Intellectual property

[New Buddha]

1 hour ago, Devil's Advocate said:

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!"

Did Locke believe that Man is a causal agent, as does Rand? Was Locke an Atheist, as was Rand?

[New Buddha]

Devil,

The ideas below have interested me since I encountered William James' explanation of Berkeley's critique of Locke's Substance, Primary and Secondary Characteristics and how Substance (extension of Form) ties to Newton's Gravity/Causation.  What Rand calls Mind and Causation, Free Will, is something entirely different than the ideas that Locke, Newton, Leibniz, etc., were wrestling with.   They were trying to get out from under Medieval Scholasticism.  They lived in a different Universe then we do.

We in the US owe a great deal to the British Empiricist, and I have nothing but the greatest admiration for them.  But there are many fundamental flaws in their thinking.

Newton's Philosophy

 

The idea might be roughly as follows: Newton wanted to leave open the possibility that God had endowed bodies with a power to act at a distance on one another, a position that is at least reminiscent of Locke's view in his correspondence with Stillingfleet (see above). The reason is that Newton held the standard view at the time that matter itself is passive, requiring some kind of divine intervention in order to interact causally with other matter. Again, one finds a Lockean echo of this idea (which may be no accident): Locke sometimes suggests that matter itself is passive in the sense that it cannot move itself; instead, motion must be “superadded” to it by God. If the world consisted solely of a bunch of material objects, say rocks floating in interstellar space, then they would not experience any changes in their states of motion unless some external force acted upon them—if left to its own devices, matter is passive and does not move. To argue, as some “Epicurean” philosophers may have done, that matter itself essentially contains gravity as a feature, is to deny that matter is passive; it is to suggest that the rocks in interstellar space would attract one another and begin to move “on their own”, without any external force influencing them. And this, in turn, might lead us on a slippery slope to atheism, for on this view, matter would act on its own, without any divine intervention. Or so Bentley and Newton might be interpreted.

 

The first aspect of Newton's argument, it seems, is to indicate that mechanical explanations are predicated on referencing certain kinds of qualities when investigating natural phenomena, and that these qualities themselves are therefore not subject to mechanical explanation. For instance, since mechanist explanations—say, of the way in which magnets attract iron filings across a table—must refer to qualities such as the extension of the bodies subject to the explanations, then we cannot give a mechanist explanation of extension itself. Of course, Leibniz might reply that we need not provide any explanation of the basic qualities of bodies that figure in mechanical explanations, for those properties have been chosen by the “moderns” precisely because they are perfectly intelligible on their own, perhaps unlike various qualities attributed to “Scholastic” accounts of natural phenomena. The second aspect of Newton's argument is more intriguing—it also harks back to Locke's discussion with Stillingfleet, for Locke had contended that God may have superadded not only gravity to material bodies, but also the power of thought, linking them because he believed that neither could be rendered intelligible using any philosophical means at his disposal. That is, from Locke's point of view, we know that human beings—which are, or at least contain, material bodies with size, shape, motion and solidity, along with parts characterized by those qualities—are capable of thought, but since we cannot discern how any material thing could possibly have that capacity, we conclude that God may have superadded that feature to us, or to our bodies. Thought and gravity are dis-analogous in the sense that we did not require anything like Newton's theory to convince us that human beings can think, but they are otherwise analogous. Newton then attempts to make the following argument: since Leibniz would have to agree that thinking is not a mechanical process, and not mechanically explicable, he must agree that there is at least one aspect of the world that has the following two features, (1) it is not mechanical; and, (2) it is clearly not to be rejected on that ground alone. He attempts to liken gravity (as he understands it) to thinking (as he believes Leibniz is required to understand it), arguing that despite the fact that it is not mechanical—it cannot be explained mechanically—it should not be rejected on that ground. This argument may be predicated on the view that human beings, material things, or at least partially material things, do the thinking, rather than immaterial things, such as minds or souls, for if one attributes all thought to an immaterial mind or soul, then there is no pressure to say that anything in nature, or perhaps even any aspect of anything in nature, has a feature that cannot be mechanically explicated. If one accepts Locke's view (apparently also endorsed by Newton) that we should attribute thinking to material things, or to aspects of material things, then perhaps Newton has successfully followed Locke in likening gravity to thought, thereby making room for aspects of nature that are not mechanical after all. This vexing issue would continue to generate debates amongst Newton's and Leibniz's various followers in England, and on the Continent, respectively.

Edited February 22, 2016 by New Buddha

[dream_weaver]

3 hours ago, DonAthos said:

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":

"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?

