Intellectual property

[New Buddha]

17 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

I'm interested in the philosophical basis of IP, and its relationship specifically with Objectivism and Ayn Rand's essay on the topic, and I had thought that you'd expressed that such questions really didn't matter to you so much as current IP law (which you have no issues with) and practical solutions for implementing changes to them.

And this too, which is an accurate summation of my opinion, and, the more I think about it, probably conflicts with Objectivism's justification of IP.  Lol,  I hate being the Objectivist advocate!  It's too weird.

Edited February 14, 2016 by New Buddha

[Devil's Advocate]

5 hours ago, New Buddha said:

... Are you arguing for or against Copyrights?  I'm confused.  Without Copyrights, making copies is fully legal without the artists permission...

 

I am arguing for property rights, as are you.  The difference is I see IP as more of a hindrance than a benefit.  We're making better progress now, but I want to see your future thoughts expressed to the Original DA prior to going more in depth at this point.

I do want to say that I prefer your use of listing duplicated property according to the original source.  In our discussion, the novice (as the designer's employee) is duplicating the designer's property A into versions A1, A2, A3 etc.  An important thing to bear in mind is that neither the designer nor the novice are creating original property by duplicating it.  In the office setting we are familiar with, these kind of duplicates end up being discarded or filed away as records.

[New Buddha]

5 hours ago, DonAthos said:

I'm arguing against the Objectivist philosophical argument for IP, as best as I understand it: that it is a "right"; that "copying" is "mindless"; that there is something immoral about utilizing another person's "mental labor"; and etc. Further questions as to the best implementation of IP or how best to change current law, or etc., are perhaps interesting/illuminating in their own right, and I don't mind commenting on them from time to time, but they do not appear to speak to the fundamental questions I'm attempting to resolve

The following is a horribly flawed way to deduce a position.  But it can serve as a (somewhat dangerous) way to explain one's position.

 

"Existence Exists > Law of Identity > deduction > deduction > deduction > Man's Nature > deduction > deduction > deduction > We should have Trademarks" > deduction > deduction > deduction > Copying is evil!"

It's flawed because in significantly complex arguments it's easy to "conclude" :

"Existence Exists > Law of Identity > deduction > deduction > deduction > Man's Nature > deduction > deduction > deduction > We should NOT have Trademarks" > deduction > deduction > deduction > Copying is good!"

 

Rand's writings are full of this type of explanation, but they should not be confused with deductive reasoning.

 

From the Patents and Copyrights lexicon entry:

"In the case of copyrights, the most rational solution is Great Britain’s Copyright Act of 1911,...."

This tells us a couple of things about Rand's position on Intellectual Property (and mine too).  1)  Rand recognizes that there have been different Copyright (IP) laws down through the ages. 2)  Rand acknowledges that some IP laws are better than others and that by extension 3) they can be made better and 4) that they are open-ended concepts.

And we know from her other writings that Intellectual Property is not a priori true, true via Divine Revelation, nor is it some Historical Deterministic, Marxist  Social Mode of Production that will one day wither away along with the State.

Her position on Intellectual Property was reached in the same way that all knowledge is reached -- by starting with observation.  And not "thought experiments", but by observing how IP laws either work or don't work in promoting "life, liberty and the pursuit of property."

Not respecting IP laws is not in anyone's rational self interest.  This can be demonstrated objectively - as it is every day in the United States.  We are home to the greatest number of innovators in the history of mankind.  Our manufacturing is shot to hell, but we still lead the world in inventions, global brands, novels, movies, etc.

By not respecting IP - or choosing to not participate in the wonderful system we have in the US - a person is only hurting himself.  They aren't being "moral".

Edit:  Upon further reflection, I don't believe my approach to IP contradicts Rand's as I stated in an above post.

 

Edited February 15, 2016 by New Buddha

[New Buddha]

1 hour ago, Devil's Advocate said:

In our discussion, the novice (as the designer's employee) is duplicating the designer's property A into versions A1, A2, A3 etc.

I think I confused the issue with the word "iteration".  What I meant to convey was plow A which is manufactured in a 1,000 batch:  A: A1 thru A1,000.

Plow B could very well be nothing more than an "iteration" of Plow A, patented by inventor B by meeting the "Point of Novelty".

Edited February 15, 2016 by New Buddha

[DonAthos]

1 hour ago, New Buddha said:

The following is a horribly flawed way to deduce a position.  But it can serve as a (somewhat dangerous) way to explain one's position.

 

"Existence Exists > Law of Identity > deduction > deduction > deduction > Man's Nature > deduction > deduction > deduction > We should have Trademarks" > deduction > deduction > deduction > Copying is evil!"

It's flawed because in significantly complex arguments it's easy to "conclude" :

"Existence Exists > Law of Identity > deduction > deduction > deduction > Man's Nature > deduction > deduction > deduction > We should NOT have Trademarks" > deduction > deduction > deduction > Copying is good!"

 

Rand's writings are full of this type of explanation, but they should not be confused with deductive reasoning.

I really don't know how the above is meant to comment upon the various arguments I, or others (whether for or against IP), have made throughout this thread -- if it is -- but if you would care to address any specific argument that has been raised, it would be far more welcome.

(Most of the rest of my response, I'm afraid, is also rather "meta" in that it is about the terms of the discussion itself, rather than IP. I would prefer to focus on the arguments pro- and contra-IP, if possible.)

1 hour ago, New Buddha said:

From the Patents and Copyrights lexicon entry:

"In the case of copyrights, the most rational solution is Great Britain’s Copyright Act of 1911,...."

This tells us a couple of things about Rand's position on Intellectual Property (and mine too).  1)  Rand recognizes that there have been different Copyright (IP) laws down through the ages. 2)  Rand acknowledges that some IP laws are better than others and that by extension 3) they can be made better and 4) that they are open-ended concepts.

And we know from her other writings that Intellectual Property is not a priori true, true via Divine Revelation, nor is it some Historical Deterministic, Marxist  Social Mode of Production that will one day wither away along with the State.

What we know from Rand's writings on IP are, first and foremost, her position with respect to IP, and the reasoning she has shared to support it. Whether or not Rand was correct overall, or in any particular, is something that every individual must then decide for himself. I do not advocate swallowing a given position (or philosophy) whole, in any event; it is far better to chew the details, slowly and carefully.

I will add here that Rand's language, which you've highlighted, has always stuck out to me as being... somewhat uncharacteristic of a writer who otherwise, in my experience, tends to advance no claim without demonstrating that it is the only reasonable conclusion. But she appears to me to largely "hand wave" the reasoning she's used to determine that this particular act is "the most rational solution." Perhaps there was not room in the margin.

