can produce something without mind. But that's mysticism. That's acting as though some men are zombies, who consequently do not own what they produce, and other men (superior men, presumably) are ghosts--minds without bodies--who (somehow) bring physical wealth into existence qua wealth.

But try it out for yourself. Rand asserts that IP law "establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence." So, without the "work of the hands," use your mind to bring some property into existence. Let's say a car. You may use any pre-existing plans or blueprints or ideas as your fancy strikes you, so long as you do not engage in "the physical labor of copying." Instead, rely upon your mind alone to bring the car you desire into existence.

Tell me how far your mental car takes you.

Or, better still, recognize with me that physical labor is equally as necessary as mental labor in the production of material wealth, which is the stuff that we need to survive. Cars must be built to be driven. Indeed, when man has produced wealth (whether "copying" from some pre-existing example or not, which is also known as "learning"), it is evidence that the man who has produced that wealth has engaged in both mental and physical labor. Specifically, the mental and physical labor necessary to bring that wealth into existence, qua wealth. This is the very reason why (apart from Rand's arguments for IP) we award property right on that very basis:

Quote

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.

Note, too, from Galt's speech:

Quote

Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality—to think, to work and to keep the results—which means: the right of property.

The results, which is material wealth, i.e. property. To think (mental labor), to work (physical labor) and consequently to keep the results, which rely upon both thought and work to exist as results (the keeping of which, the use and disposal of which, being "property rights"). We translate our rights "into reality," meaning to bring our ideas into material fruition, which requires both mental and physical labor to effect. The relationship is analogous to man and "his body." Man does not exist without his body, and neither does material wealth exist without its material implementation, which is "the work of the hands," or physical labor.

But Rand's IP arguments attempt to divorce this metaphysical arrangement, fitting an inappropriate wedge between mind and body, so that mental work is accounted one discrete set of products and physical labor another. It declares this mental work to be the important aspect, and thus awards the resultant property (which, again, is material wealth) to the innovator at the expense of the person who has performed the equally necessary physical work, which is derided as "copying," and not contributing to the creation of value.

Yet in reality, the creation of the value of any actual property relies upon the physical labor involved in its creation. And what's more, the man who "copies" performs no less mental labor in creating wealth than the innovator (or at least it is not necessarily less, accounting to specifics). Thus the description of reality Rand presents in forming her IP arguments is not correct. It is not factual. And the subsequent theory she develops on that basis is consequently (and fittingly) flawed.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

4 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Indeed, when man has produced wealth (whether "copying" from some pre-existing example or not, which is also known as "learning"), it is evidence that the man who has produced that wealth has engaged in both mental and physical labor.

Furthermore, there's no such thing as 'purely physical labor'.

 

If an unskilled laborer is paid to use the cash register that was invented by some great mind, he must use his own mind in order to use it; he has to learn which buttons to push under which circumstances, he has to identify those circumstances throughout the course of his shift (and respond appropriately to each one) and he must have chosen to do that job in the first place - by the work of his own, comparatively unskilled mind.

If he attempts to reverse-engineer that cash register and make a duplicate, for himself (thereby violating any alleged IP rights) he'll never succeed by his hands, alone.

 

Further still, if such a person were to do such a thing; build a duplicate cash register and use it in some duplicated franchise, where they could have the opportunity to run things; to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps - could that be some strange form of evil, that stems from the identification and emulation of all things good?

Are there exceptions to the principle that each man must seek the highest and best for himself, in all things? Do whatever is ultimately best for you - as long as nobody else has done it first?

 

If that's the good then I'll be proud to be evil.

 

---

 

The point I keep coming back to (and it may not be particularly fundamental; I'm just laying out my own thought processes) is this:

"The chief argument in support of the notion that broadcasting frequencies should be 'public property' has been stated succinctly by Justice Frankfurter: '[Radio] facilities are limited; they are not available to all who may wish to use them; the radio spectrum simply is not large enough to accommodate everybody. There is a fixed natural limitation upon the number of stations that can operate without interfering with one another.'

