My mistake in terminology. You know what I mean, so let's not continue with the mincing of words.


Trademarks protect logos, slogans, etc. And in fact, they largely adhere to the idea of homesteading. But frankly, my interest is in books and movies, due to their size. There simply isn't any mathematical possibility within reason of the same book or movie being created simultaneously by two separate entities, therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to accord the creator ownership.

Maybe you as well would like to comment on the following statement by me:

If you wish to address why you believe a particular film would just magically come into being in the absence of those who created it, or wish to address why you believe you can deny compensation to those who put forth a huge effort to make a film, then do so.

Either a film exists or it does not. If it does not exist, then nobody is duplicating it. Once the film exists (by virtue of effort), then why can't you respect the individuals who made it, by continuing to enforce a policy that only seeks to prevent others from doing what they never could've done before anyway?

In other words, it's physically impossible to duplicate that which does not exist. Clearly, this is nobody's fault, and those who do not have the number to duplicate cannot lay blame on others for not having said number to duplicate. Why should it be the case then, that when some group of individuals create the movie (discover the number out of thin air, so to speak) should cry foul when they are told that they still cannot do what they weren't doing in the first place? Only by virtue of the efforts of others, do these number duplicators even have the opportunity to duplicate the work of others.

I already presented my arguments. Feel free to go back and reread them. I don't hold that your current arguments need addressing. For example, if I presented an argument to you regarding this topic, and you came back and started discussing the length of giraffe necks, I'd just shake my head and move on.

If you wish to address why you believe a particular film would just magically come into being in the absence of those who created it, or wish to address why you believe you can deny compensation to those who put forth a huge effort to make a film, then do so.

As it stands though, your arguments just aren't worth much.

You're confusing a lot of things here. Honestly, it all sounds like a grab bag of half assed arguments to try and bolster your belief that you can disrespect the efforts of others.

There is a difference between an idea and media. I am in favor of protection of media. I am not in favor of ideas nearly so much. Any idea can be expressed in countless ways, but a specific expression of an idea - a book or movie, deserves protection.

As for patents, which are more akin to ideas, some are valid, and perhaps some are not. The inventor does deserve some credit, but again, it is a matter of degree, which boils down to the complexity required to describe it.

I see you failed to comprehend the example was to point out the significance of degree.

Tell me, is copying your fellow classmate's test answers appropriate or allowed? Is copying your fellow student's thesis acceptable?


Noted.


Why are you arguing against your own perceived set of counter-arguments against your stance?


Demonstrate to me that it is statistically likely in the next trillion years or so that the number would've been found otherwise. If you can do that, your case might be stronger. Otherwise, it can mathematically be demonstrated that any other person would never benefit from the number's existence unless the original discoverer found it.

And lastly, as you have pointed out, physical property is not the same as numbers. Given that, you're going to find it tough to demonstrate that the idea of 'copying' a number has any meaning. In mathematics, the set of all numbers means each number is unique and only exists once - rendering the idea of copying nonsensical. Since all numbers are unique and only exist once, it can be demonstrated that your possession of it is in fact stealing, as opposed to copying.

Honestly, are you dense? Copying the number 925 and a number the size of which resides on a DVD are both acts of copying. Both are different in degree though, and that is what matters. Same as something touching your back. Both are acts of force, but different in degree.

What excellent point has been made by either of you? A pat on the back is not the same as a cannonball.

Sorry, but no. I am not going to call all mimicry theft. By your logic, a pat on the back is the same as a cannonball hitting your back at 200 miles per hour. The two are different.

Why not, since it would never be found otherwise?


Actually, your post is weird. You haven't thought it through. The first thing you need to do is grasp the extent of large numbers yet discovered.

What does ease of transferability have to do with it? Using that logic, I might argue that if I am able to commit a crime against you with ease, then it must be justified.

Besides, how easy would it be for you to transfer the next film by the Coen Brothers when they have not yet made it? There comes a point when you have to recognize and respect the efforts of others, especially when it can be mathematically demonstrated that even if everyone alive today lives a billion years, nobody else is going to make available the next Coen Brothers movie until they make it. That number, whatever it is, has not yet been pulled off the shelf of The Library of Babel, and except for their efforts, will essentially never be pulled of the shelf. From both a moral standpoint (your lack of respect and recognition of the work of others), and from a mathematical standpoint, your argument fails.

Stealing a very large number deprives the legitimate discoverer of it his earnings from expending the effort it making it available to everyone else, because it wouldn't be available otherwise. We're done here.

Because you don't want to see. How many books are in The Library of Babel? How much effort does it take to find a book in the library that is actually meaningful, literary, coherent, complete, etc? What is the value of that search? You can think of that interesting book (as well as all the ones that are not interesting) as a unique number. Does that number exist independent of its discovery? It does, but in the same sense as a nugget of gold buried deep in the ground. Naturally, there are permutations of some particular number, but we'll leave that to the mathematicians to decide what constitutes a largely similar work. Moby Dick with a few misspelled words and a deleted paragraph or two is still Moby Dick.

When you copy a number, it's not really a copy, as you believe it is. For example, 3,453,232,343 copied results in 3,453,232,343. According to mathematical theory, it's the same entity. There really is only one 3,453,232,343. While the number used as an example here is too small to warrant copyrighting, the size of a number representing a book or a film does, due to the fact that it can be mathematically proven that it is statistically unlikely (impossible for all practical purposes) that any other human being ever born would ever discover it, or produce it again.

A filmmaker or an author is really just someone exploring that space within The Library of Babel. The space is so huge, there's enough to go around for everyone. The resources so vast, it makes the resources of our planet, even the Universe appear minuscule by comparison. Therefore, if you argue for ownership of physical property (something which is very limited in extent), then it is rather hypocritical to deny the value that should be accorded to those who discover or produce a meaningful number.

In summary: to copy a very large number is to steal it, because the notion of copying a number is meaningless mathematically. Owning a DVD which contains the number is only ownership of the plastic DVD, not the number.

If you wish to think of it as homesteading, then by all means, think of it that way. This is what renders all small numbers generally uncopyrightable - say numbers less than 2^1000.

Not worth answering. Argue against it if you can.

If you're too lazy or not able to digest the wikipedia link and draw some conclusions regarding it, then I don't think you're intelligent enough to engage in this discussion.

Also, from a moral standpoint, none of you against intellectual property rights have any case. This is easy to demonstrate. If you wish to think philosophically about it, then become familiar with The Library of Babel and its ramifications, which I have mentioned a few posts back.

Yes. First, you're in violation, as you have indicated. Second, upon copying the contents of the white cube, you violated my property. You can bear the burden of violating my property rights in full, or you can stand behind my rights and support them by adopting the following:

If the recipient uses the information in the white cube, they will become aware of what it is, at which point, they should question the legality of it by researching its source. We do not live in a world in which individuals are generally not aware of such things, and it will take some significant demonstration on the recipient's part to demonstrate their ignorance of such things.

Just go to the prior page and start scrolling. It will take you four seconds.