1 hour ago, New Buddha said:

Her position on Intellectual Property was reached in the same way that all knowledge is reached -- by starting with observation.

As was mine. But starting with observation is no guarantee that every subsequent integration, deduction or conclusion is correct.

1 hour ago, New Buddha said:

And not "thought experiments", but by observing how IP laws either work or don't work in promoting "life, liberty and the pursuit of property."

I believe that "thought experiments" can be a useful tool in helping to explain or probe a position. For instance, if I recall the essay "Patents and Copyrights" correctly, Rand asks what holding IP in perpetuity would mean for the development of a car, should the innovator have to get permission from the property holder of "the wheel," etc.; this is a kind of "thought experiment," and I think it is useful in demonstrating her point (regardless of whether or not I agree).

And given that we all live in a world where things are not necessarily as we would have them be, sometimes envisioning a proposed change - and especially a fundamental or far-reaching one -- requires a bit of "imagination" or counterfactual reasoning.

With respect to the promotion of "liberty," I am unconvinced that telling someone that they may not build a plow to till their own fields serves that end (and "life" and "property" are undone completely when we deny a man the fruits of his labor). If a thought experiment is unwelcome in making that point, then we can look at some of the real world examples of IP I've raised (which I believe no one has yet commented on here), such as the "Blurred Lines" case, which does not strike me as a great victory for life, liberty, etc. But of course, any real world IP case will invariably open the door to the critique of "that's just IP poorly implemented" (similar to how defenders of Communism will always dismiss the Soviet Union, or any number of real examples, by criticizing the extent to which they are deemed "truly Communist"), which is one of the reasons why I enjoy thought experiments, where the details can be controlled and tailored in an effort to get at the fundamentals in question.

But "thought experiment," real world example, whatever -- I consider it all fair game.

1 hour ago, New Buddha said:

Not respecting IP laws is not in anyone's rational self interest.  This can be demonstrated objectively - as it is every day in the United States.  We are home to the greatest number of innovators in the history of mankind.  Our manufacturing is shot to hell, but we still lead the world in inventions, global brands, novels, movies, etc.

I don't know that the number of innovators speaks to the success of IP law, either for those who innovate or those who "copy." It could be that there would be greater innovation (by some metric) with different IP laws, reduced IP laws, or IP laws abolished altogether. (Though I do not make any such claim, personally, and could not defend it if I did; I really don't know what effect the abolition of IP law would have on "innovation," as such, just as I do not strictly know what the elimination of wealth redistribution would have on "charity," or what the end of compulsory public schooling would mean for "education.")

Let me add, though it should (hopefully) not be in question, that because I argue against IP, that does not mean that I am hostile to either inventors or innovation. (Just as arguing that "copying" is moral does not mean that I am dismissive of creativity, or arguing against "affirmative action" renders one racist, or arguing against welfare means that one hates the poor, or etc., etc., etc.) I suspect that in the absence of IP law, the market would adapt to continue to reward the production of value -- and quite possibly to a greater or more exacting extent than before -- but as I say, it would be beyond me to try to "prove" such a thing.

1 hour ago, New Buddha said:

By not respecting IP - or choosing to not participate in the wonderful system we have in the US - a person is only hurting himself.  They aren't being "moral".

It is a separate question from the morality of IP, as such, as to whether to respect the law (or to what extent), or the degree of one's "participation in the system" as it is currently constructed, just as the question of whether Social Security should exist is separate from whether one should make a claim on one's account when eligible.

1 hour ago, New Buddha said:

Edit:  Upon further reflection, I don't believe my approach to IP contradicts Rand's as I stated in an above post.

It would take more effort to determine with justice; or at least on my end, it would.

[Devil's Advocate]

3 hours ago, New Buddha said:

I think I confused the issue with the word "iteration".  What I meant to convey was plow A which is manufactured in a 1,000 batch:  A: A1 thru A1,000.

Plow B could very well be nothing more than an "iteration" of Plow A, patented by inventor B by meeting the "Point of Novelty".

It could, but we are already agreed that a novel iteration doesn't represent an infringement of inventor A's patent.  On the other hand, Plow B could be indistinguishable from Plow A, and it is nonetheless a second plow in reality and property earned by the physical and focused mental labor of another man.

[New Buddha]

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

If a thought experiment is unwelcome in making that point, then we can look at some of the real world examples of IP I've raised (which I believe no one has yet commented on here), such as the "Blurred Lines" case, which does not strike me as a great victory for life, liberty, etc.

I entered into this post late.  Can you point me to posts of real world examples that you've raised?  Blurred Lines? What I mean by "thought experiment" is this:

"We spy a man (or going back far enough into our history, some other animal... including our direct ancestors!) climb into the tree and return with a banana. We decide to give it a try and find that this is a good process for getting food, etc. Perhaps one day we see an apple in another tree. We've never seen anyone else eat an apple, or pluck it out of the tree, but what the hell, it looks like it might be edible -- so we give it a shot!"

 

Edit: Your bio, which is copyrighted by the way  , says that you are a "would-be writer".  How has IP affected you positively or negatively?  Most writers, Ayn Rand included, live and die by IP (Copyright) laws.  And yet you see them as a hindrance?  What publishing house would print anything without Copyright protection?  Why pony up the money to print 50,000 copies of a "hit" novel if, a month after its release, there will be 1,000,000 illegal copies floating around the market?  This is an important question that you need to address as a writer.  This is not watching an ancestor eat a banana.

Edited February 15, 2016 by New Buddha

[New Buddha]

4 hours ago, DonAthos said:

I will add here that Rand's language, which you've highlighted, has always stuck out to me as being... somewhat uncharacteristic of a writer who otherwise, in my experience, tends to advance no claim without demonstrating that it is the only reasonable conclusion. But she appears to me to largely "hand wave" the reasoning she's used to determine that this particular act is "the most rational solution." Perhaps there was not room in the margin.

Intellectual Property is an open-ended generalization/concept/definition.  This means that when the internet, or 3d printing, or some future technology comes along, we will need to adjust our "most rational solution".  Solutions are contextual, not transcendent, timeless Platonic Universals.

Edit:  The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are virtual hymns to Intellectual Property.  Rand escaped from a State that had ZERO respect for IP, as do you.  Any inventions were to be turned over to the State.  If Rand had written a brilliant novel in Russia, she would have received the same wage as a street sweeper.

If you are so anti-IP, what is it that attracts you to Objectivism?

Edited February 15, 2016 by New Buddha

[DonAthos]

4 hours ago, New Buddha said:

I entered into this post late.  Can you point me to posts of real world examples that you've raised? Blurred Lines?

