Intellectual property

[DonAthos]

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

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.

To you, it might not. I can't say, not being you. But as I've said, Eiuol -- your views are distorted, and you still do not understand my position. My arguments will not reach any Marxist conclusion.

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

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.

"Exploitative"? Nonsense. Adding meaningless language like this does nothing to make your (repeated) objection any more sensible. My reply to this same objection, of course, remains the same:

The question of "voluntary agreement," or contracting, isn't about "legitimate control over things like stories"; it is an agreement to trade material wealth under specified conditions. "I trade this book to you; you agree not to copy it." This is the power to contract, and though you don't understand that your "real issue" (or one of several) is with contracting itself... well, that's just another thing you've yet to understand.

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The weird part comes in because it also looks like you support IP, just not how it is implemented.

No, I reject IP, but I believe that many of its effects can be duplicated through such contracts/voluntary agreements. The problem is that you do not understand what IP is. (I sincerely mean that. All of this arguing, all of this time, and you truly do not yet grasp the central concepts involved. My advice, which you will reject, is: take some time to think all of this through. It took me years, and it might well require the same for you. But at this moment, as of this post, really and truly, Eiuol, you do not yet grok what IP is.)

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Copyrights replaced by contracts? It's still IP

No, Eiuol, it really is not.

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

...you aren't saying it's illegitimate to tell you how to reproduce my software.

That's right. If you and I agree on terms by which you share your software with me, and I agree not to reproduce it (or to reproduce it in some specific way; or to return your software to you; or to destroy it; or whatever), then that's not illegitimate.

What is illegitimate is for you to secure a governmental monopoly, such that some other software designer -- someone who does not know you, does not know your software, and enters into no agreement with you -- cannot create his own software, because it is judged to "infringe upon your rights" on account of some perceived similarity.

It won't necessarily tell everything, but being able to tell between the two above scenarios would be a good beginning for you in understanding both what IP is, and my critique of it. The first scenario is a matter of contract, consonant with individual rights. The second scenario is a matter of governmental fiat (which is to say: IP), and it is a violation of rights. (And in case you or anyone else are wondering, Rand argues in favor of the second scenario.)

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

So, any "weirdness" is another way to say "there's a contradiction or inconsistency". It's not sufficiently explained yet.

It has been sufficiently explained, so far as I can tell -- or at least, it has been explained to the best of my ability. It is not sufficiently understood yet.

Check your premises.

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

To be clear, my use of Marxist is probably imprecise...

Ya think?!

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

..."anti-capitalist" might make more sense. Usually some form of anarchism.

Neither "anti-capitalist" nor "anarchism" are more precise, nor do they apply to me or to my arguments. Stop trying to label; endeavor to understand, first.

[Eiuol]

55 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

Neither "anti-capitalist" nor "anarchism" are more precise, nor do they apply to me or to my arguments. Stop trying to label; endeavor to understand, first.

Just because I said your position ought to lead elsewhere doesn't mean I am labeling your position. I was describing a position that -isn't- yours. It's usually a type of reductio ad absurdum to do that, to argue by talking about how a position ultimately would lead to somewhere else. Anyway, at this point, forum posts won't work out a good answer, and I can't do my (or your!) position any justice this way. So I won't post more until I finish my essay.

[New Buddha]

You cannot understand Objectivism's Theory of Property until you understand the historical roots of Modern Materialism (i.e. Marxism, and to a lesser extent Anarchism).

Rand created Objectivism in opposition to Materialism. But Materialism is tricky to understand. It is inherent in Luther's position on authority in the German Protestant Reformation, the long tradition of German Mysticism, Kant, Hegel, Hobbes, Locke, Smith, Bentham, Comte, Huxley and others. It was also very much transformed by Darwinism and Thermodynamics (specifically, Conservation of Energy and Entropy).

Materialism exchanged God for the State, and viewed History as an emergent process, leading to inevitable, deterministic ends (i.e. Perfect Communism, where the State “withers away”). Materialism/Communism is inherently “religious” as many have observed. Just as the Medieval Scholastic believed that God participates in every Cause, Materialist believed in “scientific” and Historical Determinism where Free Will is an illusion.  Locke (Newton and others) was breaking away from Scholasticism, but had trouble re-defining Causation in a way that still preserved God.

To a Materialist who believes in Determinism, Property is created solely by the application of LABOR to MATERIALS. The INTELLECT behind the MATERIAL is the COLLECTIVE. This was Marx's transformation of Hegel's World Spirit.

