Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Intellectual property

Rate this topic


Robert Romero

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Craig24 said:

Just to be clear: You do acknowledge that an original work of art or an original invention is the creator's property and you think that others have the right to copy that creation without the creator's permission and without compensating the creator no matter what?  

The current anti-IP position on this post is that there is no such thing as an original invention or original work of art.  Everything is copied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

The current anti-IP position on this post is that there is no such thing as an original invention or original work of art.  Everything is copied.

That may be but the post I replied to is arguing that the following is wrong: That the expenditure of time and effort to create a new product  imposes a right against having it copied.  

He's admitting that the original work is in fact a creation of something new and NOT a copy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Craig24 said:

That may be but the post I replied to is arguing that the following is wrong: That the expenditure of time and effort to create a new product  imposes a right against having it copied.  

He's admitting that the original work is in fact a creation of something new and NOT a copy.  

Confusions arise when no distinction is being made between an original and a copy.

The argument as I best understand it goes like this:

1)  Everything is a Copy:  Ayn Rand did not invent language or fiction or the novel format.  She was also influenced by various writers, so Atlas Shrugged is not an original work of art.

2) Everything Is an Original:  The person who stands at a photocopy machine making a copy of Atlas Shrugged has "created something" in the same way that Ayn Rand "created something".

Which stance one takes varies from post to post.  That's why there are 530 posts.
 

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Craig24 said:

Just to be clear: You do acknowledge that an original work of art or an original invention is the creator's property and you think that others have the right to copy that creation without the creator's permission and without compensating the creator no matter what?  

Strictly speaking, yes; a right to create* implies a right to recreate*.  The creation of property, as an implementation of the right to life, doesn't distinguish between new and old goods; only that you labored to earn your possessions without harming others in the process.  Therefore the creation of property by one doesn't logically prohibit the recreation of property by others, so there's no moral obligation to ask permission for copying in order to create property for yourself.

I had been struggling with this earlier, but have been recently assured that no one is harmed in the process.  You'll have to ask one of IP's advocates why originators try extort money from copiers, or throw them in jail, if it's true that IP doesn't respond to copying as some kind of material loss.  I have no idea why it upsets them so at this point...  Creative tantrums, I suppose.

At least we are now all agreed that there's nothing aggressive about copying, and that's progress of a sort.

--

*  feel free to substitute create and recreate with Kate and dupliKate, or any other variation that implies an original work and reproductions of that work.

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

The article I've cited several excerpts from is available on the ARI campus as: Why Should Business Leaders Care about Intellectual Property? — Ayn Rand’s Radical Argument.

It is the same presentation (less Yaron Brooks' intro, and possibly some of the Q&A) as offered at the e-store Intellectual Property Rights: Securing Values of the Mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

Therefore the creation of property by one doesn't logically prohibit the recreation of property by others, so there's no moral obligation to ask permission for copying in order to create property for yourself.

By law you cannot buy one copy of AutoCAD and install it on multiple workstations.  If you want to install AutoCAD on 25 workstations, then you need to buy 25 licenses (or negotiate some type of agreement contingent upon maximum allowed users at any give time).  This violates a right to copy, per your argument.

Should it be a legally protected right to obtain a copy of AutoCAD and use it without compensating AutoDesk?  If a fellow IT person in another firm lends you his CD, or lets you download the program over the internet, should that be considered a legally protected right?

And here's an interesting question that pretty much only applies to computer programs.  Should any form of DRM put into the program by AutoDesk, which prevents multiple copies being made, be considered an illegal infringement on another persons legally protected right to make a copy of AutoCAD? 

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

By law you cannot buy one copy of AutoCAD and install it on multiple workstations.  If you want to install AutoCAD on 25 workstations, then you need to buy 25 licenses (or negotiate some type of agreement contingent upon maximum allowed users at any give time).  This violates a right to copy, per your argument...

The first part is true; you're conclusion is false.

59 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

... Should it be a legally protected right to obtain a copy of AutoCAD and use it without compensating AutoDesk?  If a fellow IT person in another firm lends you his CD, or lets you download the program over the internet, should that be considered a legally protected right?...

No; outside the limited non-commercial use allowed by the software manufacturer.

The whole point of a just application of rights is that the proper enjoyment of the right of one doesn't impede (or contradict) enjoyment of the same right by others.  I would consider your example to include a breach of contract and the reception of stolen goods with the intent to defraud the software manufacturer.

59 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

... And here's an interesting question that pretty much only applies to computer programs.  Should any form of DRM put into the program by AutoDesk, which prevents multiple copies being made, be considered an illegal infringement on another persons legally protected right to make a copy of AutoCAD? 

No; there should be no limitation on a software manufacturer's design or efforts to limit use by agreement with willing customers.  But why should they bother with DRM if (as you assert) copying by unwilling customers doesn't harm Autodesk??

