Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FirstAscent]

You are so wrong. The castration issue is not like the other issues. You own (call it version A of ownership, if you will) your body. Everything else is not version A of ownership. Call it version B of ownership, if you will.

We can then break down version B of ownership into many different versions (ownership of a sofa vs. ownership of land, etc.).

Why?

Because things function more effectively when one does not separate things from other things which are interdependent with each other. Blindly placing ownership above that principle is not prudent. This does not necessarily preclude ownership though.

[1714325767]

1714325767

[1714325767]

1714325767

[NghtRppr]

Because things function more effectively when one does not separate things from other things which are interdependent with each other.

Could you be less vague?

[FirstAscent]

Because things function more effectively when one does not separate things from other things which are interdependent with each other.

Could you be less vague?

Why would I need to be less vague? I can only assume you are seeking clarification because you're not familiar with how things are indeed interdependent with other things. This only indicates a certain degree of ignorance on your part, which then calls into question your credentials in engaging in the application of your political ideology.

[Hawker]

You are so wrong. The castration issue is not like the other issues. You own (call it version A of ownership, if you will) your body. Everything else is not version A of ownership. Call it version B of ownership, if you will.

We can then break down version B of ownership into many different versions (ownership of a sofa vs. ownership of land, etc.).

Why?

Why not?  There is are differences between "owning" your thumb and owning a thumb drive.  

[NghtRppr]

You are so wrong. The castration issue is not like the other issues. You own (call it version A of ownership, if you will) your body. Everything else is not version A of ownership. Call it version B of ownership, if you will.

We can then break down version B of ownership into many different versions (ownership of a sofa vs. ownership of land, etc.).

Why?

Why not?  There is are differences between "owning" your thumb and owning a thumb drive.  

Yes, a thumb isn't a thumb drive. I'm glad we've gotten that cleared up. Is there any other difference? What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not?

[FirstAscent]

You are so wrong. The castration issue is not like the other issues. You own (call it version A of ownership, if you will) your body. Everything else is not version A of ownership. Call it version B of ownership, if you will.

We can then break down version B of ownership into many different versions (ownership of a sofa vs. ownership of land, etc.).

Why?

Why not?  There is are differences between "owning" your thumb and owning a thumb drive.  

Yes, a thumb isn't a thumb drive. I'm glad we've gotten that cleared up. Is there any other difference? What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not?

Technically, ownership does not grant you anything. People grant you the recognition of ownership rights to things based on a lot of different metrics.

[Hawker]

You are so wrong. The castration issue is not like the other issues. You own (call it version A of ownership, if you will) your body. Everything else is not version A of ownership. Call it version B of ownership, if you will.

We can then break down version B of ownership into many different versions (ownership of a sofa vs. ownership of land, etc.).

Why?

Why not?  There is are differences between "owning" your thumb and owning a thumb drive.  

Yes, a thumb isn't a thumb drive. I'm glad we've gotten that cleared up. Is there any other difference? What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not?

Have you tried to buy a thumb on eBay?  Or borrow one from your neighbour?  You don't need me to list the differences so why ask?

I suppose the key difference is that ownership of your thumb matters more to you than ownership of a material thing.  No-one really cares about not being allowed have a nuke.  Everyone would care about not being allowed have a thumb.

[NghtRppr]

Have you tried to buy a thumb on eBay?  Or borrow one from your neighbour?

Those are the differences between thumbs and thumb drives, which we've already established are different. That's not a difference in ownership.

I suppose the key difference is that ownership of your thumb matters more to you than ownership of a material thing.

Yet again, that has nothing to do with ownership.

It's kind of hard to take either of you seriously when you can't even put forth a cogent argument. Let me ask one more time...

What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not? I'm not asking about the current laws either before you fall back on that schtick.

[FirstAscent]

What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not? I'm not asking about the current laws either before you fall back on that schtick.

I just answered this question a few posts back. The answer: Nothing is automatically granted to you. Collectively, people, in recognition of a uniformly applied set of laws, and by the power of a state, will grant you specific rights dependent on what ownership rights you have been given for some specific type of thing. This will be different if it is a dog, a sofa, a parcel of land in California, a nuclear bomb, or your thumb. Regulations and laws are key here. I suggest you don't beat or abuse your dog. And I suggest you don't chop down oak trees on your parcel of land in California.