This IS the position, taken in the post that, "All Originals are Copies (of the Collective) and all Copies are Originals (transformations of Materials by Labor irregardless of Intellectual Origin).

Edited February 25, 2016 by New Buddha

[Devil's Advocate]

You cannot understand the argument against IP by presenting copying as a collective right.

A right to create implies a right to recreate; that's it. There's no collective right to anything because only individuals have rights. If a creative individual can prove a negative effect on his property when another individual duplicates it, then we have something that justifies responding with force.  Otherwise IP remains unjustified as a coercive monopoly in a "free market".

Can you indicate the negative effect of copying property that belongs to someone else?

Edited February 25, 2016 by Devil's Advocate
clarification

[New Buddha]

6 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

You cannot understand the argument against IP by presenting copying as a collective right.

The point is that per Materialism products of the INTELLECT cannot be owned by any one individual, because knowledge is within the realm of the Commons.  And so too goes the argument that Real and Chattel Property cannot be owned because they are constructed via LABOR from MATERIALS  originating in the realm of the Commons.  (I'm not saying that either of you two hold this position with regards to Natural Resources, Real or Chattel Property). 

Of the three components of Property, INTELLECT, LABOR AND MATERIALS - only Labor is "owned" by an individual per Anarchism and Marxism.

Per Objectivism, knowledge does not fall within the real of the Commons.  A person can own both the idea and the material form of the idea.  (By idea, I do not mean that a person own the abstract idea of  "transportation" or "car", but a person can own the Design Patent for a 2016 Honda Accord).

Edited February 25, 2016 by New Buddha

[Devil's Advocate]

3 hours ago, New Buddha said:

... Per Objectivism, knowledge does not fall within the real of the Commons.  A person can own both the idea and the material form of the idea...

Yet the reality is that knowledge spills from private to common without being forced, hence the issue of responding with force where none is warranted (which has yet to be addressed by advocates like yourself; just sayin').

That a person can dictate what others must do with knowledge obtained by their own effort, or given to them with a duty to obey the will of their "benefactor" or else...  well, I don't want to get all biblical with you, but that kind of power is what Locke argued against.  Your repeated effort to join Karl and John at the hip doesn't make an argument about IP in the Commons more credible, or relevant to how individuals in a free market society ought to behave.

Suffice it to say, that a person can own an idea doesn't imply that person can then dictate what others can do with the same idea arrived at honestly by their own effort. You're up to you neck in forbidden knowledge and don't even know it.

[New Buddha]

7 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

You're up to you neck in forbidden knowledge and don't even know it.

I'm merely giving a condensed account of the development of modern materialism.  Do you dispute the account?

Edited February 26, 2016 by New Buddha

[Devil's Advocate]

I dispute the relevance of your account to my position that a right to create implies a right to recreate.  If you are merely suggesting that an argument against IP relies on forcing private knowledge into common usage, then yes I am disputing that too.

IP conflicts with principles of non-aggression and honest trade, and until its use of force can be accounted for by advocates, as has been done by those who oppose it, there's not much left to discuss.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Devil's Advocate
cleanup

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm submitting the following because I need to take a break, and I want to sum up what I see as the anti-IP position for future reference.

A just application of security cannot prefer one to the disadvantage of others.  Copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets form discernible fences of security around material assets, the same as physical barriers around real estate do.  Proper barriers delimit what is yours from what might belong to anyone else.  Improper barriers attempt to own both sides of the fence, and can be expressed as, "What is mine is obviously mine.  What is yours we can negotiate."

The anti-IP position supports an individual's right to property, but not the ability to coerce others in their pursuit of property which is presumed to contradict a just implementation of the right to life.  To assert a right to prohibit others from their own actions, those actions must demonstrate some negative effect on the prohibitor.  The presumption is that copying patented material does this, and that is what is being challenged here.  How exactly is the original use damaged by duplication?

Owner A creates prototype A as new property and is entitled to duplicate additional property in the form of A1 thru Ax without objection.  Neighbor B, seeing A33, attempts to recreate it as his own property and is prohibited from doing so on the premise that B1 is actually A33 having been removed from Owner A's collection of real property without permission (meaning by force).  The bone of contention in this debate is whether "without permission" = "taken by force".

