Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

To fraud or not defraud.

Contract 1: I offer a knock-off version of a Viagra pill (known to the buyer). I specify that I am the producer thereof, and that I am not representing the Pfizer corporation. Buyer beware.

Outcome 1: No fraud.

Contract 2: I offer a knock-off version of a Viagra Pill (unbeknownst to the buyer). I specify that the pill in my possession was produced by Pfizer, whose company headquarters are located in Midtown Manhattan. However, I am the producer of said knock-off Viagra pill. I deliver my pill, and not the one originating from the Pfizer company as specified by our contract. Hence, no resell/transfer from Pfizer, to me, to buyer has occurred.

Outcome 2: Fraud.

Get it? .  .  .  . I'ts called connect the dots......

Contract 3: Joe runs into the chemist and yells "Mary is gagging for it - gimme Viagra now!!" and gets sold the non-Pfizer Viagra.  Both Joe and Pfizer have been ripped off.

Its called "The big picture".  Who needs dots? :p

[1713858652]

1713858652

[1713858652]

1713858652

[gibson042]

The original maker of Viagra has not being ripped off.  - of course they have.  Money that was meant for the drug they made has gone to someone else.  That is a rip off.

The fraudulent sale in no way affects the assets, inventory, or any other property of Pfizer. It's like you're claiming that they own the potential sale, in which case they might as well sue anyone who intends to buy Viagra but changes eir mind before actually making the purchase.

[Hawker]

The original maker of Viagra has not being ripped off.  - of course they have.  Money that was meant for the drug they made has gone to someone else.  That is a rip off.

The fraudulent sale in no way affects the assets, inventory, or any other property of Pfizer. It's like you're claiming that they own the potential sale, in which case they might as well sue anyone who intends to buy Viagra but changes eir mind before actually making the purchase.

Viagra was made to be sold.  The buyer intended to buy their Viagra.  The money they should have been paid is gone to a cloner.  In their year end accounts, that money will not be included in the revenue figures so when they evaluate their assets, the return on investment will be lower.

That's a very serious affect.  If it happens often enough, the return on investment will fall to the point where it doesn't make sense to do medical research and they will close down. 

[FredericBastiat]

"A free market is a market free from state intervention. However, the term is also commonly used for markets in which economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts."  We buy and sell property, including intellectual property, freely so there is no issue. 

So you admit that the definition of "free market" can be both free and unfree at the same time. Hmm... I think that's what we call a logical fallacy.

Here's a short, but in nowise exhaustive list of fallacies contained in your prior statements.

Irrelevant conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly.
Affirming the consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.
Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.
Fallacy of false cause or non sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."

Try to use a little more logic please however informal it may be.

[Hawker]

I'm Irish.  Is there a free market in Ireland.  Lets look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Index_of_Economic_Freedom_2010.png

Why there is   Good as I like to do my own business and don't want welfare.

Is there robust intellectual property in Ireland?  Why yes Good as I like being paid for my creations.

No contradictions.  If you see a logical fallacy there, the problem is your premise. 

[FredericBastiat]

Viagra was made to be sold.  The buyer intended to buy their Viagra.  The money they should have been paid is gone to a cloner.  In their year end accounts, that money will not be included in the revenue figures so when they evaluate their assets, the return on investment will be lower.

That's a very serious affect.  If it happens often enough, the return on investment will fall to the point where it doesn't make sense to do medical research and they will close down. 

I was made to be rich. I intend to acquire my wealth from you. The money you should give me, you gave to somebody else. My year-end accounts will indicate that that money was not included in my revenue figures when I evaluate my assets. The return on my investment will be lower.

That's a very serious affect. If it happens often enough, the return on my investment will fall to the point where it doesn't make sense for me to attempt to acquire monies from you, therefore I will close down.

You owe me. Now pay up.

[FredericBastiat]

I'm Irish.  Is there a free market in Ireland.  Lets look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Index_of_Economic_Freedom_2010.png

Why there is   Good as I like to do my own business and don't want welfare.

Is there robust intellectual property in Ireland?  Why yes Good as I like being paid for my creations.

No contradictions.  If you see a logical fallacy there, the problem is your premise. 

And I say black is white, the sun don't shine, and gravity goes up, not down. I can say whatever I want, you see. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

[Hawker]

I'm Irish.  Is there a free market in Ireland.  Lets look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Index_of_Economic_Freedom_2010.png

Why there is   Good as I like to do my own business and don't want welfare.

Is there robust intellectual property in Ireland?  Why yes Good as I like being paid for my creations.

No contradictions.  If you see a logical fallacy there, the problem is your premise. 

