Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

Can you prove that computers wouldn't have existed anyways or in even a better form than they currently do?

No-one can prove a negative.

Then you probably shouldn't make an assertion that you can't back up.

I made no false assertion.

The issue here is whether or not society is entitled to reward research.  Whether its investments in technology or medicine or even safe cars, society is entitled to enable that research and it uses intellectual property as the mechanism to do so.  You and Frederic seem to think you have the right to dictate to the rest of society whether or not it has that right.  You don't.

[NghtRppr]

I made no false assertion.

You made a claim that isn't backed up by evidence.

If IBM had not the exclusive right to resell that technology since the 1960s, there never would have been a computer revolution.

How could you possibly know this? Did you travel to a parallel universe? Did you just pull that out of your ass?

The issue here is whether or not society is entitled to reward research.

Is society entitled to do whatever it pleases? Is society entitled to declare slavery legal? If so, so much for society. If not, why not? Where do you ultimately get these entitlements from? The same place you got your last claim from?

[Hawker]

I made no false assertion.

You made a claim that isn't backed up by evidence.

If IBM had not the exclusive right to resell that technology since the 1960s, there never would have been a computer revolution.

How could you possibly know this? Did you travel to a parallel universe? Did you just pull that out of your ass?

The issue here is whether or not society is entitled to reward research.

Is society entitled to do whatever it pleases? Is society entitled to declare slavery legal? If so, so much for society. If not, why not? Where do you ultimately get these entitlements from? The same place you got your last claim from?

Society exists.  Humans don't live in isolation.  Once it gets to the point where it is self directing via democracy, it can legitimately act on behalf of the plurality of its members. 

You ask Is society entitled to declare slavery legal?   It already has for 1000s of years.  You may as well ask if a bear is entitled to shit in the woods.  The bigger question is "Should society declare slavery legal?" and the answer is not.  We have evolved in terms of ethics and slavery is abhorrent to the modern mind.

Slavery is a useful wedge issue.  As is abortion.  For all we know, in 100 years people may look back on our society with disgust at the legality of abortion. However, promoting research is not such an issue.  There is almost no constituency in society that thinks research and innovation should be stopped.  A democratic society that wants to foster these things can legitimately act in a way that does so.  That is why we have intellectual property.  Unless you have some social model that is more powerful than a democratic society, your best bet is to argue that research and innovation are a waste of time and try to get the law changed.  Good luck with that.

[NghtRppr]

Once it gets to the point where it is self directing via democracy, it can legitimately act on behalf of the plurality of its members.

Why?

You ask Is society entitled to declare slavery legal?   It already has for 1000s of years.

That was my point. It shouldn't be entitled to do that. Since you think it does have that entitlement, since you think it is entitled to declare anything it damn well pleases, I must reject your beliefs outright. I consider your position reduced to absurdity.

[Hawker]

Once it gets to the point where it is self directing via democracy, it can legitimately act on behalf of the plurality of its members.

Why?

You ask Is society entitled to declare slavery legal?  It already has for 1000s of years.

That was my point. It shouldn't be entitled to do that. Since you think it does have that entitlement, since you think it is entitled to declare anything it damn well pleases, I must reject your beliefs outright. I consider your position reduced to absurdity.

Its silly to say that a free society must be rejected because it is free to be wrong.  Freedom only exists where you can do stupid or wrong things.

You are part of society so its not possible to reject it.  You may loathe it but the very act of communicating that fact makes you a part of the society.  There is no point pretending that society doesn't exist or that its action are illegitimate.  If there is something you disagree with, you can set about changing it.  But you have to start from the reality that society exists and that it can legitimately try to improve life for its members.

[NghtRppr]

Its silly to say that a free society must be rejected because it is free to be wrong.  Freedom only exists where you can do stupid or wrong things.

You're clearly grasping at straws. I can be free without having the freedom to enslave you.

You are part of society so its not possible to reject it.

I reject your beliefs about society.

But you have to start from the reality that society exists and that it can legitimately try to improve life for its members.

That's a non sequitur. Society is nothing more than the humans that comprise it. Humans obviously exist. However, I don't have to accept anything about its legitimacy.

Three people are on an island. Two of them vote to rob the third. That's wrong. It doesn't matter if its 3 or 30 million to 1.

[FredericBastiat]

Frederic we live in a knowledge economy where people are given the right to profit from investment in research.  You seem to think that pretending only material matter has value gives you the right to insist the rest of society to pretend only material matter has value.  You don't have that right.  We exist in society and 1 person does not have the right to tell others how to live. 

