Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Karmicads]

TL;DR

I'll break it down for you then. It means 'You're full of shit. I win. End of debate.'

You can have the last word but I'm still unconvinced of your position.

You're still unconvinced of my position, because you choose to be. You cant be convinced of a position you haven't considered.

If that's what you call winning, sure.

In case you failed to detect my attempt at cynicism/sarcasm/irony, I'll point out that I have no investment in a petty adversarial competition to win (as it particularly appears to be posited in your case). My concept of debating, is rather to seek a dialectic and attempt to reach agreement. In such a mode, if I disagree on a matter and point it out to you, it is for your benefit, if you wish to have any of your misconceptions pointed out and stand corrected. I may have been my mistake to credit you (or give the benefit of the doubt to you) with the maturity and intellectual integrity, to be earnestly interested in what the other fellow has to say, so as to test your own assumptions.

Argumentum Verbosium (Proof by Verbosity). It refers to an argument that is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly presented by the arguer that you are obliged to accept it, simply to avoid being forced to sift through its minute details.

Again we see your petulant appeal to 'proof' and this caricaturisation of the debate in the adversarial mode. One could easily post a thread proclaiming "read this before having an opinion on philosophy and critical thinking", then offered a link to some Socrates. You'd do well to actually read some philosophy, before foisting your pretentious attitude and deliberating on it. You could easily be the very persona of Euthyphro himself. In the post you didn't read I had this to say, about the self-righteous adversarial mode of debate and the 'I'm right cos you're wrong' mentality:

Since you admittedly can't prove whether intellectual property laws are helpful or harmful, it's irresponsible to advocate them. You're like the religious person that says, "You can't prove God doesn't exist."

Intelligent people, with some understanding of critical thinking and epistemology, don't tend to posit claims in terms of absolute fact nor speak of proof as if it were infallible certainty. 'Proof is for mathematicians and alcohol' goes a wise saying in philosophy. Primary school children quibble about 'proof'. Religious nuts think it's ever so important. I admittedly can't PROVE that the sun will appear tomorrow. I deliberately surrender the goal of perfect certitude, so that I have room to doubt, even my own tentative convictions. Anybody who is perfectly certain, is in no position to change their mind. Instead I consider all things as matters of relative probability.

Since I'm not the one demanding conclusive proof of anything and have willingly considered every argument put forward and presented my own with abundant evidence, your claim to the upper hand in stakes for convincing reason are somewhat premature. Firstly lets clarify that the measures you posit of helpful or harmful are hardly tangible scientific variables to be quantified like rainfall. Even if we could agree on tangible measures for what constitutes help or harm and a calibrated scale to compare them, we would then have to find the empirical means to find data and test them. As far a valid epistemological claim, to the 'burden of proof' you have rushed in to claim priority amidst our mutual dearth of objective evidence.  Who has the burden of proof, depends on whether we choose to test for evidence of harm or help, since they may both manifest for separate reasons, they are independently variable. Which one represents 'god' depends which side of the coin we are looking at.

[1714147557]

1714147557

[1714147557]

1714147557

[1714147557]

1714147557

[NghtRppr]

You'd do well to actually read some philosophy, before foisting your pretentious attitude and deliberating on it.

I've studied philosophy at Oxford University. I've probably read more philosophical works than you have. I don't care to argue about that though because it's pointless and childish. The point is, I'm well versed in philosophy.

Intelligent people, with some understanding of critical thinking and epistemology, don't tend to posit claims in terms of absolute fact nor speak of proof as if it were infallible certainty.

I'm not asking for proof in the mathematical sense. You'd think that would be obvious since we aren't discussing mathematics.

You seem to act as if it's a mistake to speak about truth or falsity. Yet, if you were to say that the sun will shine tomorrow, and it doesn't, you've said something false. Why? Because you weren't stating a personal preference. You were making a claim about reality. I would assume that the result of intellectual property laws is also a claim about reality. Whatever criteria we give for being better or worse off, that is something you can be right or wrong about. Otherwise, what's the point of debating their merit? Since you can't prove that we're better off by some reasonable criteria, it's irresponsible to advocate them. That's not being adversarial. That's being rational. We can't just agree to disagree about the state of reality. There is a right or wrong when it comes to that.

proof/pro͞of/
Noun: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

You're the one that seems to fail to grasp this definition. Try to follow the principle of charity before implying I'm unintelligent or don't know much about philosophy. Better yet, just keep the childish insults to yourself.