Taking your plow* without permission is an illicit action accurately described as theft because you can't use it until it has been returned to your possession.  Taking the future use of property that has yet to materialize is something else entirely, so your claim others property based on a likeness to your own is dubious at best.  It remains to be proven that any actual damage has occurred to your own property that warrants restitution.  IP law attempts to restore the value it would have had, had you duplicated it yourself, but this becomes problematic because actual value only occurs at the point of sale, and you didn't actually duplicate it yourself.  And so your collection of property grows something like: A1, A2, B1-Bx, A3, C1-Cx, A4, A5, Ax...  you get the idea. 

Actually you own not only the idea, but everyone's future mental and physical effort to recreate your property.  Because copycats are presumed to be bad for business, we embrace coercive, artificial monopolies that are known to be bad for business... for a time, but not forever because that's bad for business too.

[DonAthos]

On 2/26/2016 at 5:44 PM, New Buddha said:

I'm merely giving a condensed account of the development of modern materialism.  Do you dispute the account?

The more I discuss intellectual property with its proponents, the greater my apprehension that (at least the majority of) its defenders do not understand the issues they are discussing.* There is great conceptual confusion at the core of the conversation, and it leads to an unending series of misdirections and fruitless tangents.

Whether some account of "modern materialism" is accurate or not is irrelevant to the discussion. None of the arguments made, either pro- or anti- IP, deny the existence of consciousness, or rely upon such a premise.

____________________________________________

* This may also be true of the majority of those who criticize IP. I am perhaps more sensitive to the arguments of the defenders of IP, because that is usually where my attention is focused.

9 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

The distinction between discovery and invention is key here.

I do not know the intention behind creating a separate thread to discuss what appears to be the very same subject matter, but I shall respond here to clarify a point or two.

9 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

By exploiting discoveries of nature, Locke makes his case that the mixing of man's intellectual knowledge of seeds, soil, weeding, watering, etc., and putting for the physical application of that knowledge converts a tract of land into a form of intellectual property, or moral value, known as a farm, and that it is rightful his by virtue of the facts involved.

A farm is not "a form of intellectual property."

(This is a separate discussion from whether one may patent a farm; a patent is a form of intellectual property.)

9 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Prior to the industrial revolution, activities organized around discoveries such as these gave rise to farming, mining, blacksmiths, and folks who climbed trees to pluck banana's and coconut when they were in season. At that time, these types of activities were what most people had to apply themselves to for basic survival.

In this sense, a farm is not an invention, it is an application of knowledge of discoveries about laws of nature, principles and facts of reality.

A "farm" is certainly an invention (and may also be rightly understood as a collection of a great many inventions, as nearly all inventions are). The nature of an "invention," itself, is to be "an application of knowledge of discoveries about laws of nature, principles and facts of reality." If an invention were not such an application, it would not work.

Everything else you've mentioned, such as farming, mining, blacksmiths, and yes, even folks who climbed trees to pluck bananas and coconuts, were also utterly dependent on "invention," whether that's understood as a machine like the cotton gin, or a "process." Someone had to be the first to climb up the tree.

Invention did not begin with the Industrial Revolution.

[DonAthos]

I continue to seek ever simpler ways of framing the central or essential arguments, pro- and anti- IP. Even as I do, I am sensitive to the fact that there are people who will criticize or dismiss my endeavors on account of the simplicity I seek. No matter. As bad ideas better flourish in the complicated and confusing, I strive to strike at the heart of things. I desire clarity.

Suppose a painting at a museum. To steal that painting would be a theft. A crime. No one debates this.

Yet a patron of the museum goes home and, in his basement, sets about to recreate the painting he has seen using his own materials. He finishes it and hangs it upon his own wall. Is this a theft? A crime?

***

Man A invents a machine and acquires a patent for it. The term of patent is twenty years. In the twenty-first year, another man -- Man B -- makes a "copy" of that machine for his own use. Who owns this copy?

Anti- and pro-IP alike (more or less) answer "Man B." But why?

Because it is Man B who has applied the requisite knowledge and labor to create the wealth that this "copy" embodies. It was his mind that grasped, it was his hands which built; he is the one who has created this wealth; and it is on this account that we recognize his ownership.

Yet all of these same things would have been just as true, had he built his "copy" in year nineteen.

Edited February 27, 2016 by DonAthos
clarity

[New Buddha]

DonAthos,

An understanding of the history of Modern Materialism (formed Bentham and circa 1820's) is important when discussing property rights - in my opinion.

