Assuming rational standard/practice of recognizing an innovator’s creation or idea and registration thereof ie patents, copyrights and such, why would violations be criminal and not civil? It seems must opponents of IP argue based on the idea that such violations are not actual violations of NAP. Why would the onus of prosecution necessarily be on the government , doesn’t making it a civil matter (meaning the injured party has to prove ownership rights and show that the guilty party knowingly abused their rights) reduce the opponent position?
Assuming rational standard/practice of recognizing an innovator’s creation or idea and registration thereof ie patents, copyrights and such, why would violations be criminal and not civil?
The whole point of anti-IP argument is that IP is not rational. So, you might as well started by saying “assuming 2 + 2 is 5…”.
Also recognizing an innovator’s creation doesn’t necessarily mean a monolopoly should be granted.
It seems must opponents of IP argue based on the idea that such violations are not actual violations of NAP. Why would the onus of prosecution necessarily be on the government , doesn’t making it a civil matter (meaning the injured party has to prove ownership rights and show that the guilty party knowingly abused their rights) reduce the opponent position?
If there is no such thing as IP, there wouldn’t be any violation. If there aren’t IP laws, there wouldn’t be a prosecution.
Anti-IP argument is “ideas (or concepts) are not property”.
Anti-IP argument is “ideas (or concepts) are not property”.
How many times do you guys plan on repeating the same straw man?
How many times do you guys plan on repeating the same straw man?
Do you still consider it a straw man if I rephrase it like this:
All properties are purely physical objects.
Do you still consider it a straw man if I rephrase it like this:
All properties are purely physical objects.
All men have eyeballs! As such, intellectual property is true! 
If there is no such thing as IP, there wouldn’t be any violation. If there aren’t IP laws, there wouldn’t be a prosecution.
Anti-IP argument is “ideas (or concepts) are not property”.
Stick to the OP, the point is to add context so we’re talking about the same thing. I don’t get the sense that you read it.
Do you still consider it a straw man if I rephrase it like this:
All properties are purely physical objects.
Is the phrase suppose to mean, “the abstraction ‘ownership’ can only apply to physical objects”? I do not thik that you meant" ‘wet’ is a physical object".
So Eiuol,
While anticipating your reply, I’ve been thinking about this thread and my participation in it – my participation on this board, more generally, really. I’ve been down this particular path before; we both have. Earlier results don’t give me great hope to expect a better outcome this time… so it might be time to try something different.
I know that some people have occasionally griped at my posting style – the length of each post, and how I try to respond to each of my opponents’ points or claims in their turn, resulting in their confusion. I don’t make any apologies for it, but why not experiment and see if I can communicate myself more effectively some other way? So starting with this post, I’m going to make an attempt to really pare down and focus my end of the conversation. You don’t need to adjust anything if you don’t want. You can respond to this post or to my previous one, or however best as you determine it. But I wanted to provide this warning upfront so that you understand that if I don’t directly respond to something you’ve said, it’s not because I’m trying to avoid some certain topic. We can get to everything eventually, if you’ll be patient with me as I attempt something new.
***
So, to make an initial stab at this, I’ve been asking myself – where is the root of our disagreement? What’s the earliest (or most fundamental) point at which we diverge? I don’t know that I yet know the answer, but that’s what I’ll aim to try to get at now.
I want to first try to pin down a view of property rights. Not intellectual property yet, but just plain old physical property. Not owning some class of pianos, but a single piano. So allow me to construct a scenario or two for this endeavor.
Scenario #1. We’ll stick with our old buddy Franz. Imagine that it is The Future – at a time when nearly all patentable piano designs have passed into “the public domain,” so we do not need to fear about Franz’s relationship with IP as he decides to build a piano for himself. He gathers the requisite materials such that they are his property (he purchases them, or he finds them in some copacetic manner, or etc), and then selects a design that he finds appealing from whatever the Internet has become. He constructs the piano in his garage according to that design.
Question(s): is the resultant piano Franz’s piano? If so, on what basis?
Scenario #2. Introducing Wolfgang. Same setting – The Future. Franz proceeds as before, acquiring the materials in whatever way you would find legitimate and selecting his preferred design from the Internet. But then he employs Wolfgang to build the piano, making a contractual arrangement such that Wolfgang will put it together for Franz, for a fee. Wolfgang does so, and we wind up again with a single piano.