A minor point of etiquette, perhaps, but it should be pointed out that because you enter a thread which already has some number of responses, that does not prevent one from reading those responses and "catching oneself up" to the present debate, as it were. Some part of the frustration I'd mentioned earlier was due to recognizing that yourself, and others, were coming into the thread and picking up on the conversation without having troubled themselves to have done so. It's frustrating in part, because sometimes you wind up fielding the same questions and having to repeat yourself, or you more easily wind up spending time and energy chasing down simple misunderstandings, and etc., and in general the conversation is unenlightened by what has been written before. It's in part why Arnold Jackson always got into so much trouble on Diff'rent Strokes: he always heard and responded to the back half of some conversation without knowing the context of the beginning!

As to "Blurred Lines," yes, that was a popular song written relatively recently and the subject of a somewhat well known copyright decision, discussed by Wikipedia here. Actually, I brought it up after you had already joined the thread, in response to you:

On 2/4/2016 at 8:04 AM, DonAthos said:

Yet IP relies upon a claim to own "similar" existents (and while you may hold that no one may own "the car," as such, or "the sedan," I see no principled explanation as to how broad or narrow this claim on similarity must rightly be; Rand makes no arguments on that score either, so far as I am aware). Thus the owner of "Dracula," a novel, also supposedly owns "Nosferatu," a film, or the song "Blurred Lines" may be deemed to have the "feel" of a Marvin Gaye song; Apple may be judged to own rounded corners on a smartphone; and (though they thankfully lost this battle) Chick-fil-A may fight over whether or not a kale farmer may design shirts reading "Eat More Kale."

When that drew no response, I wrote:

On 2/6/2016 at 11:22 PM, DonAthos said:

When we get to "copying," there is a range of further examples we can explore, none of which necessarily require access to your drawings, and none of which I would allow if they required stealing your drawings, which remains theft. There are also many real world examples I've brought up to help us further investigate this topic, including most recently "fan fiction," and cases in patent (smartphone design/"rounded corners"), copyright ("Nosferatu"; "Blurred Lines"), and trademark ("Eat More Kale").

When that also drew no response, I gathered you were uninterested in pursuing any of those topics. That said, I remain willing to discuss these, or any other examples, so long as it is once again understood that my primary interest is not in trying to assess whether some current IP law is perfectly written or perfectly applied, as such (I take it for granted that none of them are); it is, instead, to question whether IP law is appropriate at all, and most specifically according to the case Ayn Rand has made for it.

4 hours ago, New Buddha said:

What I mean by "thought experiment" is this:

"We spy a man (or going back far enough into our history, some other animal... including our direct ancestors!) climb into the tree and return with a banana. We decide to give it a try and find that this is a good process for getting food, etc. Perhaps one day we see an apple in another tree. We've never seen anyone else eat an apple, or pluck it out of the tree, but what the hell, it looks like it might be edible -- so we give it a shot!"

Do you suppose I didn't know what you meant by "thought experiment"? I am pretty sure that I did, and I responded that thought experiments "can be a useful tool in helping to explain or probe a position." I then referred to a thought experiment that (I yet remember, hopefully correctly) Rand introduced in her essay "Patents and Copyrights," asking the reader to imagine what it would be like to try to build a car under certain currently untrue conditions, which she used to demonstrate her rationale for the position that IP cannot be held in perpetuity.

The above "thought experiment" of mine which you've quoted was a demonstration of how a man may be "creative," in rearranging the elements of observation. It was in response to Eiuol, who seemed to take my defense of "copying" as a charge that creativity/innovation was impossible, and who directly challenged me to demonstrate the possibility of innovation. While the paragraph relies upon a bit of imagination to carry its point, perhaps, I think it fulfills that purpose. Do you disagree with my conclusion, or anything within the paragraph itself, or do you merely object to it because it is not addressing the topic as you would prefer me to do (i.e. that it is a "thought experiment," which is accounted bad)?

4 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Edit: Your bio, which is copyrighted by the way

I'm no expert on copyright law, but my understanding of current US interpretation is that whatever one writes (in terms of stories, at least) is automatically considered copyrighted. I don't know about how that necessarily applies to biographies on online fora, etc., but that seems more of an issue to be resolved by the people who believe that IP is a right. If it matters, I'm willing to permit others to describe themselves as "would-be writers." For a small fee.

4 hours ago, New Buddha said:

...says that you are a "would-be writer".

I think that description still applies, though I'm thankfully somewhat more successful than when I'd originally wrote it.

4 hours ago, New Buddha said:

How has IP affected you positively or negatively?

I don't know how to begin to answer this question, frankly. Nearly all of my legal dealings with respect to my writing are as a matter of contract (meaning explicit contract, on paper, signed, etc.). Currently "the system" is set up with the presumption of IP law, and most contracts reflect that, in that they speak of the "retention" of "rights," and so forth; if IP law did not exist, then presumably the language of these contracts would need to be altered accordingly, but I would not be willing to grant more than I do currently (and publishers would not ask for less), because these agreements roughly follow market forces (and personal persuasion), and not the contours of IP law. For instance, a writer may ask of a publisher during contract negotiations that some work may be published online for a limited amount of time; this is not a matter of IP law, but voluntary/contractual agreement. Violating the terms of such an agreement (which seems unlikely from most publishers I would consent to work with) would be equally a violation in the absence of IP law.

Beyond this, I've never felt that I've needed recourse to the IP system itself, nor been called to task, though among writers it sometimes appears to have a "chilling effect" as we try in our relative ignorance to determine what can and cannot be referenced, and to what degree, etc., which is an increasing concern in a popular culture so enamored with remix and parody and pastiche, and etc. It largely appears to be a sort of "wait-and-see" thing. You write what you write and then wait to see whether you're sued, with fingers crossed. For instance, a novel you may have heard of -- 50 Shades of Grey -- was written originally as Twilight fan fiction, apparently. While I've never read 50 Shades of Grey, and cannot speak to any perceived similarity to Twilight (which I'll admit to having read begrudgingly, and paid for it), it took just a bit of searching to find the very thing I'd expected in supreme confidence: a (wholly speculative) case that 50 Shades is a violation of copyright.

What do I make of that? I'm no expert in copyright law, and I have no bloody idea, which is partly why such matters are a general concern. It is sometimes hard to know what constitutes a violation of copyright and what does not, until a charge is raised and a judge makes his decision... which may well be too late.

