Merge: Rights, Property

Political Philosophy
101

Not true.  The idea of lateral control was not new.  Previous attempts at lateral control included such things as shifting weight from side to side and using rudders to induce yaw, both of which work, just not very well.  The Wright patent did not cover such things, so it cannot be said to be a patent on the idea of lateral control.

A variable-incidence, movable surface is a device.

Since the Wrights’ invention was using a variable-incidence surface to provide for roll control, they no grounds to claim exclusivity for the process of lateral control, as Custiss’s device was substantially different from theirs.

102

Since the Wrights’ invention was using a variable-incidence surface to provide for roll control, they no grounds to claim exclusivity for the process of lateral control, as Custiss’s device was substantially different from theirs.

Again you are missing the point.

Curtiss copied the concept of wing warping and lift from the Wright Brothers which the Wrights had CREATED, NOT DISCOVERED.

103

Again you are missing the point.

Curtiss copied the concept of wing warping and lift from the Wright Brothers which the Wrights had CREATED, NOT DISCOVERED.

Since Curtis’s device did not involve wing warping at all, then it can hardly be considered a copy. It is rather like saying that the digital calculator is a copy of the abacus.

104

Since the Wrights’ invention was using a variable-incidence surface to provide for roll control, they no grounds to claim exclusivity for the process of lateral control, as Custiss’s device was substantially different from theirs.

Since Curtis’s device did not involve wing warping at all, then it can hardly be considered a copy. It is rather like saying that the digital calculator is a copy of the abacus.

I have given you examples of “the process of lateral control” that are not covered by the Wright patent, such things as shifting weight from side to side and using rudders to induce yaw. Your continued insistence that somehow the Wrights got a patent on “the idea of lateral control” or that they claimed “exclusivity for the process of lateral control” is just plain wrong.

The Wright’s did not patent wing warping. That term never appears in their patent. What they patented was the essence of their creation: the use of a moveable surface to generate a controllable, aerodynamic force around the longitudinal axis of the airplane. That covers an aileron as well.

105

I have given you examples of “the process of lateral control” that are not covered by the Wright patent, such things as shifting weight from side to side and using rudders to induce yaw.  Your continued insistence that somehow the Wrights got a patent on “the idea of lateral control” or that they claimed “exclusivity for the process of lateral control” is just plain wrong.

The Wright’s did not patent wing warping.  That term never appears in their patent.  What they patented was the essence of their creation:  the use of a moveable surface to generate a controllable, aerodynamic force around the longitudinal axis of the airplane.  That covers an aileron as well.

Since rudders are most certainly “moveable surfaces,” it is obviously not true that what the Wrights’ patent covered was uniquely their own creation.

106

Since rudders are most certainly “moveable surfaces,” it is obviously not true that what the Wrights’ patent covered was uniquely their own creation.

Every creation of man is a re-arrangement of pre-existing matter. The light bulb, fundamentally, is simply a re-arrangement of a glass jar and wires. That does not change the fact that it took an act of creation to conceive and build the first one.

This discussion has deteriorated into a debate about the validity of one patent, instead of a discussion of the larger issue of whether Intellectual Property should be protected at all. I obviously believe it should. Let’s go back to that question.

Actually, the Wright Brothers’ lawsuit against Glenn Curtiss is a perfect example of how patent law imposes a monopoly without protecting legitimate property rights. 

Your first statement indicated a broad disagreement with the very concept of Intellectual Property. Is it your position that Curtis should have been allowed to make direct copies of the Wright Flyer? I know you are saying he didn’t copy it, but should he have been allowed to if he so wished?

107

Every creation of man is a re-arrangement of pre-existing matter.  The light bulb, fundamentally, is simply a re-arrangement of a glass jar and wires.  That does not change the fact that it took an act of creation to conceive and build the first one.

This discussion has deteriorated into a debate about the validity of one patent, instead of a discussion of the larger issue of whether Intellectual Property should be protected at all.  I obviously believe it should.  Let’s go back to that question.

Your first statement indicated a broad disagreement with the very concept of Intellectual Property. Is it your position that Curtis should have been allowed to make direct copies of the Wright Flyer?  I know you are saying he didn’t copy it, but should he have been allowed to if he so wished?

