Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Intellectual property

Rate this topic


Robert Romero

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, gio said:

.. This is not an argument from authority. Devil's Adovate used a quotation from Bastiat as an argument from authority...

Interesting that you consider my citing the very author you're so eager for us to read as an argument from authority.

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 1:28 PM, gio said:

You've got my point...

Yay

2 hours ago, gio said:

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

Oh dear, well I've been probing try to understand you better.  I get that you agree with Bastiat, who is no stranger to those who follow Objectivism, as is Aristotle, Locke, Hume and others.  I also appreciated your rather unique approach to criticize IP as, "a bad copy"; I intend to use that again sometime.

 

1 hour ago, gio said:

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...

Artists were often paid by patrons who appreciated the potential value of what they were capable of, and in that respect the concept of IP has been around longer than you suggest.  Are you familiar with how the issue of IP was addressed by the ancient merchants who took the value of innovation quite seriously hundreds of years ago.  If not, you may want to read, Lex Mercatoria someday.  The Dutch phrase, "Live and let live" is referenced to prescribe allowing artisans to live by the value of innovations, for a time but not forever to avoid the negative aspects of monopoly.

2 hours ago, gio said:

... 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...

Go on...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, gio said:

The context of property right is that it apply to tangible goods.

This is the flaw in your argument.  You read this somewhere and, unquestionably, accepted it as true.

In the US we recognize (for the sake of this argument) three types of property.  Roughly speaking, Real Property (land and buildings) Chattel (televisions, animals, sofas, cars, computers, etc.) and Intellectual Property (trademarks, patents and copyrights).  There are many other types, but for the sake of brevity, lets keep it to these three.

There is nothing ontological that privileges Real and Chattel property as inherently different from Intellectual Property.  All property, in a sense, can be said to be "intellectual" because property depends on members of society defining and respecting it in all it's various types.  Property is not an intrinsic characteristic of something "tangible".  The fact that you can "touch" something has no standing philosophically speaking.  To believe that it does is a form of Intrinsicism.

Why is it not okay to steal my car, but it is okay to make copies of my architectural blueprints and specifications and not compensate me?  According to your "coercion" argument against IP, you could just as easily say that I'm also using the State to "coercively" prevent you from stealing my car.

The reason it's not okay for you to steal my car is because it is not in your best interest to live in a society in which such things are sanctioned by other members of society.  This is also true for why it is not in your best interest to live in a society that does not respect Intellectual Property.

In many ways, the US Revolution was about the defining of property -- and as I posted above, and as Dreamweaver commented, codifiing Intellectual Property in law was of prime importance.  Now, you might say that this was done by "producers" to "repress" "consumers", but to make this type of argument demonstrates that you don't understand history or how laws come into being and/or change.

If you wish to persuade people to scrap hundreds of years of law and completely restructure their economy (at a great expense), they you'll need to make a better argument than you've been doing.  So far, I've heard nothing new.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/1/2016 at 2:37 AM, Devil's Advocate said:

Interesting that you consider my citing the very author you're so eager for us to read as an argument from authority.

You don't see how it's different to quote an author to say, «He said this, and since we like this author, he's right.» and mention an author to say: «Take knowledge of its arguments, they will convince you.» ? In the first case it's an argument from authority, not in the second. Because in the first, unlike the second, you take a sentence without seeking to verify the validity of the idea. You attribute value to the statement only through the author's reputation, not by logic or validity of his arguments.

On 29/1/2016 at 2:37 AM, Devil's Advocate said:

Oh dear, well I've been probing try to understand you better.  I get that you agree with Bastiat,

Unfortunately, as long as you don't know Bastiat's thought, you can't understand what means "agree with Bastiat". On what point? From what arguments? How is this connected to the discussion? Apparently you don't know. And unfortunately it seems to me that you don't want to know.

And the point that you missed is that you didn't understand that work has always a purpose, which is to obtain satisfaction (even the pleasure of work itself). And that work has value only insofar as it achieves its purpose. To say this doesn't contradict the fact that you can enjoy work, on the contrary. This precisely explains why. We like to work because we draw satisfaction from it, because the work makes us happy. So it doesn't makes any sense to place work as a higher value than... the sole reason that it can have a value. You haven't properly integrate values.
Therefore, I don't know if you understand that economy, like values (both are interconnected as you should have noticed) have both a purpose that is the same, namely satisfaction, to take a general word. This is the reason why life is the mother of all values and the reason why the end of production is consumption. I give value to this / I produced this because it makes my life better, it gives me pleasure, it gives me satisfaction. It's even the goal of all human action.