[FredericBastiat]

THE LAW

Men, Women, Agent(s), Person(s), and Life collectively or individually have synonymous equivalent meaning herein. De facto entrusted crucially dependent Life admits safe guardianship or conveyance thereto.
1.   All men are equal in Rights.
  1.1.   All men are intrinsically free, whose expression when manifest, admits autonomy.
  1.2.   Rights exist because man exists (consequent to Life).
  1.3.   Rights are inalienable and inherent, hence discovered not created.
  1.4.   Man commits autonomous choices apart from all other men.
2.   Rights are defined as the Liberty to control, secure and defend one’s Property and Life.
3.   Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything not in violation of other’s Rights.
4.   Rights Violations are unprovoked physical aggressions (UPAs) initiated by man against another, or Breaches of Contract (BOCs), resulting in an incontrovertible diminishment in one’s Rights.
  4.1.   UPAs are non-consenting acts which cause an Object (Property or Life) to undergo a transferred or transformed change to the Object’s original energy state or condition.
  4.2.   Energy transfer to/from an Object or energy transformation of the Object occurs by means of three ways, namely: thermodynamic work, heat transfer, or mass transfer.
  4.3.   Contracts are compulsory promissory agreements involving Property or Life (and specific performances or forbearances therewith) between mutually consenting men.
  4.4.   Misrepresentation of Contract obligations or BOCs resulting in misappropriation of Property or Life, or expenditures related thereto, is subject to Rights Violations.
5.   Property can be anything comprised of physical material matter (PMM).
6.   Property is the exclusive non-simultaneous possession or dominion of discrete PMM.
  6.1.   Unconstrained/non-delimited/uncontrolled PMM (UPMM), UPMM effusions or energy transmissions, are not Property; they are ownerless nonexclusive UPMM or Emissions thereof, until physically made to become otherwise.
 6.2.   A Property’s inertial reference frame, dimensions, Emissions/Emitters, usage and genesis thereof, define and constitute its Property Scope Ambit (PSA).
  6.3.   PSAs that initiate tangible material perturbations which intersect or preclude another’s preexisting or antecedent PSAs may be subject to Rights Violations.
6.4.   Preexisting antecedent unconstrained Emitters cannot proscribe the receipt of similar, both in magnitude and direction, intersecting Emissions Flux.
  6.5.   Property cannot transform into something extracorporeal, extrinsic or compulsory due to the manipulation or interpretation of its PMM composition.
  6.6.   Absent Contract and Force, Property or Life of one man shall not control, compel or impede Property or Life of another.
  6.7.   Unintentional personal ingress vouchsafes unimpeded passage and egress.
7.   Force is the means –proportionate to the aggression– to obstruct, inhibit or extirpate the Rights of any man who interferes with or imminently threatens the Rights of other men.
  7.1.   Force can only be applied to resolve Rights Violations and is consequently just.
  7.2.   Man, or an Agent to man, must ascertain that a Rights Violation has occurred.
  7.3.   Man is severally liable and accountable for solely his Rights Violations a posteriori.
8.   Justice, viz., lawfulness effectuates disjunctive Rights between men.
9.    That which is neither just nor lawful is Violence and imperils the Rights of man.
10.   Violence causes inequality (unequal in Rights of man) and is forbidden.


If you disagree with any of the above you might not be Libertarian. I'm not siding with anybody here specifically, but I think the above is what bitcoin2cash was trying to get at without having to give an entire discourse on Libertarianism. That might be speaking out of turn, but I think it's relatively accurate considering his past posts.

[Hawker]

1.1.   All men are intrinsically free, whose expression when manifest, admits autonomy.

Autonomy? Man is a social animal and where there are humans, there is always a society.  Autonomy is a long way down the manifest expressions of human nature.