On a side note, I don't know how long you've been licensed with Autodesk, but your example suggests being aware that they tried this once, and removed (within a year) it because it impeded the sale of their software, i.e., they... what's that word?  oh yes, HARMED themselves by doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I would consider your example to include a breach of contract and the reception of stolen goods with the intent to defraud the software manufacturer."

Then I'm missing something.  I understand your position to be that a person has a right  to make a copy of AutoCAD - without compensating or entering into a contractual agreement with AutoDesk.  If I'm wrong on this, the please elaborate.

 

The last big firm I worked for (about 5 years ago) used the floating license thing - but it turned out to be a pain in the you-know-what.  The next firm only had three workstations, and each had a license.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Original DA* and myself aren't arguing against private property; quite the opposite.

A DVD (software) and a GMC (automobile) are both representations of actual property being properly transferred to willing customers, who then assume the obligation to hold up their end of the deal; an honest trade.  Neither of us are arguing that we ought to be able to make a DVD of a GMC to avoid dealing with the manufacturer.  Even if we could, that would still represent an illicit claim to property.  Not because "the law" says so, but because the right to life says so; the "effort" of a thief or forger is an effort of aggression against others that HARMS them in the process.

The anti-IP argument that has been presented (from the start) is limited to the premise that copying the property of others isn't delimited to immoral actions of the kind that constantly pop up in this thread as the advocates' presupposition.  That is what you, et al, are missing.  IP won't allow Plow B in any form but that presented in the prototype owned by Man A, e.g., A1, A2, A3... Ax.  Man B is prevented (for a time but not forever to avoid the ills of monopoly) to even make the effort to reproduce the same plow as his own property; he must buy Ax from Man A or go without.

And the weak response that, "Well, let him make another plow then.  One that isn't the same", doesn't address that he remains constrained by unjust law from implementing his right to life according to his own choice and means.  Not because he isn't capable of the task without aggression, but because the innovator has chosen to place a gun against his head rather than take his chances in a free market.

The fact remains, if Plow A (or AutoCAD) can be reproduced by another man (in every detail) as Plow B, nothing has been taken from Man A but a coercive lock on an otherwise free market.  Man B may not choose to market his plow, but it remains a recreation of property by his own effort and materials, the existence of which represents no material loss to Man A.

--

* my apologies for carrying the argument forward in your absence.  You will, of course, correct any misrepresentations I might make on your behalf...

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

1 hour ago, Devil's Advocate said:

 Neither of us are arguing that we ought to be able to make a DVD of a GMC to avoid dealing with the manufacturer.  Even if we could, that would still represent an illicit claim to property.  Not because "the law" says so, but because the right to life says so; the "effort" of a thief or forger is an effort of aggression against others that HARMS them in the process.

Edit, Please read first:  " Even if we could, that would still represent an illicit claim to property."

Your saying that a claim by you of a right to make copies of DVD's is an illicit claim on your part, right?  Not the manufacturer's part?  If yes, "your claim is illicit", then the I agree with that and the following will make more sense.

Edit 2:  Illegal or illicit but legal?

 

I'm not tying to be picky, but the "right to life" is a broad generalization.  And while generalizations guide courts in making laws (ex. the right to life, liberty and property) our day-to-day business decisions are based on written laws, legal precedents, case laws, etc.

Yes, we are in agreement that, "the "effort" of a thief or forger is an effort of aggression against others that HARMS them in the process."  And I never really doubted you believed otherwise.  I never thought you wanted to pirate AutoCAD.

But as such "efforts of aggression" are brought before the courts, they will result in a body of laws and numerous decisions that all must follow, if everyone is to be judged equally under the law.

I have contended all along that this body of law emerging from a laissez-faire economy will eventually result in something virtually indistinguishable from the various types of IP that we currently have today.  And that this emergent process is in fact how we came to have IP laws in the first place.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edits 1 & 2: Going back to the office we are familiar with prior to the digital age, design prints were obtained as hard copy and manually traced by novices for the most part.  The tracing was only property to the degree that it wasn't presented as ones own design.  Copying with the intent to defraud stands against every law, rule or custom respecting property, therefore is illicit.

At the same time, copying is essential to learning, and is certainly why novices are hired in the first place; to learn a trade. Later on the novice, now a designer in his own right, cannot help but duplicate designs that meet the goals of a particular project.  The goal not to reinvent the wheel with every client, but to transform the best idea into property.  If the designer who trained him is any good, the former novice will copy his designs whenever they can't be improved upon.  That still involves his own effort, materials and judgment, and results in properly earned property.

The legality of IP today is at least too restrictive with regard to fixing the market, and I think actually infringes on a right to life where others are prohibited, prior to any agreement, from recreating existing property for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, all, for delayed responses.

Everyone in my household has been dealing with illness the last few days, and it left me with very little energy (to say nothing of patience, lol).

On 2/17/2016 at 1:32 PM, New Buddha said:

I carefully read the underlined several times, but I don't understand your points.  I don't know if you believe current IP law allows for such? Or that somehow they logically follow from how IP is practiced?