On 29/1/2016 at 2:37 AM, Devil's Advocate said:

Artists were often paid by patrons who appreciated the potential value of what they were capable of, and in that respect the concept of IP has been around longer than you suggest.  Are you familiar with how the issue of IP was addressed by the ancient merchants who took the value of innovation quite seriously hundreds of years ago.  If not, you may want to read, Lex Mercatoria someday.  The Dutch phrase, "Live and let live" is referenced to prescribe allowing artisans to live by the value of innovations, for a time but not forever to avoid the negative aspects of monopoly.

You confuse different things.

Composer was paid in exchange for his partition, writer in exchange for his manuscript, painter in exchange for his painting, sculptor in exchange for his statue, etc. As you pay the hammer manufacturer once in exchange for the delivery of the hammer, without the manufacturer has the preposterous claim to require an additional payment if your neighbor is using your hammer.

Lex Mercatoria has nothing to do with intellectual property jurisdiction, it was contractual rules. Intellectual property regulations claims to apply to non-contractual situations, regardless of consent. This is logical, because if it's a property, then copying without permission is theft, and should be punished as such. The conventional notions of property and theft would have no connection with what they actually are if they applied only within the jurisdiction of the contract.
If the intellectual property needed the prior approval of all parties involved (the person who creates, the recipient, all people benefit from a copy), then, it wouldn't need to appeal to the concept of property. We will then talk about jurisdiction of the contract, applying only those who signed.
A contract that would apply by force to people who haven't been involved in this contract, on things they own, is a violation of property right.

On 29/1/2016 at 2:37 AM, Devil's Advocate said:

Go on...

Recall that the purpose of property right is to avoid conflicts that may arise from the use of goods or resource of exclusive use. According to the classical liberal principle of appropriation, the right to decide the use of the property rests solely with whoever has the more just claim on it, that is to say the one that gave it the usefulness first, or, who has legitimately received it from a third.

In this context, intellectual property has no consistency. Let's go back further in time and observe the man from Antiquity occupy a piece of land and start cultivating painfully depending on local rainfall regime, becoming, de facto, owner of the land.
Let's observe now across the country, where our peasant has never set foot, someone developing an irrigation system. The implicit logic of intellectual property would entitle the latter to forbid our farmers to use irrigation technique developed or so to claim royalties for each use. But we immediately understand that by doing so, the developer of the irrigation system violates the peasant's property right by prohibiting him to do what he wants on the plot of land he occupied first.

This is my absolute right to do what I want with my property. I bought legitimately artistic production in exchange to a freely agreed payment, I do what I want: I enjoy it, I destroy it or I make a copy if I can, that I give to whom I want.
Intellectual property is a violation of genuine property right, claiming that I buy a product that I can't enjoy as I please. In addition to representing the insured end of all human progress which is based essentially on copy, from the wheel, fire, or writing.

Edited by gio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/1/2016 at 8:41 AM, New Buddha said:

This is the flaw in your argument.  You read this somewhere and, unquestionably, accepted it as true.

No. It's the logical implication of the purpose of property right. Remove this, and the property right is meaningless. What is the purpose of property right?

On 29/1/2016 at 8:41 AM, New Buddha said:

There is nothing ontological that privileges Real and Chattel property as inherently different from Intellectual Property.  All property, in a sense, can be said to be "intellectual"...

There is no problem recognizing that all human production, material or not, has an intellectual basis, because all human action has an intellectual basis. But see where you "mix the brushes", as we say in french: From this point, you jump to the idea that there is a relationship between the intellectual nature of something and property. But then, you should go further and be consistent: As every human action has an intellectual nature, why not submit any human action under intellectual property? Why not? Yes : Any. Human. Action. No?
This is absurd, for a very simple reason: because it's not intellectual nature that makes property, but the fact that it's material goods of exclusive use. Otherwise, any intellectual production (how to make fire or heating, to clothe, languages, words, alphabet, writing, letters, signs, wheel, customs, hairstyles, makeup , dances, magic tricks, jokes, recipes, grimaces, distillation, the simple fact to draw, paint, sculpt, play music, or any human activity as an activity which is not completely new ...), and all humain action anyway, would be subject to property (that would be the logical consequence of the intellectual property)... it's fortunately far from being the case, because the defense of intellectual property is not consistent, and because this concept can be applied only through arbitrary. Applied consistently, it makes life impossible.