Blue. That's better. Now I can see it.

One of the issues is the approach to dissecting the problem.

Why does Rand indicate that the position of the intellectual in pre-industrial revolution times did not, and I suspect could not exist? (For The New Intellectual) Wealth, pre-industrial revolution, was generally acquired from seizure. Most production was the result of primarily physical effort(s) rather than mental.

One form of property was protected by the strong on behalf of the weak. Don't take the bicycle. Don't break in and steal the wealth stored inside an abode.

Where did the men of the intellect hide the products of the mind during the dark ages? Why? What was it they produced that struck fear into the hearts and minds of the ruling elite of the time? If there are no properties in the realm of ideas, there would seem be no need to either assign a right to them to protect; or to attack, imprison, put to death, etc.,  someone for simply holding a particular idea or set of particular ideas.

The salient point being drawn here is the difference of what needs to be examined over Man A, Plow A, Man B, Plow B. Either there is some form of substance to intellectual property to which rights can be identified and subsequently charge a proper form of government with upholding, or there is not.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

15 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Did Locke believe that Man is a causal agent, as does Rand? Was Locke an Atheist, as was Rand?

You're not improving your chances of getting a response other than, "phooey" from me along this line of questioning.

However it is generally acknowledged that Locke, believing that thinking could not have arisen from inanimate material, accepted the view of a living creator.  His contribution was to challenge the prevailing view that property and freedom were divinely revealed to kings, by asserting that reason was the primary tool for revealing knowledge about how property and freedom are acquired by individuals.

Ayn Rand's primary contribution was to acknowledge his in these areas of knowledge, and that she was an atheist is not a point of novelty.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Devil's Advocate
final thought

[DonAthos]

12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

One of the issues is the approach to dissecting the problem.

We'd spoken earlier, briefly, about "clarity." I believe you took that personally, whereas I didn't mean it that way, but I believe that in writing (and especially in a discussion/argument such as this), "clarity" should always be a chief consideration. For after all, if we do not mean to communicate, then what exactly are we doing?

I bring it up again because I've had a very hard time understanding your response. I'd like to try to explain a little bit of why that is, starting with your first sentence...

But first, here's (a little bit of) the context: I'd quoted a phrase of yours which observed that some line of argument or other seemed tangential to you. I generally agree. I think that arguments in this thread have grown increasingly tangential, and contentious, and so I wanted to enlist you to assist me in the project of bringing this discussion back to the basics. Back to the central philosophical issues.

I tried once again (though in a way novel to the thread) to strike at the heart of the debate, stripping away all of the inessentials that I could, presenting a bare-bones argument, and then asking you some pointed questions that would (hopefully) help either to define our positions -- or perhaps even to resolve the matter! (Because I am an optimist, in my own way.)

The questions I'd asked, you understand... I hoped that you would answer them. For instance, here is my final paragraph:

Quote

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?

 

So I would have been thrilled to see your response start (something) like this: "Yes, Man A requires the freedom to forcibly prevent Man B from building Plow B. It absolutely contributes to the support/furtherance/etc. of his life. Here's how:..." And then the bulk of your response dedicated to your demonstration of that answer.

Or, of course, it would have been equally thrilling if your reply was a concession that Man A does not require this freedom, which I hold to be the true answer -- that no man needs to hold down any of his neighbors for the betterment of his own life -- but either way would have been perfectly satisfying to me, at this stage in the conversation.

You see? I asked a question, and I wanted (and frankly was expecting) an answer. Though of course I understand that's not how "debate" typically works, and I was open to the possibility that you would critique my example instead (though Man A/Man B/etc., are by now so pared down to their core, that I do not see how any substantial objection could be raised... unless you, too, reject "thought experiments" categorically), or the relevance of my quote (though I selected a quote of Rand's which speaks so directly to the core of "rights" that it must certainly have weight in our discussion of IP, which is contended to be a right; or, it must have weight at least among Objectivists).

But my point is, I was expecting an answer to my question. Or at least a response to my question. You dig? New Buddha once remarked that these kinds of controversies could easily be resolved over a cup of coffee. I think he underestimates the issues involved, personally, but here's what I can tell you: if we were sharing coffee together, and I asked you a question (in the context of a friendly debate), and your response did not refer at all to my question, I would have stopped you about thirty seconds into your answer and said something like, "I'm sorry, but could you please respond to my question first?"

So here was your reply to me:

12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

One of the issues is the approach to dissecting the problem.

I'm looking for an answer to the question I'd asked, and I find...