The case against IP, being made in this post, is that the benefactors of IP laws are using the State to enforce their IP rights.  But the same argument is made in the rejection all forms of Property (natural resources, land, building, cars, etc.) By  Anarchist and Marxists.  As per Rousseau:

“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”― Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality

The Objectivist position on the Ownership of Real, Chattel and Intellectual Property is that Ownership is an abstraction - it is metaphysical.  And that there is no ontological reason that Ownership of Property be limited to LABOR and MATERIALS and not the  IDEA (again, you cannot own an abstraction such as "transportation" or "automobile" but you can own the Design Patent for the 2016 Honda Accord).  The use of "force" by the State to protect IP is not ontologically different than the use of force to protect Real and Chattel Property.

Materialism rejects the ownership of IDEAS on ontological grounds, meaning, metaphysical  IDEAS are non-material, subjective, inseparable from Societal influences (i.e. Copies) and un-scientific.  Knowledge is part of the Commons -- just as are natural resources, buildings, factories, cars, food, etc.  All a Man can own is his LABOR.  This is the basis of the Bourgeoise (who own the MATERIAL Tools of Production, buildings, factories, natural resources) vs. the Proletariat (LABOR).

What I see as inconsistent in your position is your defense of the Ownership of Real and Chattel Property while excluding IP.  When I said that you were presenting a Minarchist position, which you seemed to take as as an insult, but I in no way intended it as one -it was actually a complement.  If you take a hard line Anarchist position on Property, that would be refreshing, and the basis of a good debate.  What I can't grasp is your belief that some forms of Property are ontologically privileged when it comes to Ownership.  This is Materialism.

To me it's one or the other.  Materialism vs. Objectivism - there is no in-between position when it comes to Property.

Edit.  And, yes, I understand that you will say that an writer can "own" a novel.  Which leads back to the, "All Originals are Copies" and "All Copies are Originals" circular logic and that no one is MATERIALLY "harmed" when photocopying a novel and selling it without the Authors permission.

Edited February 27, 2016 by New Buddha

[DonAthos]

4 hours ago, New Buddha said:

The case against IP, being made in this post, is that the benefactors of IP laws are using the State to enforce their IP rights.

The case against IP being made in this thread is that there are no such things as IP rights. "Intellectual property" is the violation of rights.

Quote

But the same argument is made in the rejection all forms of Property (natural resources, land, building, cars, etc.) By  Anarchist and Marxists.

I am not arguing against "all forms of property," and neither do my arguments apply to all forms of property. In fact, they do not apply to any form of property; IP is not property.

Quote

What I can't grasp is your belief that some forms of Property are ontologically privileged when it comes to Ownership.  This is Materialism.

Materialism is the belief in "existence without consciousness."* Materialism is not the belief that "property" only properly applies to material values. Just because those arguing against IP may employ the concept "material" in some of their arguments, that does not make them "materialists."

The reason why material values are properly the subject of property -- and not ideas -- brings us back to near the beginning of the thread, and then certainly to the examples I've raised (which have largely gone unanswered). When Man B takes Plow A from Man A, Man A has been deprived of the fruits of his labor. He has been harmed: he can no longer use his plow. (This is a feature of "material values.") It is right for Man A to take action to prevent this.

But none of this applies to the case of Man B building Plow B. Man A has not been deprived, because Man B has created new wealth. Man A has not been harmed: he can still use the plow he has built. It is not right for Man A to take action to prevent Man B from building Plow B, or to attempt to take it away, or etc. In fact, that is the initiation of the use of force, and Man B would be right to protect his own plow, the fruits of his own labor.

Recognizing the fact that material values and ideas are different in this way, and arguing that we should therefore treat them differently, each accounting to their differing nature, is not "materialism"; it is "sanity."

________________________________________________________________

* I found this quote of Leonard Peikoff's here, but I cannot speak to either its provenance or accuracy:

Quote

Materialists -- men such as Democritus, Hobbes, Marx, Skinner -- champion nature but deny the reality or efficacy of consciousness. Consciousness, in this view, is either a myth or a useless byproduct of brain or other motions. In Objectivist terms, this amounts to the advocacy of existence without consciousness. It is the denial of man's faculty of cognition and therefore of all knowledge.

Edited February 27, 2016 by DonAthos

[New Buddha]

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

Materialism is the belief in "existence without consciousness."* Materialism is not the belief that "property" only properly applies to material values. Just because those arguing against IP may employ the concept "material" in some of their arguments, that does not make them "materialists."