If you want an example of purely arbitrary nature of intellectual property, which shows that this concept is fundamentally contrary to the conventional property, just consider this: There is no "public domain" for conventional property. What a rare and strange property that intellectual property, extinguished after a certain period of time. A bit like saying that your house after X years no longer belongs to you but would be accessible and available for everyone. X is arbitrarily determined by government: Throughout the past two centuries, in US, the trend has been to extend the time limits of copyright: starting from 14 years, we went to author's life plus 70 years...

The only connection between intellectual property and conventionnal property is the name, that has been copied.

On 29/1/2016 at 8:41 AM, New Buddha said:

Why is it not okay to steal my car, but it is okay to make copies of my architectural blueprints and specifications and not compensate me?

Because I deprive you of your car and I don't deprive you of your architectural ideas.

On 29/1/2016 at 8:41 AM, New Buddha said:

According to your "coercion" argument against IP, you could just as easily say that I'm also using the State to "coercively" prevent you from stealing my car.

No, because even in the lack of State code, theft is unanimously convicted. It sanctions something that already exists in nature. Take any primitive (or other) community living independently from State, they condemn theft. In contrast, they copy all the time each other. Unlike natural rights, intellectual property is only respected by State force.

On 29/1/2016 at 8:41 AM, New Buddha said:

The reason it's not okay for you to steal my car is because it is not in your best interest to live in a society in which such things are sanctioned by other members of society.  This is also true for why it is not in your best interest to live in a society that does not respect Intellectual Property.

No individual can survive by respecting fully and consistently intellectual property.

On 29/1/2016 at 8:41 AM, New Buddha said:

Now, you might say that this was done by "producers" to "repress" "consumers",

You didn't get my point, or you build a strawman. Again, producers and consumers are the same people. I'm not talking about group of people against others. Read Bastiat.

On 29/1/2016 at 8:41 AM, New Buddha said:

this type of argument demonstrates that you don't understand history or how laws come into being and/or change.

Iniquitous laws are not what has been missing throughout history.

On 29/1/2016 at 8:41 AM, New Buddha said:

If you wish to persuade people to scrap hundreds of years of law and completely restructure their economy (at a great expense), they you'll need to make a better argument than you've been doing.  So far, I've heard nothing new.

You wish to persuade people to scrap centuries of law, their natural behavior and humanity for millenia. A human being can't live without copying, and he copy every minute of his life since early childhood. Copying is part of life. Since you got up this morning, you already routinely copied hundreds of inventions, without asking permission to anyone.
Through my position, I'm trying to save your life, your property and your liberty, and you don't even thank me!

Edited by gio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, gio said:

... This is my absolute right to do what I want with my property. I bought legitimately artistic production in exchange to a freely agreed payment, I do what I want: I enjoy it, I destroy it or I make a copy if I can, that I give to whom I want...

Did the artistic production you bought legitimately have any of the following statements printed on its label:

1) All Rights Reserved ?

2) No copying ?

3) Subject to applicable laws ?

If so, how does your making a copy not violate terms you freely agreed to at the time of purchase??

9 hours ago, gio said:

... Because I deprive you of your car and I don't deprive you of your architectural ideas...

But, the blue print and specifications are physical objects of property, like the car and media containing music, videos, etc.  Again, if they were purchased with known prohibitions against copying, you would just ignore and copy anyway??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, gio said:

You wish to persuade people to scrap centuries of law, their natural behavior and humanity for millenia. A human being can't live without copying, and he copy every minute of his life since early childhood. Copying is part of life. Since you got up this morning, you already routinely copied hundreds of inventions, without asking permission to anyone.

I can't help but notice a subtle denial of human ingenuity, that we're all dependent upon each other for creative ability. That book I wrote? I had to have copied something. I didn't write that, as it were. There's nothing new under the sun, after all, everything is a copy. As usual, the capitalist is oppressing the laborer, preventing us from using the fruit of our labors, by asserting control over what he himself didn't create.

(What you should recognize, also, is that you equated learning with copying. Learning an idea is fine, and it isn't copying. Copying here wouldn't be just seeing blueprints, but also going out to build the thing. What you should be saying is that a human being can't live without thinking. Creation is a necessity. Creation is not copying. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gio, I appreciate your continued involvement in this discussion.  I just wish there wasn't such a Time Zone difference between us!

Here are a couple of observations I have with your arguments, and also some real life examples for you to address.

