Intellectual property

[dream_weaver]

47 minutes ago, gio said:

Arguments, words, language, structure of the sentence, etc. All those things are human creations, aren't they?
As such, and according to the logic of intellectual property, they are necessarely the intellectual property of someone. You have to get the permission of the owner to use it.

Ayn Rand introduced the logical fallacy of a "package deal". So while logic and logical fallacies are indeed human creations, lumping arguments, words, language, sentence structure, etc, in with copyrights, patents and trademarks doesn't generate much credence for this type of equivocation.

[gio]

12 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Ayn Rand introduced the logical fallacy of a "package deal". So while logic and logical fallacies are indeed human creations, lumping arguments, words, language, sentence structure, etc, in with copyrights, patents and trademarks doesn't generate much credence for this type of equivocation.

I can not say logically how words, language, etc. differ essentially from other creations that are usually under "intellectual property" regulations. However, I can easyly say how including the concept of "intellectual property" in the general concept of property is a logical fallacy of "package deal" mixing two things which essentially differ in nature.

[Craig24]

Now that the issue has been raised, this article might be of interest:

Can copyright protect a language?

Quote

 

Oracle’s argument seems superficially appealing—copyright is about copying, after all—but closer inspection reveals just how worrying Oracle’s argument is. Copyright allows an author to stop anyone else from retyping, printing, or otherwise copying the protected material. But exactly what material is Oracle claiming protection in? The declaring code: a collection of words—a vocabulary—attached to certain contextual rules as to how those words are to be used—a grammar. A vocabulary plus a grammar equals a language, “a body of words and the systems for their use.”

So according to Oracle, copyright can protect a language and prevent others like Google from speaking it.

 

 

[Craig24]

Ok that does it.  This forum is violating my rights, copying my posts automatically like this!  I'm suing!

 

Edited January 25, 2016 by Craig24

[dream_weaver]

58 minutes ago, Craig24 said:

Ok that does it.  This forum is violating my rights, copying my posts automatically like this!  I'm suing!

I'm not too sure as to what legal leg there might be to stand on for suing. The software writers will attest that it is being done by the ghost in the machine, and the insurance companies will then want to write it off as an act of the god of the machine..

While the ghost in the machine is relatively recent, it should fall under fair use (providing I credit Gilbert Ryle for his contribution), while the god of the machine, a theater reference from ancient Greece, has long since passed into public domain.

Until a software patch is made available, can you please refrain from repeating yourself? (Tongue in cheek.)

Edited January 25, 2016 by dream_weaver

[Devil's Advocate]

18 hours ago, gio said:

No, I just meant you can't copy and in the same time say that you shouldn't copy. A is A. The concept of intellectual property is a bad copy of the concept of property. And in the same time it suggests that copying is wrong. This is self-contradictory...

So the concept of property is copied by the concept of IP, which prohibits copying...  Brilliant!

18 hours ago, gio said:

...

You can not create anything out of nothing. Of course, the way you mix things is personal. But basically, human life and human progress is based on copy.

Human life is based on reproduction and human progress on... on... some form of repetition?  Can you clarify this second part??

-- the following is an aside from Star Trek that pops into my head at this point for some reason --

Kirk:  "Who was that pointy-eared bastard?"

McCoy: "I don't know, but I like him."

[DonAthos]

14 hours ago, Craig24 said:

Now that the issue has been raised, this article might be of interest:

Can copyright protect a language?

Insofar as languages are "created" rather than "discovered," then... I suppose that the position consistent with "Patents and Copyrights" would hold languages subject to copyright or patent...? Furthermore, I think that I've encountered the argument that "processes" are rightly patentable, so might this hold for, say, a Do/While loop, or a bubble sort, or certain implementations of recursion?

[Devil's Advocate]

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

... I think that I've encountered the argument that "processes" are rightly patentable, so might this hold for, say, a Do/While loop, or a bubble sort, or certain implementations of recursion?

Patented Do/Whiles eh? Let's see if I can code that...
X = 10
Y = Inventor of Do/While Loops
Z = Legal Authority

Run
While X > 0
goto Y for permission to subtract 1 from X again
if Y = OK, then X = X-1 goto Run, else arrest program goto Z
EOL

 

Edited January 25, 2016 by Devil's Advocate
rusty programming skills

[gio]

3 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

So the concept of property is copied by the concept of IP, which prohibits copying...  Brilliant!

You've got my point.

3 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Human life is based on reproduction and human progress on... on... some form of repetition?  Can you clarify this second part?