Patent laws are rather like laws that punish flag burners. Suppose I have a farm and grow cotton. I harvest the product, spin it into thread, dye the thread, put it in a loom and produce a number of colored strips which I sew into a flag. No one would dispute that the final product is the result of my labors. No individualist could reasonably argue that the flag actually belongs to the state or the majority or to the original designer. Thus to punish me for burning the flag, is to prevent me from using and disposing of my own property.

The principle is no different with any other product. Imagine that A invents a paper airplane that does two loops before hitting the floor. We can agree that the airplane is clearly A’s own property (provided that the raw material, paper, belonged to A in the first place). We can also agree that A has the right to make copies of his airplane (with his own materials) and to sell them to others.

But suppose that B, following A, makes the same paper airplane in his own home with his own materials. We observe that in doing so B has taken none of A’s property. A still has everything he started with.

But what if A claims, “I created the idea of the two-loop paper airplane. That idea is mine alone.”

What would that mean? Is A claiming that he owns all physical instances of his paper airplane idea? If that is the case, then anyone buying A’s paper airplane from him would be a victim of fraud. For A would have pretended to sell them something that he continues to claim title to.

Or is A claiming that he has ownership of the pure idea of the two-loop paper airplane? But how would that work? Since ideas exist only in people’s minds, claiming ownership of an idea is essentially to claim ownership over the minds of others.

Thus patents can be seen to be methods for allowing one person to control the property or mind of another. Patents are not natural rights but state-granted privileges, a fact made obvious by their being awarded for an arbitrary number of years.

108

Patent laws are rather like laws that punish flag burners.  Suppose I have a farm and grow cotton. I harvest the product, spin it into thread, dye the thread, put it in a loom and produce a number of colored strips which I sew into a flag.  No one would dispute that the final product is the result of my labors.  No individualist could reasonably argue that the flag actually belongs to the state or the majority or to the original designer.  Thus to punish me for burning the flag, is to prevent me from using and disposing of my own property.

The principle is no different with any other product.  Imagine that A invents a paper airplane that does two loops before hitting the floor.  We can agree that the airplane is clearly A’s own property (provided that the raw material, paper, belonged to A in the first place).  We can also agree that A has the right to make copies of his airplane (with his own materials) and to sell them to others. 

But suppose that B, following A, makes the same paper airplane in his own home with his own materials.  We observe that in doing so B has taken none of A’s property.  A still has everything he started with. 

But what if A claims, “I created the idea of the two-loop paper airplane. That idea is mine alone.”

What would that mean?  Is A claiming that he owns all physical instances of his paper airplane idea?  If that is the case, then anyone buying A’s paper airplane from him would be a victim of fraud. For A would have pretended to sell them something that he continues to claim title to.

Or is A claiming that he has ownership of the pure idea of the two-loop paper airplane?  But how would that work?  Since ideas exist only in people’s minds, claiming ownership of an idea is essentially to claim ownership over the minds of others.

Thus patents can be seen to be methods for allowing one person to control the property or mind of another.  Patents are not natural rights but state-granted privileges, a fact made obvious by their being awarded for an arbitrary number of years.

Wow, nicely put :lol:

109

But entirely wrong. Patents do not protect abstract ideas. They protect solutions. There is a world of difference that is being ignored.

Rights are conditions necessary for people to think and to take reasoned action (action based upon the conclusions they reach). Thought and reasoned action are absolutely necessary to a person should he wish to live. Patents are a legal protection on a certain category of reasoned action, solutions. Without them, people who live by solving problems cannot live, as that necessary condition has been withdrawn or has never existed.

It’s either-or: patents and solutions, or no patents and no solutions. The latter choice is death.

110

It’s either-or: patents and solutions, or no patents and no solutions. The latter choice is death.

So you face a problem and instead of inventing a solution that would save your life - you decide you would rather die as opposed to letting anyone else receive unearned benefits from your efforts?

111

But suppose that B, following A, makes the same paper airplane in his own home with his own materials.  We observe that in doing so B has taken none of A’s property.  A still has everything he started with. 

This is the logical fallacy of begging the question of what constitutes property. You start with the premise that property consists solely of specific, material entities – i.e. you start with the premise that there is no such thing as intellectual property – and then you use that premise to “prove” that there is no such thing as intellectual property. That is fallacious. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to prove.

The fundamental question is this: does the man who creates a new device or design – a solution, to use y_feldblum’s term – possess the right to the use and disposal of that creation – or are those who did not create it entitled to copy it without the creator’s permission?