1.  By US law, an author can copyright a specific novel, but no person can copyright the "novel" format.  You seem to be mixing up this distinction in your "hammer" argument above.  If a company were to come out with an innovative hammer design, then it could be granted a patent, if it meets the legally established guidelines required for the a granting of a new patent.  This would probably be harder to meet with a simple hammer, but with powder actuated hammers or pneumatic hammers, I'm sure this happens quite often.  Again, you cannot patent the concept "pneumatic hammer" nor can you patent "hitting a nail with something" but you can patent a specific design for a specific pneumatic hammer.  Why is this so?  Because we, as a society, say so.

2.  Regarding the "arbitrariness" of what can and cannot be patented, and the duration of patents.  The fact that these change over time proves nothing.  In my mind, this is another example of concrete-bound Intrinsicism -- similar to the idea that "Only tangible things can be considered property."  There are such things as Implied Warranties and Standard of Care that change change over time,  but per your argument, since they are change, they should not be part of the law?  Society is full of both implied and written rules and laws that change over time, but this does not mean that they should not exist.

3.  I have a friend who, a couple of years ago, bought a franchise license from a coffee store chain.  Without trademarks and copyrights on company names, signage and graphics, logos etc.,  there would be nothing to prevent my friend from building and opening an exact duplicate of the store, without purchasing a franchise license.  How would this be addressed without Intellectual Property?  What prevents anyone from opening exact duplicates of a Starbucks or a McDonalds without compensating the companies?  How would society transition away from this in an equitable manner?

4.  Architects often times compete for projects against other firms.  Without copyrights, a Developer could invite 3 firms to submit proposals - reject them all - and make copies of the design he wants - and then use it without compensating the architect.  You cannot of course, copyright the concept "building" but you can copyright a specific building design.  And by "design" I'm not just referring to the artistic/aesthetic component of architecture.  Architecture and engineering require innovative solutions to very specific problems regarding the clients program and site.  No two architects will ever design the exact same building - and not just because they may be striving to be aesthetically unique.

5.  A novelist finishes his book and has his agent shop for a publisher.  One publisher photocopies the book, prints and sells it without compensating the author.  Without copyrights, this would be legal?

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, gio said:

No, because even in the lack of State code, theft is unanimously convicted.   It sanctions something that already exists in nature.

I just reread this.  Sounds like more Intrinsicism.

Really?  Who does the "convicting" when one State invades and subjugates another?  Do I need to furnish an example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Did the artistic production you bought legitimately have any of the following statements printed on its label:

1) All Rights Reserved ?
2) No copying ?
3) Subject to applicable laws ?

If so, how does your making a copy not violate terms you freely agreed to at the time of purchase??

This is part of a commercial contract or license (involving only the buyer and seller ...). Not intellectual property.

17 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

But, the blue print and specifications are physical objects of property, like the car and media containing music, videos, etc.

As a physical object, the blue print and specifications are subject to conventional property. Nothing more, nothing less.

Are you the author of the image that is on your avatar? If not, did you asked permission from the author before using it? Are you under contract with the author?

15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I can't help but notice a subtle denial of human ingenuity, that we're all dependent upon each other for creative ability. That book I wrote? I had to have copied something. I didn't write that, as it were. There's nothing new under the sun, after all, everything is a copy. As usual, the capitalist is oppressing the laborer, preventing us from using the fruit of our labors, by asserting control over what he himself didn't create.

I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.

strawman-full.jpg

15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

(What you should recognize, also, is that you equated learning with copying. Learning an idea is fine, and it isn't copying. Copying here wouldn't be just seeing blueprints, but also going out to build the thing. What you should be saying is that a human being can't live without thinking. Creation is a necessity. Creation is not copying. )

If you learn something that you didn't create and you use again without permission, you copy, right? As the words you use.

You're right to say that creation is a necessity. So I guess you're against intellectual property, since it's currently the biggest obstacle to creation.

Are you the author of the image that is on your avatar? If not, did you asked permission from the author before using it? Are you under contract with the author?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, New Buddha said:

By US law, an author can copyright a specific novel, but no person can copyright the "novel" format.
[...]
Again, you cannot patent the concept "pneumatic hammer" nor can you patent "hitting a nail with something" but you can patent a specific design for a specific pneumatic hammer.

This is precisely one of the reasons why the notion of intellectual property is inconsistent and arbitrary. It applies to certain inventions, and not others. ("Because we say so." !)
In France, the IP legislation is officially more restrictive than in the US and is often applied to different objects. (See for example the french Wikipedia, you'll never see movie or videogame displays. Good example of victimless crime, isn't it?) The only reason for these differences is the arbitrariness of governments .