Human progress is based on copy, on emulation from ideas materialized by others in the past, on competitive improvement of other's creations, on the combination of various ideas with minimal own original contribution.
Human being spends his time copying, every second of his life, starting from his early childhood. Prevent him to copy freely is to kill him. It means preventing him to realize his nature of human being.

Edited January 25, 2016 by gio

[Devil's Advocate]

So human life and progress are based on reproduction, i.e. an ability to copy, and IP (as a prohibition of that ability) is an impediment to life and progress.  Hmm…  Well, that’s an interesting way to approach this problem, I’ll give you that.  For clarity, you support the implementation of a right to life in the form of property, correct?

For example, if my own “minimal original contribution” gives me a competitive advantage over other’s creations, would I have a duty to reveal my original content, e.g. trade secrets, formulas, personal notes, etc., in order to prevent an impediment to their life and progress??

[New Buddha]

On 1/24/2016 at 3:40 AM, gio said:

The concept of intellectual property is self-contradictory. It means coercing an individual to not copy the ideas of others, except under certain conditions.

You can flip this argument by asking, "Is it in my best interest to copy ideas from others without their receiving compensation?"  Or, "Is it in my best, long-term self-interest to live in a society that doesn't respect IP?"  I say no, it's not in my long-term, self-interest.

A respect for Intellectual Property can be seen as an investment against possible future gains.  Not ownership in future gains, but an investment worth making, none the less.

If a musician writes a song that provides you enjoyment, is not compensating him for his work, with a relatively small amount of money, a "fair trade" ?  Will paying him for his music, more likely than not, result in future music that will add even greater value to your life?

Why would any honest person hesitate for a moment to compensate another person for their achievements?  Why would someone want something for nothing?  Isn't something more precious to you because you traded for it , via your own labor and efforts?

The Ghost of Ayn Rand is not going to come down from the heavens and smite anyone for not respecting IP.  Respecting IP is a choice that each individual must make for himself.  And respecting the IP of others is in the self-interest of a productive human being. 

Edited January 27, 2016 by New Buddha

[gio]

6 hours ago, New Buddha said:

You can flip this argument by asking, "Is it in my best interest to copy ideas from others without their receiving compensation?"  Or, "Is it in my best, long-term self-interest to live in a society that doesn't respect IP?"  I say no, it's not in my long-term, self-interest.

Read the economic writings of Bastiat (Economic Sophisms for instance). The purpose of economy is the satisfaction of the consumer, not the producer protection. Because consumer is the finality of economy and because each producer is also consumer and consumes much more than he produces. In his life, any creator copy much more things than he can create (he copies something every minute of his life). Therefore, intellectual property isn't in anybody interest.

6 hours ago, New Buddha said:

If a musician writes a song that provides you enjoyment, is not compensating him for his work, with a relatively small amount of money, a "fair trade" ?  

You seem to think the only way for a creator to get compensation for his work by fair trade is only by intellectual property. Before the invention of intellectual property by the governments, musicians didn't receive any compensation for their work? (Mozart worked for free?)

Edited January 27, 2016 by gio

[gio]

11 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

For clarity, you support the implementation of a right to life in the form of property, correct?

I'm not sure to understand the question.

11 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

For example, if my own “minimal original contribution” gives me a competitive advantage over other’s creations, would I have a duty to reveal my original content, e.g. trade secrets, formulas, personal notes, etc., in order to prevent an impediment to their life and progress??

As I said to New Buddha, think of everyone interest as a consumer (that each of us is above all) not as a producer. Read Bastiat. The purpose of production is consumption (in the large meaning of this term). That's the finality.

Forget keynesians reflexes.

Edited January 27, 2016 by gio

[Devil's Advocate]

8 hours ago, New Buddha said:

...  The Ghost of Ayn Rand is not going to come down from the heavens and smite anyone for not respecting IP.  Respecting IP is a choice that each individual must make for himself.  And respecting the IP of others is in the self-interest of a productive human being.

I love the way you put this, and I agree.

1 hour ago, gio said:

I'm not sure to understand the question...

Do you support a right to property as a consequence of a right to life?

1 hour ago, gio said:

... As I said to New Buddha, think of everyone interest as a consumer (that each of us is above all) not as a producer. Read Bastiat. The purpose of production is consumption (in the large meaning of this term). That's the finality...

... but consuming is not an end in itself.

Someone must replenish the goods in order for consuming to continue long term.  The area of interest shared by consumers and producers is a right to the property they possess.  So you can as easily say the purpose of consumption is production (of consumable goods).

Do you agree?

[Plasmatic]

Gio said:

"Read the economic writings of Bastiat (Economic Sophisms for instance). The purpose of economy is the satisfaction of the consumer, not the producer protection. Because consumer is the finality of economy and because each producer is also consumer and consumes much more than he produces. In his life, any creator copy much more things than he can create (he copies something every minute of his life). Therefore, intellectual property isn't in anybody interest."

