Ayn Rand

[hawkeye]

Assuming anarchism begets intellectuals, I would hope it isn't a large problem if someone wrote a song, and another person claimed to write that song without any proof they did. 

They could claim to have written it but that wouldn't make it true.   They would be free to play it if they want and claim that they wrote it I guess.  Anybody can say anything.  Free speech.
 

[1715059057]

1715059057

[1715059057]

1715059057

[myrkul]

Put simply: Ideas aren't property.

You can't own a pattern of bits. You can't own a pattern of notes. You can't own a pattern of words.

Best of all, sharing ideas, "intellectual socialism," as you put it, doesn't mean that the originator has less. Information is not scarce, and capitalism is a system for managing the distribution of scarce resources. There's no need to ration it.

On the flip side, enforcing IP requires government force. It asserts that I own, and can control - and extract payment for the use of - the part of your mind that contains these words, simply because I wrote them, and you read them. If that's not against "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine," I don't know what is.

Now, I get why she supported it. She was an author. She made her living assembling patterns of words. But isn't using government force to prop up a bad business model exactly what she railed against in Atlas Shrugged?

And yes, as a true champion of individual rights, she couldn't accept anarchy.

Ahh, but she did, she just didn't know she did. Individual rights are best protected by an agency that doesn't violate them itself in order to get funding. Voluntary taxation isn't taxation. It's subscription. Really, someone should have handed her a copy of this. It would have rocked her world.

[Elwar]

Ayn Rand is great. I have seen her movies (1 and 2!)


Seriously though...

Read this post:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=170857.0

Actually toward the end, it seems that Bitcoin solves some of the bad things she expresses about money (can be taken, etc).

[Mike Christ]

Put simply: Ideas aren't property.

You can't own a pattern of bits. You can't own a pattern of notes. You can't own a pattern of words.

Best of all, sharing ideas, "intellectual socialism," as you put it, doesn't mean that the originator has less. Information is not scarce, and capitalism is a system for managing the distribution of scarce resources. There's no need to ration it.

I suppose you're right, but in other ways, I'm having trouble agreeing.  Though no one person can own any word, or group of words, they are often attributed to them.  For example:

“Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.”
― Aristotle

There are likely many variants of this quote, but this is the gist of what Aristotle was saying; though it could be attributed to anyone, we assume Aristotle is the originator of this quote.  But is he the originator of the idea?  Impossible to know (and highly unlikely, anyway.)  But we can at least say he, in a way, owns this phrase, since I cannot put my own name beneath it and claim I said it.

Now, let's say I took a string of numbers, letters, and punctuation, and created something that never existed before; couldn't I say I owned it?  If this cannot be considered property, what of the patterns that dictate a private key?  Couldn't someone own a private key?  Though it is intangible, this person is the only one who owns it, and thus, owns the bits which make up a Bitcoin; but perhaps the major flaw in this argument would be, I'm not sharing this key with anybody, therefor it is, in fact, private, as opposed to a novel, which is meant to be read by other people.  In other words, if I wrote a novel, and never let anyone else read it, could I then truly own that long string of paragraphs?  After all, if I shared my television with the community, it ceases to be private property.

I suppose this is the major dividing line between property and creation.  But it is rather funny how people can own another artist's painting.

[Stardust]

I suppose you're right, but in other ways, I'm having trouble agreeing.  Though no one person can own any word, or group of words, they are often attributed to them.  For example:

“Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.”
― Aristotle

There are likely many variants of this quote, but this is the gist of what Aristotle was saying; though it could be attributed to anyone, we assume Aristotle is the originator of this quote.  But is he the originator of the idea?  Impossible to know (and highly unlikely, anyway.)  But we can at least say he, in a way, owns this phrase, since I cannot put my own name beneath it and claim I said it.