[Hawker]

Have you tried to buy a thumb on eBay?  Or borrow one from your neighbour?

Those are the differences between thumbs and thumb drives, which we've already established are different. That's not a difference in ownership.

I suppose the key difference is that ownership of your thumb matters more to you than ownership of a material thing.

Yet again, that has nothing to do with ownership.

It's kind of hard to take either of you seriously when you can't even put forth a cogent argument. Let me ask one more time...

What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not? I'm not asking about the current laws either before you fall back on that schtick.

Ownership is a legal concept so if you exclude current law and exclude real world experience, what's left?

[NghtRppr]

What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not? I'm not asking about the current laws either before you fall back on that schtick.

I just answered this question a few posts back. The answer: Nothing is automatically granted to you. Collectively, people, in recognition of a uniformly applied set of laws, and by the power of a state, will grant you specific rights dependent on what ownership rights you have been given for some specific type of thing. This will be different if it is a dog, a sofa, a parcel of land in California, a nuclear bomb, or your thumb. Regulations and laws are key here. I suggest you don't beat or abuse your dog. And I suggest you don't chop down oak trees on your parcel of land in California.

So you're saying that other people grant me ownership of my thumbs as well as my thumb drives? How exactly is that an argument that they are different? That sounds like you're saying they are the same.

[Hawker]

What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not? I'm not asking about the current laws either before you fall back on that schtick.

I just answered this question a few posts back. The answer: Nothing is automatically granted to you. Collectively, people, in recognition of a uniformly applied set of laws, and by the power of a state, will grant you specific rights dependent on what ownership rights you have been given for some specific type of thing. This will be different if it is a dog, a sofa, a parcel of land in California, a nuclear bomb, or your thumb. Regulations and laws are key here. I suggest you don't beat or abuse your dog. And I suggest you don't chop down oak trees on your parcel of land in California.

So you're saying that other people grant me ownership of my thumbs as well as my thumb drives? How exactly is that an argument that they are different? That sounds like you're saying they are the same.

You asked for a difference.  You got a difference.  Is there something else you are looking for?

[NghtRppr]

What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not? I'm not asking about the current laws either before you fall back on that schtick.

I just answered this question a few posts back. The answer: Nothing is automatically granted to you. Collectively, people, in recognition of a uniformly applied set of laws, and by the power of a state, will grant you specific rights dependent on what ownership rights you have been given for some specific type of thing. This will be different if it is a dog, a sofa, a parcel of land in California, a nuclear bomb, or your thumb. Regulations and laws are key here. I suggest you don't beat or abuse your dog. And I suggest you don't chop down oak trees on your parcel of land in California.

So you're saying that other people grant me ownership of my thumbs as well as my thumb drives? How exactly is that an argument that they are different? That sounds like you're saying they are the same.

You asked for a difference.  You got a difference.  Is there something else you are looking for?

So there's a difference because society says there is, brilliant argument.

[Hawker]

What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not? I'm not asking about the current laws either before you fall back on that schtick.

I just answered this question a few posts back. The answer: Nothing is automatically granted to you. Collectively, people, in recognition of a uniformly applied set of laws, and by the power of a state, will grant you specific rights dependent on what ownership rights you have been given for some specific type of thing. This will be different if it is a dog, a sofa, a parcel of land in California, a nuclear bomb, or your thumb. Regulations and laws are key here. I suggest you don't beat or abuse your dog. And I suggest you don't chop down oak trees on your parcel of land in California.

So you're saying that other people grant me ownership of my thumbs as well as my thumb drives? How exactly is that an argument that they are different? That sounds like you're saying they are the same.

You asked for a difference.  You got a difference.  Is there something else you are looking for?

So there's a difference because society says there is, brilliant argument.

Um its true.  Not an argument.

And just like thumb drives, society gives you ownership of intellectual property.  Both are examples of ideas that people created in order to make life better.

[NghtRppr]

What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not? I'm not asking about the current laws either before you fall back on that schtick.

I just answered this question a few posts back. The answer: Nothing is automatically granted to you. Collectively, people, in recognition of a uniformly applied set of laws, and by the power of a state, will grant you specific rights dependent on what ownership rights you have been given for some specific type of thing. This will be different if it is a dog, a sofa, a parcel of land in California, a nuclear bomb, or your thumb. Regulations and laws are key here. I suggest you don't beat or abuse your dog. And I suggest you don't chop down oak trees on your parcel of land in California.