And the pizza example.  You know that you can't patent "pizza" any more than you can patent "sandwich".  You can Trademark the name of your restaurant, but you cannot prevent someone from opening another one in your town.  So I'm not sure that's a good example.

My point with either example was the same, and they were not meant to speak directly to IP law, but to the kind of potential for "harm" I was discussing in that post. My point was that innovation of a superior plow (one not disallowed by patent) or, in the case of pizza sales, opening a competitive store, also may serve to threaten someone's economic interests.

Right? For instance, you open a pizza store, hoping for customers/profit... but someone can open across the way and maybe that means you make less than you'd hoped. Oh well!

Since we don't allow such a threat of "economic harm" to lead us to conclude that pizza monopolies are justified, or that the inventor of a plow can stop someone from inventing a superior plow (afraid that his sales will be hurt, or eliminated altogether), then the inventor of Plow A should not be able to stop Man B from building Plow B on the basis of being unable to sell so many plows as he would like in the market. IP is not justified to guarantee sales to innovators. It is not justified to encourage people to become innovators. It is not justified to eliminate competition. It's not justified to allow a person to recoup his investments. It is not justified to create certain outcomes in the marketplace.

To try to put this another way, Ayn Rand argued for a separation of state and economics. I agree. The only potential justification for IP is that it is a property right, whatever that means for innovation in society, or how profitable (or not) any particular invention might turn out to be, or whether innovators feel like they've gotten their money's worth. All of that is besides the point. But I think that I've shown that IP is not a property right -- and actually is contra property rights -- earlier in the thread, over the course of many posts.

Quote

I'm realizing that some of my frustration with this post is that while I have no problem conceding that IP is not perfect and that I'm open to new ideas, I hear very little acknowledgement from you that the problems that IP currently resolve in our society will continue to exist in a non-IP world.

I am not yet convinced that IP resolves problems. I am not yet convinced that the sorts of things you might introduce as "problems" are problems.

For instance, when you've asked "how would an author get paid without copyright," I've responded that 1) I don't think copyright has anything to do with the payments I currently receive; 2) I think there's reason to believe that authors would get paid just fine without copyright; and 3) The "interesting" article I'd linked suggests that in certain circumstances, at least, authors might even do better without copyright. (It's nowhere near conclusive, but at least it's suggestive.) So where's the problem?

On 2/18/2016 at 0:11 PM, Craig24 said:

Just to be clear: You do acknowledge that an original work of art or an original invention is the creator's property and you think that others have the right to copy that creation without the creator's permission and without compensating the creator no matter what?  

Not "no matter what," no. If you've entered into an agreement with some creator that you'll not make any copies of his creation (with or without compensation), then you should be bound by that agreement.

But let's say you've not entered into any such agreement. Let's say that you create something that has already been invented, and patented, elsewhere -- though you've had no knowledge of it. An "independent invention." Then there should be no law stopping you from enjoying the fruits of your labor just as much as the other innovator.

On 2/18/2016 at 0:22 PM, New Buddha said:

The current anti-IP position on this post is that there is no such thing as an original invention or original work of art.  Everything is copied.

The first point of order is to note that there is not necessarily only one "anti-IP position." The second is that I don't believe that this describes anyone's position on this thread.

Of course there are original inventions and original works of art.

On 2/18/2016 at 0:36 PM, New Buddha said:

Confusions arise when no distinction is being made between an original and a copy.

I'm not confused. I can distinguish between an original and a copy and also assert that such a distinction ought not be meaningful with respect to property rights.

Quote

The argument as I best understand it goes like this:

1)  Everything is a Copy:  Ayn Rand did not invent language or fiction or the novel format.  She was also influenced by various writers, so Atlas Shrugged is not an original work of art.

There is a difference between "everything is a copy" (an argument no one has made, so far as I can tell), and "copying is good" or even "copying is necessary for survival" (an argument I have made, and am prepared to defend further). Every human alive has copied strategies for survival and flourishing -- which is to say "has learned" -- from the examples and efforts of countless others.

This is best understood as a response to the argument some people make that "copying" is a parasitic activity, or otherwise immoral. It is not alone meant to prove anything with respect to IP, but merely to counter the negative moral character some mean to impart upon those who profit upon the ideas of others. Rather, it is a very good, very moral thing, to profit upon the ideas of others.

Ayn Rand did not invent language or fiction or the novel format, things that were developed by probably millions of minds over thousands of years. She was also influenced by various writers, who were influenced by various writers in their turn, and so on.

Atlas Shrugged is an original work of art.

Quote

2) Everything Is an Original:  The person who stands at a photocopy machine making a copy of Atlas Shrugged has "created something" in the same way that Ayn Rand "created something".