[FredericBastiat]

1.1.   All men are intrinsically free, whose expression when manifest, admits autonomy.

Autonomy? Man is a social animal and where there are humans, there is always a society.  Autonomy is a long way down the manifest expressions of human nature.

There are obviously many expressions humans can possess, autonomy just happens to be one of them. It isn't the only one, of course. In fact it is probably one of the fundamental expressions upon which many of the other expressions can exist. Without autonomy, man could (and still does) enslave another man thereby diminishing or prohibiting other types of expressions that would exist were he "freer".

[Hawker]

1.1.   All men are intrinsically free, whose expression when manifest, admits autonomy.

Autonomy? Man is a social animal and where there are humans, there is always a society.  Autonomy is a long way down the manifest expressions of human nature.

There are obviously many expressions humans can possess, autonomy just happens to be one of them. It isn't the only one, of course. In fact it is probably one of the fundamental expressions upon which many of the other expressions can exist. Without autonomy, man could (and still does) enslave another man thereby diminishing or prohibiting other types of expressions that would exist were he "freer".

Ah, so your "1.1.   All men are intrinsically free, whose expression when manifest, admits autonomy." is a statement of how you'd like it to be rather than a kind of logical deduction.  As an ideal its OK but don't you think its a bit limited?  Family, community, society and law seem to be missing from your deductions because you start off by isolating the individual in a wholly unnatural way.  By the time you get to "5.   Property can be anything comprised of physical material matter (PMM)." its simply wrong.  I employ programmers and I sell their product of their labour.  Its software, its not physical so by your logic I have no property to sell and should fire them.  Whereas if you start off with the fact that all of us existing in communities and that we, as a community, can make agreements as to what is and is not property, you reach an entirely different and fairer conclusion.  If a programming team creates a product that the free market values, anyone trying to destroy that product is guilty of what you call a Rights Violation.

[fergalish]

I would assume that the result of intellectual property laws is also a claim about reality. Whatever criteria we give for being better or worse off, that is something you can be right or wrong about. Otherwise, what's the point of debating their merit? Since you can't prove that we're better off by some reasonable criteria, it's irresponsible to advocate them. That's not being adversarial. That's being rational. We can't just agree to disagree about the state of reality. There is a right or wrong when it comes to that.

I think both of you have read more philosophy than me, but I think that quantifying how good a law is, is far, far, far from trivial.  It even depends on your philosophical outlook on politics - does politics serve a utilitarian end?  Or another end (can't remember the names of the alternatives).

Then, suppose some law introduced will cause, let's say, more people of type X than type Y to suffer (e.g. male/female, tall/short, left-/right-handed, black/white, christian/muslim, whatever, pick your favourite divide).  The valuation will be strongly dependent on the political institutions at the time.  800 years ago a law that persecuted non-Catholics would have been viewed favourably.  200 years ago it was the opposite.  Think blacks just 100 years ago.

Then once you've established the "ratings" for different types of people, you have to evaluate the effects the new law will have on each type.  And society is such a complex beast, that I'll bet there's just about *no way* to predict the goodness of a law for all but the most simple of laws (simple, as in, "everybody shall drive on the left").

In short, if it's not possible anyway to *objectively* ascertain the goodness of a law, then the second best solution is just what you say - agree to disagree.  And unless there is overwhelming demand (read: revolution) to revoke or institute a new law, then the status quo is probably as close to the best you can be reasonably expected to obtain ("best" as in maximum goodness over the whole population subject to that law).

[FredericBastiat]

Ah, so your "1.1.   All men are intrinsically free, whose expression when manifest, admits autonomy." is a statement of how you'd like it to be rather than a kind of logical deduction.  As an ideal its OK but don't you think its a bit limited?  Family, community, society and law seem to be missing from your deductions because you start off by isolating the individual in a wholly unnatural way.  By the time you get to "5.   Property can be anything comprised of physical material matter (PMM)." its simply wrong.  I employ programmers and I sell their product of their labour.  Its software, its not physical so by your logic I have no property to sell and should fire them.  Whereas if you start off with the fact that all of us existing in communities and that we, as a community, can make agreements as to what is and is not property, you reach an entirely different and fairer conclusion.  If a programming team creates a product that the free market values, anyone trying to destroy that product is guilty of what you call a Rights Violation.