Are you really trying to tell me what Materialism is and is not?  I don't see any evidence that you've read any history or philosophy outside Objectivism.  By your own admission, you don't under stand the Analytic Synthetic dichotomy, so you will not understand how Hegel's dialectic was secularized by Marx into dialectic materialism.  Nor do you understand why he did so.  You also don't understand the general move away from Metaphysics in the 1800's by people such as Compte as being nothing but Subjective.   I know you don't think this is relevant to the discussion, but it is.

 

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

I am not arguing against "all forms of property," and neither do my arguments apply to all forms of property. In fact, they do not apply to any form of property; IP is not property.

Since Objectivism does hold that IP is property, your assertion that is not, does not make it true.

How do you defend Real and Chattel Property and the use of force to secure it?  If you do so in the same way that Rand does, then you will need to logically accept that IP is Property.  She does not make two distinct arguments.

Can you provide a defense of Real and Chattel property without employing Rand's?

Edit: "Recognizing the fact that material values and ideas are different in this way, and arguing that we should therefore treat them differently, each accounting to their differing nature, is not "materialism"; it is "sanity."

I did not use the term "material values" I said MATERIAL and LABOR.  This is what Rand means by the Mystic of Muscle.  The belief in a concrete bound existence, where such metaphysical ideas as Rights, Ownership, Property are considered Subjective and categorically rejected as unscientific.  This is why Skinner had no interest in Consciousness and the Logical Positivist of the Vienna Circle instituted Verificationism as the standard of Truth.

Edited February 27, 2016 by New Buddha

[New Buddha]

What is the difference between selling someone a book, giving someone a book and loaning someone a book?  Since there is no Material change to the book in either of the three transactions Materialism says that selling, giving and loaning are merely subjective, synthetic propositions who's definition is contingent up Society.  Materialism also says the same thing about the non-material concept "ownership" and the "right" to sell, give or loan someone a book.

If there is no Material difference between Levi's jeans made by the original manufacturer and imported knock-offs, then they are identical, and any supposed difference is an in-material, synthetic proposition not subject to empirical "verification".  The "right" to "own" a Brand or Trademark is a fictitious, social construct, and an improper use of force.

 Materialism also rejects Copyrights for the same reason.  A book with Copyrights is not Materially different from one with Copyrights.  Therefore, the authority to retain Copyrights must be subjective and dependent on a vote.  Per Bentham:

"It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong."

Edited February 28, 2016 by New Buddha

[DonAthos]

8 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Are you really trying to tell me what Materialism is and is not?

In that your use of "materialism" does not appear to correspond to Rand's use of the same, or Peikoff's, or Wikipedia's, or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy -- yes, I am.

8 hours ago, New Buddha said:

I don't see any evidence that you've read any history or philosophy outside Objectivism.  By your own admission, you don't under stand the Analytic Synthetic dichotomy, so you will not understand how Hegel's dialectic was secularized by Marx into dialectic materialism.  Nor do you understand why he did so.  You also don't understand the general move away from Metaphysics in the 1800's by people such as Compte as being nothing but Subjective.   I know you don't think this is relevant to the discussion, but it is.

I'll grant that I do not know much about Hegel, or Comte, or etc., but I see no relevance of any of this to the actual discussion which has taken place within this thread. You say "it is relevant," but apart from these declarations, I see no signs of that supposed relevance in any of your posts, or anything like an argument for that relevance.

Does the explanation of "how Hegel's dialectic was secularized by Marx into dialectic materialism" answer the question as to how Man A is hurt when Man B builds a plow? If so, I'd love to hear about it.

(If not...)

8 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Since Objectivism does hold that IP is property, your assertion that is not, does not make it true.

I do not rely upon my assertions; I rely upon my arguments.

8 hours ago, New Buddha said:

How do you defend Real and Chattel Property and the use of force to secure it?

My argument for property is the same as Rand's, in essence/ultra-brief:

Men require material values to survive/thrive. The implementation of the right to life is therefore the right of property: to gain, to keep, to use, to dispose of material values.

Property rightly belongs to the individual who performs the mental and physical labor necessary to make some material value of use. A man must be able to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

Force is (only) justified in securing these rights, in defense/retaliation against the the initiation of the use of force (which, with respect to "property," would divest from an individual the fruit of his labor -- his rights to gain/keep/use/dispose of those material values which he is the cause of, qua wealth).