13 hours ago, New Buddha said:

 Why is this so?  Because we, as a society, say so.

1. May I violate your rights because I say so ?
2. When society "say" to violate individual rights, it is right, just because society say so ?
3. Society can't "say" anything, especially not to violate the individual rights. Only individual can say, act, make decisions.

13 hours ago, New Buddha said:

In my mind, this is another example of concrete-bound Intrinsicism -- similar to the idea that "Only tangible things can be considered property."

What is the purpose of property right ?

13 hours ago, New Buddha said:

There are such things as Implied Warranties and Standard of Care that change change over time,  but per your argument, since they are change, they should not be part of the law?  Society is full of both implied and written rules and laws that change over time, but this does not mean that they should not exist.

The fact that you don't understand the difference is symptomatic. You don't want to see the difference between what's arbitrary (from the social constructivism, to use the concept of Hayek) and what's the natural right of individuals existing in the natural relationships between people, regardless of political decisions. The law is there to enforce right, not to invent it.
Can we violate property right on the grounds that laws change over time? If not, why?

13 hours ago, New Buddha said:

I have a friend who, a couple of years ago, bought a franchise license from a coffee store chain.  Without trademarks and copyrights on company names, signage and graphics, logos etc.,  there would be nothing to prevent my friend from building and opening an exact duplicate of the store, without purchasing a franchise license.  How would this be addressed without Intellectual Property?  What prevents anyone from opening exact duplicates of a Starbucks or a McDonalds without compensating the companies?

Nothing in the law. But there are multiple ways to prevent this from happening, or stop if it happens, without intellectual property.

Since ever, there are companies or association that protect effectively their secrets without ever using intellectual property and without infringing the rights of others.

Depending on the context, copy can be inelegant or even dishonorable. It's embarrassing that one take advantage of us and it makes sense to try to avoid that. But there are many legal ways to take advantage of people, from adultery to the false promise through emotional blackmail or despotism towards a subordinate. Laws are there to punish crimes, not to impose good manners and protect us from our innocent naivety.

13 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Architects often times compete for projects against other firms.  Without copyrights, a Developer could invite 3 firms to submit proposals - reject them all - and make copies of the design he wants - and then use it without compensating the architect.

Yes, only if the three architects are stupid and there isn't any contract or any agreement. Laws are there to punish crimes, not to impose good manners and protect us from our innocent naivety. Otherwise, you open the door to arbitrariness, and thus, to totalitarianism.

Now consider this: Does an architect request payment of new fees each time you resell the house he has plans? Does an engineer receive royalties from the people passing on his bridge? And so on. These people have provide work, they were paid. End of story.

13 hours ago, New Buddha said:

A novelist finishes his book and has his agent shop for a publisher.  One publisher photocopies the book, prints and sells it without compensating the author.  Without copyrights, this would be legal?

If there is a contract between the publisher and the author, of course it's a violation of right. Like when you buy a good or service and that you refuse to pay it. A trade agreement between an artist and an editor isn't intellectual property.
If there was no contract or any agreement and that the author has foolishly give his full manuscript without precautions, there are still ways to prove fraud and throw dishonor to the publisher. There have been several cases in history. For example, the first edition of The Lord of the Rings published in the US was a "pirate" version of Ace Books published without the agreement of Tolkien, who however, has not begun legal action against this company. Subsequently, Ballantine released an official version approved by the author. This version included a note on the back cover stating that it was the only version authorized and asking readers not to buy the other version of Ace Books. Sales of the version of Ace Books fell until the publication stop. With actual technology, information would spread even more easily.
In addition, if the publisher sells the book by putting his name or someone else name, it's buyers of the book property that he violate using a misrepresentation. He sold them a product X whose label states that it is a product Y. The publisher may have a moral debt (not legal) to the author, but the only violation punishable by law is misrepresentation to consumers, not the violation of intellectual property rights.

You think intellectual property protect against counterfeit, while it's just the opposite. Intellectual property is an incentive for counterfeiting: By allowing its holder to receive artificially a higher price as a monopoly, patents and copyrights make counterfeiting very profitable. It's no accident that it's only since intellectual property that counterfeiting has become a large-scale business.
As any government intervention, it reached the opposite result than that for which it is done.