Now, let's say I took a string of numbers, letters, and punctuation, and created something that never existed before; couldn't I say I owned it?  If this cannot be considered property, what of the patterns that dictate a private key?  Couldn't someone own a private key?  Though it is intangible, this person is the only one who owns it, and thus, owns the bits which make up a Bitcoin; but perhaps the major flaw in this argument would be, I'm not sharing this key with anybody, therefor it is, in fact, private, as opposed to a novel, which is meant to be read by other people.  In other words, if I wrote a novel, and never let anyone else read it, could I then truly own that long string of paragraphs?  After all, if I shared my television with the community, it ceases to be private property.

I suppose this is the major dividing line between property and creation.  But it is rather funny how people can own another artist's painting.

I think the problem is with copyright, and this is something USA imposed its will on the world. I respect authors, but not copyright. As for Bitcoin Private Key it's your duty to protect it. If someone spends it, thats the end of them. We don't want a central authority protecting our BTC. Now that I think of it, I don't even like the idea of Bitcoin Police. I want full anarchy on the Internet.

[liberty90]

Any fans of Rand's philosophy here?

I'm definitely not a objectivist; I'm against "intellectual" "property".

Nevertheless, her books are very good.

She didn't get everything right, IMO, but neither did Bastiat, so that's OK.

Yeah

[myrkul]

Now, let's say I took a string of numbers, letters, and punctuation, and created something that never existed before; couldn't I say I owned it?  If this cannot be considered property, what of the patterns that dictate a private key?  Couldn't someone own a private key?  Though it is intangible, this person is the only one who owns it, and thus, owns the bits which make up a Bitcoin; but perhaps the major flaw in this argument would be, I'm not sharing this key with anybody, therefor it is, in fact, private, as opposed to a novel, which is meant to be read by other people.  In other words, if I wrote a novel, and never let anyone else read it, could I then truly own that long string of paragraphs?  After all, if I shared my television with the community, it ceases to be private property.

I suppose this is the major dividing line between property and creation.  But it is rather funny how people can own another artist's painting.

A private key isn't, itself, property. You want to get technical about it, neither are the coins it accesses. But a private key is the perfect example to explode IP:
Your private key is only "yours" as long as you have the only copy (or have control of all the copies). If you store that private key on a computer, in order to access it, the attacker would need to use your property (the computer) without your permission. This is Trespass.

But let's say you use, instead, a brain wallet. This is where it really starts to explain why IP is a flawed concept. A brain wallet, for those who are not familiar with it, is a wallet that doesn't actually exist. All the wallet file is is a record of your private keys, which allow you to make transactions on the network. A brain wallet stores this information in the form of a passphrase, a long string of words, that, when hashed, make the private key.

So let's say you stored your coins in a brain wallet. That key is absolutely secure unless one of two things happens: You share it with another person, or someone guesses the passphrase. In either case, the other person now has the same access to your coins as you do. They "own" those coins just as validly as you do. If you shared the key, you voluntarily gave ownership of that key to another person. What he does with it after that is up to him, not you. If someone else came up with it independently, then obviously it wasn't a unique enough phrase to be yours and yours alone.

Now let's bring the analogy home: If you come up with a story, and you share that story with someone - in a book, movie, song, or whatever means you use to share it - you've given up ownership of that story. The moment it hits the other person's head, they can do whatever they want with it, because it's theirs just as validly as it is yours, now. Likewise, if they are able to come up with the same story independently, your story was not unique enough to be considered "yours."

[antibanker]

Rand was jewish. people shouldn't touch her stuff with a 10 foot pole.

[Hawker]

Rand was jewish. people shouldn't touch her stuff with a 10 foot pole.

If you are going to exclude Jewish thinkers from how you view the world, you will end up pretty stupid.

Oh wait, you already did and it shows...

[wdmw]

I agree with many of the premises of objectivism in how they relate to society, government, and forced collectivism.  I reject it as the highest moral goal, since I believe there is some good in altruism and sacrifice that is done voluntarily.