And I say black is white, the sun don't shine, and gravity goes up, not down. I can say whatever I want, you see. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

And you seem to be doing that.  Your whole premise seems to be "I don't want to recognise intellectual property so I won't.  To hell with everyone else." 

[FredericBastiat]

And you seem to be doing that.  Your whole premise seems to be "I don't want to recognise intellectual property so I won't.  To hell with everyone else."  

Here's the thing. What can be said for certain is that the theory of private property and that of intellectual property conflict. The one affects the other and vice a versa.

They are not independently and mutually exclusive theories.

Intellectual property theory states that anyone can lay a claim to any property, anywhere, and at any time and for virtually any reason, based on it's physical attributes as determined by external agents.

Private property theory states that physical objects can only be legitimately acquired by homesteading or via mutual consent by trade.

Intellectual property laws violate more human rights than private property laws do, hence the reason for rescinding such laws.

[Hawker]

And you seem to be doing that.  Your whole premise seems to be "I don't want to recognise intellectual property so I won't.  To hell with everyone else." 

Here's the thing. What can be said for certain is that the theory of private property and that of intellectual property conflict. The one affects the other and vice a versa.

They are not independently and mutually exclusive theories.

Intellectual property theory states that anyone can lay a claim to any property, anywhere, and at any time and for virutally any reason, based on it's physical attributes as determined by external agents.

Private property theory states that physical objects can only be legitimately acquired by homesteading or via mutual consent by trade.

Intellectual property laws violate more human rights than private property laws do, hence the reason for rescinding such laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights#Types_of_property

As you see there are all kinds of property. Private property is just one.  Where does the ownership come from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights#Thomas_Hobbes_.2817th_century.29

"Hobbes' reflection began with the idea of "giving to every man his own," a phrase he drew from the writings of Cicero. But he wondered: How can anybody call anything his own? He concluded: My own can only truly be mine if there is one unambiguously strongest power in the realm, and that power treats it as mine, protecting its status as such."

This definition hasn't been improved upon and is the part of the basis of Hernando de Soto's work.   

Our society recognises that intellectual property can be owned. Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#Objectives

Because it makes us better off.

You keep trying to pretend that this reality can't make sense but it does.  Everyone understands it.  The system works.   You can go anywhere in the world and buy a can of Coca-Cola and you get what you wanted. We have a super-abundance of good things based on intellectual property. 

You argue that this system which works so well should be abandoned as it breaches your human rights.  What right are you deprived of?  You can't steal someone else's idea.  Nor can you steal their car.  Nor their share certificates.  All are things that you own as part of a social convention.  Unless you can provide a benefit that exceeds the value of the abundance of good things the existing system produces, you idea is pointless as any property rights are based on the benefit to society. 

In short, if you don't like the concept of intellectual property, come up with something that will produce more goods for us as a society.  Arguing that the intellectual property rights that society gave you conflict with the property rights that society gave you is not convincing.  You may as well argue that property is theft and all should be abolished.

[FredericBastiat]

As you see there are all kinds of property. Private property is just one.  Where does the ownership come from?

"Hobbes' reflection began with the idea of "giving to every man his own," a phrase he drew from the writings of Cicero. But he wondered: How can anybody call anything his own? He concluded: My own can only truly be mine if there is one unambiguously strongest power in the realm, and that power treats it as mine, protecting its status as such."

This definition hasn't been improved upon and is the part of the basis of Hernando de Soto's work.  

Our society recognises that intellectual property can be owned. Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#Objectives

Because it makes us better off.

Further down in the wikipedia article it mentions the criticisms of IP. What say you to that? In a way Hobbes is suggesting that a powerful personage in the realm protects my property. Does that mean might makes right only, or that some other reasoning might come in to play?

You keep trying to pretend that this reality can't make sense but it does.  Everyone understands it.  The system works.   You can go anywhere in the world and buy a can of Coca-Cola and you get what you wanted. We have a super-abundance of good things based on intellectual property.  

I understand the rules of a game of basketball, but I don't want to play the game. Do I have to play? Slavery worked pretty well for the cotton plantations in the South too, again and your point? Non sequitur and straw man argument. I may also want a cheaper knock-off can of coke too. If you're offering, I might buy. Abundance can not be equated to IP.

You argue that this system which works so well should be abandoned as it breaches your human rights.  What right are you deprived of?  You can't steal someone else's idea.  Nor can you steal their car.  Nor their share certificates.  All are things that you own as part of a social convention.  Unless you can provide a benefit that exceeds the value of the abundance of good things the existing system produces, you idea is pointless as any property rights are based on the benefit to society.  

I argue that if we were to abandon the system of IP we might have more freedoms and better products and services. Unfortunately very few people, including yourself apparently are unwilling to try it. Selfish narrow mindedness.