Okay. It looks like you're challenging my example, instead? I guess? I don't really know. Look at this sentence. Each of its referents are vague. "One of the issues" what issues? "is the approach" what approach? "to dissecting the problem" what problem?

One sentence in, and I really have no idea what this is referring to or trying to express. I only know that my prospect of getting an answer to the question I'd asked already looks grim. But dauntless I press ahead, looking for elaboration on this opening at least. If you mean to tell me that my example was poorly constructed, then I look forward to that demonstration!

12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Why does Rand indicate that the position of the intellectual in pre-industrial revolution times did not, and I suspect could not exist? (For The New Intellectual)

Well, wait. What's happening now? How does this relate to "the issues" mentioned above? Is this a new approach to dissecting "the problem"?

I'd asked a question and... I get this question in response? I don't see how they relate, and I frankly don't know how to answer it.

12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Wealth, pre-industrial revolution, was generally acquired from seizure. Most production was the result of primarily physical effort(s) rather than mental.

Now... I could argue with this, I believe. I think that wealth must be produced before it can be "seized," and I completely disagree with the idea that before the Industrial Revolution "most production was the result of primarily physical effort(s) rather than mental." But my first interest is not in contending with these particular statements.

Again, and more broadly: I'm looking for their relationship with both the post you're responding to, and your opening statement. I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying, rhetorically. You're making these points... why? What is it you're trying to express? I don't yet understand.

12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

One form of property was protected by the strong on behalf of the weak. Don't take the bicycle. Don't break in and steal the wealth stored inside an abode.

Where did the men of the intellect hide the products of the mind during the dark ages? Why? What was it they produced that struck fear into the hearts and minds of the ruling elite of the time? If there are no properties in the realm of ideas, there would seem be no need to either assign a right to them to protect; or to attack, imprison, put to death, etc.,  someone for simply holding a particular idea or set of particular ideas.

Yet I fear that the post continues on in this manner. There are more questions put to me... or are they rhetorical questions? I don't know.

I don't know how to answer them, in any event. Where did the men of the intellect hide the products of the mind during the dark ages? This feels like something the Riddler might pose to Batman. And again, the terms are themselves vague. "The men of the intellect"? What exactly does that mean? Like... scholars? Or priests? And to what does "the products of the mind" refer? I regard all material wealth as a "product of the mind," in some sense, but maybe you mean something more specific, like illuminated manuscripts? And what would it mean to "hide" them? Hide them from whom? The vikings? Is this a question requiring specific historical knowledge? (If so, I may not be able to answer; I have a degree in history, but it is a subject both broad and deep, and the Dark Ages were not an area of particular study for me.) Or are "dark ages" to be understood more metaphorically, somehow?

And then there's the further matter of "properties in the realm of ideas," and so forth. Does that mean patent/copyright/trademark (i.e. "intellectual property," the ostensible subject of our discussion) or something else? Was there any recognition of IP in the Dark Ages? Or are you talking about, like, Galileo and his discoveries ("struck fear into the hearts and minds," etc.), though I believe that was post-Dark Ages? I just don't know. I just don't know what any of this means.

I'm not saying all of this to be critical, as such, or to be snarky or rude (and I apologize if it's taken that way; in the context of an argument, that might be considered the "default setting," though it ought not be), but I do mean to communicate my experience in trying to make sense of what you've written.

And by this point I'm further left wondering... if you do not mean to answer my question, or to respond meaningfully to my post (because you've not yet mentioned the quote I'd provided, or questioned my example, or assessed my approach in trying to relate that quote to IP, or seem to have replied to anything that I've written), then what are you doing? Are you dismissing my question and making your own argument instead? If so, then why not make it in a straightforward manner, at least? Why not say what you mean directly?

12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

The salient point being drawn here is the difference of what needs to be examined over Man A, Plow A, Man B, Plow B.

I obviously don't see the point you're drawing, in the post up till now. But okay, you're telling me that your project is "the difference of what needs to be examined." What does that mean? To what does "the difference" refer to? As in... a difference of opinion?

Do you mean to say that I'm looking at the wrong thing with respect to Man A, etc? I still don't honestly know, but that's my best guess.

But okay, assuming that's correct, here's what I would prefer: I would prefer you to try to answer my question. Philosophical discussion is hard enough without partners who at least make an effort to answer questions posed directly. And then, after your answer, you could say something like: "But I think you're looking at the wrong thing."