Beyond this, if I address myself to a clearer notion of "copyright" (as in verbatim copies of a work), the truth is that most of the writers I've discussed this with (and you can imagine that it has been more than a few) concede that copyright is nearly valueless to most writers in most situations. When we publish online, there is absolutely nothing to prevent a person from, say, printing out his own copy and keeping it forever, stored away amongst his most prized possessions*. Utterly unenforceable. Or even if it were enforceable somehow, the expense and labor involved in addressing such a thing would be practically prohibitive. Or suppose that some website in China took it upon itself to translate a work into Chinese, and post it upon their own website? No one will ever know, and if they did know, there would be no feasible recourse, apart from suiting up Rambo-style and asserting a personal brand of justice.

___________________________________

* Or at least, this is what I assume people do when they read my stories.

4 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Most writers, Ayn Rand included, live and die by IP (Copyright) laws.  And yet you see them as a hindrance?  What publishing house would print anything without Copyright protection?  Why pony up the money to print 50,000 copies of a "hit" novel if, a month after its release, there will be 1,000,000 illegal copies floating around the market?  This is an important question that you need to address as a writer.

If IP laws were substantially different than they are today, or if they were changed, then the market (including individual writers and publishing houses and etc.) would have to adapt to the new situation. Based on what I've said above (in that copyright violation occurs all the time currently, or there exists that potential at the very least, and there is practically nothing to be done about it), I presume that there is already substantial adaptation taking place. Even if one believes in IP, things are as they are, are trending as they are trending, and must be responded to, as such.

If a hit novel spawned mainstream imitations/verbatim direct copies (assuming that this was not some violation of a licensing agreement, though I don't see why it should not be), then I suppose the market might wind up looking like the publication of public-domain "classics" does today. Though anyone may publish "A Tale of Two Cities" today, or find it online, I don't expect that I would have much trouble finding a professionally published paperback copy in a bookstore, if I were so inclined. So I presume that some money must be made on it, at some point. Though perhaps not? Perhaps it is a "loss leader"? I have no idea. Though writing has to do with publishing, intimately, they really are two separate trades. It's like a prostitute trying to comment on the plight of condom manufacturers.

Anyways, my personal entry point into the market is such: I write on my own terms and I enter into such agreements as make sense to me. If IP laws did not exist, this basic approach would not change. (And I do not have reason to believe that the vast majority of deals I enter into would change, either.)

4 hours ago, New Buddha said:

This is not watching an ancestor eat a banana.

What's nice about an ancestor eating a banana, in my opinion, is that it's a fairly humble and unadorned example. The lack of clutter, of complication, helps to expose the fundamental issues involved. Or such is the intent.

If/when we discuss "Blurred Lines," there will be a myriad of detail, and like as not, commentators here can agree or disagree on any aspect of the ruling. We could argue that case -- or any other -- for pages and pages, without ever getting to the meat of the discussion. So, too, current copyright law and its violation and the effect that has on the publishing industry, or what life as an author might look like in the face of changing IP law, or etc.

There are details -- each perhaps important in their own right (as my life as a writer certainly is to me) -- such that we could argue this topic potentially forever, and never even address ourselves to fundamental questions.

It is in an effort to pare back some of what I perceive to be clutter that I introduce such simple examples. I wish to get to the heart of the matter.

Eiuol has not yet responded to my request for a demonstration of the harm Man B renders upon Man A in the construction of Plow B. I don't know whether he will or not, but you asked for clarification on what I meant by Plow 'B', and I tried to provide it. I thought that meant you would attempt to answer that question, and explain the specific harm Man B wreaks in building a plow to till his own field, such that we believe ourselves justified in forceably preventing him from doing so.

If you would care to respond that question, "thought experiment" though it may be, you can find it here.

38 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

Intellectual Property is an open-ended generalization/concept/definition.  This means that when the internet, or 3d printing, or some future technology comes along, we will need to adjust our "most rational solution".  Solutions are contextual, not transcendent, timeless Platonic Universals.

I think you misunderstand my meaning. When Rand mentions that some law is the "most rational solution," what is the criteria? What is the principle which is being applied, such that we can evaluate whether another proposed law is more or less rational? For instance, of "Great Britain’s Copyright Act of 1911" (which is unknown to me outside of the present conversation), Rand cites that it "established the copyright of books, paintings, movies, etc. for the lifetime of the author and fifty years thereafter." Well, okay. Is fifty years after the lifetime of the author superior to forty? (Or was it at the time, if context has changed such that we suppose Rand would reach a different conclusion today?) I don't know how I would begin to determine such a thing, or how Rand came to the conclusion that she did. Whatever reasoning she employed to pronounce this particular law (as opposed to any rival, including I would suppose then-current US law) "the most rational" remains yet hidden from my view.

And I find it strange of Rand to present a conclusion like this without her reasoning, almost as though inviting us to take her word on it (she says that the time limits on IP is "an enormously complex issue," so... I guess that's that). Though maybe she did that all the time, and it's just my bias which leads me to question it here? But that's just not how I remember her general methodology, which I would otherwise describe as deliciously methodical and comprehensive. The Ayn Rand I picture in my mind (for I know no other) would have delighted to cut through "an enormously complex issue," as she routinely did, to demonstrate the logical necessity of her conclusion. I wish she had done so here.

38 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

Edit:  The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are virtual hymns to Intellectual Property.  Rand escaped from a State that had ZERO respect for IP, as do you.  Any inventions were to be turned over to the State.  If Rand had written a brilliant novel in Russia, she would have received the same wage as a street sweeper.

Despite a middling background in history, and having studied the Soviet Union specifically (though not to any great depth), I really don't know that I can discuss IP in the Soviet Union with any degree of justice. My initial impression (taken for what it's worth) is that it isn't true that a successful novelist would have received the same wage as a street sweeper. For instance, a very cursory look at the Wikipedia article on Russian literature leads me to the writer Maxim Gorky, of whom it says that he was, by Stalin "given a mansion (formerly belonging to the millionaire Ryabushinsky, now the Gorky Museum) in Moscow and a dacha in the suburbs." Perhaps his case is an outlier? Almost certainly. Yet I suspect that successful novelists in the Soviet Union did, on average, "better" than the street sweepers... even if they did not do so well as they might have done outside of the USSR.

More troubling than that, to me, is Gorky's later house arrest and speculation that his government may have played a role in his death. If Rand had written not just any "brilliant novel" in Russia, but specifically the ones she did, I trust that she would not have lived in Russia much longer, one way or another.