Whenever you wonder if such or such a problem occur without intellectual property, always wonder how it worked for centuries where intellectual property didn't exist, and where we had Shakespeare, Lope de Vega, Cervantes, Molière, Vivaldi, Bach, Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, Velázquez, Rubens, Michelangelo, and all philosophers, technicians, inventors, craftsmen, painters, musicians, architects, etc. anonymous or not, famous and modest that populate the history of the West, but also around the world who were completely creative and prolific.
Dutch printers reprint all scores of Vivaldi and never pay a cent. And he was prolific. Cervantes had his Don Quixote plagiarized. That didn't stop writing, and even writing a second part to Don Quixote.
Now I can give you a multitude of current absurd situations, directly caused by intellectual property.

9 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Who does the "convicting" when one State invades and subjugates another?  Do I need to furnish an example?

I don't understand your question, sorry.

13 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Gio, I appreciate your continued involvement in this discussion.

Thank you. Are you the author of the image that is on your avatar? If not, did you asked permission from the author before using it? Are you under contract with the author?

Edited by gio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

It was what looks to be the logical end of your claim, so no, I don't think it's your position, just where it should end up.

So, read my posts again.
The position pro-IP end up logically in death and end of civilization.

Are you the author of the image that is on your avatar? If not, did you asked permission from the author before using it? Are you under contract with the author?

Edited by gio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gio said:

This is part of a commercial contract or license (involving only the buyer and seller ...). Not intellectual property...

Good, then we agree that the purchase of copyrighted material legitimately prohibits freely copying that same material.  As to not being intellectual property, my understanding is that copyrighted material is protected as intellectual property, but that might be debatable...

2 hours ago, gio said:

... Are you the author of the image that is on your avatar? If not, did you asked permission from the author before using it? Are you under contract with the author? ...

No on all counts.  I obtained the image from a website with the following statement displayed:

"Images may be subject to copyright."

Looking for, finding and following the terms of legal use, I read that material freely posted at the site allows that:

"By making your content public, you are also giving other Members .... the right to copy, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and create derivative works from it via the Site, third party websites or applications (for example, via services allowing Members to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content, and via social media websites), provided such use is not for a commercial purpose."

--

I think we are generally in agreement that copyrights reflect a moral use of the law.  To the degree that they fall under (or overlap) intellectual property, it isn't an impediment to human civilization to enforce them, yes??

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gio said:

So, read my posts again.
The position pro-IP end up logically in death and end of civilization.

I'm inviting you to explain more about copying so your position doesn't end up also suggesting people -require- copying in order to create. You spoke about learning, which isn't a problem for IP at all, IP isn't about dissemination of ideas. Indeed, we need to learn from people a lot of the time, all an IP supporter would say is that your creations ought to be controlled as you see fit. But it's not copying to learn of someone's idea anyway.

Even if I grant your premise, it still isn't a reason to deny IP as valid. It seems to me you don't want to have to ask or to trade, because you need to copy to live. It is no different than demanding being able to freely take apples from my apple stand, because you need to eat to live. Just ask and be on your way if your invention needs a part I invented. Like with trading anything, both parties win, both parties are better off. Bottom line, even when you need to copy, you aren't truly prevented from copying. All you need to do is trade something, and you're all set.

The bigger point, I think, is what it means to create, and how to respect what one creates. You probably agree that creation is essential. It takes work to get there, maybe even using parts someone else created, but you need to control your creations - tangible or otherwise. The only question is, did I create?

What does it mean to say you created a new type of car? What goes into creating something new and valuable? After all, a supporter of IP like me only seeks to protect creators of all types. You can skip all earlier questions, this last bit here would move things forward.

===

My avatar is from Wikipedia, so I'd say it's reasonable to use just as it is to take pictures of people in public places. Trying to make money from it is not reasonable, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gio,

Drawings, novels, music, software, etc. have Copyright statements placed on them (or not) by the architect/author/musician, game designer, etc.  When a consumer uses these items (in the United States) he is agreeing to abide by the terms stipulated in the statement. The consumer is fully free to not use the product, if he does not agree with the copyright provisions, but he is not free to disregard them.  That's the way the law works.

Your position is that, legally, a novel is just pages of paper that might as well be empty - that the story can never, under any circumstance, be Copyrighted because a story is not "tangible".  So any publisher is fully free to make copies of a novel and sell them - he's only selling paper with smudges of ink on them.