So you're saying that other people grant me ownership of my thumbs as well as my thumb drives? How exactly is that an argument that they are different? That sounds like you're saying they are the same.

You asked for a difference.  You got a difference.  Is there something else you are looking for?

So there's a difference because society says there is, brilliant argument.

Um its true.  Not an argument.

I don't know why I even bother talking to either of you. I think I'll stop wasting my time since you've both clearly got nothing of substance to offer.

[Hawker]

What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not? I'm not asking about the current laws either before you fall back on that schtick.

I just answered this question a few posts back. The answer: Nothing is automatically granted to you. Collectively, people, in recognition of a uniformly applied set of laws, and by the power of a state, will grant you specific rights dependent on what ownership rights you have been given for some specific type of thing. This will be different if it is a dog, a sofa, a parcel of land in California, a nuclear bomb, or your thumb. Regulations and laws are key here. I suggest you don't beat or abuse your dog. And I suggest you don't chop down oak trees on your parcel of land in California.

So you're saying that other people grant me ownership of my thumbs as well as my thumb drives? How exactly is that an argument that they are different? That sounds like you're saying they are the same.

You asked for a difference.  You got a difference.  Is there something else you are looking for?

So there's a difference because society says there is, brilliant argument.

Um its true.  Not an argument.

I don't know why I even bother talking to either of you. I think I'll stop wasting my time since you've both clearly got nothing of substance to offer.

We don't need to offer anything.  You are the one who wants to take away intellectual property rights.  Offer something to justify the loss or accept that your position will never be adopted.

[FirstAscent]

What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not? I'm not asking about the current laws either before you fall back on that schtick.

I just answered this question a few posts back. The answer: Nothing is automatically granted to you. Collectively, people, in recognition of a uniformly applied set of laws, and by the power of a state, will grant you specific rights dependent on what ownership rights you have been given for some specific type of thing. This will be different if it is a dog, a sofa, a parcel of land in California, a nuclear bomb, or your thumb. Regulations and laws are key here. I suggest you don't beat or abuse your dog. And I suggest you don't chop down oak trees on your parcel of land in California.

So you're saying that other people grant me ownership of my thumbs as well as my thumb drives? How exactly is that an argument that they are different? That sounds like you're saying they are the same.

You asked for a difference.  You got a difference.  Is there something else you are looking for?

So there's a difference because society says there is, brilliant argument.

Um its true.  Not an argument.

I don't know why I even bother talking to either of you. I think I'll stop wasting my time since you've both clearly got nothing of substance to offer.

We don't need to offer anything.  You are the one who wants to take away intellectual property rights.  Offer something to justify the loss or accept that your position will never be adopted.

Intellectual property rights are an excellent example of interdependence between the content and the creator.

[FredericBastiat]

Yes, a thumb isn't a thumb drive. I'm glad we've gotten that cleared up. Is there any other difference? What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not?

Have you tried to buy a thumb on eBay?  Or borrow one from your neighbour?  You don't need me to list the differences so why ask?

I suppose the key difference is that ownership of your thumb matters more to you than ownership of a material thing.  No-one really cares about not being allowed have a nuke.  Everyone would care about not being allowed have a thumb.

What if I had a thumb drive with a million bitcoin on it? I might be very attached to it.

[Hawker]

Yes, a thumb isn't a thumb drive. I'm glad we've gotten that cleared up. Is there any other difference? What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not?

Have you tried to buy a thumb on eBay?  Or borrow one from your neighbour?  You don't need me to list the differences so why ask?

I suppose the key difference is that ownership of your thumb matters more to you than ownership of a material thing.  No-one really cares about not being allowed have a nuke.  Everyone would care about not being allowed have a thumb.

What if I had a thumb drive with a million bitcoin on it? I might be very attached to it.

Literally, not as attached as your are to your thumb

[FredericBastiat]

Intellectual property rights are an excellent example of interdependence between the content and the creator.

Intellectual property rights are an excellent example of the interdependence between the content of the creator and the physical property owned by others. It is equivalent to theft, coercion and censorship.