 

Just for contrast, this is what the Oist view is on the consumer as the "end" of production.

 

 

"Consumption is the final, not the efficient, cause of production. The efficient cause is savings, which can be said to represent the opposite of consumption: they represent unconsumed goods. Consumption is the end of production, and a dead end, as far as the productive process is concerned. The worker who produces so little that he consumes everything he earns, carries his own weight economically, but contributes nothing to future production. The worker who has a modest savings account, and the millionaire who invests a fortune (and all the men in between), are those who finance the future. The man who consumes without producing is a parasite, whether he is a welfare recipient or a rich playboy."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/consumption.html

 

I really need to enter this debate but havent had the time to give it the needed attention. My tounge is bleeding!

[gio]

4 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Do you support a right to property as a consequence of a right to life?

Yes.

4 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

... but consuming is not an end in itself.

Consuming is the purpose of production, and by the way, of all economy. Read Bastiat. (Economic Sophisms. And Economic Harmonies if you have time.) Man products in order to consume and consume in order to enjoy life, which is the ultimate end.

4 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Someone must replenish the goods in order for consuming to continue long term.

You have to product in order to consume. But thanks to the division of labor, one consume always much more that he can produce. Human progress is precisely that: the ratio between what you consume and what you can produce grows exponentially.
According to your reasoning, since this is the production which allows the consumption, there should be more obstacles, more barriers and more difficulties in the enjoyment of goods. That way we will work more and therefore we will earn more. This is a Keynesian fallacy. Read Bastiat. You can read him freely, his ideas are not under someone's property.

4 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

 The area of interest shared by consumers and producers is a right to the property they possess.

What is the direct purpose of property right?

4 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

So you can as easily say the purpose of consumption is production (of consumable goods).

It doesn't make any sense. Man works to live. He doesn't live for work. Life is the ultimate end. Consumers and producers are the same people. Division of labor mislead you.

Edited January 27, 2016 by gio

[gio]

1 hour ago, Plasmatic said:

"Consumption is the final, not the efficient, cause of production. The efficient cause is savings, which can be said to represent the opposite of consumption: they represent unconsumed goods. Consumption is the end of production, and a dead end, as far as the productive process is concerned. The worker who produces so little that he consumes everything he earns, carries his own weight economically, but contributes nothing to future production. The worker who has a modest savings account, and the millionaire who invests a fortune (and all the men in between), are those who finance the future. The man who consumes without producing is a parasite, whether he is a welfare recipient or a rich playboy."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/consumption.html

The principle of savings and investment is to refrain from consuming today in order to consume more tomorrow. What did you think was the finality?

Edited January 27, 2016 by gio

[Devil's Advocate]

7 hours ago, gio said:

... It doesn't make any sense. Man works to live. He doesn't live for work...

That depends in large measure on how much you value your work...

[New Buddha]

13 hours ago, gio said:

Before the invention of intellectual property by the governments, musicians didn't receive any compensation for their work? (Mozart worked for free?)

The concept of property, intellectual or otherwise, has not always existed.  Certainly not in the codified form that it currently does throughout much of the West.  And while I can't discuss the in's and out's of the nature of real and chattel property in the country in which Mozart lived, I do know that it was vastly different than it is today.  What did it really mean to say that anyone "owned" anything in Austria in the 18th Century? or the 17th or 16th or the 11th....?

The nature of property and the nature of ownership were very much in the minds of those who led the English Civil War against Charles I.  And it also played a major role in the downfall of the Stuart Restoration and the subsequent Glorious Revolution.  The wealthy class in England were tired of appeals to the "Divine Right of Kings" (made by the Stuarts) and the lack of constitutional protection of their property, so they chopped off the head of one king and chased the other out of England and wrote a constitution.

These ideas were the bedrock upon which the United States were founded.  Link to Past Below

On April 10, 1790, President George Washington signed the bill which laid the foundations of the modern American patent system. The U.S. patent system was unique; for the first time in history the intrinsic right of an inventor to profit from his invention is recognized by law. Previously, privileges granted to an inventor were dependent upon the prerogative of a monarch or upon a special act of a legislature.

"Congress shall have the power...to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." - U.S. Constitution  Article 1. Section 8.

The abstraction "property" is not some timeless, unalterable Platonic idea.  It's messy.  It changes.  And it will continue to change so long as we live in societies that respect an individuals right to property.