Copying a design is an unauthorized use – and is just as much a violation of property rights as theft. “B” does not have the right to move into “A’s” vacation home for a month without “B’s” permission, even though once “B” leaves, “A still has everything he started with".

But what if A claims, “I created the idea of the two-loop paper airplane. That idea is mine alone.”

What would that mean? Is A claiming that he owns all physical instances of his paper airplane idea? If that is the case, then anyone buying A’s paper airplane from him would be a victim of fraud. For A would have pretended to sell them something that he continues to claim title to.

A patent confers on the holder the exclusive right to make and sell the patented item. Anyone who purchases the patented item from the inventor is granted an implicit license to use or consume that specific unit. So none of this is a problem. The purchaser understands that he is getting a license to use the item. There is no fraud.

Or is A claiming that he has ownership of the pure idea of the two-loop paper airplane? But how would that work? Since ideas exist only in people’s minds, claiming ownership of an idea is essentially to claim ownership over the minds of others.

What “A” can claim to own is the design of a two-loop paper airplane, PROVIDED that he can show that 1) the design is novel and unique, 2) it is not an obvious extension of existing designs and 3) that it works, i.e. it confers the benefit claimed by the inventor.

Thus the inventor does not own the “pure idea” of a two-loop paper airplane. What he owns is a design that makes it work.

112

This is the logical fallacy of begging the question of what constitutes property.  You start with the premise that property consists solely of specific, material entities – i.e. you start with the premise that there is no such thing as intellectual property – and then you use that premise to “prove” that there is no such thing as intellectual property.  That is fallacious.  You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to prove.

I did not start with the premise that there is no such thing as intellectual property. My argument was built on the Lockean principle that an individual has the right to the products of his labor. If a man makes something with his own materials, then it is rightfully his.

The fundamental question is this: does the man who creates a new device or design – a solution, to use y_feldblum’s term – possess the right to the use and disposal of that creation – or are those who did not create it entitled to copy it without the creator’s permission?

Answering “yes” to both questions does not pose any contradiction, for the inventor can still use his creation at the same time and in the same way as his neighbor who copies it.

Copying a design is an unauthorized use – and is just as much a violation of property rights as theft.

This is a vigorous assertion, but you have not provided any proof of it.

  “B” does not have the right to move into “A’s” vacation home for a month without “B’s” permission, even though once “B” leaves, “A still has everything he started with".

Correct, because A has the right to keep his vacation home vacant if he so wishes. What A does not have the right to do is exercise any control over B’s identical copy of A’s vacation house. B’s house was constructed with materials acquired by B with his own labor. B’s use of his own vacation house has no effect on A’s ability to use his. For A, then, to seize by patent privilege control of B’s vacation house would be to assert authority over someone else’s property.

A patent confers on the holder the exclusive right to make and sell the patented item.  Anyone who purchases the patented item from the inventor is granted an implicit license to use or consume that specific unit.  So none of this is a problem.  The purchaser understands that he is getting a license to use the item.  There is no fraud.

Fine. Therefore, if A does not own all physical instances of his device, he has no right to control B’s copies of the device.

What “A” can claim to own is the design of a two-loop paper airplane, PROVIDED that he can show that 1) the design is novel and unique, 2) it is not an obvious extension of existing designs and 3) that it works, i.e. it confers the benefit claimed by the inventor.

The problem is that all devices are to some degree extensions of other existing devices. Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone was an extension of devices made by Michael Faraday and Johann Philip Reis. Faraday’s work, in turn, was built upon earlier work by Humphry Davy, and so on.

Thus the inventor does not own the “pure idea” of a two-loop paper airplane.  What he owns is a design that makes it work.

But here is a distinction without a difference. Once we separate the physical implementation of a design from the design itself, what do we have left but an idea?

113

I did not start with the premise that there is no such thing as intellectual property.  My argument was built on the Lockean principle that an individual has the right to the products of his labor.  If a man makes something with his own materials, then it is rightfully his.

This principle is as much Marxist as it is Lockean - Lockean, because it deals with individual rights; Marxist, because it misidentifies the source of value, man’s mind, as brute physical labor. The correct principle is: If a man makes something with his own mind, then it is rightfully his.