First, society is comprised of individuals. Seems like an obvious place to start due to its atomic nature. I don't see how anybody could have many rights, or any at all, if they don't have autonomy. Did you read (3.)? That line is practically limitless I would think. I fit a lot of possibilities into that statement (axiom).

If "things" aren't comprised of physical material matter, how on earth could you observe them, much less describe their characteristics? The product of a persons labor is comprised of PMM. We learn this in the first few presentations given in basic physics classes. And finally yes, anybody who attempts to take another man's PMM from him to destroy it or steal it would be guilty of Rights Violations. Seems we're in agreement.

[Hawker]

Ah, so your "1.1.   All men are intrinsically free, whose expression when manifest, admits autonomy." is a statement of how you'd like it to be rather than a kind of logical deduction.  As an ideal its OK but don't you think its a bit limited?  Family, community, society and law seem to be missing from your deductions because you start off by isolating the individual in a wholly unnatural way.  By the time you get to "5.   Property can be anything comprised of physical material matter (PMM)." its simply wrong.  I employ programmers and I sell their product of their labour.  Its software, its not physical so by your logic I have no property to sell and should fire them.  Whereas if you start off with the fact that all of us existing in communities and that we, as a community, can make agreements as to what is and is not property, you reach an entirely different and fairer conclusion.  If a programming team creates a product that the free market values, anyone trying to destroy that product is guilty of what you call a Rights Violation.

First, society is comprised of individuals. Seems like an obvious place to start due to its atomic nature. I don't see how anybody could have many rights, or any at all, if they don't have autonomy. Did you read (3.)? That line is practically limitless I would think. I fit a lot of possibilities into that statement (axiom).

If "things" aren't comprised of physical material matter, how on earth could you observe them, much less describe their characteristics? The product of a persons labor is comprised of PMM. We learn this in the first few presentations given in basic physics classes. And finally yes, anybody who attempts to take another man's PMM from him to destroy it or steal it would be guilty of Rights Violations. Seems we're in agreement.

You've confused "things" with property as described in  "5.   Property can be anything comprised of physical material matter (PMM)."  Software, medicine, movies, and a TV show format are all examples of property that is a not a physical material thing.  Yet all have value and are observed, described, bought and sold every day.  I think the reason for your confusion is that you have omitted the role of society.  We exist as social beings and are capable of creating value from group activities that have no physical material.

[FredericBastiat]

Hawker,

All things are made of PMM or they are nothing. Medicine cannot help you with your ailment if the cure wasn't comprised of PMM. A television show (its content) isn't very useful without the television set. Software without some computing platform has little utility to the user. It is only as these "abstractions" are attached to the real world in some way that they have value.

And in fact, they're all connected to the world of reality. The software, TV content, and medicinal theory are all "stored" somewhere before they are applied in the desired way. These stored things (abstractions of sorts) can also be considered valuable. All of those locations, including in the mind, had some connection to PMM. Duh!

I have no confusion about society. Society, used as an analogy, is just like a forest. A forest is comprised of trees just like society is comprised of people. Society is just an abstract term. I'm not confused about the role of society, if there even is such a thing. The "role" society "plays" is just a measure of the sum total of actions the individuals contribute to the whole. So what? I'm not a collectivist and never will be. I believe I have basic human rights, I don't believe in societal rights. I'm not beholden to society (other than non-aggression) to do anything for them. "Society" cannot, or more accurately should not, force me to do their bidding (I hope you weren't implying this).

A few examples to whet the appetite:

1.) Two or more persons can exchange smiles for a price. Did they exchange anything material? No, they performed an action. In actuality they exchanged reflected or emitted photons of a specific wavelength, but now were just splitting hairs. They had to use PMM to do it (the muscles in their face), but again so what.

2.) One computer transmits combinations of bits (1's and 0's) from one computer to another. These voltage levels or potentials are interpreted to mean a specific software program.