And, by they way, your constant appeal to "read Bastiat" assumes that anyone that disagrees with you doesn't understand the arguments for and against IP, and in this, you are wrong.  Making unsupported statements with an appeal to Authority doesn't do much to strengthen your position.

 

 

[dream_weaver]

New Buddha,

You bring in an aspect of The Constitution I had forgotten about before with Article 1, Section 8. The bill of rights, adopted after The Constitution had been ratified was to make explicit several rights that were considered implicit at the time, including the Ninth amendment that the enumeration of rights shall not be used to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.

Rand had indicated that individual rights and altruism were incompatible, that so long as altruism continues to poison moral judgement, the rights of the individual would continue to be sacrificed on the altar of the collective. IP rights were among the first laws passed in the first congress, as if underscoring their implicit importance as far as what to respect so long as we intellectually choose to live in a society that respects an individuals right to property, a point highlighted in Adam Mossoff's presentation on Intellectual Property.

So even during the framing of The Constitution, the founding fathers saw fit to sew into the fabric thereof, a recognition of the importance they took on intellectual property rights, even prior to the addendum of the Bill of Rights...

Edited January 28, 2016 by dream_weaver

[Devil's Advocate]

21 hours ago, gio said:

... Consumers and producers are the same people...

Exactly, and so the direct purpose of a property right is to protect the individual as a consumer and as a producer.  If he cannot own the bread he purchases, anyone can take it from his plate before he eats it.  Likewise, if he cannot own the bread he produces, anyone can take it from his oven without paying for it.

The larger question here is not, "Who owns the marketplace?"; everyone does.  Producers and consumers enter the marketplace as equals because they are essentially the same person, with the same right to property.  And the source of that right isn't the marketplace or government; it's the individual... What? Were you expecting me to say, the Right to Life? *cue fanfare*

How useful is even the most fundamental right of all to individuals who dismiss it or worse, recognize it for themselves but not for others?  Recognition is key, and while most recognize who owns tangible property, intangible property (IP) is a very different kind of good, or bad, depending on your point of view.

It's difficult to grasp what you can't get your hands on...

Edited January 28, 2016 by Devil's Advocate
clean up

[gio]

18 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

That depends in large measure on how much you value your work...

No. Life is the mother of all conceivable values. Whatever value you attribute to your work, you give it value because it brings you happiness in your life. It's always a mean to an end, which is to get a happy life.
It is yet consumption. Or, to use a more general word, satisfaction. It's the same. When talking about consumption, we speak of an individual whose desire or need is sated. In short, an individual who obtains satisfaction. If he likes to work, he works in order to obtain pleasure, he draws satisfaction, it's the same. We always do an effort in order to get result.
Your idea implies that the effort may be more important than the result. Therefore, it could be good to work for work, but bad to get pleasure or satisfaction from it in one form or another (even the pleasure to work). It's exactly what self-sacrifice is. The direction towards death.

Someone who draws his happiness directly from work is always free to work more if desired. But a regulation, which forces people to work more, by artificially lowering the ratio between effort and result, so between work and satisfaction drawn from it (regardless of the form taken by this result or satisfaction) is utter nonsense. Read Bastiat.

Moreover, Intellectual property has never been thought in order to give more work and less satisfaction to people, even if it actually achieves that. It was thought in the (false) idea to give more satisfaction to creators. Therefore, I don't think that self-sacrifice is a good way to defend it.

Edited January 28, 2016 by gio

[Devil's Advocate]

39 minutes ago, gio said:

...Therefore, I don't think that self-sacrifice is a good way to defend it.

... nor does anyone here...

42 minutes ago, gio said:

No. Life is the mother of all conceivable values. Whatever value you attribute to your work, you give it value because it brings you happiness in your life. It's always a mean to an end, which is to get a happy life... Read Bastiat...

"God put raw materials and the forces of Nature at man's disposal. To gain possession of them, either one has to take pains, or one does not have to take pains... If pains must be taken, ... the satisfaction must go to the one who has taken the pains. This is the principle of property" ~ so sayeth Bastiat

Work can certainly be a painful experience to those who would prefer not to work...

"Always you have been told that work is a curse and labour a misfortune.  But I say to you that when you work you fulfil a part of earth's furthest dream, assigned to you when that dream was born, and in keeping yourself with labour you are in truth loving life, and to love life through labour is to be intimate with life's inmost secret." ~ Read Gibran

 

[gio]

7 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Exactly, and so the direct purpose of a property right is to protect the individual as a consumer and as a producer.  If he cannot own the bread he purchases, anyone can take it from his plate before he eats it.  Likewise, if he cannot own the bread he produces, anyone can take it from his oven without paying for it.