Question(s): Is the resultant piano Franz’s piano? Or Wolfgang’s? Again, upon what basis do we make this determination?
(I of course have my own answers to these questions. So Part 1 of my plan is to compare our respective answers, to see if we already have some disagreement. Then we can take it from there. I hope you’ll indulge me. 
)
((And anyone else may weigh in, too. I don’t mean to exclude by addressing Eiuol directly.))
But I wanted to provide this warning upfront so that you understand that if I don’t directly respond to something you’ve said, it’s not because I’m trying to avoid some certain topic. We can get to everything eventually, if you’ll be patient with me as I attempt something new.
Sure. I probably won’t respond until this weekend though, busy with school papers.
Do you still consider it a straw man if I rephrase it like this:
All properties are purely physical objects.
I don’t know if it’s a strawman, but if you’re trying to relate the Objectivist description of property, then that’s wrong too.
Do you still consider it a straw man if I rephrase it like this:
All properties are purely physical objects.
I don’t know if it’s a strawman, but if you’re trying to relate the Objectivist description of property, then that’s wrong too.
Thanks for the straight answer.
Quoting from the lexicon:
It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.
Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.
A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort . . . .
Emphasis are mine.
(I assume property rights is bijectively defined over all properties. There are no properties without rights and there are no rights without properties.)
I couldn’t find anything that would include mental entities into property rights. It seems like property rights are defined exclusively over material objects.
Could you please point me to the Objectivist definition of property that includes intellectual entities as well as physical ones?
Could you please point me to the Objectivist definition of property that includes intellectual entities as well as physical ones?
http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27229&p=323261
Several related quotes from Rand in a post from another related thread.
None of the quotes below contains a definition of property that would include intellectual entities as well as physical ones:
Man has to work and produce in order to support his life. He has to support his life by his own effort and by the guidance of his own mind. If he cannot dispose of the product of his effort, he cannot dispose of his effort; if he cannot dispose of his effort, he cannot dispose of his life.
It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.
…the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.
Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.
Acknowledging differences in physical objects and mental entities does not suggest a body-mind dichotomy.
Also your link is broken.
I do not thik that you meant" ‘wet’ is a physical object".
I’m not claiming to be a particularly smart person. But only a moron would have said “wet is a physical object”. I would really appreciate if you refrain from expressing this kind of passive aggressive insulting statements.
OTOH, if you think I am stupid, you are welcome to say it openly. Especially if you can provide some details on why you think I am stupid.
Scenario #1. We’ll stick with our old buddy Franz. Imagine that it is The Future – at a time when nearly all patentable piano designs have passed into “the public domain,” so we do not need to fear about Franz’s relationship with IP as he decides to build a piano for himself. He gathers the requisite materials such that they are his property (he purchases them, or he finds them in some copacetic manner, or etc), and then selects a design that he finds appealing from whatever the Internet has become. He constructs the piano in his garage according to that design.
Question(s): is the resultant piano Franz’s piano? If so, on what basis?
Is the resultant piano Franz’s? I’d say yes, and I think pro-IP would also agree with it.
On what basis?
Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.
That and also he wouldn’t be infringing others’ property rights (i.e initiating force).
Scenario #2. Introducing Wolfgang. Same setting – The Future. Franz proceeds as before, acquiring the materials in whatever way you would find legitimate and selecting his preferred design from the Internet. But then he employs Wolfgang to build the piano, making a contractual arrangement such that Wolfgang will put it together for Franz, for a fee. Wolfgang does so, and we wind up again with a single piano.
Question(s): Is the resultant piano Franz’s piano? Or Wolfgang’s? Again, upon what basis do we make this determination?
Is the resultant piano Franz’s piano? Or Wolfgang’s?
Provided both parties satisfy their contractual requirements (F paying W, and W delivering finished piano) it is Franz’s. I think there are 2 important states:
- Before construction: Franz owns materials. Neither Franz nor Wolfgang owes anything to each other.
- After delivery: Franz owns the piano. Neither Franz nor Wolfgang owes anything to each other.
In between those two:
- Franz and Wolfgang make a contractual agreement where Franz would provide raw materials and compensate Wolfgang for his work and Wolfgang would in return construct and deliver a piano from those materials.