Every instance of material wealth is a unique existent. While we can recognize a photocopied Atlas Shrugged as a "copy," as opposed to "an original work of art," it is also a distinct existent from the original manuscript. The copy is thus "original" in the sense of some new material thing which exists (qua wealth) that didn't before; the "copy" was created, just as the original manuscript was created. This is an important sense to understand for the purpose of property rights.

For instance, suppose we agree that IP is a right, and set copyright at the life of the author plus 50 years (which I am told is quite reasonable, for... unstated, complex reasons). Supposing that leaves Atlas Shrugged to pass into the public domain in 2032 (which it won't, but suppose), then consider actions in the year 2033. A man buys a paperback of Atlas Shrugged and sets about photocopying away to his heart's content. Who owns those copies?

He does. Because he is the man who made those copies. He created them, qua wealth, and a man owns the wealth he creates.

13 hours ago, New Buddha said:

By law you cannot buy one copy of AutoCAD and install it on multiple workstations.  If you want to install AutoCAD on 25 workstations, then you need to buy 25 licenses (or negotiate some type of agreement contingent upon maximum allowed users at any give time).  This violates a right to copy, per your argument.

This is not a question of a "right to copy." If you agree to buy something on condition of only installing it on one workstation, then you have to fulfill those terms, just as now.

But if you invent your own computer program, then I would argue that AutoCAD has no right to stop you from using it (or selling it, for that matter), even if it runs afoul of some patent AutoCAD owns.

(I write this in complete ignorance of what "AutoCAD" is, but I trust this all still makes sense.)

8 hours ago, New Buddha said:

I have contended all along that this body of law emerging from a laissez-faire economy will eventually result in something virtually indistinguishable from the various types of IP that we currently have today.  And that this emergent process is in fact how we came to have IP laws in the first place.

Hopefully you understand by now that the economic aspect of the IP debate is not what interests me. I believe that authors will get paid sans IP (at least the good ones will, with a bit of luck... and more than I'd like of the bad ones, same as now), but that really isn't the question I'm trying to answer.

This is all true, too, of the history of IP law. It's not a question I'm greatly interested in, and I don't know a whole lot about it. But since we've been talking, I've been moved to look at enough to question this narrative of IP as being an "emergent process" arising out of a laissez-faire economy, seeking to redress the supposed "problems" of unfettered capitalism. ("Sire! We have a problem! Authors are writing books and not getting paid for them!" "Gadzooks, Lord Herefordshireson! I hereby decree a Copyright to rescue those poor, blighted wordsmiths!")

Instead it seems* that much of IP has its basis in monopoly law issued by autocratic authority, both as a means of taxation/funds raising ("donate to the crown, and I'll give you the exclusive right to sell salt for the next five years," etc.) and censorship ("you are the only publisher the crown allows, and in exchange you'll only publish what we allow"). Over time, these initial forms of "patent" and "copyright" were softened somewhat, limited in scope, and given different rationale and aims, until becoming what we know them to be today.

___________________________________________

* Inordinate-yet-apt emphasis on "seems," because this is really based on the most superficial of research, and I know how complicated the actual historical record is likely to be.

Edited by DonAthos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DonAthos said:

To try to put this another way, Ayn Rand argued for a separation of state and economics. I agree. The only potential justification for IP is that it is a property right, whatever that means for innovation in society, or how profitable (or not) any particular invention might turn out to be, or whether innovators feel like they've gotten their money's worth. All of that is besides the point. But I think that I've shown that IP is not a property right -- and actually is contra property rights -- earlier in the thread, over the course of many posts.

I know you will probably think "wtf" :blink:,  but please give the following some consideration .  It builds on a post I made above about Determinism/Materialism vs. Free Will/Objectivism.

Per the above underlined, (imho) your position amounts to: IP Rights and Laws are immoral because they are formulated to achieve a desired, beneficial economic outcome.  If so, then it must also follow that Real and Chattel Property Rights and Laws can only be moral so long as they are formulated to NOT achieve a desired, beneficial economic outcome.

Your "separation of state and economics" incorrectly (again, imho) equates a State's protection of IP Rights to a form of Individual and/or Corporate Cronyism.  If so, then the State's protection of Real and Chattel Property Rights can only be be justified so long as no Individual and/or Corporation benefits.  I'm actually coming to see your position to be a form of Minarchism? (Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, if true)

The above type of a priori a posteriori dialectic reasoning is why Anarchism and Communism are closely related AND on the opposite end of the philosophical spectrum of Objectivism.  Materialism vs. Objectivism.

All Property is Intellectual.

The move away from the Roman Catholic Church's Divine Right to control property and/or the Monarchy's Divine Right to control property, to an Individual's Right to own Real, Chattel and Intellectual Property was driven by trial and error, and the (eventual) realization that everyone benefits from the latter.  Economics is not a zero-sum game.  The move from Theocracy to Feudalism to Mercantilism to Capitalism was justified entirely by economic outcome and rational self interest.