And then you explain why. And then you introduce your different approach. If you think that something else needs to be examined, with respect to Man A, Plow A, and so forth, then please do not stand on formality: examine it! Take my example (which does not have to be "plows," but preferably will be something specific) and demonstrate your view of the proper examination, not by describing it obliquely or trying to lead me to it through some Socratic method, but by conducting the examination yourself. Rather than talking discursively and abstractly about the dark ages (unless that actually matters to your example), and "the men of the intellect" and "the products of the mind," and so forth, take some specific example (yours, mine, or any other) and develop it. Relate your general abstract views to some specific concrete reality, so that I can see what you're talking about. And then, of course, I will nitpick your example -- just as people nitpick mine -- which will provide its own frustrations. But at least we will be communicating. It will be progress.

With respect to clarity, I would also ask that you be wary of vague language, and mounting rhetorical questions or abstractions. Opt for direct, specific language where you can. I respect the fact that you have sincere beliefs on this subject (though I thus far hold you mistaken), and that you would like to express those beliefs. I want to understand them. Even if we never agree on IP, I at least want to understand you and to be understood by you, which is a project potentially even more valuable to both of us than even resolving the subject of the thread.

So look, if I have not abused your good will past its breaking point, I would ask that we begin again. I'm willing to follow you to the Dark Ages if need be; really, if you want to pose questions to me about that, or anything else, I'll answer them to the best of my ability. But I would greatly appreciate it if you would equally endeavor to answer the questions I've posed to you.

Here they are again:

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?

[New Buddha]

Devil,

You missed the point of my post which so "frustrated" you.  To quote myself:

"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.

I was not insulting Locke.  And he was only tangential to my main point, which is:

Locke's Labor Theory of Property was subsequently interpreted by, and incorporated into, philosophical and economical Materialism.  Locke was not a Materialist, as my rather long quotes show.  And Medieval Scholasticism, which he was opposing, would have said that Man can do nothing without God's direct participation.  All Labor is in the service of God.  Locke and theist in general at the time were walking a very fine line and struggling with the issue.  The following is an excerpt from a paper on the Mises Institute web site.

"It is taken for granted by most economists and political philosophers that John Locke was in some sense a precursor of the labor theories of value of the nineteenth century British Classical School and of Karl Marx, yet there is a wide divergence of opinion on how Locke's work anticipated and influenced the work of later political economists."

Rand states in no uncertain terms that the root of all property is Intellectual, not Material or Labor.  (And again, Locke did not say that it is Material or Labor, others did.  So don't hit the ceiling ).  This is one of the prime differences between Objectivism and Modern Materialism, and it forms the main on-going differences in this post.  Namely, that the modern anti-IP position, and as presented on this post, is one of philosophical Materialism.  The writings of Locke neither support nor refute this.

Edited February 22, 2016 by New Buddha

[Devil's Advocate]

You've argued against the fact that IP law establishes a monopoly, that establishing harm is necessary to prove infringement, and now you're trying to dismiss opposition by pointing to philosophical materialism for some reason that escapes me at this point, but I'll try to respond in this way...

Patents, copyrights and trademarks are all applied to material things, and trade secrets are descriptive of the process to construct material things.  There's nothing in the possession of material things that implies acquiring them doesn't involve an intellectual process.  Arguing that all property is intellectual simply means that property begets property without accounting for how the recreation of property without permission is an inherently illicit action.

The case against IP is well represented by the Original DA's example (among others) which seeks, at a minimum, one credible example of why a property owner needs to prohibit the recreation of his property by others without his consent.  I am content to wait for some response on this point before proceeding.

[New Buddha]

6 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

The case against IP is well represented by the Original DA's example (among others) which seeks, at a minimum, one credible example of why a property owner needs to prohibit the recreation of his property by others without his consent.  I am content to wait for some response on this point before proceeding.

I did address the underlined in an above post.  Your and the other DA's position is that a Copy is an Original, and an Original is a Copy.  The idea that people are capable of creativity is an illusion.  So proceeding from this, you two are irrefutably correct.  Intellectual Property Laws should be abolished.

I'm pretty much writing for myself now.  It just took me a long time to fully grasp that the central premise of Objectivism is being rejected in this post.

[DonAthos]

2 hours ago, New Buddha said:

I did address the underlined in an above post.  Your and the other DA's position is that a Copy is an Original, and an Original is a Copy.  The idea that people are capable of creativity is an illusion.  So proceeding from this, you two are irrefutably correct.  Intellectual Property Laws should be abolished.

I'm pretty much writing for myself now.  It just took me a long time to fully grasp that the central premise of Objectivism is being rejected in this post.