The problem is that all devices are to some degree extensions of other existing devices.  Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone was an extension of devices made by Michael Faraday and Johann Philip Reis.  Faraday’s work, in turn, was built upon earlier work by Humphry Davy, and so on.

Intellectual property rights are rights not to abstract ideas, but to solutions - which, incidentally, entail the concretizations of abstract ideas, themselves tasks which only thought and reasoned action can perform. Take the fact into account.

114

This principle is as much Marxist as it is Lockean - Lockean, because it deals with individual rights; Marxist, because it misidentifies the source of value, man’s mind, as brute physical labor. The correct principle is: If a man makes something with his own mind, then it is rightfully his.

You are conflating value and ownership, two distinctly different concepts. I have addressed only the source of ownership. I made no claim about how the value of goods is determined. In fact, I never even used the word “value.” (Just to be clear on this point, I completely reject Marx’s labor theory of value because it does not take into account marginal utility and consumer demand. See Eugen Bohm-Bawerk, “The Ultimate Standard of Value” )

If a man makes something with his own mind, then it is rightfully his.

Sure. I have already acknowledged that paper airplane inventor A is entitled to the product he fashioned out of the materials he owned. But we cannot leap from that specific ownership to the broader claim that A owns every other similar paper airplane, for that would mean that A is entitled to the materials owned by other individuals. Nor can we say that he owns the idea for the design, for owning an idea could only mean the right to control the place where ideas reside: the minds of men.

Intellectual property rights are rights not to abstract ideas, but to solutions - which, incidentally, entail the concretizations of abstract ideas, themselves tasks which only thought and reasoned action can perform. Take the fact into account.

Good. Then A unarguably possesses the solution to how to make a paper airplane that does two loops before hitting the floor. But unless B is a slave of A or all of B’s physical property is in fact A’s property, then we cannot assert that the two-loop paper airplanes that B constructs really belong to A.

115

The fundamental question is this: does the man who creates a new device or design – a solution, to use y_feldblum’s term – possess the right to the use and disposal of that creation – or are those who did not create it entitled to copy it without the creator’s permission?

Answering “yes” to both questions does not pose any contradiction, for the inventor can still use his creation at the same time and in the same way as his neighbor who copies it.

y_feldblum is correct. When you state that “the inventor can still use his creation at the same time and in the same way as his neighbor who copies it”, your premise is clear: the only things that can be created are specific, physical units. This is indeed the Marxist notion that the only source of value is physical labor – with the corollary that the only things that can be property are the specific existents that result from physical labor.

To you, the action of man’s mind in creating the design is irrelevant and deserves no consideration or protection. You recognize only the action of his muscles in making specific objects.

This is the manner in which you beg the question – by arbitrarily asserting up front that man is entitled to the product of his physical labor, but not his mental labor. Your argument essentially consists of repeating this assertion – without support – mixed with a sprinkling of imaginary “practical” problems you think intellectual property creates – all of which I have answered.

Objectivism recognizes that for man to survive, he must have the right to the product of all of his efforts, mental as well as physical.

116

y_feldblum is correct.  When you state that “the inventor can still use his creation at the same time and in the same way as his neighbor who copies it”, your premise is clear: the only things that can be created are specific, physical units.  This is indeed the Marxist notion that the only source of value is physical labor – with the corollary that the only things that can be property are the specific existents that result from physical labor.

You are attacking a straw man. You label my position on values as Marxist, when not only have I never even discussed values but I had previously made it clear that my views on that topic are explicitly anti-Marxist. You accuse me of arguing that creation applies only to matter, when I have made no such claim. (Obviously, ideas can be created. If they couldn’t then the sum total of mankind’s knowledge would be the same today as in Neolithic times.) The problem is with ownership of those ideas. The only way to keep a thought to oneself is to keep it a secret. Once the idea enters the mind of another human being it is a part of his memory. To claim ownership of the idea in his head is absurdly to claim ownership of a part of his mind.

To you, the action of man’s mind in creating the design is irrelevant and deserves no consideration or protection.  You recognize only the action of his muscles in making specific objects.

Another rickety straw man for Don AisA to tilt at. I never said that muscles were the only necessary means for making devices, nor that the role of the mind was irrelevant and undeserving of protection. In fact, I hold that an inventor may use his property in any non-aggressive fashion to keep others from copying an invention. What he may not legitimately do, however, is employ the coercive power of the state to prevent others from manufacturing products employing their own property and the willing labor of others.