You would be right I can't steal someone's idea, but only because there's nothing to steal. I am under no obligation to provide you or anybody else a benefit I don't think they rightly deserve. I owe them non-aggression at most.

In short, if you don't like the concept of intellectual property, come up with something that will produce more goods for us as a society.  Arguing that the intellectual property rights that society gave you conflict with the property rights that society gave you is not convincing.  You may as well argue that property is theft and all should be abolished.

I'm arguing that the enforcement of IP laws is theft. I wish to maintain that private property is a tangible thing exclusively owned by the person who consensually bargained for it or homesteaded it. Nothing more, nothing less.

[gibson042]

In short, if you don't like the concept of intellectual property, come up with something that will produce more goods for us as a society.  Arguing that the intellectual property rights that society gave you conflict with the property rights that society gave you is not convincing.  You may as well argue that property is theft and all should be abolished.

There it is, naked and ugly. You have the right to do only what the masses—or rather, the group of people claiming to represent "society"—will not forcefully prevent you from doing. No reason. No consistency. No principle. Just the might of a few amoral people with costumes and the apathy or fear of everyone else.

[NghtRppr]

Bitcoin2cash - thats an implementation issue in your country. Here in the UK things work fine.

Evidence? Show me some numbers or I'll have to assume that western medicine is pretty much similar.

[Hawker]

In short, if you don't like the concept of intellectual property, come up with something that will produce more goods for us as a society.  Arguing that the intellectual property rights that society gave you conflict with the property rights that society gave you is not convincing.  You may as well argue that property is theft and all should be abolished.

There it is, naked and ugly. You have the right to do only what the masses—or rather, the group of people claiming to represent "society"—will not forcefully prevent you from doing. No reason. No consistency. No principle. Just the might of a few amoral people with costumes and the apathy or fear of everyone else.

Thats the way life works.  If you want to restrict yourself to physical property, consider visiting these places; Eastern Turkey, Israel and Northern Cyprus.  In each you have prosperous successful people who own their own land.  They have title papers and by any definition of ownership, this is theirs.  But across the borders, there are other people who have title deeds to the same property and in the cases of the Greek Cypriots, often still have the keys of the doors of the houses they left behind as they fled for their lives in 1974.

My question to you is this; which owners are the "real" owners.  My personal view is that ownership is something that comes from the society and if you can't enforce your claim, then you don't actually own anything.  Do you have some less "naked and ugly" view?

[hashman]

k.   

Our society recognises that intellectual property can be owned.

Hogwash.  What person really believes that the fictitious person "time warner" really owns the song happy birthday, and has a legitimate grievance if you sing it?  You claim society recognizes that as some kind of legitimate ownership?  What person believes that Microsoft will be able to prevent people from using old versions of XP they downloaded?  I know they wouldn't want to prevent that, but I think most people realize they couldn't anyway.  What portion of society is morally outraged when you photocopy a piece of sheet music for your class?     
 
Society recognizes that we have backwards laws which can from time to time be taken advantage of for personal short-term gain.  It is 100% clear that the only way to keep ideas "owned" is to not publish them.  Once they are public, claims of ownership are basically ludicrous but sometimes still accepted in corrupt courts. 

k.   

[]..Because it makes us better off.

Somehow your claim here without any example is not as compelling to me as articles by e.g. the Economist, inventors, musicians, researchers, and a growing chorus of people from all walks of life screaming how so-called IP laws make us MUCH WORSE OFF.  Medically, academically, technologically, economically, and ecologically IP laws have been DEVASTATING.  Seriously.  Don't take my word for it, read about it and think it through.     

k.   

You keep trying to pretend that this reality can't make sense but it does.  Everyone understands it.  The system works.   You can go anywhere in the world and buy a can of Coca-Cola and you get what you wanted.

You get what you wanted if indeed the bottler put what you expected and what they claimed into the bottle.  If not, they committed fraud.  This has nothing to do with Intellectual Property.  Budweiser of Czech is not committing fraud, they have a product also named "Budweiser" and they tell you it was brewed in the Czech republic.  Do you agree with the IP lawyers who don't think that should be legal?   

k.   

We have a super-abundance of good things based on intellectual property. 

You might as well claim that we have a super-abundance of good things because you prayed for them on sunday.  The same quality of evidence exists backing up that statement.   

In short, if you don't like the concept of intellectual property, come up with something that will produce more goods for us as a society. 

OK: here's something.  Abolition of IP laws.  That would clearly produce more goods for us as a society.  The proof is trivial: IP laws explicity prevent production, allowing only one party (the monopoly) to produce in a given area.  Opening up production to other parties could only encourage production of goods. 