Can you find value in these exchanges? It seems you can. You personally contract with that person(s) for those things or for those actions you want performed. On the other hand, your actions, performances, or PMM compositions cannot bind others who are not privy to the terms or who have not given their consent. This would be a violation of the basic premise of contract. It also violates private property rights. Either you own an object or you don't. If you don't, might (independent of justice) makes right. If you believe that, then we're just in an arms race, where those who can apply the most force more often will maintain their possessions the longest. But, if that's the case, we can just dispense with right and wrong and just go with the animal kingdom. Prey and predator. Kill or be killed. Eat or be eaten.

If you read (4.3) it mentions performances or services as possible contractual objective outcomes, and thus legitimate. It is even possible to be paid to forbear from an action. I'm pretty sure I haven't missed much. Keep shooting though. There might be something...

[Hawker]

Hawker,

All things are made of PMM or they are nothing. Medicine cannot help you with your ailment if the cure wasn't comprised of PMM. ...snip...

Forgive me if I snip the rest of your post but I have to stop you there.  Medicine is primarily intellectual property.  If a company spends $1 million on research to make a drug and that drug works, the tablets will cost cents to make but the company will at least charge enough to recover its investment and make a profit.  

If you don't believe that medicine if primarily intellectual property, consider the case if another company is allowed to buy that tablet, work out the ingredients and sell it for a few cents.  They can do this because they do not have a $1 million investment to recover.  And if that is allowed, no-one will ever invest the $1 million.  That logic leads to no new medicines.

Now you may feel that is a fine outcome.  But the decision is not yours.  We exist as a society, we have a need for new medicines and our legal system creates an incentive for people to invest in medical research.  That is why intellectual property exists.

The reason this matters is that if you kid yourself that the medicine is just tablets, or the software is just electrons, or that a movie is just celluloid, you ignore the true value.  And if you propose a society that ignores this value, you have to explain why we don't need medical research, why we can't have movies that cost $100s of millions or software that makes our life easier.  You may find that people regard you as imposing yourself on their freedom to create a society that has all these good things.  

EDIT: As an aside, comparing society to a forest with individuals as trees is wrong headed.  Forests don't make decisions.  Societies do. 

[fergalish]

All things are made of PMM or they are nothing. Medicine cannot help you with your ailment if the cure wasn't comprised of PMM. A television show (its content) isn't very useful without the television set. Software without some computing platform has little utility to the user. It is only as these "abstractions" are attached to the real world in some way that they have value.

Computer software without a computer is as useless as a computer without computer software.  By this (your) argument, computer software is as important as the computer itself and is therefore just as deserving of remuneration.  It's hard to believe that you have seriously considered the implications of what you're writing and yet fail to see this obvious contradiction.

[fergalish]

I have no confusion about society. Society, used as an analogy, is just like a forest. A forest is comprised of trees just like society is comprised of people. Society is just an abstract term. I'm not confused about the role of society, if there even is such a thing. The "role" society "plays" is just a measure of the sum total of actions the individuals contribute to the whole. So what? I'm not a collectivist and never will be. I believe I have basic human rights, I don't believe in societal rights. I'm not beholden to society (other than non-aggression) to do anything for them. "Society" cannot, or more accurately should not, force me to do their bidding (I hope you weren't implying this).

Beg your pardon, but this is also pretty ridiculous.  I work in the field of complexity and, believe me, there are many many situations where the whole is more than the sum of the parts.  To say that society is just a sum of individuals is like saying a brain is just a sum of neurons, traffic is just a sum of vehicles, a DNA strand in a cell is just a sum of genotypes, an economy is just a sum of 'rational' traders, an ecology just a sum of species and so on.  It ignores the sheer complexity of the interactions between the individual agents in the system.  Interactions which are often very unpredictable and counter-intuitive.

Traffic is perhaps the easiest system to give a simple example.  Obviously every driver in isolation will try to go as fast as possible - they will search to minimise their transit time.  This does not translate well to the overall traffic system.  When a person reduces their transit time, it generally increases the transit time for everyone else such that the overall flux is reduced.  Benefit obtained is less than overall cost.