[myrkul]

I agree with many of the premises of objectivism in how they relate to society, government, and forced collectivism.  I reject it as the highest moral goal, since I believe there is some good in altruism and sacrifice that is done voluntarily.

If you do it willingly, it's not sacrifice. You're giving up one value - generally money, sometimes time - for something you value more: the knowledge that you have helped someone else. It's only sacrifice if you give up a greater value for a lesser, which necessarily requires coercion.

That people generally see the idea of not giving up a greater value for a lesser as rejecting helping others speaks poorly of them, not Rand.

[Mike Christ]

Now let's bring the analogy home: If you come up with a story, and you share that story with someone - in a book, movie, song, or whatever means you use to share it - you've given up ownership of that story. The moment it hits the other person's head, they can do whatever they want with it, because it's theirs just as validly as it is yours, now. Likewise, if they are able to come up with the same story independently, your story was not unique enough to be considered "yours."

Good points; to add to this, there is nothing new under the sun.  Any story anyone could tell today will be inspired by the same actions which were the basis of all stories ever told--that is, life itself.  To copyright a story is to imply you hold ownership of life events.  Plus, considering that all western music use the exact same schemes for writing any song (scales, from keys, from notes, which someone figured out if you take these exact increments between sounds you can make something sound pleasant,) it's pretentious to copyright anything which stems from this invention; heck, if copyright existed then, someone would still be making royalties from every song ever to exist.

However, it's odd when it comes to capitlaism; when someone owns a copyright to a creation, it's implied they're the only ones who can control who gets paid for any money earned from the creation.  So would writers, artists, and musicians still be able to pursue their craft with the hopes of payment?  Or would they be subject to charity, or seeking other forms of employment?

[myrkul]

Now let's bring the analogy home: If you come up with a story, and you share that story with someone - in a book, movie, song, or whatever means you use to share it - you've given up ownership of that story. The moment it hits the other person's head, they can do whatever they want with it, because it's theirs just as validly as it is yours, now. Likewise, if they are able to come up with the same story independently, your story was not unique enough to be considered "yours."

Good points; to add to this, there is nothing new under the sun.  Any story anyone could tell today will be inspired by the same actions which were the basis of all stories ever told--that is, life itself.  To copyright a story is to imply you hold ownership of life events.  Plus, considering that all western music use the exact same schemes for writing any song (scales, from keys, from notes, which someone figured out if you take these exact increments between sounds you can make something sound pleasant,) it's pretentious to copyright anything which stems from this invention; heck, if copyright existed then, someone would still be making royalties from every song ever to exist.

This is known as the "elephant's dilemma." There are a very large number of combinations of notes, but relatively few which do not sound discordant and jarring. Eventually, if we remember everything, like the elephant, we'll run out.
Put another way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcvd5JZkUXY

However, it's odd when it comes to capitlaism; when someone owns a copyright to a creation, it's implied they're the only ones who can control who gets paid for any money earned from the creation.  So would writers, artists, and musicians still be able to pursue their craft with the hopes of payment?  Or would they be subject to charity, or seeking other forms of employment?

Finally, we're addressing the broken business model. Thankfully, the market is already adjusting to meet this. Kickstarter provides a platform for the artist to get their profit up front, And Cory Doctorow does just fine releasing his works for free, and asking his fans to pay if they enjoyed the book. For music, Jonothan Coulton uses a similar model, and live concerts are a unique experience, which people will always pay for. There are lots of ways to make a living being creative that don't require that you use force to keep people from sharing your work.

[Mike Christ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcvd5JZkUXY

This is actually really cool   I like how the ones in the back appear to be dancing.

For giggles:  The Four Chord Song

Finally, we're addressing the broken business model. Thankfully, the market is already adjusting to meet this. Kickstarter provides a platform for the artist to get their profit up front, And Cory Doctorow does just fine releasing his works for free, and asking his fans to pay if they enjoyed the book. For music, Jonothan Coulton uses a similar model, and live concerts are a unique experience, which people will always pay for. There are lots of ways to make a living being creative that don't require that you use force to keep people from sharing your work.