Beyond this, I don't even know that it's true that the Soviet Union had "zero respect for IP" (insofar as they had respect for any law). It isn't much, but the Wiki article on the current Russian IP agency (Rospatent) says this:

Quote

In the former Soviet Union, Goskomizobretenie (Russian: Госкомизобретений), which stood for Gosudarstvennyi komitet po delam izobretenie i otkrytii, was the State Committee for Inventions and Discoveries. It maintained a registry of inventions and discoveries and gave out authors certificates and patents.

I don't know what that matters. I don't care to defend the Soviet Union (or, I suppose, to attack them for respecting IP while I do not). Rather, I dislike that Communism proposes to violate man's right to property; I dislike IP on the very same grounds.

38 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

If you are so anti-IP, what is it that attracts you to Objectivism?

Looking back at the above post, I wonder: is this really what you would prefer we do? Talk about all of these myriads of multiplying periphery topics? It feels to me... and I apologize if this is insulting at all, but it feels to me a little like flailing.

Regardless, I cannot continue to do it, for which I apologize. My life won't permit me to do the kinds of research into Soviet IP law (!) that I would need to do, to feel confident in discussing it. Thankfully, I don't consider it essential, and I hope that the above discussion on this and other various matters (including the value of "thought experiments" in discussion, my personal experience with IP, the profit motive of the publishing industry, etc., etc.) will suffice.

What I want to do for the remainder of my participation in this thread is to discuss the philosophical justification of IP, specifically as relates to Rand's arguments for the same. If you do not want to discuss that -- and it seems that you do not -- then I understand, but I cannot extend myself to field every question that has to do with IP. There is not time. I must instead restrict myself to the central questions, and I invite you to join me, should that interest you as well.

As to what attracts me to Objectivism? It is that I believe that Ayn Rand was nearly always correct, and especially in laying down the fundamentals for a philosophy which I have adopted as my own. I further judge that she was occasionally mistaken, and that some of her conclusions contradict those fundamentals, or my own experience of reality. Where I find this to be true, I say so, and this is why I am "so anti-IP." (Are there degrees? I suppose that I am "so anti-IP" to the very same degree that I am "so pro-reason.") I am anti-IP because, so far as I can tell, I am right to be.

[Devil's Advocate]

The Original has summed up the continuing disagreement very well, along with our shared frustration at having to keep moving backwards in order to proceed with this discussion.  I don't fault the participants as sometimes the apple must fall several times before the concept of gravity sinks in.

I will only add at this point that an additional problem with IP is the presumption that no one can own the problem.  In the natural world, reality does and often limits the solutions to a handful of things that can work.  In the man-made world, man does and often by creating the problem himself.  An example of the latter is what led to the design shape of the Pentagon:

"The Arlington Farm tract had a peculiar asymmetrical pentagon shape bound on five sides by roads or other divisions. Finally, guided by the odd shape of the plot, they designed an irregular pentagon."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301296.html

Imagine a landowner with a problem defined by property lines and a goal of maximizing the amount of allowable area for development.  3 Designers are invited to provide solutions, and all 3 "create" an envelope for development based on setbacks from the property lines, along with code specified building heights, points of access, locations of utilities, etc.  Not surprisingly, the resulting designs have been effectively constrained to a problem owned by the landowner, and the resulting design solutions reflect this; all 3 being essentially the same solution.

The owner chooses the least expensive designer who is immediately charged by the other two with infringing on their IP.  The plans are examined by reasonable potential customers and found to be indistinguishable.  Who is guilty and who is innocent in this scenario?

Edited February 15, 2016 by Devil's Advocate
spelling

[New Buddha]

When I refer to real life examples I did not mean disputed IP cases where one party may claim infringement by another.  The law is imperfect and will remain so.  Some people might get a raw deal on occasion.  Disputes as such don't interest me philosophically.  I don't believe in a Utopian Society, and neither do you.

What I mean by real life examples is, if Copyrights are no longer part of the law, then why would a Publishing House bother to print anything?  How will the author and publisher (or drug company) recoup their investment?

The reason that I see this as central to any discussion about Intellectual Property laws is because IP Law is in place to solve real life problems, such as how to assure that an Author will get paid for his work.  I don't divorce the "philosophical justification" of IP Law from the real life problems which they were put into place to solve.

That was the point I was trying to communicate (perhaps poorly) with "Existence Exists > deduction > Copying is Wrong".

In my mind, you don't arrive at the conclusion that IP laws should or should not exist from deductive reasoning from very broad generalizations to particulars.  You don't start with "Existence Exists" and conclude that we should have 25 mph speed limits in school zones, or that people can't vote until they are 18 (as opposed to 17 or 19).  You do so by trial and error.  By observation of what does or does not work in society.  Our generalizations such as Life, Liberty and Property are generalizations derived from particulars in the way that Rand explains in ITOE.  We can use them to guide us in novel situations, but we cannot expect that they will not change as needed.  Nor can we be omniscient and craft perfect laws.  The idea that authors should be able to make a living by selling his work is a principle that you and I agree on.  So how do we make it happen?  Jefferson and others asked themselves this question, and this is how we came to have the IP laws that we currently do.  And he observed many different governments and laws to reach his conclusions.

You claim that no one is harmed when something is copied.  I claim that some one is.  What I don't do is try and justify it by starting from "Existence Exists".  I ask myself, if we live in a society where innovators work is not protected, why would anyone make anything?  Why would a drug company spend $802 million on bringing a drug to market if it can be legally counterfeited?  Why would Levi's Jeans spend millions on marketing campaigns with anyone can import indistinguishable knock-offs?  This line of questioning is Political Philosophy and is Philosophical.

Edited February 15, 2016 by New Buddha

[Devil's Advocate]

We tether the concept of property to reality to avoid the altruist notion that someone ought to be rewarded according to their need for compensation.  What is the objective measure of how much profit someone is entitled to prior to bringing a product to market?  If no one chooses to purchase it, shall compensation then be awarded as welfare??

The reality is that compensation (as a need), doesn't flow naturally from a right to life.  Someone is only entitled to property that is earned by the effort of producing a material object.  Compensation is then achieved by personal use, or by trading it to a willing customer; not by fixing the market to deliver a winner.

Who would risk spending time and resources to deliver a new product to a free market?

An honest trader.

[New Buddha]

1 hour ago, Devil's Advocate said:

 If no one chooses to purchase it, shall compensation then be awarded as welfare??

?

I'm going to take a break from this.  I think I understand the positions, I just don't agree with them or how they are being argued.

Edit:  Let me be clear that I'm not angry or anything like that.  DonAthos's recent posts have been very well written, (I'm not sure how Devil thinks I'm endorsing a welfare state  )

I just have stated my position that if you want to remove IP from society, you must discuss what will replace it.  The "market will figure it out" argument  is not good enough.  The market did figure it out, and it's called IP.  Our Founding Fathers were wealthy business men.  They were the market.