Capitalism and Property (Real, Chattel and Intellectual) can be explained in broad, abstract generalizations, but they were not deduced independent of trial-and-error experience.  Rand often presents her case for Capitalism and Property in an Abstract > Particular format, very reminiscent of Thomism, as I noted in a previous post.  But this type of explanation should not to be confused with deductive reasoning.  She experience first hand life in the Soviet Union and life in the United States.  This alone is justification for Capitalism and Property Rights.  That she took it further is good, but it was not done independent of experience.

 

I will also be making a post addressing  "copying" later.

    

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

I know you will probably think "wtf" :blink:,  but please give the following some consideration .  It builds on a post I made above about Determinism/Materialism vs. Free Will/Objectivism.

Per the above underlined, (imho) your position amounts to: IP Rights and Laws are immoral because they are formulated to achieve a desired, beneficial economic outcome.

No, I said that such economic outcomes are "besides the point." IP is immoral because it involves the initiation of the use of force. The fact that some people propose to initiate the use of force to achieve what they believe to be "a desired, beneficial economic outcome" does not justify that use of force. The ends do not justify the means. (Beyond whether or not these IP laws would have the effect promised; a debatable proposition, I believe, and one potentially unsupported by the historical record, which is yet "besides the point.")

None of any of this has to do with "determinism" or "free will," so far as I can see.

So, yeah... kind of wtf. :)

16 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

Your "separation of state and economics" incorrectly (again, imho) equates a State's protection of IP Rights to a form of Individual and/or Corporate Cronyism.  If so, then the State's protection of Real and Chattel Property Rights can only be be justified so long as no Individual and/or Corporation benefits.  I'm actually coming to see your position to be a form of Minarchism? (Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, if true)

The above type of a priori a posteriori dialectic reasoning is why Anarchism and Communism are closely related AND on the opposite end of the philosophical spectrum of Objectivism.  Materialism vs. Objectivism.

As is often the case in debates such as these, I fear that the abstract terminology is multiplying out of control, and making things far more confusing than I steadfastly believe they must be. Determinism? Materialism? Corporate Cronyism? Minarchism? A posteriori dialectic reasoning?

You're sure you wouldn't rather discuss bananas or plows or pizza parlors? How about "Blurred Lines"? Let's talk about something real for a bit, just to mix things up!

16 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

All Property is Intellectual.

The move away from the Roman Catholic Church's Divine Right to control property and/or the Monarchy's Divine Right to control property, to an Individual's Right to own Real, Chattel and Intellectual Property was driven by trial and error, and the (eventual) realization that everyone benefits from the latter.  Economics is not a zero-sum game.  The move from Theocracy to Feudalism to Mercantilism to Capitalism was justified entirely by economic outcome and rational self interest.

Capitalism and Property (Real, Chattel and Intellectual) can be explained in broad, abstract generalizations, but they were not deduced independent of trial-and-error experience.  Rand often presents her case for Capitalism and Property in an Abstract > Particular format, very reminiscent of Thomism, as I noted in a previous post.  But this type of explanation should not to be confused with deductive reasoning.

You continue to make statements such as these as though I'm making some long chain of deductive arguments somewhere... can you point out where I'm doing that? And then, if you've identified some example of deductive reasoning in my arguments (not to be confused with an explanation, naturally), would you please identify the specific mistake I've made?

I know I've asked for such specifics before, and I don't mean to be a nag, but I find specific arguments so much more... useful, than these sorts of broad and abstract meta-discussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DonAthos said:

But if you invent your own computer program, then I would argue that AutoCAD has no right to stop you from using it (or selling it, for that matter), even if it runs afoul of some patent AutoCAD owns.

(I write this in complete ignorance of what "AutoCAD" is, but I trust this all still makes sense.)

AutoCAD is software largely used for engineering and architecture drawings. It is highly sophisticated. If you invented your own program, to work with AutoCAD's goals in mind, I assure you, it wouldn't be a copy. There is no realistic way to duplicate AutoCAD unless you literally copy all the files and all the lines of code. You're totally free to make other drawing programs insofar as you actually invented the program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

AutoCAD is software largely used for engineering and architecture drawings. It is highly sophisticated. If you invented your own program, to work with AutoCAD's goals in mind, I assure you, it wouldn't be a copy. There is no realistic way to duplicate AutoCAD unless you literally copy all the files and all the lines of code. You're totally free to make other drawing programs insofar as you actually invented the program.

Specifically what I'd written was "if you invent your own computer program, then I would argue that AutoCAD has no right to stop you from using it (or selling it, for that matter), even if it runs afoul of some patent AutoCAD owns."

I didn't insist that this must be a complete "copy" or "duplication" of the specific AutoCAD software. I don't know what aspects of a program like AutoCAD might or might not be covered, or even whether (or to what extent) software is patentable, by current US law.

Regardless, my statement stands as written. If you agree with me, that is, of course, fine. (Encouraged, even.)