Even if you did have the right to dictate to society how to live, your logic is specious.  'Being "hostile" or "violent" behaviour requires force and energy.' is your statement.  So if I come into your home and refuse to leave I am not being hostile?  Any taking of property without consent is hostile and a society frowns on it.  Taking the outcome of someone else's work, which they have made a legitimate investment in, and reselling it for your own profit is hypocritical.

You do not live in a "knowledge" economy which gives you the "right" to profit from investment. You are given a monopoly privilege (for a price) which permits you to extricate property from others when it resembles your property in some particular way. It is the privilege to prohibit, in some general or specific way a similarly resemblembling/functioning object as manifest in the characteristics of other people's property.

You don't get the meaning of hostile and violent. If you came into my home without permission that would be hostile. You not leaving when I ask you would also be hostile and may become violent. All of those actions start and finish with forceful interactions. All actions require forces, all actions also require energy. Some are acceptable, some not.

I don't dictate, my intention is to suggest appropriate societal behaviour (via negative laws) which encumbers the fewest number of individuals with the least amount of violent force interactions.

I have never intimated in any way the "taking of property" or the "taking the outcome of someone else's work". That implies the theft of some object owned by them and is something that can be possessed exclusively by them.

Mimicry isn't theft. Never has, never will be. If that were the case, then everbody would be stealing from everybody all of the time. Say it ain't so.

[FredericBastiat]

I made no false assertion.

The issue here is whether or not society is entitled to reward research.  Whether its investments in technology or medicine or even safe cars, society is entitled to enable that research and it uses intellectual property as the mechanism to do so.  You and Frederic seem to think you have the right to dictate to the rest of society whether or not it has that right.  You don't.

Society, as a group of many, or of one, has no right to force others to play along with their version of entitled reward research system. If you want to do research, do it on your own time and on your own dime or with your comrades. Form your own solidarity association independent of others. If you want to sell the research to someone or develop products from it, then convince them it has value. Maybe you'll get something for it.

Neither is society entitled to force anybody anywhere to "enable" that research. If by "enabling" you in some way encroach or attempt to encroach on my private property, you are enslaving me or are stealing from me. Not nice. Don't do it.

We can argue all the day long on society's proclivities. It isn't a question of what they can do, but whether they should do what their doing. Justify the doing please. Anybody can murder, plunder or enslave.

Just as others have shone in the past, society as a whole can commit the most heinous of crimes and depravities of every stripe upon their members in the name of the majority. Society is a collective of individuals acting in concert to achieve their goals. It is the manner in which they attempt to achieve them that matters.

Just because society has superior numbers doesn't make their acts any more right than before.

[Hawker]

Its silly to say that a free society must be rejected because it is free to be wrong.  Freedom only exists where you can do stupid or wrong things.

You're clearly grasping at straws. I can be free without having the freedom to enslave you.

You are part of society so its not possible to reject it.

I reject your beliefs about society.

But you have to start from the reality that society exists and that it can legitimately try to improve life for its members.

That's a non sequitur. Society is nothing more than the humans that comprise it. Humans obviously exist. However, I don't have to accept anything about its legitimacy.

Three people are on an island. Two of them vote to rob the third. That's wrong. It doesn't matter if its 3 or 30 million to 1.

So you don't accept the right of people to govern their own society.  Then why argue your point?  You don't need to convince anyone as no-one has the right to self government.

[FredericBastiat]

...Here are the question: Do you think Libyans supporting the rebels are bound by the rebels' new constitution & law?  Should their children & grandchildren also be bound?  Are those who oppose the rebels also bound?  Please answer.

If the constitution was a contract for anything other than a non-aggression pact (i.e. prevent injury, slavery, and plunder), then no. You must acquire consent, free of coercion, before you negotiate with me for my property and life. Regarding their decendants, the same is true. The rebels who oppose are on the same footing as everybody else. Isn't that the beauty of equity in law? It doesn't matter if you're short or tall, black or white, jew or gentile, it still works. True laws are immutable.

...If you think that laws shouldn't change with the prevailing winds, then I can't see why you think IP, copyright or patent law should be altered one whit.  They've been around for hundreds of years.

Slavery has been around for thousands of years, and your point..? Since when does the "when" and "how long" matter here? Isn't wrong wrong, and right right regardless of the when? It would seem obvious to anybody, that laws are independent of chronology.

You're confusing the common understanding of the word "force" with the scientific one...

Not true. Everybody else is confusing the generic term "force" with the one which is scientific, which was my whole point. If you can define a word to mean things that don't correlate with reality, they tend to have less utility (due to them being make-believe). I believe in fairies but I'm not going to force you to believe in fairies. I'm not trying to take people's opinion from them, just prevent them from using real "force" upon me due to their confusion. Threats of force aren't real physical force. This is true, but then everything hinges on intent at that point. Self defense comes to mind...