And Brands (Starbucks, Nike, McDonald, etc.) are Trademarked -- they are Intellectual Property.  And since, according to you, names and logos can never be owned and can never be considered as legally owned property, then there is no legal instrument to prevent anyone from opening a restaurant that is an exact duplicate of a McDonalds.  Fraud would have no meaning.  Both McDonalds are McDonalds - where's the fraud?  Shoes are nothing but fabric, rubber, leather, etc.  Those can be owned, but the Nike logo cannot be owned (except the vinyl that the logo is made out of can be owned).  In your world, Brands would have no legal standing what so ever in the eyes of the law.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, gio said:

Now consider this: Does an architect request payment of new fees each time you resell the house he has plans?

?

A typical situation is this.  A developer hires an architect to prepare a set of drawings and specifications for a house.  They reach an agreement regarding the Copyrights of the design, and this is placed in the language of the contract (and on the drawings themselves).  If the agreement is that the developer can only use the plans once, then the developer cannot build the house multiple times without permission from the architect - this type of structured agreement might result in a higher one-time fee, then if the developer contracts to build multiple instances of the house and pay the architect a lower fee per instance.  Also, the developer might by the rights completely, and this would be reflected in the fee.  What ever type of agreement, it would be stipulated, in writing, on each drawing.

However, if there is no contractual relationship, either written or implied, between the architect and the owner of the house, there would be no reason for the architect to expect to receive fees.   I'm not sure why you think there would be, or what point you thought you were making.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

gio makes a point about the impediment IP presents, qua human, to man's ability to copy.  I hadn't really considered this a survival skill before but upon reflection I'd agree that it is, and as such may indeed contradict a right to property via life.  I rather like the way he sums this up as, “IP is a bad copy”.

If I am the inventor of the mousetrap and my position is that no one may reproduce my trap without permission, and I deny it (as would be my right), have I not effectively prevented all others the ability not only to, “build a better mousetrap”, but to create their own original?  This (to me) presents a significant impediment to human progress that cannot be justified by the supposed impediment to innovation a lack of protection for IP attempts to remedy.  The remedy appears to secure innovation by limiting progress, which if not contradictory is at least a curious means of promoting progress, that being the logical goal of innovation.

The innovator is in possession of a product that beats all future competition to the marketplace, and if marketable, is compensated for his efforts prior to anyone having the opportunity to, “get a piece of his action”.  Is it fair that someone might then reproduce this product were there, “no strings attached”, with the intention of competing with the innovator for a share of the market?  I doubt there’s any serious objection to this, as it regularly occurs and accounts for much, if not all of human history; competition being a significant cornerstone of all free marketplaces.

Why then does it become a moral imperative to secure all future rewards (to the disadvantage of others) beyond the fair compensation that comes from the unimpeded introduction of a new product to the marketplace?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2016 at 6:12 PM, gio said:

So, read my posts again.
The position pro-IP end up logically in death and end of civilization.

Are you the author of the image that is on your avatar? If not, did you asked permission from the author before using it? Are you under contract with the author?

You're obviously mis-representing not just what intellectual property is, but what property is in general.

Let's say I go camping in the woods. After two days, a guy comes along, tells me the land is his, rent is $500/night, and I owe him $1000. In court, I can argue that, since there was no indication that I was on private property, I did nothing wrong, and owe him nothing. And I'd win.

Because it falls on the property owner to let people know that something is his. Whether it's real estate or intellectual property. The notion that, to respect property rights, we have to check the origin of every picture on the Internet, before we use it, is a straw man, just as much as the notion that we have to check who owns unmarked territory out in the woods, before we go camping, would be.

Patents and copyrights have to be registered, renewed, and actively protected. If someone finds a picture on Google, and wants to use it as his avatar, that's not a violation of any IP laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Devil's Advocate said:

gio makes a point about the impediment IP presents, qua human, to man's ability to copy.  I hadn't really considered this a survival skill before but upon reflection I'd agree that it is, and as such may indeed contradict a right to property via life.

Theft/"copying" is only a survival skill if you can find some suckers to steal/"copy" off of. Once you run out of those, or if they run out on you (perhaps retreat to a gulch, at the urging of a mysterious engineer, like in this dusty old novel I once read), not so much.

That is why Objectivism makes sure to distinguish between productive activities involving thought and creativity, which we have a right to, and surviving off of someone else's thought and creativity, which we don't have a right to.

 

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Nicky said:

Theft/"copying" is only a survival skill if you can find some suckers to steal/"copy" off of. Once you run out of those, or if they run out on you (perhaps retreat to a gulch, at the urging of a mysterious engineer, like in this dusty old novel I once read), not so much.