8 hours ago, New Buddha said:

If you do so in the same way that Rand does, then you will need to logically accept that IP is Property.

I believe that the opposite is true: if you justify property rights as Rand has, then you must logically disqualify IP as property (and reject her arguments for the same). Man B has the same property rights to Plow B as Man A does to Plow A, and on the very same basis. But IP would violate Man B's right to Plow B. IP is a violation of property rights. It is the initiation of the use of force against Man B -- for the "crime" of creating wealth.

IP is not only immoral, it is ridiculous.

8 hours ago, New Buddha said:

She does not make two distinct arguments.

Yet I believe that she does. I think that there is inconsistency between her discussion of property rights in "Man's Rights," and elsewhere, and her discussion of "intellectual property" in "Patents and Copyrights." I think that her arguments for IP are inconsistent with her writings on "rights" more generally.

8 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Edit: "Recognizing the fact that material values and ideas are different in this way, and arguing that we should therefore treat them differently, each accounting to their differing nature, is not "materialism"; it is "sanity."

I did not use the term "material values" I said MATERIAL and LABOR.  This is what Rand means by the Mystic of Muscle.  The belief in a concrete bound existence, where such metaphysical ideas as Rights, Ownership, Property are considered Subjective and categorically rejected as unscientific.

Nobody here is saying that "ideas [such as] rights, ownership, and property are considered subjective and categorically rejected as unscientific." I am saying that you are wrong in your identification of "rights, ownership, and property" with respect to "intellectual property." IP is not a right; there are not owners of ideas; IP is not property.

Your attempts to relate any of these arguments to "materialism" continues to be misguided.

6 hours ago, New Buddha said:

What is the difference between selling someone a book, giving someone a book and loaning someone a book?  Since there is no Material change to the book in either of the three transactions Materialism says that selling, giving and loaning are merely subjective, synthetic propositions who's definition is contingent up Society.  Materialism also says the same thing about the non-material concept "ownership" and the "right" to sell, give or loan someone a book.

Whoever this guy "Materialism" is, could you tell him that what he "says" has no place in this thread? "Ownership" and "right" are not being challenged by anyone in this thread, any more than "selling" or "giving" or "loaning." This has nothing to do with either the pro- or anti- IP arguments.

6 hours ago, New Buddha said:

If there is no Material difference between Levi's jeans made by the original manufacturer and imported knock-offs, then they are identical, and any supposed difference is an in-material, synthetic proposition not subject to empirical "verification".  The "right" to "own" a Brand or Trademark is a fictitious, social construct, and an improper use of force.

 Materialism also rejects Copyrights for the same reason.  A book with Copyrights is not Materially different from one with Copyrights.  Therefore, the authority to retain Copyrights must be subjective and dependent on a vote.  Per Bentham:

"It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong."

I do not even understand the arguments that are supposed to be made here (they are accounted mine??), or what they have to do with any of the arguments raised in the thread, or how they tie into the concluding quote from Bentham, or...

Really, it is a mess.

[Eiuol]

7 hours ago, DonAthos said:

I do not even understand the arguments that are supposed to be made here (they are accounted mine??), or what they have to do with any of the arguments raised in the thread, or how they tie into the concluding quote from Bentham, or...

I don't think they're supposed to be arguments, just a discussion views on property to history of philosophy. 

[New Buddha]

20 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Whoever this guy "Materialism" is, could you tell him that what he "says" has no place in this thread?

If you weren't serious, it would be funny.  As it is, it's just sad.

From Dialectical Materialism

"Materialism asserts the primacy of the material world: in short, matter precedes thought. Materialism is a realist philosophy of science,[13] which holds that the world is material; that all phenomena in the universe consist of "matter in motion," wherein all things are interdependent and interconnected and develop according to natural law; that the world exists outside us and independently of our perception of it; that thought is a reflection of the material world in the brain, and that the world is in principle knowable.

Not bad so far, huh?  Sounds a bit like Objectivism.  Like the Primacy of Existence over the Primacy of Consciousness, right?  No attributions to God... But wait....

 Marx credits Hegel with "being the first to present [dialectic's] form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner". But he then criticizes Hegel for turning dialectics upside down: "With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell."