Similarly in, let's say, an ecology.  You might think that killing the tigers would help the deer thrive.  But then something else (e.g. leopards, whatever), no longer checked by the tiger, will step into the tigers' shoes and be even more effective at killing deer.  And that's an example with just a couple of degrees of separation: tiger-deer-leopards, and it would be hard enough to predict.  Imagine trying to predict an effect with 5 or 10 degrees of separation.

Society is a complete description of it's members.  And the laws it makes are those rules by which the society, at some point, agreed it's members shall be bound.  I remember there was a similar discussion some time ago, and I proposed the question: what if, in Libya, the interim government should propose a new constitution and set of laws, and this was greeted with cheering in the streets and general popular approval all over the country.  Do you then think that the children, and grand children, of those expressing their approval now, should be bound by those laws even after 100 years or more?  (bearing in mind that laws should and can be changed from time to time, in order to reflect changes in culture, technology etc).  Even more importantly, do you think that those who do not approve of some or all of the new government's proposed constitution and legislation, should be bound by it anyway?

I didn't get a reply to that at the time...

[FredericBastiat]

Hawker,

Doing anything requires effort (energy and materials). Some products and services require more effort than others to manufacture and distribute. Why should there be any special privileges given to some "inventions" or "discoveries" over others?

Your intellectual property has some problems, namely: It violates or nullifies private property rights. It censors speech and other types of expression. It violates contract. And ultimately it manipulates free markets.

Private Property: The right of property is simply the right of dominion. It is the right, which one man has, as against all other men, to the exclusive control, dominion, use, and enjoyment of any particular thing. The principle of property is, that a thing belongs to one man, and not to another —mine, and thine, and his, are the terms that convey the idea of property.

Here's a few questions:

Can you have private property coexist with intellectual property without imposing your will on other people?

If a contract is mutual consent between 2+ persons, and their property has the appearance and likeness of your property how do you not affect their contract?

If an individual wants to express himself in a similar manner to you, or to provide presentations which mimic yours, how do you not censor their speech/expression if you find it offensive?

If a free market is a market of freely exchanging individuals for products and services, how can you prohibit any type of expression or composition of matter without simultaneously removing or diminishing competition thru the use of monopoly privilege?

Is the current rendition of intellectual property incongruous with the tenets of private property, or is private property something else altogether?

Why does government (or anybody else) need to decide what characteristics private property has when their opinions and definitions don't change the outcome of the PMM itself?

Is not intellectual property effectively a body of law comprised of prohibitions and penalties associated with the characteristics and descriptions other individuals property appear to convey?

Do you want private property, contract, free markets, and freedom of speech?

[FredericBastiat]

Computer software without a computer is as useless as a computer without computer software.  By this (your) argument, computer software is as important as the computer itself and is therefore just as deserving of remuneration.  It's hard to believe that you have seriously considered the implications of what you're writing and yet fail to see this obvious contradiction.

I never said anything was of equal importance, only that software which is removed from the computing environment in which it is used, typically has less value (in my mind). I can have a pile of software CD's and no computer and not get much personal utility out of it. I never said the software itself was worthless.

I also said nothing of remunerations except to mention that whatever you can bargain or negotiate for, is what you get. If your price isn't right...

It's for the most part, about the contract. Contracts are about mutual consent betwixt persons of interest. Contracts are not between me and someone not privy to the terms. That's all I was trying to convey.

I see no contradictions anywhere.

[FredericBastiat]

Beg your pardon, but this is also pretty ridiculous...

Traffic is perhaps the easiest system to give a simple example...

Society is a complete description of it's members.  And the laws it makes are those rules by which the society, at some point, agreed it's members shall be bound.  I remember there was a similar discussion some time ago, and I proposed the question: what if, in Libya, the interim government should propose a new constitution and set of laws, and this was greeted with cheering in the streets and general popular approval all over the country.  Do you then think that the children, and grand children, of those expressing their approval now, should be bound by those laws even after 100 years or more?  (bearing in mind that laws should and can be changed from time to time, in order to reflect changes in culture, technology etc).  Even more importantly, do you think that those who do not approve of some or all of the new government's proposed constitution and legislation, should be bound by it anyway?