The fallacy of this argument is obvious. The number of broadcasting frequencies is limited; so is the number of concert halls; so is the amount of oil or wheat or diamonds; so is the acreage of land on the surface of the globe. There is no material element or value that exists in unlimited quantity. And if a 'wish' to use a certain 'facility' is the criterion of the right to use it, then the universe is simply not large enough to accommodate all those who harbor wishes for the unearned."

-The Property Status of the Airwaves, by Ayn Rand

And yet, ideas are a truly unlimited resource. I can share my idea with any number of people and still retain my own property (my idea), in its entirety, for myself.

The only thing I may lose (my market share) was never guaranteed, in the first place; its existence depends on the mental labor of each and every potential customer, without which I have nothing to show for my own effort - except my ideas and my prototypes, themselves.

IP rights are not necessary to justify my ownership of that.

 

So -while I'll acknowledge, right off the bat, that it's morally praiseworthy to pay homage wherever it's due- I remain loathe to accept it as mandatory.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

17 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

So -while I'll acknowledge, right off the bat, that it's morally praiseworthy to pay homage wherever it's due- I remain loathe to accept it as mandatory.

A healthy diet and a good work ethic, for example, are praiseworthy but not mandatory: every individual has the right to eat junk food, if they'd like. The non-initiation of force is mandatory: you don't enter into discussions with your own muggers; you destroy them with fire.

I'll grant (and I believe DA will, as well) that respecting IP "rights" is praiseworthy; what we're disputing is that it's mandatory.

If it is mandatory then it doesn't follow that those who violate IP rights should be fined, and forced to pay off the originators; what follows is that we destroy them with fire, like any other thug who wants to violate our rights.

 

I enthusiastically dispute that.

[Craig24]

49 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

If it is mandatory then it doesn't follow that those who violate IP rights should be fined, and forced to pay off the originators; what follows is that we destroy them with fire, like any other thug who wants to violate our rights.

 

I enthusiastically dispute that.

Why does it follow that a rights violator must be destroyed with fire?  What does that even mean?  I'm picturing you literally burning someone to death for trespassing on your land.  

[Craig24]

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Further still, if such a person were to do such a thing; build a duplicate cash register and use it in some duplicated franchise, where they could have the opportunity to run things; to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps - could that be some strange form of evil, that stems from the identification and emulation of all things good?

He doesn't need to reverse engineer and build a duplicate cash register.  Someone has already invented the thing and so you can BUY the ones already being manufactured.  It's much cheaper that way.  

[Harrison Danneskjold]

2 hours ago, Craig24 said:

Why does it follow that a rights violator must be destroyed with fire?  What does that even mean?  I'm picturing you literally burning someone to death for trespassing on your land.  

 I should clarify. I know most of the people advocating for IP rights would likely punish it similarly to acts of fraud; I'm not disputing such punishments, per se, but the moral evaluation they imply.

To treat a great man like a scoundrel is no better than sanctioning your own destroyers.

 

2 hours ago, Craig24 said:

He doesn't need to reverse engineer and build a duplicate cash register.  Someone has already invented the thing and so you can BUY the ones already being manufactured.  It's much cheaper that way.  

What if he'd rather not?

[Eiuol]

5 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Further still, if such a person were to do such a thing; build a duplicate cash register and use it in some duplicated franchise, where they could have the opportunity to run things; to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps - could that be some strange form of evil, that stems from the identification and emulation of all things good?

This reminds me of Communism, where capitalists prevent an individual's livelihood through controlling the means of production. You are literally complaining about another man controlling the means of production. You aren't denied or exploited, just get out and pay or trade! If you want to argue against IP, this line of reasoning is very anti-capitalist.

Then again, I barely understand your sentence.

[Craig24]

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 What if he'd rather not?

Then he shouldn't.  

[dream_weaver]

8 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Throughout my ongoing participation here at OO, I've found it increasingly useful to consider things not only in terms of content (do I really and truly understand my interlocutor? am I right, or wrong? am I communicating myself fully and clearly? am I being as polite as possible without losing salient meaning?) but also the terms of that participation. What do I mean to accomplish, and why? Am I merely giving voice to my thoughts for some personal emotional satisfaction (e.g. "ranting" or "venting")? The joy of conversation with another intelligent mind? Or am I looking to sharpen my rhetoric? Am I speaking to my "opponent" in an effort to persuade? Or punish/be cruel? Am I primarily speaking to others (perhaps those not even on the board yet)? Am I seeking to learn what someone else believes in order to disprove it? Or am I open to the possibility that my "opponent" may be right, and if so, am I taking the steps (internal and external) necessary to be able to understand that, should it turn out to be the case? Is it likely for me to get what I want out of this particular conversation? Does it serve my life overall?