___________________________________

Edited to add:

Hopefully this will help to clarify, rather than further cloud, but here is a portion from the Wiki (Software patent), emphasis added:

Quote

 

Protection by patent protection and copyright constitute two different means of legal protection which may cover the same subject-matter, such as computer programs, since each of these two means of protection serves its own purpose.

[...]

Patents...give their owners the right to prevent others from using a claimed invention, even if it was independently developed and there was no copying involved. In fact, one of the most recent EPO decisions clarifies the distinction, stating that software is patentable, because it is basically only a technical method executed on a computer, which is to be distinguished from the program itself for executing the method, the program being merely an expression of the method, and thus being copyrighted.

Patents cover the underlying methodologies embodied in a given piece of software, or the function that the software is intended to serve, independent of the particular language or code that the software is written in. Copyright prevents the direct copying of some or all of a particular version of a given piece of software, but does not prevent other authors from writing their own embodiments of the underlying methodologies.

 

 

Edited by DonAthos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

No, I said that such economic outcomes are "besides the point." IP is immoral because it involves the initiation of the use of force. The fact that some people propose to initiate the use of force to achieve what they believe to be "a desired, beneficial economic outcome" does not justify that use of force. The ends do not justify the means. (Beyond whether or not these IP laws would have the effect promised; a debatable proposition, I believe, and one potentially unsupported by the historical record, which is yet "besides the point.")

Central to both the (old school) Anarchist and Marxist positions is that ALL Property (Real, Chattel and IP) requires the initiation of force by the State to protect it, and therefore both should be abolished.  Anarchism wants to abolish Property and the State now, while Marxism believes that Capitalism/Property is a (deterministic) stage of history (historical materialism) and that it will eventually give way to Socialism then perfect Communism and after which the State will "wither away".

If you reject Intellectual Property because it requires the initiation of the use force (by the State) to protect it, then you must also reject Real and Chattel Property because they do as well.  This is the point of the underlined below:

Per the above underlined, (imho) your position amounts to: IP Rights and Laws are immoral because they are formulated to achieve a desired, beneficial economic outcome.  If so, then it must also follow that Real and Chattel Property Rights and Laws can only be moral so long as they are formulated to NOT achieve a desired, beneficial economic outcome.

But the error behind this type of thinking (something which Libertarians are prone to do as well) is the belief that Man is incapable of creating an objective set of laws and rules to live by.  Not perfect or omniscient laws, but objective.

When you say that, "economic outcomes are besides the point" what you are admitting to is the analytic synthetic dichotomy - i.e the belief that laws can be both "true" and "moral",and yet not result in economically beneficial outcomes for individuals.  And it's opposite, any laws which do result in beneficial outcomes for individuals must require the initiation of force, and are therefore immoral.

This is dialectic reasoning and Kantian Ethics.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

Central to both the (old school) Anarchist and Marxist positions is that ALL Property (Real, Chattel and IP) requires the initiation of force by the State to protect it, and therefore both should be abolished.

I am neither an Anarchist nor a Marxist. My position is not that ALL Property requires the initiation of force, but that this is true of "intellectual property," which is not property at all. It is a fiction of the state. A grant of monopoly privilege.

The grant to one man of "intellectual property" violates another man's real, actual property rights.

3 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

Anarchism wants to abolish Property and the State now, while Marxism believes that Capitalism/Property is a (deterministic) stage of history (historical materialism) and that it will eventually give way to Socialism then perfect Communism and after which the State will "wither away".

I do not wish to abolish either property or the state, but I do want both to be conceived of, and implemented, in the proper way. For instance, while I am not against the state, I am against tyranny. And while I am not against property, I am against anti-property schemes like "intellectual property."

And I don't know whether it's even worth responding to, but neither do I agree with Marx's theories of history.

3 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

If you reject Intellectual Property because it requires the initiation of the use force (by the State) to protect it, then you must also reject Real and Chattel Property because they do as well.

This is incorrect. There is nothing about actual property which requires the initiation of the use of force, by the state or any other entity.

3 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

But the error behind this type of thinking (something which Libertarians are prone to do as well) is the belief that Man is incapable of creating an objective set of laws and rules to live by.  Not perfect or omniscient laws, but objective.

As I am not an Anarchist or a Marxist, neither am I a Libertarian. Nowhere have I either said or implied that man is incapable of creating objective laws. In fact, I am arguing against IP on the basis that man is so capable, and that IP demonstrably runs afoul of this goal. IP laws are immoral and they are not objective.

3 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

When you say that, "economic outcomes are besides the point" what you are admitting to is the analytic synthetic dichotomy - i.e the belief that laws can be both "true" and "moral",and yet not result in economically beneficial outcomes for individuals.

When I say that "economic outcomes are besides the point," what I mean is that "economic outcomes are besides the point." Not that I believe that "laws can be both 'true' and 'moral,' and yet not result in economically beneficial outcomes for individuals," but that it is besides the point. It happens that I believe that the free market is the best economic system, qua "economically beneficial outcomes for individuals," but that's not the basis on which I argue for the free market. Rather, I argue for the complete protection of individual rights, which consequently results in the free market.