Marx's criticism of Hegel asserts that Hegel's dialectics go astray by dealing with ideas, with the human mind. Hegel's dialectic, Marx says, inappropriately concerns "the process of the human brain"; it focuses on ideas. Hegel's thought is in fact sometimes called dialectical idealism. Marx believed that dialectics should deal not with the mental world of ideas but with "the material world," the world of production and other economic activity.  [this means only an analysis of physical LABOR and MATERIALS]

Hegel's dialectics would not have existed without Kant's.  You really would benefit if you took some time to actually understand the Analytical Synthetic dichotomy, and why Rand (and Peikoff) made such an extensive critique of Kant.  I know, I know, it has nothing to do with property.  Property is about Plow A and Plow B, and the fact that nobody got a bloody nose or lost a Plow in the act of copying (which is a pure Materialist definition of harm).  Rand just overlooked this obvious truth which you alone discovered.

Edit.  A clear cut example of your Materialist approach to Property can be seen by your dismissal of IP because men must use their minds and try and determine an equitable length of time that different forms of IP should be protected.  You regard these lengths of time a prima facie evidence of their Subjectivity i.e. Synthetic Propositions.

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by New Buddha

[New Buddha]

Kant/Hegel = Mystic of Spirit.  Marx = Mystic of Muscle.

Mystics of Spirit and of Muscle

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. 

Edit:  I have to clarify (for you) that when Rand says "existence without consciousness" she does not just mean Determinism, but also the dialectic premise that sensory perception can only lead to synthetic propositions.  Which means that knowledge gained by experience is Subjective, a social construct and therefore falls within the domain of the Commons.

 And, no, I'm not just making this up.

Edited February 29, 2016 by New Buddha

[Devil's Advocate]

22 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I don't think they're supposed to be arguments, just a discussion views on property to history of philosophy.

We can agree they aren't arguments that address the positions against IP presented in this thread.

11 hours ago, New Buddha said:

... I know, I know, it has nothing to do with property.  Property is about Plow A and Plow B, and the fact that nobody got a bloody nose or lost a Plow in the act of copying (which is a pure Materialist definition of harm).  Rand just overlooked this obvious truth which you alone discovered...

No, I don't believe you do know.  You certainly haven't addressed the anti-IP position in this thread. This is just a return to dismissing objections about monopoly and harm by claiming these terms don't really apply to IP.  The fact remains they do.

I don't care what you think the Materialist definition of harm is. Choose a proper legal definition and defend it if you can.  You certainly can't recover damages from IP infringement without one.

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by Devil's Advocate

[DonAthos]

10 hours ago, New Buddha said:

If you weren't serious, it would be funny.  As it is, it's just sad.

From Dialectical Materialism

"Materialism asserts the primacy of the material world: in short, matter precedes thought. Materialism is a realist philosophy of science,[13] which holds that the world is material; that all phenomena in the universe consist of "matter in motion," wherein all things are interdependent and interconnected and develop according to natural law; that the world exists outside us and independently of our perception of it; that thought is a reflection of the material world in the brain, and that the world is in principle knowable.

Not bad so far, huh?  Sounds a bit like Objectivism.  Like the Primacy of Existence over the Primacy of Consciousness, right?  No attributions to God... But wait....

 Marx credits Hegel with "being the first to present [dialectic's] form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner". But he then criticizes Hegel for turning dialectics upside down: "With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell."

Marx's criticism of Hegel asserts that Hegel's dialectics go astray by dealing with ideas, with the human mind. Hegel's dialectic, Marx says, inappropriately concerns "the process of the human brain"; it focuses on ideas. Hegel's thought is in fact sometimes called dialectical idealism. Marx believed that dialectics should deal not with the mental world of ideas but with "the material world," the world of production and other economic activity.  [this means only an analysis of physical LABOR and MATERIALS]

Because Marx wanted Hegel's dialectics to deal with the material world, and not with ideas, that does not mean that an argument which says that property (a specific concept) only properly applies to material values, and not ideas, is either "Marxist" or "materialist" in nature. More than one philosophy may concern itself with the fact of the material world.

And of course none of this is any kind of an argument either for or against such a proposition.

10 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Hegel's dialectics would not have existed without Kant's.  You really would benefit if you took some time to actually understand the Analytical Synthetic dichotomy, and why Rand (and Peikoff) made such an extensive critique of Kant.  I know, I know, it has nothing to do with property.  Property is about Plow A and Plow B, and the fact that nobody got a bloody nose or lost a Plow in the act of copying (which is a pure Materialist definition of harm).  Rand just overlooked this obvious truth which you alone discovered.