That's a relief; as a practitioner of all three of those arts I mentioned before, I'd like to keep doing them   I've considered adding a BTC address to a novel I wrote and then just letting it spread to wherever it goes; I figured this way, my novel will get way more exposure (as before, when I was asking payment for it, I had literally only 2 takers, yet over a thousand the moment it went free for a week,) and thus, a greater chance people will want to send some cash my way (plus, it'll also get people familiar with BTC if they didn't know what it was before )

It's just always made me mad paying for entertainment, and then realizing only after that it was a complete waste of cash.  Plus, advertising is expensive.  So there's no use fighting copyright infringement (as it's fruitless and expensive, so says the Pirate Bay); you can't infringe a copyright that isn't there, right?  I hope EA Games is taking notes

[myrkul]

Finally, we're addressing the broken business model. Thankfully, the market is already adjusting to meet this. Kickstarter provides a platform for the artist to get their profit up front, And Cory Doctorow does just fine releasing his works for free, and asking his fans to pay if they enjoyed the book. For music, Jonothan Coulton uses a similar model, and live concerts are a unique experience, which people will always pay for. There are lots of ways to make a living being creative that don't require that you use force to keep people from sharing your work.

That's a relief; as a practitioner of all three of those arts I mentioned before, I'd like to keep doing them   I've considered adding a BTC address to a novel I wrote and then just letting it spread to wherever it goes; I figured this way, my novel will get way more exposure (as before, when I was asking payment for it, I had literally only 2 takers, yet over a thousand the moment it went free for a week,) and thus, a greater chance people will want to send some cash my way (plus, it'll also get people familiar with BTC if they didn't know what it was before )

See? You've got the right idea.

[bitbit]

Put simply: Ideas aren't property.

You can't own a pattern of bits.

Ideas/information are not a pattern of bits That is a very materialistic view.

If information is not property, then privacy laws have no moral basis. Espionage should be perfectly legal. If one breaks into a house and find sensitive information the break-in itself will be punishable, but not the spreading of sensitive information found in the house during the break-in. One could also prick someone with a needle and acquire blood which allows one to get hold of that person’s DNA. A needle prick in itself is not a major violation and would therefore not be severly punished, but to map that other person’s DNA and spread sensitive data about that person’s genetic disorder must be legal since this is only information, which is not property.

Furthermore, to be consistent anti-IP people must argue that contracts cannot exist because all that exists are atoms. In other words, one can scribble on a piece of paper or make sounds with one’s mouth, but these cannot be legally binding since information does not exist.

[bitbit]

Threats will also be legal. This after all is just a series of noises. To be consistent a libertarian must claim that only a physical violation is illegal. A rapist who threatens his victim with a knife will not be convicted in court unless he physically hurts his victim because he will claim that the knife is his and he was taking it for a walk. Sure, he uttered a few words about killing the poor woman if she did not obey him, but they were just sounds and it is her own fault if she interpreted those noises as threatening.

[Mike Christ]

Threats will also be legal. This after all is just a series of noises. To be consistent a libertarian must claim that only a physical violation is illegal. A rapist who threatens his victim with a knife will not be convicted in court unless he physically hurts his victim because he will claim that the knife is his and he was taking it for a walk. Sure, he uttered a few words about killing the poor woman if she did not obey him, but they were just sounds and it is her own fault if she interpreted those noises as threatening.

I'm not getting the connection between IP and facts.  For example, nobody has IP over gravity; how could anyone assume it exists, then?  We can't assume Newton invented gravity, but moreso, came up with the concept of gravity.  Although this discovery is attributed to him, what is and what isn't can't be held under copyright law, and nobody's paying Newton's ancestors grand sums of money to mutter the concept of gravitational force.