On "the analytic-synthetic dichotomy," I must admit, it has been quite a while since I've read Peikoff's essay on the subject. And when I did read it, I never felt as though I grasped it 100%. Yet based on what I do remember, I don't think it applies here. Instead, I think you're looking for the "moral/practical dichotomy."

But so far as I know, there is no "moral/practical dichotomy" in any of my arguments. I'm not arguing that IP is moral, but impractical. I'm not arguing that IP is practical, but immoral. I'm arguing that IP is immoral. Economic outcomes are besides the point.

3 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

And it's opposite, any laws which do result in beneficial outcomes for individuals must require the initiation of force, and are therefore immoral.

I am not saying that "any laws which result in beneficial outcomes for individuals must require the initiation of force, and are therefore immoral." I am saying that laws which initiate the use of force are immoral, regardless of the intention or effect of those laws.

3 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

This is dialectic reasoning and Kantian Ethics.

Alright. So we've got "Anarchist," "Marxist," "Libertarian" and now "Kantian"? Give me a Free Space ("free" because I'm a Communist, natch) and surely this must be a bingo! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have examined several examples where the complexity of design makes it unlikely (but not impossible) that infringement of IP might occur by someone figuring out how to recreate a patented product on their own.  I’ve used AutoCAD for over three decades (fully licensed) and am a capable programmer with an AS in computer science, but on my own couldn’t reproduce the entire code of every programmer who developed AutoCAD.  Nevertheless, if I could reproduce any part of it by my own knowledge and effort, and that part infringed on Autodesk’s patent, it would be an immoral act of force that prevented me from claiming that part as my own property.  I obtained it by the same honest means Autodesk programmers used, therefore I earned my property as they did.  But they were first, so I must not get in the way of their pursuit of property...

I recently saw an advertisement for a new product, something looking like a straw with a forked end, used to remove ticks by slipping it between the head and skin and twisting ticks away.  Having removed a few ticks in my day, I recognize the process.  Nothing sophisticated about the device, but definitely a point of novelty, being quite different than tweezers or fingernails. Presuming this tick removing innovator has gone to the trouble of patenting his product, the only advantage he has over me is that patent.  I don’t need to figure out how or why his product works, and I certainly don’t need an AS degree to reproduce it.  But I cannot because he was first, so I must not get in the way of his pursuit of property...

Tick removal is less complex than CADD software, but the premise of IP remains the same; reward the first by restraining the rest.  We can go down the list, and have indeed covered much of it in this thread, but advocates continue to dismiss the most basic premise of a right to property; that the rights of one man cannot violate the rights of another man.  The preference for the property of innovation contradicts this, so it doesn’t really matter how much good has come by the relatively small abuse of others.  The abuse is real and contradicts the just application of a right to life…

But we must not get in the way of an innovator’s pursuit of property.  Is this not just another concession to royalty? A little monopoly in a free market, like a little government regulation, sounds tolerable.  Perhaps a little poison is too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having used extensively Ford Motor Company's PDGS, (Prime Design Graphics System), Catia V4 (Computer Aided 3-Dimensional Interactive System), Catia V5 (Same company, radically different software with some similarities to the older product), and familiarity with Unigraphics, Pro-Engineer, Autocad and a few others, there are many similarities and differences which set these softwares apart. Computer programming is very mathematical in nature, and geometry manipulation has its roots in ancient greece (assuredly public domain by now) All of these softwares utilize equations for lines, circles, etc., that have been used for centuries. Notions of cubes, spheres, cones, etc., too, have been around as well.

These are not examples of recreating patented products, as near as I can tell. There are different approaches to resolving the issue to providing a mathematical description of CAD user's intent for downstream users.

Given the complexity of adding different computer languages, (PDGS was written for a mainframe in a computer language not widely used today, Catia V4 used a different kernel [something to do with the processor], and so on and so forth, seems to be missing the mark of what Intellectual Property is, as Miss Rand uses the term)

As New Buddha brought to bear in an earlier post, the number of public domain products available to potential wanna-be-producers of existing products far exceeds those that fall under IP exclusivity for choosing to produce. So aside from the prohibitive cost of reproducing a "single' 2016 Corvette from scratch in a "backyard mechanic's garage", for personal use, this still does not directly address the moral argument for intellectual property rights, (arguably a case based on an extension of individual rights.) — which brings to mind another quip from Atlas Shrugged:

They are counting on you to go on, to work to the limit of the inhuman and to feed them while you last—and when you collapse, there will be another victim starting out and feeding them, while struggling to survive—and the span of each succeeding victim will be shorter, and while you'll die to leave them a railroad, your last descendant-in-spirit will die to leave them a loaf of bread.  This does not worry the looters of the moment. Their plan—like all the plans of all the royal looters of the past—is only that the loot shall last their lifetime. It has always lasted before, because in one generation they could not run out of victims.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quip doesn't seem to relate to your buildup, which (as I read it) is a repeated combination of, "There's still plenty of room to create new products along side of what IP law secures" and, "opponents aren't really addressing what IP is".  Pointing to the quip then suggests that only a looter would object to tolerating the legal monopoly IP secures for its "victims".