Of course, society describes its members. So what. Just because a group of people does something doesn't inherently make it right or wrong.

We could bring back slavery. I could make a law that all geriatric men and women be killed because they are a "drain" on society. I could make any substance illicit with the stroke of a pen. I could give privileges to anybody in any industry so as to reduce competition. I could put a star of david on your arm and send you to the gulag. I could do lots of things...

Quoting a true intellectual (sorry not sure who he is as I lost the reference):

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

Is that crystal clear enough for you?

[Hawker]

Hawker,

Doing anything requires effort (energy and materials). Some products and services require more effort than others to manufacture and distribute. Why should there be any special privileges given to some "inventions" or "discoveries" over others?

Your intellectual property has some problems, namely: It violates or nullifies private property rights. It censors speech and other types of expression. It violates contract. And ultimately it manipulates free markets.

Private Property: The right of property is simply the right of dominion. It is the right, which one man has, as against all other men, to the exclusive control, dominion, use, and enjoyment of any particular thing. The principle of property is, that a thing belongs to one man, and not to another —mine, and thine, and his, are the terms that convey the idea of property.

Here's a few questions:

Can you have private property coexist with intellectual property without imposing your will on other people?

If a contract is mutual consent between 2+ persons, and their property has the appearance and likeness of your property how do you not affect their contract?

If an individual wants to express himself in a similar manner to you, or to provide presentations which mimic yours, how do you not censor their speech/expression if you find it offensive?

If a free market is a market of freely exchanging individuals for products and services, how can you prohibit any type of expression or composition of matter without simultaneously removing or diminishing competition thru the use of monopoly privilege?

Is the current rendition of intellectual property incongruous with the tenets of private property, or is private property something else altogether?

Why does government (or anybody else) need to decide what characteristics private property has when their opinions and definitions don't change the outcome of the PMM itself?

Is not intellectual property effectively a body of law comprised of prohibitions and penalties associated with the characteristics and descriptions other individuals property appear to convey?

Do you want private property, contract, free markets, and freedom of speech?

Frederic its nothing to do with contracts.  A contract is between 2 people.  Its to do with society.  Your idea of freedom is important.  So is the idea of research that leads to innovation like new medicines.  A society must balance individual freedom and the collective value that comes from innovation.  Protection of intellectual property is the mechanism chosen for making that balance.  You are free to create a chemical factory.  You are free to invest in scientists and to develop a new drug.  You can sell it at any price you want.  What you are not free to do is create a chemical factory and copy a drug that someone else has paid for the research for.  That is stealing.

[FredericBastiat]

Hawker,

I see you didn't feel the need to answer my questions. A bit too revealing perhaps?

Define stealing. Try to be concise.

[Hawker]

Hawker,

I see you didn't feel the need to answer my questions. A bit too revealing perhaps?

Define stealing. Try to be concise.

On the internet, its best have 1 point per post   So I deal with the first point you made.  No idea why you are asking about contracts or free markets - there is no free market if there are no property rights. 

steal/stēl/
Verb: Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it

We, as a society, have decided that we want innovation.  For example, we want new and better medicines and we want people to invest millions making those medicines.

Your first question is "Can you have private property coexist with intellectual property without imposing your will on other people?"

Yes of course.  If you have a trademarked property, for example a new cancer treatment, and someone is making bootleg copies of it, you can contact the authorities and they will close his operation down.  No need to impose your will - all you need to do is defend your property rights.

[FredericBastiat]

A few revealing quotes:

"There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because the law makes them so." --Frederic Bastiat.

"It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons or property, since they preexist, and his work is only to secure them from injury. It is not true that the mission of law is to regulate our consciences, our exchanges, our gifts, our enjoyments. Its mission is to prevent the rights of one from interfering with those of another, in any one of these things." -- Frederic Bastiat.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent "moral" busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." --C.S. Lewis

"The harm done by ordinary criminals, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional "do-gooders," who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others -with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means"

"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 on 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."