...I find it hard to believe that, if it hadn't, there would have been a massive open-source movement such as we have now though, and it seems to me that Frederic is arguing that all R&D should be open-source.  ...In any case, IP etc law allows for closed-source AND open-source.  According to the principles of Libertarianism, people, and hence institutions, are free to choose whichever they prefer, right?  If open source is "better", then it will suffocate closed source and Frederic will win.

I'm not advocating open source over closed source. You can program however you like. Just don't use draconian laws in an attempt to protect yourself against competition. That makes for less competition  and thus more monopoly power, which is not what we want. The reason why many things don't exist or thrive very well is because governments meddle in the affairs of the private individual in an attempt to manipulate the outcome of their decisions. I'm against meddling nanny/statist/collectivist systems.

Now we're getting to the nut of the problem.  Ever head of the "social contract"?  Answer the questions on Libya first please, then we'll talk about that.

Yes I've heard of this "social contract" you're referring to. Bring me the contract to review with my attorney present and I'll decide, after much deliberation, whether or not the terms of the contract suit me. If they (the terms) do not, I will go my way, back to my private property and continue to live my life as I see fit. Don't molest me, and I won't molest you. Fair enough?

[Hawker]

I made no false assertion.

The issue here is whether or not society is entitled to reward research.  Whether its investments in technology or medicine or even safe cars, society is entitled to enable that research and it uses intellectual property as the mechanism to do so.  You and Frederic seem to think you have the right to dictate to the rest of society whether or not it has that right.  You don't.

Society, as a group of many, or of one, has no right to force others to play along with their version of entitled reward research system. If you want to do research, do it on your own time and on your own dime or with your comrades. Form your own solidarity association independent of others. If you want to sell the research to someone or develop products from it, then convince them it has value. Maybe you'll get something for it.

Neither is society entitled to force anybody anywhere to "enable" that research. If by "enabling" you in some way encroach or attempt to encroach on my private property, you are enslaving me or are stealing from me. Not nice. Don't do it.

We can argue all the day long on society's proclivities. It isn't a question of what they can do, but whether they should do what their doing. Justify the doing please. Anybody can murder, plunder or enslave.

Just as others have shone in the past, society as a whole can commit the most heinous of crimes and depravities of every stripe upon their members in the name of the majority. Society is a collective of individuals acting in concert to achieve their goals. It is the manner in which they attempt to achieve them that matters.

Just because society has superior numbers doesn't make their acts any more right than before.

I'm glad you at least see the value in investing in research.  All IP law requires is that when someone else has paid for research, you not copy it and resell it for your own profit.  You are free to ignore it.  You are free to make an alternative.  But what you can't do is say "Bitcoin2Cash has developed a cure for cancer.  He put all his savings into it and it works! I'll make millions if I copy it and sell it 10 cents cheaper than him."  That is simple greed masquerading as a desire for freedom.

The core issue here is freedom.  Disease is unpleasant and we want to reduce it.  Life is hard and we want things that make it easier.  Driving is dangerous and we want tobe able to buy safe cars.  Society has given us the freedom to invest and try to achieve these goals.  Society has given you total freedom except you can't take the outcome of someone else's labour and profit from it.  You can't make a car and sell it as Ford Focus with a Ford logo on the bonnet.  So what?  You can't take the list of ingredients that is on a medicine bottle and sell your own copy.  So what?  These are not major losses of liberty unless liberty means the right to profit off someone else's investment.

If you say that your freedom to copy other people research results is essential to your liberty, you are being ridiculous.  Society's freedom to find cures outweighs your freedom to make a quick profit off other people's work.

[FredericBastiat]

So you don't accept the right of people to govern their own society.  Then why argue your point?  You don't need to convince anyone as no-one has the right to self government.

If you join this society of your own free will, and you personally agree to it's terms, then sure, govern away. Just don't force others to be a member of your society. Therein lies the difference.

Additionally, me being born into your society doesn't make me a slave/member of your society either. Children are incapable of binding contracts due to their lack of understanding. Parents can make some decisions about how their children will live, but when those children assert their independence they acquire their autonomy (self-governing).

Freedom of choice vs. Slavery. How many times do we need to say it before it sinks in?

[Hawker]

So you don't accept the right of people to govern their own society.  Then why argue your point?  You don't need to convince anyone as no-one has the right to self government.

If you join this society of your own free will, and you personally agree to it's terms, then sure, govern away. Just don't force others to be a member of your society. Therein lies the difference.

Additionally, me being born into your society doesn't make me a slave/member of your society either. Children are incapable of binding contracts due to their lack of understanding. Parents can make some decisions about how their children will live, but when those children assert their independence they acquire their autonomy (self-governing).