This is the manner in which you beg the question – by arbitrarily asserting up front that man is entitled to the product of his physical labor, but not his mental labor.

No, I have made it clear in my previous posts an inventor is entitled to the product of both his mental and physical labor. The paper airplane inventor, I have said, is entitled to create, manufacture and sell all the airplanes he can. What he is not entitled to is the products made by those whom he has not employed.

Your argument essentially consists of repeating this assertion – without support – mixed with a sprinkling of imaginary “practical” problems you think intellectual property creates – all of which I have answered.

You have done a splendid job of demolishing a philosophical position that I do not hold.

Objectivism recognizes that for man to survive, he must have the right to the product of all of his efforts, mental as well as physical.

On this we agree.

117

Okay, Im going to try to add to this debate.

Patents and copyrights are legalized monopolies on certain IDEAS. You obtain a patent or a copyright because you are scared that someone might STEAL your IDEA. So you protect yourself legally.

IDEAS are not SCARCE, in fact, any rational mind is capable of individually coming up with an already patented idea. If this is done independently, how is it STEALING? Really, I see no way that you can really steal an idea. The only way you can obtain it is by someone (the creator of an idea) giving it to you, by selling you his product.

The rational way to handle the problem of keeping people from taking an idea they cannot create independently is by creating a contract, that when one agrees to purchase an item, they may not copy it.

An example: If I buy Atlas Shrugged, and the terms of the agreement between me and the author or publishing company is that if i purchase this, I may not copy it. Then lets say I do copy and sell it. Not only can i be legally sued by Rand and her publishing company, but I can be sued by the person I sold it to, because I sold it to them under the pretenses that I wrote the book, which was fraud.

This is a way to legally handle the situation without a government enforced monopoly.

118

I never said that muscles were the only necessary means for making devices, nor that the role of the mind was irrelevant and undeserving of protection. In fact, I hold that an inventor may use his property in any non-aggressive fashion to keep others from copying an invention. What he may not legitimately do, however, is employ the coercive power of the state to prevent others from manufacturing products employing their own property and the willing labor of others.

The key phrase here is “employing their own property”. You continue to evade the central issue: the fact that a design is a creation that belongs only to the creator, it is his property and copying it is an unauthorized use. When they employ someone else’s design without permission, they are not employing their own property.

Ownership is the exclusive right to use and disposal. The fact that a design “goes into someone’s head and becomes part of their memory” does not give them the right to use and dispose of that design. Perception is not creation and does not attentuate the creator’s ownership.

Looking at someone else’s design is not the equivalent of conceiving and creating it in the first place. The mere fact that a design can be copied does not argue that it is okay to copy it. Property rights are not a function of the ease or difficulty of violating them.

No, this does not mean that the creator “absurdly owns part of the other persons head.” The creator only owns the exclusive right to use and dispose of his design. Others may think about it, talk about it, imagine it, contemplate it, make up poems about it – but only the creator can use and dispose of it.

119

I think part of this dispute is due to a misunderstanding over the distinction between an idea (or thought) and an invention, as well as a misunderstanding of how intellectual property law is administered.

The following is an idea: “A glowing bulb that produces light from electricity would be a big improvement over a gaslight.” You cannot obtain a patent based on such a statement. It is an observation, not a creation.

Edison– through thousands of man-hours of thinking and experimenting – was able to create a specific configuration that worked: wires of a certain diameter and made of a certain material, arranged in a certain configuration, possessing a certain electrical resistance, and generating a certain current at a particular voltage, placed inside a glass globe of a specific construction, strong enough to withstand a vacuum, etc. It is this configuration, this design that can be patented.

Yes, Edison used knowledge and materials generated by others. The idea of an incandescent light was not new. In fact, an earlier patent had been issued on a light bulb, but the device was not practical. Edison purchased that patent from its owners and set-out to do it right. His efforts resulted in the first practical design for an incandescent lamp.

So, Edison does not own the idea of the incandescent lamp. What he owns is a specific configuration or design that works. If someone wishes to come up with a different design for an incandescent lamp, they are free to do so, provided it is significantly different from Edison’s. In other words, you cannot change the diameter of the wires by one thousandth of an inch and claim that you have a new design.