So let's say someone witnessed the man mentioning that he was going to kill a woman with a knife, with a knife in hand.  Now, the to-be assailant may not own IP over "I'm gonna kill you and then I'm gonna rape you" (as has been said numerous times I'm certain,) he can still be attributed to having repeated those words, by both the victim and a witness.  If we can then assume the man did, in fact, say those words, and was caught with a knife, if that society specifically disallows threats to kill, he would be taken care of however they take care of men such as that.

The point is, the man did not invent the phrase "I'm gonna kill you and then I'm gonna rape you," but that doesn't mean he still can't use it to get his intent across.

Likewise, when it comes to novels, every writer ever has said the following:  "I love you"/"He loves me"/"I think I love you"/"I think I'm in love with you" etc., so who owns the IP over these strings of words?  Nobody; so now we must figure out where to draw the line when it comes to how long a string should be before we can say it is intellectual property.  However, because there would be no national government to come to an agreement on this matter (per libertarian ideals), and no national government to enforce it even if society came to a consensus at some point in time, there would be no way to enforce copyright.  No writer invented the concept of love.  A writer is only going to string together events in a timeline, or concepts he's realized based on concepts realized by others.  If a scientist figures out gravity is much more than Newton ever realized, does he then own the IP of gravity?  And if another scientist took that scientist's ideas, and expanded on them, and improved him, does that scientist now owe royalties?  It's a trivial matter, and anyone can say, "Well I came up with it first."

[myrkul]

Put simply: Ideas aren't property.

You can't own a pattern of bits.

Ideas/information are not a pattern of bits That is a very materialistic view.

You're right, some are patterns of words, some are patterns of lines or colors, some are simply patterns of neural impulses.

If information is not property, then privacy laws have no moral basis. Espionage should be perfectly legal. If one breaks into a house and find sensitive information the break-in itself will be punishable, but not the spreading of sensitive information found in the house during the break-in. One could also prick someone with a needle and acquire blood which allows one to get hold of that person’s DNA. A needle prick in itself is not a major violation and would therefore not be severly punished, but to map that other person’s DNA and spread sensitive data about that person’s genetic disorder must be legal since this is only information, which is not property.

These are all good points. But they come from a flawed perspective. First off, intent plays a great deal in the decision of proper punishment for a crime. Breaking into someone's house with the intent of, say, taking a nap on their couch is considerably different, and does less harm, than breaking into someone's house with the intent of finding sensitive information and spreading it about. Likewise, an accidental prick with a sharp object, say, a piece of your clothing, has much lower harm to the victim than does an intentional prick with a needle with the intent of copying and analyzing their DNA. Both are relatively minor offenses when considered on their own, but when the effect of the intent of that offense is included into the calculation, it becomes quite severe.

Furthermore, to be consistent anti-IP people must argue that contracts cannot exist because all that exists are atoms. In other words, one can scribble on a piece of paper or make sounds with one’s mouth, but these cannot be legally binding since information does not exist.

Did I say Information does not exist? No, I said that information is not property. Be careful not to confuse the two concepts. The contract is the physical proof of an agreement. It's not binding because you wrote on the paper, it's binding because you agreed to it. The paper is just proof that you agreed.

Threats will also be legal. This after all is just a series of noises. To be consistent a libertarian must claim that only a physical violation is illegal. A rapist who threatens his victim with a knife will not be convicted in court unless he physically hurts his victim because he will claim that the knife is his and he was taking it for a walk. Sure, he uttered a few words about killing the poor woman if she did not obey him, but they were just sounds and it is her own fault if she interpreted those noises as threatening.

Tsk... and now we're just leaping off the deep end. Mike answered this far better than I was going to - with almost exactly the same argument, I might add - so I'll just leave it at that.

[liberty90]

The only alternative to intellectual property is intellectual socialism.

So, were United States in 1810 more socialist than today ?