Freedom of choice vs. Slavery. How many times do we need to say it before it sinks in?

You keep on about slavery as if the prohibition to make a fizzy drink and sell it under the name Coca-Cola was the same as being bound in chains to a galley oar for life.  Its not the same.

All IP law requires is that when someone else has paid for research, you not copy it and resell it for your own profit.  You are free to ignore it.  You are free to make an alternative.  But what you can't do is say "Bitcoin2Cash has developed a cure for cancer.  He put all his savings into it and it works! I'll make millions if I copy it and sell it 10 cents cheaper than him."  That is simple greed masquerading as a desire for freedom.

The core issue here is freedom.  Disease is unpleasant and we want to reduce it.  Life is hard and we want things that make it easier.  Driving is dangerous and we want tobe able to buy safe cars.  Society has given us the freedom to invest and try to achieve these goals.  Society has given you total freedom except you can't take the outcome of someone else's labour and profit from it.  You can't make a car and sell it as Ford Focus with a Ford logo on the bonnet.  So what?  You can't take the list of ingredients that is on a medicine bottle and sell your own copy.  So what?  These are not major losses of liberty unless liberty means the right to profit off someone else's investment.

If you say that your freedom to copy other people research results is essential to your liberty, you are being ridiculous.  Society's freedom to find cures outweighs your freedom to make a quick profit off other people's work.

[FredericBastiat]

"All acts involve altering physical matter. If you claim that there is property in physical matter, that already covers all physical phenomenon and thereby all possible actions related thereto. However, if you claim that you have a right to benefits derived from physical property that do not alter the physical property you own, it logically follows that it is a "right" to alter physical property belonging to someone else."

Hawker, what say you to the above quote?

Do you have any right to control, manipulate, alter, (de)compose or deprive others of their property (the physical material matter they control or possess)?

If so, why?

At what point does their private property become yours?

[FredericBastiat]

Hawker,

Here's a scale for you if it helps any.

(Slavery) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Freedom)

I prefer to not have my Freedoms eroded any more than they already are. Likewise, I don't want to increase Slavery any more than we have. I get it, it aint black and white. Duh.

[Hawker]

"All acts involve altering physical matter. If you claim that there is property in physical matter, that already covers all physical phenomenon and thereby all possible actions related thereto. However, if you claim that you have a right to benefits derived from physical property that do not alter the physical property you own, it logically follows that it is a "right" to alter physical property belonging to someone else."

Hawker, what say you to the above quote?

Do you have any right to control, manipulate, alter, (de)compose or deprive others of their property (the physical material matter they control or possess)?

If so, why?

At what point does their private property become yours?

At the point where the interests of society exceed the interest of the individual.  For example, if someone has a factory selling a fizzy drink called Coca-Cola, and its not the genuine Coca-Cola but a cheap effort to profit off the Coca-Cola brand, society has a right to stop that person. 

[Hawker]

Hawker,

Here's a scale for you if it helps any.

(Slavery) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Freedom)

I prefer to not have my Freedoms eroded any more than they already are. Likewise, I don't want to increase Slavery any more than we have. I get it, it aint black and white. Duh.

If thats all you want, we may well be in agreement   Lets do a quick test.  Right now, you have the right to set up a factory selling auto parts and but you are not allowed to call them "Ford" or "Toyota" 

Do you regard that as a breach of your property rights?

[NghtRppr]

You keep on about slavery as if the prohibition to make a fizzy drink and sell it under the name Coca-Cola was the same as being bound in chains to a galley oar for life.  Its not the same.

Actually, even without intellectual property laws, that would still be illegal. If you sell me Y and claim it's X, that's fraud. I'm the victim though, not Coca-Cola.

[Hawker]

You keep on about slavery as if the prohibition to make a fizzy drink and sell it under the name Coca-Cola was the same as being bound in chains to a galley oar for life.  Its not the same.

Actually, even without intellectual property laws, that would still be illegal. If you sell me Y and claim it's X, that's fraud. I'm the victim though, not Coca-Cola.

So you respect the right to buy and sell branded goods.  Thats trademarks. 

[NghtRppr]

You keep on about slavery as if the prohibition to make a fizzy drink and sell it under the name Coca-Cola was the same as being bound in chains to a galley oar for life.  Its not the same.

Actually, even without intellectual property laws, that would still be illegal. If you sell me Y and claim it's X, that's fraud. I'm the victim though, not Coca-Cola.

So you respect the right to buy and sell branded goods.  Thats trademarks.  

It's a word and the rules apply to it like any others. If you sell me "gasoline" but it's really water, that's fraud. If you sell me "Coca-Cola" but it's really Pepsi, that's fraud. It's a word which has a commonly understood meaning.