That is why Objectivism makes sure to distinguish between productive activities involving thought and creativity, which we have a right to, and surviving off of someone else's thought and creativity, which we don't have a right to.

 

Packaging the definition for theft with copy isn't a necessary element in my argument.  Is it in yours?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

If I am the inventor of the mousetrap....

Why talk about mousetraps rather than spending millions of dollars on research and development of new a drug? Or spending a dozen years writing Atlas Shrugged?  Research and development is expensive.  So too is design, engineering, fabrication, re-tooling equipment, training employees, securing insurance for a new product, etc.

And you can't patent "killing a mouse".

You would probably be very hard pressed to meet the clearly established patent guidelines such that your wooden based, spring-loaded, cheese-bait mouse trap is different enough that it merits a patent - and I'm pretty certain that if there was a patent originally granted, it has since lapsed.  Same for a shovel, a hammer, a nail, etc.  If you come up with a truly different and innovated mouse trap, then you probably could get a patent.  Patents have limited duration. It's to incentive development AND allowing a period of time where investments can be recouped.

If you have an idea, do some research, see if you think you will be able to secure a patent, put together a business plan, find investors and go for it.

 

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Why talk about mousetraps rather than spending millions of dollars on research and development of new a drug? Or spending a dozen years writing Atlas Shrugged?  Research and development is expensive.  So too is design, engineering, fabrication, re-tooling equipment, training employees, securing insurance for a new product, etc...

Because the principle is the same regardless of the scope of innovation.  Either innovators need to be uniquely insulated from real market forces or they do not, and if they do there needs to be some objective reason consistent with free market practices that respect contractual agreements while providing securities against fraud and theft.  Copying per se doesn't require fraud or theft...

Bear in mind that we agree, "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."  It also serves individual self-interest to respect the rights of others if their own rights are to be respected.  So if I can reproduce what I find in the marketplace without breaking and entering someone's warehouse or misrepresenting their product as my own, why should I care how hard someone worked to bring something new to the market?

For clarity, my argument is confined to respect for contracts that are freely entered into.  We are, after all, contractual animals.  If I purchase copyrighted material I intend to abide by whatever limitations are made at the time of purchase.  But if I merely become aware of something new in the marketplace in the course of pursuing about my own business...

 

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

If I am the inventor of the mousetrap and my position is that no one may reproduce my trap without permission, and I deny it (as would be my right), have I not effectively prevented all others the ability not only to, “build a better mousetrap”, but to create their own original? 

I went back and re-read your post, to see if I missed something.

When you are granted a patent for your Mousetrap Hammer o'Death, #17845b, you are not being granted a patent for "the killing of all mice with an automated device".

You are being granted a patent for a:  "4.25"x7.5" wood base, 6 oz., spring operated lever held in tension, which, when triggered by a mouse, that has been attracted to a cheese-baiting-device, swings down with sufficient force to break his little spine."

That is all that your patent protects.

Patents are not to prevent someone from making a duplicate of a patented mousetrap in his basement with a jig saw, a coat hanger and a pair pliers to kill a mouse.  Patents are designed to prevent another company from making an exact duplicate of a patented invention and selling it without the inventor receiving any compensation.

If someone invents the Maze o'Death Mousetrap #97864c and submits it to the Patent Office and after research, they can find no records of a similar device, then they will issue a patent.

When I said, "Why are we talking about Mousetraps", this was not to deny that we are guided by principles, but rather, it was to illustrate that it's highly unlikely that someone will be able to invent a variation of a very simple device, such that will meet the published guidelines for receiving a patent.  It's a case of, "Been there, done that". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, New Buddha said:

... Patents are not to prevent someone from making a duplicate of a patented mousetrap in his basement with a jig saw, a coat hanger and a pair pliers to kill a mouse.  Patents are designed to prevent another company from making an exact duplicate of a patented invention and selling it without the inventor receiving any compensation... 

Yes, but why ought we secure innovation by limiting competitive reproduction (again, beyond the normal securities against fraud and theft)?  We are, after all, talking about justifying the regulation of an ought, i.e. to remove a choice to respect innovation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Packaging the definition for theft with copy isn't a necessary element in my argument.  Is it in yours?

 

It doesn't matter whether you're stealing physical property or intellectual property. In both cases you are depending on other people's mind, not your own.

Calling IP theft a right because it helps you survive is the same exact rationalization a common burglar uses when he says he has the right to steal because it helps him survive and feed his family, and the same exact argument a politician uses when he says he has the right to tax the rich to help welfare recipients survive.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...