Edited February 15, 2016 by New Buddha

[Eiuol]

5 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Eiuol has not yet responded to my request for a demonstration of the harm Man B renders upon Man A in the construction of Plow B. I don't know whether he will or not, but you asked for clarification on what I meant by Plow 'B', and I tried to provide it. I thought that meant you would attempt to answer that question, and explain the specific harm Man B wreaks in building a plow to till his own field, such that we believe ourselves justified in forceably preventing him from doing so.

I don't plan to, there's just a lot in dispute of what it is to make something anyway. Forget the word "material", say element instead. But the only way I can make my point would take a whole lot of explanation about what an existent is, and how existents come into being. I say existent because that includes both tangible and non-tangible things. Then I'd need to talk about what types of existents can be classified as property based on what it means to survive and flourish by reason. In an information-based society, it's not so obvious as "stuff I can touch", at least, there are lots of stuff you can't touch that are valuable and distinct unlike, say, living in Rome where there were no ebooks. From there I can talk about the harm. It's more time than I want to dedicate right now.

 

[Eiuol]

5 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Eiuol has not yet responded to my request for a demonstration of the harm Man B renders upon Man A in the construction of Plow B. I don't know whether he will or not, but you asked for clarification on what I meant by Plow 'B', and I tried to provide it. I thought that meant you would attempt to answer that question, and explain the specific harm Man B wreaks in building a plow to till his own field, such that we believe ourselves justified in forceably preventing him from doing so.

I don't plan to, there's just a lot in dispute of what it is to make something anyway. Forget the word "material", say element instead. But the only way I can make my point would take a whole lot of explanation about what an existent is, and how existents come into being. I say existent because that includes both tangible and non-tangible things. Then I'd need to talk about what types of existents can be classified as property based on what it means to survive and flourish by reason. In an information-based society, it's not so obvious as "stuff I can touch", at least, there are lots of stuff you can't touch that are valuable and distinct unlike, say, living in Rome where there were no ebooks. From there I can talk about the harm. It's more time than I want to dedicate right now.

 

[DonAthos]

10 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

When I refer to real life examples I did not mean disputed IP cases where one party may claim infringement by another.

I hope you appreciate that if I am barred from both "thought experiments" and "real life examples," it leaves me in something of a bind to prove my case.

10 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

The law is imperfect and will remain so.  Some people might get a raw deal on occasion.

Agreed. It is in anticipation of this sort of objection that I prefer (or at least also utilize) "thought experiments," as I'd written here:

12 hours ago, DonAthos said:

But of course, any real world IP case will invariably open the door to the critique of "that's just IP poorly implemented" (similar to how defenders of Communism will always dismiss the Soviet Union, or any number of real examples, by criticizing the extent to which they are deemed "truly Communist"), which is one of the reasons why I enjoy thought experiments, where the details can be controlled and tailored in an effort to get at the fundamentals in question.

So all right, "Blurred Lines" is out, as are all of the other examples I've raised, and created.

10 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

Disputes as such don't interest me philosophically.  I don't believe in a Utopian Society, and neither do you.

Disputes such as these may provide some interest, philosophically speaking, when we consider the nature of the arguments made. For instance, can the "feeling" of a song be owned? That's a question which seems to be raised by the "Blurred Lines" case, and answered in the affirmative.

You had earlier positioned yourself a proponent of "the law as it is," I believe, and said that you have no problems with current implementation. Do you then agree that a person may own the "feeling" of a song in this manner? I trust that you do not, but to follow up on this -- to try to assess why you don't believe so, yet the judge found the complaint to have standing, and the jury disagreed with you (unanimously, to the tune of millions of dollars) -- might eventually pay dividends in helping us to assess what, specifically, you believe with respect to IP, and why.

And no, I don't believe in a Utopian Society, but I do believe in a society where the claim to own the feeling of a song is properly regarded as ridiculous, and not heard in court. Granting the underlying principles of IP, however, muddies all of these sorts of waters, which is exactly how we wind up in such asinine messes. I am not even convinced that the "Blurred Lines" decision runs afoul of the Objectivist conception of IP; perhaps there are people here who consider that a great example of justice.

10 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

What I mean by real life examples is...

What you mean is that you would prefer to work from your own examples, and not mine.

I kid (somewhat). I've been discussing IP a long time, and this seems to be a routine feature of such conversations. I'm used to it.

10 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

...if Copyrights are no longer part of the law, then why would a Publishing House bother to print anything?  How will the author and publisher (or drug company) recoup their investment?

This is invitation to a thought experiment, just so we're clear. "Imagine a world without IP. How would a Publishing House..., etc."

And I cannot tell you exactly what would happen. I can (as in my last post) mention that public domain works are not protected by copyright, and yet publishing houses apparently bother to print them. Indeed, they are kept in routine circulation (which cannot be said of most copyrighted works). Perhaps there are special reasons for this beyond my ken, and after all, "A Tale of Two Cities" does not come along every day. (But then, most lesser works might not be deemed worthy of the rampant copying you may imagine taking place without copyright protection.)

Further, the elimination of copyright (qua IP) would not mean that people could not create their own terms of sale, which could duplicate most of the practical effect of copyright, as has been discussed a few times upthread.

It has also been raised earlier in the thread (though not by me, so I cannot swear to the details) that the Lord of the Rings was published without the author's consent, somehow bypassing US copyright laws, and yet the proper publisher still entered the market and won out, organizing an informal boycott of the vile copier. And indeed, I've seen this reflected on, say, YouTube, where content is sometimes copied wholesale from channel to channel, yet viewers flock to the original channel and avoid the copiers. If you and I believe in rewarding content creators, and if we're prepared to put our money where our mouths are, then it is possible that we are not alone in this.

Furthermore, I expect that people would get creative in the market, in response to changing conditions, coming up with solutions I cannot at present anticipate. For instance, publishing houses could have some sort of arrangement between them, or authors could band together (as they already do, in limited fashion), etc., though I don't know what form these sorts of arrangements might take.

None of what I propose will withstand much pointed critique, I'm afraid, because the truth boils down to this: I cannot predict what would happen (just as, as I've indicated, I don't know exactly what education would look like without compulsory public schooling, though I trust that there would still be education). The principle which guides me is this: the creation of quality fiction (as drugs) remains a tremendous value. Intelligent people will find ways of capitalizing on that value and recouping their investments (though not everyone will succeed, as is equally the case given IP laws).