I've explicitly said that creativity is real a number of times, and tried to clear up your confusion re: copy vs. original, etc., here and elsewhere. Though we don't agree, I don't believe I've ever put words in your mouth, or insisted that you hold some position despite your explicit disavowal. Please do not continue to mischaracterize me or my position.

What is being rejected in this thread is not "the central premise of Objectivism," but "intellectual property." It is being rejected on the grounds that it is not a right, and that the arguments made for it are faulty. That it is inconsistent with more fundamental Objectivist views. That it is the initiation of the use of force, and immoral.

I believe that I've approached you with patience and good humor, despite feeling the frustration that prolonged disagreement invariably brings; if you continue to participate, I expect the same effort in return.

[New Buddha]

12 hours ago, DonAthos said:

New Buddha once remarked that these kinds of controversies could easily be resolved over a cup of coffee.

No. What I said is that definitions could be easily resolved over a cup of coffee.  Such as Devil's insistence that an expensive Trademark protected brand of clothing has a monopoly over a less expensive Trademark protected brand of clothing.

This spurious definition of "monopoly" leads one so inclined to erroneously believing that a Trademark sticks a "gun to the head" of a competitor to  "corner a market."

[New Buddha]

51 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

What is being rejected in this thread is not "the central premise of Objectivism," but "intellectual property."

John Galt walks away from his revolutionary motor, leaving it in a rusted scrap heap, rather than delivering it into the hands of Moochers who insist that it is their legally protected Right to copy a design that they are incapable of creating for themselves.

Hank Rearden is forced to relinquish any claims to his new metal so that Moochers can exercise their legally protected Right to  "copy" it.

Howard Roark blows up a building rather than letting Moochers benefit from the fruits of his INTELLECTUAL labor.

Seeing a pattern?

Edit:  The fact that you believe that an individual Man is capable of creativity - and that his intellectual labor should not be legally protected -- is worse than Marx's belief in Historical Determinism.  Marx at least had the courtesy of treating an individual Man like a mindless pinball, bounding into an inevitable future.  You believe that Man is free, and that he should deliver his creative inventions over to society by his own Free Will.

Edited February 23, 2016 by New Buddha

[dream_weaver]

Somehow the utilitarian argument uses one sense of man's rights to undercut another, much in the same way that going from men create laws to govern society, there are laws that govern the universe, therefore there must be . . . guess who (equivocating on the prescriptive/descriptive context of laws).

 

[Devil's Advocate]

OK, now we’re getting somewhere... perhaps...

Now that New Buddha doesn’t mind working with fictional thought experiments, if we follow the pattern he’s pointing to, Man A blows up Plow B.  And this would be consistent with the kind of restitution IP law provides… well, perhaps not the use of explosives… Man A could legally have Plow B destroyed, restrain Man B from making any additional plows, and force Man B to hand over whatever profit was obtained from sales of Plows B1-Bx to Man A.  If Man B refused to comply he would go to jail.  Justice would then be served and dream_weaver’s “guess who” would que His choir group to sing!

For the sake of covering those other options New Buddha points to, Man A could walk away from his plow, leaving it to rust in the field, or if Man B was really a turd and threatened to expose Man A’s indiscretions to Wife A, force him to give Plows A1-Ax to Man B.  In that case, dream_weaver’s “guess who” would que that other guy to stoke the furnace for another guest.

The question remains, "Does Man A require the freedom to forcibly prevent Man B from building Plow B?"  Please respond in a manner consistent with the terms property (as an implementation of the right to life) and theft (by legal definition).  Please don't respond with, "Because IP law says so".

[DonAthos]

8 hours ago, New Buddha said:

You believe that Man is free, and that he should deliver his creative inventions over to society by his own Free Will.

No, dude. If you believe in the current IP laws, like you've maintained, then YOU are the one who believe that people should deliver their inventions to society; that's the "public domain."

I don't believe any such thing. I think people should be free to contract in perpetuity. Galt and Rearden should be free to do what they choose with the things they build... and so should everyone else be free, to do what they choose with the things they build. Which means no one can demand Rearden to turn anything over... but neither can Hank insist that some other steel producer not create "Rearden steel" for themselves, if they can figure out how to do it on their own.

What I'm arguing for is "property rights," consistently applied. What you're arguing for is monopoly.

[Devil's Advocate]

27 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

... What I'm arguing for is "property rights," consistently applied. What you're arguing for is monopoly.

The issue continues to hang on sanctioning the use of force in response to the act of copying without permission.  If such an act is inherently illicit then we'd all better get use to paying it backwards.