I do not know whether Rand overlooked anything. I do know that she erred.

10 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Edit.  A clear cut example of your Materialist approach to Property can be seen by your dismissal of IP because men must use their minds and try and determine an equitable length of time that different forms of IP should be protected.  You regard these lengths of time a prima facie evidence of their Subjectivity i.e. Synthetic Propositions.

I do not dismiss IP because "men must use their minds and try and determine an equitable length of time that different forms of IP should be protected." I dismiss IP on the grounds that it is not a right, but it is the initiation of the use of force.

The question of patent length, or copyright length, or other such aspects of implementation, is a secondary conversation. But I do find it a funny bit of business, by which I mean that there seems to be very little principled reasoning involved; Rand asserts that some term of copyright is "the most rational" sans explanation, which strikes me as uncharacteristic at the least. And again none of this has anything to do with "materialism," although that's funny, too.

8 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Kant/Hegel = Mystic of Spirit.  Marx = Mystic of Muscle.

Mystics of Spirit and of Muscle

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. 

Edit:  I have to clarify (for you) that when Rand says "existence without consciousness" she does not just mean Determinism, but also the dialectic premise that sensory perception can only lead to synthetic propositions.  Which means that knowledge gained by experience is Subjective, a social construct and therefore falls within the domain of the Commons.

 And, no, I'm not just making this up.

I don't know what you may or may not be making up. I do know that your posts are increasingly nonsensical and tedious. Every time you attempt to ascribe some specific belief to me, or the "anti-IP side," you demonstrate your fundamental lack of comprehension. Here, for instance: no one is saying that "knowledge gained by experience is subjective," or anything remotely like that.

You do not understand the arguments being made in this thread, and you show no interest in understanding them. Hell, you don't seem to understand the terms that you yourself employ to "argue" your side. (Argue is in quotes because at this point, I am not certain that you even know what an "argument" is, or looks like; your posts are vague rambling noise, filled with great bluster and insult, but little insight, and no point.)

I've extended more than enough patience and goodwill in trying to reason with you, and I'm done.

[Devil's Advocate]

Since primary advocacy has retreated to the 17th century, creating new threads and writing books in lieu of simply responding to the actual positions taken by this opposition, I'm thinking the present time will be better spent elsewhere until there's a more serious rebuttal that begins something like,

"IP law doesn't create coercive monopolies that dismiss rights to property by independent means, because ..."

Edited February 29, 2016 by Devil's Advocate
cleanup

[Harrison Danneskjold]

 

On 2/22/2016 at 0:05 AM, New Buddha said:

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?

 

What if Hank Rearden was allowed to manufacture as much of his metal as he wished and sell to whomever he wished, and Orren Boyle was simply allowed to duplicate it? He never could've matched Rearden's productivity; that was part of the point.

What if Howard Roark had never been given any promises about the form in which his designs would ultimately be built, and had blown up the building anyway? It was his idea; what made any contractual arrangements necessary?

What if John Galt had offered to take that scientist (the one who was working so hard on reverse-engineering his motor) to Atlantis - and been rejected? What if he responded "then you're not allowed to use my idea" and blown it all up?

 

Yeah, I see a pattern; Ayn Rand's characters never once treated IP the way she advocated - they viewed ideas the way Don Athos, Devil's Advocate and I do. 

 

You would've caught that too if you'd analyzed it more thoroughly.

 

[New Buddha]

3 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

What if Hank Rearden was allowed...

Allowed by whom?

Edited March 22, 2016 by New Buddha

[Harrison Danneskjold]

By the looters and the moochers.

 

Why did Ayn Rand find it necessary for Roark to make a contractual agreement with Keating, before blowing up the building and making his speech about intellectual property?

 

In the Romantic Manifesto she explained why, in Roark's very first conversation with Keating, he had to say exactly what he did; how giving Keating any advice would've been out-of-character, unless it was that he should never ask for that kind of advice. This demonstrates the amount of thought that she put into her work; her extraordinary attention to detail (which, in my opinion, is the primary reason for the exceptional quality of her works).

Since she had a reason for every single facet of her stories, why did Keating have to explicitly promise that Courtland would be built a certain way?

 

What it suggests to me is uncertainty

 

However, if you've already analyzed her stories with the attention to detail that they deserve, then let's hear it.