It's kind of funny, when you think about it. (Or when I think about it, at any rate.) It is supposed that these works of fiction, or these drugs, represent such a tremendous value that everyone will rush out to copy them, to reap supposedly easy rewards. And this will destroy their profitability. So no one will invest in them in the first place... because they are too valuable. It reminds me of the kind of logic Yogi Berra employed, when he remarked of a restaurant, "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." Presumably if none of the above solutions I've suggested (or others currently unfathomable) would suffice, and if copycats ate at the profit margins in the production of some popular novel, or drug, that eventually a point of equilibrium would be reached. But that's an economic argument beyond both my expertise and my interest.

10 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

The reason that I see this as central to any discussion about Intellectual Property laws is because IP Law is in place to solve real life problems, such as how to assure that an Author will get paid for his work.

But did you note that I get paid for my work? And I do so in the face of a marketplace where copyright infringement against my stories is practically impossible to detect, let alone enforce. If this is the reality of today's marketplace, that IP laws do not actually serve to protect those who publish my stories against anything, then how do my checks continue to clear?

If authors would get paid without IP law -- and I believe they would -- where would that leave IP law in your estimation?

10 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

I don't divorce the "philosophical justification" of IP Law from the real life problems which they were put into place to solve.

Nor do I, but I do believe that law should be consonant with man's rights. We do not solve a supposed "problem" by initiating the use of force against innocents, no matter what we suppose we might be gaining in the trade. It is something of a philosophical bedrock for me, and it's one that I expect others will agree to, in the context of a discussion on Objectivist theory.

If you reject "rights," or believe that one may initiate the use of force "for a good cause," like to get an author paid for his work, or whatever, then you're welcome to your belief -- but I can only take this discussion so far "down," as it were (just as you might be a religionist, and insist that you know that IP is correct based on revelation; I'm not going to argue against faith in this thread for the sake of IP, and neither am I going to make the case for rights, as such, or against the initiation of the use of force).

If IP involves the initiation of the use of force -- as I believe that it does -- then I reject it as a solution for any supposed real life problem.

10 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

That was the point I was trying to communicate (perhaps poorly) with "Existence Exists > deduction > Copying is Wrong".

In my mind, you don't arrive at the conclusion that IP laws should or should not exist from deductive reasoning from very broad generalizations to particulars.  You don't start with "Existence Exists" and conclude that we should have 25 mph speed limits in school zones, or that people can't vote until they are 18 (as opposed to 17 or 19).  You do so by trial and error.  By observation of what does or does not work in society.  Our generalizations such as Life, Liberty and Property are generalizations derived from particulars in the way that Rand explains in ITOE.  We can use them to guide us in novel situations, but we cannot expect that they will not change as needed.  Nor can we be omniscient and craft perfect laws.  The idea that authors should be able to make a living by selling his work is a principle that you and I agree on.  So how do we make it happen?  Jefferson and others asked themselves this question, and this is how we came to have the IP laws that we currently do.

I've made many arguments over the course of this thread, and many others. I do not believe you'll find among them any deductive chain starting with "Existence Exists" and ending with some conclusion, on this or any other topic. Perhaps it would be better for you to quote any specific argument, and respond to it in kind.

10 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

You claim that no one is harmed when something is copied.  I claim that some one is.

Wonderful. Please demonstrate that harm. Use my plow example, if you would, and demonstrate the harm that you claim exists. Because I believe that I can do so in the case of actual property theft (for instance, if Man B took Man A's actual plow: Plow A; I think I can show the harm there), but I believe that you cannot do so in the case of "intellectual property" theft, and the construction of Plow B.

I think no such harm exists.

[DonAthos]

40 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

?

I'm going to take a break from this.

I know the feeling! LOL

40 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

Edit:  Let me be clear that I'm not angry or anything like that.

Glad to hear it. I believe that conversation, and even argument, can be pleasant.

40 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

DonAthos's recent posts have been very well written

I appreciate your saying that. Thank you.

Perhaps we will resume the conversation at a later date.

[Devil's Advocate]

4 hours ago, New Buddha said:

?

I'm going to take a break from this.  I think I understand the positions, I just don't agree with them or how they are being argued.

Edit:  Let me be clear that I'm not angry or anything like that.  DonAthos's recent posts have been very well written, (I'm not sure how Devil thinks I'm endorsing a welfare state  ) ...

I think you're defending IP, but perhaps not seeing the logical end to securing a right to compensation beyond what a free market supports.  Don't get hung up on my reference to a welfare state.  Think about what the objective measure of how much compensation someone is entitled to prior to bringing a product to market.  If there is one, and someone copying your product impedes that amount, then yeah, you're right... IP is justified.

If there isn't one, then we have more to discuss... 

[New Buddha]

On 2/15/2016 at 11:39 AM, DonAthos said:

Wonderful. Please demonstrate that harm. Use my plow example, if you would, and demonstrate the harm that you claim exists. Because I believe that I can do so in the case of actual property theft (for instance, if Man B took Man A's actual plow: Plow A; I think I can show the harm there), but I believe that you cannot do so in the case of "intellectual property" theft, and the construction of Plow B.

 

I think no such harm exists.

Thomas Aquinas can demonstrate the existence of God.  And if you accept his premises and definitions, then you will accept his conclusions.  You cannot logically deny that God exists, once you agree to play by his rules.

But his method of demonstration proves nothing.  It only demonstrates the limits of formal logic and thought experiments.  Nothing more.

If I accept your definition of "harm", I will not be able to logically demonstrate that harm is being committed in your plow example.  But this doesn't mean you are right.  It only means that I don't accept your definition of "harm" (and neither does Rand or most Western Governments).

Edited February 17, 2016 by New Buddha

[Devil's Advocate]

Harm is harm, as anyone who has been harmed knows. Not getting the compensation (or reward, or respect, or love...) you think you deserve, regardless how hard you worked for it, isn't harm.  The word you and others who promote IP struggle with (or ignore) is actual, i.e. actual harm.  Real crimes like theft and forgery leave a mark; copying an idea expands knowledge.  You will say that copied knowledge is forbidden, but you cannot say why.

Thomas Aquinas cannot demonstrate the existence of God; no one can.  Faith is required to believe in things that won't be summoned.  Apparently IP falls into this category.

[dream_weaver]

John Locke's theory of rights had an intrinsic foundation. Mossoff points out that Locke was unable to provide an objective argument for the nature of values and of the moral standard of the production of these values.

Bentham came along with utilitarianism, "the greatest good for the greatest number", disagreeing with Locke's individualism. His notion that property and law are born together and die together gave rise to legal property rights providing security and safety to people in the goods they have in their possession, thus maximizing the collectivist notion of the greatest good for the greatest number.