[DonAthos]

2 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

The issue continues to hang on sanctioning the use of force in response to the act of copying without permission.  If such an act is inherently illicit then we'd all better get use to paying it backwards.

So how would we determine whether it was "inherently illicit"? We need to be able to look at something real. That's where the question of harm comes in, imo. But Man B does not harm anyone by building Plow B; he only creates wealth for himself.

Fully thought out (or to whatever extent the central evasion allows), IP requires its defenders to twist their understanding of force (and harm) to count a man building a plow for his own use, of his own mind, his own hands, his own materials, on his own farm, as "the initiation of the use of force." The literal creation of wealth is thus seen as immoral. From there, they justify actual force in retaliation. They would execute farmers for the crime of plowing their land without permission.

The one saving grace from this nightmare is that it is inconsistently and fitfully applied. We are told that a grant of patent for twenty years is reasonable (somehow, nevermind the details!), or the life of the author plus fifty (or seventy-five, or whatever Disney will lobby for next), because IP held in perpetuity, in the manner of actual property, would surely extinguish the light of the world. And so we settle for dimming it, instead.

[Devil's Advocate]

For extra credit we should examine whether Hal Holbrook's performance of Mark Twain was inherently illicit re: IP.  After all, why ought he be allowed to profit from recreating the life and works of such a great artist as Mark Twain?  Has he no shame?!  Did he pay some tribute as inheritance to any of Twain's surviving relatives??

Bad human, bad! Don't you copy me!!

[Eiuol]

7 hours ago, DonAthos said:

No, dude. If you believe in the current IP laws, like you've maintained, then YOU are the one who believe that people should deliver their inventions to society; that's the "public domain.

Well, I don't think -you- think that, but I do think if you followed out the argument completely, you'd need to be a dialectical materialist in order to make a fully consistent position. Even a Marxist would say all people ought to be free to do what they wish with what they build. Certainly, Hank Rearden must insist that a steel producer may not claim that any Rearden Steel they produce is theirs. Just as Hank Rearden must insist that a steel worker in his factory may not claim any Rearden Steel they produce is theirs. The weird thing is, it's not okay in the first case, but it is okay in the second case. I know -why- you hold your position, I'm just telling you why how it looks on my end.

[Devil's Advocate]

If you came across a piece of Reardon Steel honestly, say by purchase or by scrap, would you know how to make more without using any mental effort?  Would producing more require no additional materials and physical labor?  These are the qualifications to acquiring property, are they not?  A steel worker in his factory is under a different obligation.  All the steel that Hank or his employees make is obviously his.  But what is the moral lien that labor places on others not to produce by their own mental and physical labor?

This is usually where an advocate will reverse the question by claiming anyone who is neither customer nor employee of Reardon Steel expects Hank to surrender his steel as loot for their benefit.  I think a more honest view is this is not the case; they expect not to be forced into submission as Hank was not.  Let Hank continue to earn his property, steel bar for gold, in a free market, and let others join as competitors or customers as they choose.

 

[DonAthos]

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Well, I don't think -you- think that, but I do think if you followed out the argument completely, you'd need to be a dialectical materialist in order to make a fully consistent position. Even a Marxist would say all people ought to be free to do what they wish with what they build.

Eiuol, I have never been convinced that either you -- or any of the other pro-IP advocates with whom I've conversed at length -- have understood my position sufficiently as to see what would be consistent with it. I believe that my position is consistent with the fundamentals of Objectivist philosophy, and more generally with reason and reality, and that if you ever understood it to the degree where you could assess such things as a consistency with a wider philosophy, you would agree with me.

I am unfamiliar with Marx's theory of dialectical materialism, and just looking at the top of the Wiki page on the subject is giving me a headache, so I can't imagine that there's much there I would find appealing. What I know of Marxism, or Communism more broadly, I explicitly reject. With respect to "materialism," Ayn Rand wrote the following:

Quote

 

As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness.

 

There is nothing about my position regarding "intellectual property" that relies upon, or implies, or suggests anything like "existence without consciousness." To suggest otherwise is a failure of both simple courtesy and intellectual honesty, and it strikes me as a kind of cover to avoid dealing with substantive issues.

Anyone reading this thread with their eyes open will find one side continually making arguments, referencing examples (both "thought experiments" and those based in real life), and generally inviting a sincere discussion, and the other side running from those same arguments, examples, and discussion. They will find the latter side engaging instead in passive-aggressive mudslinging (e.g. "materialism"), pointless tangential sniping, obfuscatory complaints about the terms of the conversation, and nonsensical non-sequitur; virtually everything except for direct, honest debate.