- Franz lends Wolfgang the materials. Technically Franz is still the owner of them, but Wolfgang has them in his possession.
- Wolfgang spends physical and mental effort to convert raw materials into a piano.
- Wolfgang delivers the piano.
- Franz pays Wolfgang for his work.
Ordering may be different.
I don’t have a fancy philosophical term to explain the principle here. But I approach this like an accountant, you credit something into an account it has to be debited from some other account.
None of the quotes below contains a definition of property that would include intellectual entities as well as physical ones:
Also your link is broken.
Link fixed.
As I’ve noted in threads you’ve followed before, “intellectual entities” *are* “physical” entities, in that they are contained in your brain. Thoughts in your brain are specific sequences of the physical elements of your brain, but those elements don’t become *not* physical. So, your distinction is not true in a literal sense.
But, it’s also missing the point. The entire purpose of distinguishing “property” from “rock” or “wood” is to acknowledge the link to human requirements for living, which are fundamentally traced to achievements of his thinking.
In those quotes from Rand, she links property to thinking in the same breath. When you say all property is only “physical objects,” it begs the question, “Why is property only physical objects? What is property, anyway?”
So, when property is defined as the link between the elements of the universe and the necessity of a man’s use of them through his reasoning mind, it’s easy to see at least a hint as to why one would take it to the next step and accept “intellectual” property as another form of property.
As I’ve noted in threads you’ve followed before, “intellectual entities” *are* “physical” entities, in that they are contained in your brain. Thoughts in your brain are specific sequences of the physical elements of your brain, but those elements don’t become *not* physical. So, your distinction is not true in a literal sense.
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it, an incorrect statement is incorrect. Nor does *surrounding* words make it any more correct.
Intellectual entities are not physical. They are not contained in brain in the same way water is contained in a glass.
Thoughts are not sequences of physical elements in brain. Thoughts are also not merely electrical signals. Thoughts result from (chemical/electrical) state changes in brain.
All physical entities have mass. Electrons have mass. Thoughts do not have mass.
So your premise that “intellectual entities” *are* “physical” entities is wrong.
“Why is property only physical objects? What is property, anyway?”
See #91.
So, when property is defined as the link between the elements of the universe and the necessity of a man’s use of them through his reasoning mind, it’s easy to see at least a hint as to why one would take it to the next step and accept “intellectual” property as another form of property.
Where is this definition of property as the link between the elements of the universe?
If there are non-physical properties why did AR define property as explicitly physical? (Again see #91)
…but if you’re trying to relate the Objectivist description of property, then that’s wrong too.
Show me the official description of property that include mental entities and I will admit I was wrong.
… and I will admit I was wrong.
I doubt it.
Your link to “post 91” explained nothing. Why do you think we have property?
And if you don’t think thoughts exist in our brains, a physical thing, I don’t know what else to tell you except, “You’re wrong.”
Show me the official description of property that include mental entities and I will admit I was wrong.
There is none, because IP is about application of ideas, not ideas as such. At least by Rand’s thinking. Your wording with “non-physical properties” is awkward because properties plural is usually limited to characteristics, hence Tad’s question earlier. But I’m not sure if you meant that all properties, including color/wetness/value/etc are physical? That isn’t calling you stupid, it’s saying your wording doesn’t match up with what you seem to want to say. If you mean property as in limited to things you can own, that is usually left singular.
…, because IP is about application of ideas, not ideas as such.
This is a vague statement. Application of ideas is an action. How can an action itself be property? Let’s forget about what IP is about. What is IP?
There is none.
That is my point. I am also saying that Ayn Rand defines property explicitly as material. (#91)
And if you don’t think thoughts exist in our brains, a physical thing, I don’t know what else to tell you except, “You’re wrong.”
What I am saying is quite clear; your premise that “intellectual entities” *are* “physical” entities is wrong.
Don’t try to distort my message. Brains are physical, thoughts are not.
But I’m not sure if you meant that all properties, including color/wetness/value/etc are physical? That isn’t calling you stupid, it’s saying your wording doesn’t match up with what you seem to want to say. If you mean property as in limited to things you can own, that is usually left singular.
I am not a native speaker. Now I learned it’s property even when it’s plural. But you are dropping an important word there;
I do not thik that you meant" ‘wet’ is a physical object".
This is still a passive aggressive insult.