To this, Mossoff leads up to the 'no harm done' view of: "Given the new utilitarian basis for protecting property, people quickly realized there are no conflicts over ideas. One man’s use of an idea does not prevent another man from using that same idea. Ideas can be copied endlessly and used simultaneously. Ideas can be replicated without any degradation. Ideas are not “used up” when they’re thought about."

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by dream_weaver

[New Buddha]

45 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

To this, Mossoff leads up to the "no harm done" view of: Given the new utilitarian basis for protecting property, people quickly realized there are no conflicts over ideas. One man’s use of an idea does not prevent another man from using that same idea. Ideas can be copied endlessly and used simultaneously. Ideas can be replicated without any degradation. Ideas are not “used up” when they’re thought about.

I feel like you've left something unsaid, or more is needed to avoid confusion?  Per the US Patent Law "ideas" cannot be patented.  I haven't read Mossoff, so I'll rely on you to clarify "idea" and how it relates to Objectivism.  Bentham and Objectivism are miles apart.

US Patent Office

"Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter that can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter."

You cannot patent the idea of "transportation" or  "car" but you can get a design patent for the look of a Volkswagen Beetle.  You cannot patent "brakes" but you can patent a newly developed material used for brake pads.

Edited February 17, 2016 by New Buddha

[dream_weaver]

As you indicated earlier, New Buddha, Rand pointed out in her article, Patents and Copyrights—an invention, to be protected, must be submitted in material form.

Per Bentham, the material form of the idea is not what has being taken. It has been recreated using different atoms (different labor, and different mental activity), thus no harm has been done.

While Mossoff has some written materials on the web, this was from the ARI presentation entitled "Intellectual Property".

 

Rand speaks well about the 'spark' behind a new novel or new piece of music comparing it to new material inventions through Halley to Dagny in the valley in Atlas Shrugged:

Whether it's a symphony or a coal mine, all work is an act of creating and comes from the same source: from an inviolate capacity to see through one's own eyes—which means: the capacity to perform a rational identification—which means: the capacity to see, to connect and to make what had not been seen, connected and made before. That shining vision which they talk about as belonging to the authors of symphonies and novels—what do they think is the driving faculty of men who discovered how to use oil, how to run a mine, how to build an electric motor? That sacred fire which is said to burn within musicians and poets—what do they suppose moves an industrialist to defy the whole world for the sake of his new metal, as the inventors of the airplane, the builders of the railroads, the discoverers of new germs or new continents have done through all the ages?

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by dream_weaver

[New Buddha]

1 hour ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Harm is harm, as anyone who has been harmed knows.

And everyone knows:  The Earth is flat and 4,000 years old, the Pope is infallible, the Diving Right of Kings is absolute, Newton's conception of Absolute Time and Space is irrefutable and Einstein's Relativity is the last word in Mechanics?

Your legal understanding of "harm" was not informed by the English Revolution, Locke, The Glorious Revolution, Smith, Montesquieu, Jefferson and Rand?  You just knew what harm is?

Edit:  And regarding Thomas.  You missed the point about the limits of formal logic and thought experiments.  Russell's paradox  Godels incompleteness theorem Halting Problem

Edited February 17, 2016 by New Buddha

[DonAthos]

2 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Thomas Aquinas can demonstrate the existence of God.

Probably not to my satisfaction.

2 hours ago, New Buddha said:

If I accept your definition of "harm", I will not be able to logically demonstrate that harm is being committed in your plow example.  But this doesn't mean you are right.  It only means that I don't accept your definition of "harm"

Well, let's discuss what I mean by "harm," then.

First I should note that I don't believe I've attempted anything like a formal "definition." (I wouldn't trust myself to succeed if I tried.) But I did try to convey my meaning for the purposes of our discussion when I constructed my example for Eiuol's response. I described the "harm" that I contend is involved in taking a man's bacon, like this:

On 2/12/2016 at 6:47 PM, DonAthos said:

The "so what," the "who cares," is that the person you've stolen from is hurt. Deprived. Injured. He worked to acquire bacon and now, thanks to you, he doesn't have it. Which means he cannot eat it. Which means (in a general, yet literal way) that he may die, on account of starvation. Your theft is anti-life. It strips a man of the fruit of his labor, yet we all must be able to enjoy the fruits of our labor if we are to survive and thrive.

And also:

On 2/12/2016 at 3:22 AM, DonAthos said:

We must demonstrate how it acts against man's life and his flourishing, not because we have defined it as a violation of some supposed right -- and we know from subsequent inference that all violations of right have the effect of working against man's life -- but because we can observe a man suffering in some meaningful and relatable fashion as a consequence of these actions, whether this is in real life cases or in our hypothetical examples.

So by "hurt" or "harm," according to my current reading of my own posts (which you are, of course, welcome to challenge), I appear to mean "deprivation," "injury," "loss," "suffering," the threat of literal death, and that which generally acts against man's life and flourishing, in a "meaningful and relatable fashion." Here, specifically, against Man A -- to "harm" Man A, in my usage, is to act against Man A's life and his flourishing. I mean to ground all of these concepts generally in the Objectivist position of "life as the standard of value," and so by "harm," I mean some objective demonstration that Man B's building Plow B, for the purpose of tilling his own fields, acts against Man A's life and his flourishing.*

When I say that I do not hold Man B's action to harm Man A, what I mean is: I do not believe it deprives Man A of anything; I do not believe it injures Man A; I do not believe it causes any loss for Man A; I do not believe that Man A suffers on account; I do not believe that Man A faces death accordingly; I do not believe that Man A's life or flourishing are negatively impacted.

Indeed, Man B could build Plow B, and use it to till his own fields, without Man A ever being aware of it. Perhaps we could have some objective conception of "harm" which yet allows Man B to harm Man A while Man A remains completely unaware of having been harmed, but I'm hard pressed to imagine it at the moment. It's a bit like Sagan's Garage Dragon: what's the difference between a "harm you can't notice" and "no harm at all"? My inclination is to contend: nothing.

But if you think I'm missing the mark here -- if you believe that there is some legitimate and demonstrable harm being done to Man A by Man B's construction of his plow -- then please say so, and describe the difference you perceive. I'm not attempting to win any debates here (I never am, though neither will I abandon my position until I am logically compelled to do so); if you can point out what I've missed, this is the perfect opportunity. If you see "harm" differently than I do, as I've tried to explain it, please correct my mistake.

______________________________

* I think it is important to have some reference to an objective standard, such as "life," so that we do not mistake things like "hurting another person's feelings" as "harm" in our current usage, or so forth.