The invitation to such a direct, honest debate yet stands. The questions that have been posed to you, and others, remain open and unanswered. The examples are still ready to be dissected and probed and followed out to their conclusions. Only fear keeps us from pursuing the truth of this (or any other) matter.

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Certainly, Hank Rearden must insist that a steel producer may not claim that any Rearden Steel they produce is theirs. Just as Hank Rearden must insist that a steel worker in his factory may not claim any Rearden Steel they produce is theirs. The weird thing is, it's not okay in the first case, but it is okay in the second case.

Certainly Hank Rearden has no business telling other people what they may or may not produce in their own steel factories. The difference between that and what takes place in Rearden's own factory is down to his (actual) property rights and the voluntary agreement(s) between him and his workers, to exchange labor for wage. It is this -- voluntary agreement -- which characterizes both of my positions, Eiuol, and there is nothing weird about either the first or the second case, as they are consistent with both each other, and with the more expansive vision Rand laid out of a society of traders.

What is weird is trying to reconcile Rand's views on property and rights, in general, and her specific views on IP. What is weird is trying to rationalize Man B's building Plow B as "the initiation of the use of force." What's weird is defending a twenty year patent term, or some arcane British law as being "the most rational," without a shred of argument as to why.

There is much weirdness to be found in the IP debate, and the posts in this thread, but I think you'll not find it in my position.

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I know -why- you hold your position, I'm just telling you why how it looks on my end.

The view from your end -- and I say this with greater respect and sympathy than I expect you will credit -- is distorted.

[Eiuol]

6 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

The invitation to such a direct, honest debate yet stands. The questions that have been posed to you, and others, remain open and unanswered. The examples are still ready to be dissected and probed and followed out to their conclusions. Only fear keeps us from pursuing the truth of this (or any other) matter.

Well I told you how I'd go about getting there, but you accused me of playing word games. You know all the parts that look weird to me, also that I think "voluntary agreements" are a poor way to address what is supposed to be an essential need to freely copy (such agreements would be coercive or exploitative), and I don't think you -are- a materialist. I started working on something to provide a full argument. When I finish it, I'll make a new thread. It'll take a while, I'm writing it like a full essay.

[dream_weaver]

14 hours ago, DonAthos said:

No, dude. If you believe in the current IP laws, like you've maintained, then YOU are the one who believe that people should deliver their inventions to society; that's the "public domain."

I don't believe any such thing. I think people should be free to contract in perpetuity. Galt and Rearden should be free to do what they choose with the things they build... and so should everyone else be free, to do what they choose with the things they build. Which means no one can demand Rearden to turn anything over... but neither can Hank insist that some other steel producer not create "Rearden steel" for themselves, if they can figure out how to do it on their own.

What I'm arguing for is "property rights," consistently applied. What you're arguing for is monopoly.

I don't recall seeing you state a perpetuity clause before, although it fits with the earlier notion of putting a contract in the front of a book. Rand doesn't agree with perpetuity, as she is delegating it to government overseen boilerplate contract (for copyrights and patents, specifically) citing the technical morass that would arise from it.

Edited February 24, 2016 by dream_weaver

[DonAthos]

42 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Well I told you how I'd go about getting there, but you accused me of playing word games.

And then I demonstrated exactly what I meant; it was no empty accusation. (For those interested, the relevant line of discussion begins here.)

42 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

You know all the parts that look weird to me...

I know that my conclusion "looks weird" to you. I suspect it is because my conclusion disagrees with that of Ayn Rand, and that, therefore, every line of argumentation which seems to trend in my direction (and every real life case example) also strikes you as bizarre.

Those lines of argument which do not look weird to you appear to me to be ever-shrinking, as the God of the Gaps. Maybe that's a kind of progress.

42 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

...also that I think "voluntary agreements" are a poor way to address what is supposed to be an essential need to freely copy (such agreements would be coercive or exploitative)...

We also have an essential need to be productive, yet we enter into "voluntary agreements" with respect to labor, etc., all the time. Contracting that one will not copy a particular book is a perfectly viable economic arrangement, just as the licensing agreements people enter into daily already.

42 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

...and I don't think you -are- a materialist.

Of course I'm not. It doesn't stop others from tossing around such accusations to cover their shortcomings. What a sad state of affairs.

42 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I started working on something to provide a full argument. When I finish it, I'll make a new thread. It'll take a while, I'm writing it like a full essay.

I'll look forward to it.

2 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

I don't recall seeing you state a perpetuity clause before...