The larger question here is not, "Who owns the marketplace?"; everyone does.  Producers and consumers enter the marketplace as equals because they are essentially the same person, with the same right to property.  And the source of that right isn't the marketplace or government; it's the individual... What? Were you expecting me to say, the Right to Life? *cue fanfare*

You don't understand what is the purpose of property right or the purpose of a right. Go back to the classics, such Aristotle.

A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a human beings freedom of action in a social context. It is the identification of a truth about how human beings can live optimally in a social context. The source of right is not individuals. It's meaningless to talk about Robinson Crusoe's "rights". The source of right is in the relationship between individuals. The purpose of right is to prevent and resolve conflicts between individuals.

The purpose of property right is not to protect the producer or the consumer as such. Basically, the purpose of the property right is to avoid conflicts that may arise from the use of goods or resource. The context of property right is that it apply to tangible goods. This is involved by the property right. As you don't take this into account, you make the mistake of identifying copying and stealing. Even as you copy something every minute of your life. And no human being can live without copying his peers.

There is no contradictions : You can't protect a person as a producer and as a consumer at the same time. You either facilitate — through freedom — access to resources and you serve the consumer (needs and desires are satisfied, life grows) or places obstacles and barriers to protect the producer. You can't defend both positions simultaneously.
If you want to protect the producer, you have to be consistent and prohibit competition or free trade, because they protect the producers. Against consumers, of course.
Anything you can do to protect someone as a producer harms everyone (including himself) as a consumer. For instance, if you want to protect the doctor as a producer of a care service, you need to ensure foster disease, and thus, put more obstacles to anything that allows access to care easier. More people will need doctors, who will get more work. Of course, you forget that the finality of care service is to heal, but who cares, since you protect production of care ... which become meaningless (without goal) since you corrupt the very reason for its existence.

You favoures the means at the expense of the goal, without understanding that the mean exists only for the goal.

1 hour ago, Devil's Advocate said:

"God put raw materials and the forces of Nature at man's disposal. To gain possession of them, either one has to take pains, or one does not have to take pains... If pains must be taken, ... the satisfaction must go to the one who has taken the pains. This is the principle of property" ~ so sayeth Bastiat

Read full book you quote (Or Economic Sophisms, it's shorter). Bastiat talks here about conventional property, which implies a context of tangible goods. He explained that what can be obtained (not produced, obtained) without effort is not subject to property. This is the case of an idea that can be multiplied to infinity without pain.
But that's not what I want to show you in the writings of Bastiat. Read him. Seriously.

1 hour ago, Devil's Advocate said:

.Work can certainly be a painful experience to those who would prefer not to work...

You completely missed my point, or you intentionally build a strawman.

Edited January 28, 2016 by gio

[gio]

22 hours ago, New Buddha said:

And while I can't discuss the in's and out's of the nature of real and chattel property in the country in which Mozart lived, I do know that it was vastly different than it is today.  What did it really mean to say that anyone "owned" anything in Austria in the 18th Century? or the 17th or 16th or the 11th....?

What I wanted to show you is that intellectual property did not exist for centuries, and yet artists were paid for their work. According to your reasoning, it is impossible. Because you missed something.

22 hours ago, New Buddha said:

The abstraction "property" is not some timeless, unalterable Platonic idea.  It's messy.  It changes.  And it will continue to change so long as we live in societies that respect an individuals right to property.

The application has varied, the principle has never changed fundamentally. Intellectual property fundamentally corrupts the principle of property by changing its purpose and context. We can even show that intellectual property is a violation of property right.

22 hours ago, New Buddha said:

And, by they way, your constant appeal to "read Bastiat" assumes that anyone that disagrees with you doesn't understand the arguments for and against IP,

That's not why I invite you to read Bastiat. Bastiat doesn't talk about intellectual property. But he will help some people understand why the reasoning they do just here to defend intellectual property is a logical mistake. I try also to explain it, but Devil's Advocate did not get my point. I guess Bastiat is clearer.

22 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Making unsupported statements with an appeal to Authority doesn't do much to strengthen your position.

I was tempted to reply only: "Read Bastiat". Lol.
This is not an argument from authority. Devil's Adovate used a quotation from Bastiat as an argument from authority. I hope it's not because Bastiat says that you believe, but because his arguments are logical, clear, rational and irrefutable. He will help you as he helped me (and probably helped Rand). It's a real advice. I think that anyone who will read Bastiat will not regret. You'll thank me later!
Secondly, I have nothing against developing my explanations as long as a book, but I don't think anyone will read on a forum. Anyone would prefer... read Bastiat. In addition, he's a much better stylist than me.

Edited January 29, 2016 by gio