120

The key phrase here is “employing their own property”. You continue to evade the central issue:  the fact that a design is a creation that belongs only to the creator, it is his property and copying it is an unauthorized use.  When they employ someone else’s design without permission, they are not employing their own property.

Just because an author–inventor “creates” something, it does not follow that he is entitled to own it. If I “create” a cure for scurvy by being the first to feed victims of the disease citrus fruits, am I entitled to a royalty from everyone who has a morning glass of orange juice? (And if you think that this is a silly example, consider this actual U.S. patent: “Method of Exercising a Cat,” U.S. Pat. No. 5,443,036, Aug. 22, 1995 (shining a laser light onto the floor to fascinate a cat and cause it to chase the light).

The thought-creator-as-owner argument begs the question by assuming that an idea is ownable in the first place. Yet ideas cannot be ownable for the simple reason that they exist in the minds of men and one cannot in any practical sense have control over the content of another’s mind.

Example: if someone writes a poem and copyrights it, under the creator-owner theory he presumably owns all forms of it. Suppose you memorize the poem. If, as you say, the creation “belongs only to the creator,” then the poet would own not only his copy but also the memory of the poem in your mind – and could, if we follow the logic of intellectual property, sue you because “copying it is an unauthorized use.” But simply reading a poem and committing it to memory is hardly the same thing as breaking into a home and stealing the silverware. Therefore, it is fallacious to treat thoughts the same as tangible goods. As Arnold Plant explained, “It is a peculiarity of property rights in patents (and copyrights) that they do not arise out of the scarcity of the objects which become appropriated. They are not a consequence of scarcity. They are the deliberate creation of statute law, and, whereas in general the institution of private property makes for the preservation of scarce goods, tending . . . to lead us ‘to make the most of them,’ property rights in patents and copyrights make possible the creation of a scarcity of the products appropriated which could not otherwise be maintained.”

Furthermore, if, as you say, “design is a creation that belongs only to the creator,” why would patents and copyrights be for limited periods of time? We do not say the owner-builder of a skyscraper should have a limited lease on his creation. The fact that intellectual property is treated as a special case in law certainly suggests that it rests on a shakier philosophical foundation than titles to tangible property.

Ownership is the exclusive right to use and disposal.  The fact that a design “goes into someone’s head and becomes part of their memory” does not give them the right to use and dispose of that design.  Perception is not creation and does not attentuate the creator’s ownership.

But you have already stated that with regard to a creation, “copying it is an unauthorized use.” So if we adhere to the theory that “a creation that belongs only to the creator” then the creator of a poem (or an equation or a solution or an invention) would own every instance of that creation, including not only those that those existed on paper or in three dimensions but also as thoughts. In order to defend the idea that the creator owner has authority over all instances of his creation, one has also to accept the notion that he has authority over the minds of others.

Looking at someone else’s design is not the equivalent of conceiving and creating it in the first place.  The mere fact that a design can be copied does not argue that it is okay to copy it.  Property rights are not a function of the ease or difficulty of violating them.

To a certain extent they are. Theoretically, we could award property titles for the pleasure our actions give to others, so that I would be entitled to collect royalties from anyone who passes within earshot of my window when I play the guitar. After all, I “created” pleasure; am I not entitled to the fruits of my labor? Of course, the difficulty of collecting such royalties would render my rights moot. Intellectual property has very similar practical difficulties. As Stephan Kinsella says, “The distinction between creation and discovery is not clearcut or rigorous. Nor is it clear why such a distinction, even if clear, is ethically relevant in defining property rights. . . Patent law has no moorings to objective borders of actual, tangible property, and thus is inherently vague, amorphous, ambiguous, and subjective. For the latter reason alone, one would think that Objectivists – ardent, self-proclaimed defenders of objectivity and opponents of sub-jectivism – would oppose patent and copyright.”

No, this does not mean that the creator “absurdly owns part of the other persons head.”  The creator only owns the exclusive right to use and dispose of his design.  Others may think about it, talk about it, imagine it, contemplate it, make up poems about it – but only the creator can use and dispose of it.

But if you have memorized someone’s copyrighted poem without his permission, you most certainly have violated the poet’s “exclusive right to use and dispose” of his creation. Thus arguments for intellectual property ultimately result in the absurdity of owning other’s thoughts. After all, if some property can be regarded as “intellectual,” mustn’t it reside in the intellect?