9 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

... seems to be missing the mark of what Intellectual Property is, as Miss Rand uses the term...

The P in  IP means property, and Ayn Rand's use of that term in the context of claiming a right to it is very clear:

"Any alleged 'right' of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right."

IP law imposes an unchosen obligation on others not to copy the original as a means to their own property, and on this point Ayn Rand is equally clear:

"No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as 'the right to enslave.' "

John Locke's definition of property (which you credit to the degree that it doesn't get in the way of your advocacy for IP) is also clear:

"Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."

In Locke's argument a man enters a field and finds an apple (another great computer reference), picks and eats it and claims it as his property because it is no longer of benefit to anyone else and there remains "enough, and as good, left in common for others."  With IP, the same man enters that field, picks and consumes his apple, and then claims all apples are his property (for awhile) and invites others to buy apples from him or go find another fruit to eat.

You may argue that IP isn't common to all men, that it begins as King's property and without his consent, any use of it begins with theft.  In that case then you still have to explain how producing two of something is a theft of the original, or how copying defrauds the King of his original and his future use of it.  You have to prove the King has been harmed to collect damages, which is of course is the legal remedy for IP infringement.

As I see it, arguments for IP have been reduced to a rather weak defense of the status quo, ignoring or dismissing obvious contradictions in the form of time lapse ownership and merging material wealth with immaterial desires for compensation. Real property exists.  It's out there.  Go and see for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

...does not directly address the moral argument for intellectual property rights...

If you can help me to better focus the thread, then please let's do it. I've tried to approach this topic from a number of angles, but I've found very little willingness from those who support IP to discuss any given example or argument in depth, or to its conclusion. Here is another attempt.

Here's Ayn Rand on "rights":

Quote

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

"The freedom to take all of the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life" -- yes?

Man has the right to secure property and defend that property, this being "required by the nature of a rational being for...his own life." He gets a pig, he slaughters it, he has bacon; that bacon is his; he must have the freedom to defend that bacon against his neighbor's theft. He must have the freedom to dispose of it as he sees fit.

Such is property. Now for "intellectual property."

Can you grant me Man A, Plow A, Man B, and Plow B? If so, then I would contend that Man A has the right to build Plow A and defend it, just as with the bacon above. But I would also contend that Man B has this very same right with respect to Plow B.

Does Man A require the freedom to forcibly prevent Man B from building Plow B? How so? How exactly does stopping Man B from building his own plow, and thus increasing his own wealth/furthering his own life, contribute to "the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment" of Man A's life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.

Since my last post, I watched the Adam Mossoff lecture that Dreamweaver linked in an earlier post.  It was very illuminating.   Before watching, I had thought that Mossoff was championing Bentham. I'm glad to learn that he was not. 

I had, in some recent posts, been grappling with Materialism as the basis of the anti-IP arguments being put forth on this post.  Mossoff clarified this wonderfully for me.

In Devil's quote above, what is missing is any reference to the Mind as the source of the Labor which is in turn the source of the physical Property - whether it's a house, a plow, food, a novel, architectural drawing or a CAD program.  This is what is meant by "All Property is Intellectual".  Locke did argue for Natural Rights, but did not identify the Mind as the root for all Value, and therefore all Property (whether Real, Chattel or IP).  This was Rand's contribution.

Later economists such as Smith, Bentham and Marx based their economic theories on Materialism and/or a Labor Theory of Value.  According to various Materialism philosophies, things are not created by an individual choosing to applying reason in an attempt to acquire the things that he values. Rather, value is determined by the needs of Society or the State -- and an individual's labor in service of this "need" is  the source of Man's value.  Man has no identity separate from the Society or the State.  Society is the source of all Values - not Man's Nature. Thus, Bentham's "It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong."  Bentham tried (as I understand it) to arrive at a "scientific" (scare quotes very much intended) means of literally & numerically measuring "right and wrong" in a way that would later influence such ideas as Centralized Planning and Scientific Socialism.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

... In Devil's quote above, what is missing is any reference to the Mind as the source of the Labor which is in turn the source of the physical Property - whether it's a house, a plow, food, a novel, architectural drawing or a CAD program.  This is what is meant by "All Property is Intellectual".  Locke did argue for Natural Rights, but did not identify the Mind as the root for all Value, and therefore all Property (whether Real, Chattel or IP).  This was Rand's contribution...

So Locke's laborer was mindless?  Is that seriously what you're saying now, that Ayn Rand's contribution was to put a brain in the scarecrow so that he could understand that he needed property to exist??

I can't even begin to respond to this without frustration so I'll just say, "Phooey!"

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...