Though I do not always answer these questions correctly (and my goals vary from time to time), asking them of myself and attempting to answer has, I believe, helped me to make better decisions regarding my participation here.

I bring all of this up, both to set it down somewhere (because I've never examined this process I've just now described explicitly), and also because I note that you've included (actually, led) with an emoji of "Atlas shrugging." I don't know precisely what you mean by it, if anything, but I'd like to make this clear: you're not being asked to carry anything on your shoulders. As is appropriate to the nature of this forum, I expect that you would only engage a particular conversation if it serves your life. I don't expect you to do this for me or to sacrifice on my account. In particular, I do not call upon you to "present Rand's side on this topic." For what it's worth, I believe that I already understand Rand's side, and... I think that her side is in error. I mean to demonstrate this error, as I find it, and to consider argument to the contrary.

What I do ask of you, if possible, is to set aside your conviction that I must be wrong on this topic, howsoever temporarily/for the duration of this conversation. I ask this because I have come to believe that it is reflective of a particular mindset that is necessary (or at least very helpful) in order to assess an "opponent's" argument properly/fairly. If you can't do this, or do not wish to, that is equally your prerogative, but this forms part of what I normally look for when I engage in conversation on this site. I'm not looking to be taught, or corrected, per se, but listened to and engaged and, where appropriate, challenged.

If in saying all of this I am belaboring the obvious, making mountains of molehills, or otherwise insulting you, I apologize.

You bring some salient point up here. Let me start by putting aside any perception of this as insulting to me.

Stepping back a paragraph, while I am of the conviction that Rand is essentially correct on IP, the logical connections have been lost thru not having kept them at my fingertips.

Rand indicates that the issue of morality cannot disregarded on a desert island. Instead, this is where man needs it most. Mark Scott found it fruitful to put things in that setting to help clarify things. I'm going to try that here.

A man on a desert island, in this regard, has to originate any ideas for any improvements or inventions in his tools first hand. In the industrial society we enjoy, the originator of an invention has done so in a first-hand manner.

A man on a desert island cannot survive in a secondhand manner. He either originates, or goes without.

Politics does not arise until a social setting. The question of if this is strictly a moral issue or a political one should become a bit clearer here.

Stepping back another paragraph, the emoji I kicked that off with was in part for trying to find more relevant material that I think Rand used to induce her position. Harrison brought up the radio air-waves article, which I had left out because I had focused primarily on the air-waves, and considered them as a form of property akin to land, that could be "surveyed" and assigned title. Taking into consideration the first/second hand issue, a theme strongly developed in The Fountainhead, the Cortlandt trial could be considered to be part of the IP issue as well.

Your opening paragraph hits home. I find in my conversation in general, that full clear communication is one of my biggest challenges. Property rights, which stem from the tangible stuff in my grocery cart which I intend to make mine on purchase, to the picnic table I build from plans I developed to minimize waste on the materials purchased to build it, and the automobile I drive which has a unique VIN recorded with the state, backed by a document which authenticates my claim to the right to that particular vehicle—gets extended to the more abstract property deed, which relies on surveys to demarcate a chunk of land, subject to being recognized by others as being owned, which I did not create, but purchased via another complex system of bartering which gave rise to the concept of money used to purchase it with. IP is an extension of property, much like extending the idea of entity to the concept of a concept being a mental entity. It is this extended sense that is either recognized, or not, by others. Codifying such recognition into law allows the reference to the social contract referred to as copyright in the beginning of a book, or embossing or recessing a patent number into a mold that produces a part referencing the part on file at a patent-house.

"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it?

The question, with regard to IP is: What is it? Can it be regarded as property, serving as a cornerstone to upholding the material manifestation of property rights, or is the product of the intellect free to any and all that lay claim to an idea by being able to replicate the physical motions without having to go thru the effort of discovering them first-hand?