I have, though I don't see it as so much a "clause," exactly, as that I don't see any just call to limit any individual's right to contract the terms of the disposal of their own property.* I don't think the public, as such, has any "need" or "right" which amounts to a claim on anyone's property. If Disney wishes to put such language into their contracts for a thousand years, to keep Mickey Mouse to themselves, I see no reason to force them to do otherwise.

Whether I am right or wrong with respect to the foundation of IP, the "public domain" is an absurdity.

_________________________________________

* For Eiuol's sake, I should note that this means within the bounds of contracting such as we already recognize.

2 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

...although it fits with the earlier notion of putting a contract in the front of a book.

Indeed, whether that's a fully rendered contract, a commonly recognized symbol, a reference to a webpage, or etc.

2 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Rand doesn't agree with perpetuity...

No. For all of the talk in this thread of the sanctity of Rearden Steel, Rand seems to think it evaporates in the twenty-first year. (Twenty ends in a zero; that makes it far more rational than either nineteen or twenty-one! Rights work like that.)

(Or maybe monopolies do.)

2 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

...as she is delegating it to government overseen boilerplate contract (known as . . . )...

Unfortunately, I believe that Rand argues for a far more substantial IP than "government overseen boilerplate contract." (Which, as you hopefully know by now, is a form of "IP" I can generally agree to.)

As I've alluded to before, the real test of this is the "independent inventor." A contract such as you're describing would not be binding upon a third party, who has never agreed to (or potentially even seen) the contract; but Rand explicitly dismisses the case of the independent inventor who is too slow in making it to the patent office.

There are those here who appeal to justice, decrying the investments a scientist (say) may make of his time, his money, his life, in innovating some new product... only to find some vile copycat grow rich by use of the same ideas, and our poor scientist lose his shirt in the process. Well, Rand dismisses those very same investments -- says essentially "tough titty" -- when another scientist secures a government granted monopoly covering the same invention, sending our heroic first scientist directly to the poor house without even a fighting chance to recoup his investments.

Sometimes we care about such "investments," and sometimes we do not. It depends upon whose argument it temporarily appears to serve.

2 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

...and cites the technical morass that would arise from it.

I'm not worried. I allow for independent invention, so I don't think that the "car" would be held hostage for very long. Or even if it were, I would trust in market forces to grease the wheels of cooperation, as they do in all other manners of projects.

But I can imagine a similar argument against any number of endeavors, that we would yet dismiss (or so I assume). (E.g. "The railroad must be a national enterprise, and it must utilize eminent domain; can you imagine the technical morass, requiring the voluntary agreements of all of the people and landholders required to complete such an enormous project!?")

Leaving an economy up to individual decision making, and respecting the rights of all of the individual actors, will always seem a bit of a morass. I think that's why centrally planned economies sometimes appeal to some. But I would rather hold to people's individual rights, without exception, and let the chips fall as they may. I expect that the car would yet be invented, that drugs would be developed, that authors would get paid, and so forth.

[Eiuol]

11 hours ago, DonAthos said:

I know that my conclusion "looks weird" to you. I suspect it is because my conclusion disagrees with that of Ayn Rand, and that, therefore, every line of argumentation which seems to trend in my direction (and every real life case example) also strikes you as bizarre.

That's not why. Just to use my Marxism example, if you used your arguments in order to reach a Marxist conclusion, it would make sense and not look weird at all. Throwing in some argument that contracts somehow legitimize control over what you were totally free to do before makes little sense - labor contracts are more like being allowed to do something you were not allowed to do before. A Marxist is probably fine with contracts, the problem is contracting about things which you have no legitimate control over probably attained by manipulation of the state or asserting undue power. Denying IP as valid is to say no person has any legitimate control over things like stories, songs, software, etc, so contracts involving them are exploitative. The weird part comes in because it also looks like you support IP, just not how it is implemented. Copyrights replaced by contracts? It's still IP, you aren't saying it's illegitimate to tell you how to reproduce my software. So, any "weirdness" is another way to say "there's a contradiction or inconsistency". It's not sufficiently explained yet.

To be clear, my use of Marxist is probably imprecise, "anti-capitalist" might make more sense. Usually some form of anarchism.

[Devil's Advocate]

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

... To be clear, my use of Marxist is probably imprecise, "anti-capitalist" might make more sense. Usually some form of anarchism.

Using some form of anarchism doesn't improve it much.  Since when is not wanting to become an unwilling participant to a coercive contractual obligation, a Marxist/anti-capitalist position?

And I guess we just dismiss Ayn Rand's separation of business and state as well to apply the force necessary to secure IP in a FREE MARKET.