       


 

[Hawker]

hashman you are confusing 2 issues; namely ownership and enforcement.

As you say, a company would be idiotic to make a lawsuit over someone copying a sheet of music or a single song file.  The enforcement cost would exceed the value.  But someone were to make many photocopies of many sheets and start selling the copies, it might be worth it.  Thats an enforcement question - the ownership is not in doubt.

Right now, Bioware is investing $150 million in a game called Star Wars: The Old Republic.  If you are into gaming, its launch may well the the gaming event of the decade.  Could they make that investment if there was no Star Wars brand that people love and no way to protect themselves from illegal copies after they launch? I would content they need that intellectual property protection in order to have a viable business model.  And people like it...branded goods make people happy.  An abstract freedom to make copies of other people's creations won't make many people feel half as good.

[gibson042]

Thats the way life works.  If you want to restrict yourself to physical property, consider visiting these places; Eastern Turkey, Israel and Northern Cyprus.  In each you have prosperous successful people who own their own land.  They have title papers and by any definition of ownership, this is theirs.  But across the borders, there are other people who have title deeds to the same property and in the cases of the Greek Cypriots, often still have the keys of the doors of the houses they left behind as they fled for their lives in 1974.

My question to you is this; which owners are the "real" owners.  My personal view is that ownership is something that comes from the society and if you can't enforce your claim, then you don't actually own anything.  Do you have some less "naked and ugly" view?

The part in bold is factually correct, but the preceding clause is not; it is possible for those with enough might to enforce "ownership" claims against the wishes of most members of society (e.g., copyright extension, bank bailouts, deepwater drilling, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, and a host of tragedies of the commons).

However:

I want everyone to witness the rhetorical retreat of Hawker, who began by claiming that force ought to be initiated against those who discredit the concept of intellectual property, and now merely notes that force is used in an essentially arbitrary fashion by people who purport to act on behalf of "society".

There are lots of nasty things that people do. If your defense of a position is that you can find people willing and able to employ violence upon those who don't share it, then I suppose chattel slavery only became wrong after the Enlightenment... and let us hope that "society" never again condone with their collective might outright ownership of people—rather, let us push "society" into further abandoning even the watered-down serfdom that subjugates everyone under a monopoly government.

Which brings me to a direct answer of your request. I advocate that people not employ force against those who implement the ideas of others with their own materials, though they may publicly or privately shame, censure, or ostracize the "pirates" if so inclined. It is a specialization of the more general principle that people ought always repair the damage caused when they escalate the level of force. The more this ideal is adhered to, the less ugly the world will be.

[Hawker]

gibson042 my question was 'which owners are the "real" owners?'  The present day Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?

[FredericBastiat]

gibson042 my question was 'which owners are the "real" owners?'  The present day Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?

You might be splitting hairs here. No doubt the present day Turks/Israelies are the current "possessors" of the land they squat, but that in and of itself doesn't make them the owners per se. Ownership should imply one of two things. One, that they homesteaded an abandoned piece of land, or two they acquired the land via contract (non-coerced, non-violent).

So while it is necessary from time to time to defend ones property from invaders, the act of doing so is not prima facie evidence that you're the legitimate owner. I could go to Times Square and set up a bunker in the middle of the street, arm it to the teeth, and hold everybody at bay for weeks. However, even for that brief period of time while I was holding out, it is certain I'm not the owner of said land I occupied.

Ownership and expropriation (or even occupier and possessor) are different concepts. An auditable paper trail or chain of custody, may illuminate the situation for the Cypriots. It could reveal the true owners. Reuniting property with owner might be a bit tricky though.

[Hawker]

gibson042 my question was 'which owners are the "real" owners?'  The present day Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?

You might be splitting hairs here. No doubt the present day Turks/Israelies are the current "possessors" of the land they squat, but that in and of itself doesn't make them the owners per se. Ownership should imply one of two things. One, that they homesteaded an abandoned piece of land, or two they acquired the land via contract (non-coerced, non-violent).

So while it is necessary from time to time to defend ones property from invaders, the act of doing so is not prima facie evidence that you're the legitimate owner. I could go to Times Square and set up a bunker in the middle of the street, arm it to the teeth, and hold everybody at bay for weeks. However, even for that brief period of time while I was holding out, it is certain I'm not the owner of said land I occupied.

Ownership and expropriation (or even occupier and possessor) are different concepts. An auditable paper trail or chain of custody, may illuminate the situation for the Cypriots. It could reveal the true owners. Reuniting property with owner might be a bit tricky though.

You haven't answered.  Who is the legitimate owner -Turks and Israelis or the descendents of the dispossessed Armenians, Arabs and Greeks?