Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

I'm happy to talk about that and I suspect we will broadly agree, especially if you read the Sambia research.  But would you mind starting a thread for it?  This is for Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

Hilarious! You're the one who brought up your child molestation fetish.

Yes - as it illustrates why society has a right to intervene to prevent harm.  Sometimes a change of scenery is needed to make people see the bigger picture.

[1714789376]

1714789376

[1714789376]

1714789376

[1714789376]

1714789376

[BitterTea]

I'm happy to talk about that and I suspect we will broadly agree, especially if you read the Sambia research.  But would you mind starting a thread for it?  This is for Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

Hilarious! You're the one who brought up your child molestation fetish.

Yes - as it illustrates why society has a right to intervene to prevent harm.  Sometimes a change of scenery is needed to make people see the bigger picture.

So you make the claim that "society" gets to use violence to "prevent harm", yet any discussion on the definition of "society" or the determination of "harm" is off topic. gg

[Hawker]

I'm happy to talk about that and I suspect we will broadly agree, especially if you read the Sambia research.  But would you mind starting a thread for it?  This is for Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

Hilarious! You're the one who brought up your child molestation fetish.

Yes - as it illustrates why society has a right to intervene to prevent harm.  Sometimes a change of scenery is needed to make people see the bigger picture.

So you make the claim that "society" gets to use violence to "prevent harm", yet any discussion on the definition of "society" or the determination of "harm" is off topic. gg

Society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society#In_political_science
Harm: isn't that what we discussed in the context of choosing between the right to copy movies and the ability to have a decent supply of movies?

As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm.  If society determines that it wants a decent supply of movies more than it wants the right to copy movies, IP laws are needed. 

Unless you have some logical objection, I think that's the topic done.

[BitterTea]

Society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society#In_political_science
Harm: isn't that what we discussed in the context of choosing between the right to copy movies and the ability to have a decent supply of movies?

As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm.  If society determines that it wants a decent supply of movies more than it wants the right to copy movies, IP laws are needed. 

Unless you have some logical objection, I think that's the topic done.

"As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm. If society determines that it wants a decent supply of cotton more than it wants slaves to be free, slavery is needed."

I am not in any sense saying that IP is equivalent to or as great an evil as slavery. I am merely pointing out that one of the reasons I find your argument disagreeable is that it equally serves as a justification for slavery. Society used to have laws saying that owning human beings was an acceptable and normal practice. According to you, rights derive from laws. Thus, it was every man's right to own a human slave.

So yes, this topic is done, because you can't come up with an argument for IP that isn't also an argument for slavery, and I think that is fucking sick.

[Hawker]

Society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society#In_political_science
Harm: isn't that what we discussed in the context of choosing between the right to copy movies and the ability to have a decent supply of movies?

As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm.  If society determines that it wants a decent supply of movies more than it wants the right to copy movies, IP laws are needed. 

Unless you have some logical objection, I think that's the topic done.

"As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm. If society determines that it wants a decent supply of cotton more than it wants slaves to be free, slavery is needed."

I am not in any sense saying that IP is equivalent to or as great an evil as slavery. I am merely pointing out that one of the reasons I find your argument disagreeable is that it equally serves as a justification for slavery. Society used to have laws saying that owning human beings was an acceptable and normal practice. According to you, rights derive from laws. Thus, it was every man's right to own a human slave.

So yes, this topic is done, because you can't come up with an argument for IP that isn't also an argument for slavery, and I think that is fucking sick.

Everything is capable of morphing into an argument for slavery.  That doesn't really matter - slavery is not on the agenda here.

[BitterTea]

Everything is capable of morphing into an argument for slavery.  That doesn't really matter - slavery is not on the agenda here.

I "morphed" nothing. I replaced some nouns in your argument and that's it. You claim that IP law allows for the production of creative content, just as slavery proponents would argue that slavery allows for the production of cotton.

Since you're making bold assertions, morph the non aggression principle into an argument for slavery. I'll wait.

[MoonShadow]

Society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society#In_political_science
Harm: isn't that what we discussed in the context of choosing between the right to copy movies and the ability to have a decent supply of movies?

As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm.  If society determines that it wants a decent supply of movies more than it wants the right to copy movies, IP laws are needed. 

Unless you have some logical objection, I think that's the topic done.

"As we proved, society has a right to prevent harm. If society determines that it wants a decent supply of cotton more than it wants slaves to be free, slavery is needed."

I am not in any sense saying that IP is equivalent to or as great an evil as slavery. I am merely pointing out that one of the reasons I find your argument disagreeable is that it equally serves as a justification for slavery. Society used to have laws saying that owning human beings was an acceptable and normal practice. According to you, rights derive from laws. Thus, it was every man's right to own a human slave.

So yes, this topic is done, because you can't come up with an argument for IP that isn't also an argument for slavery, and I think that is fucking sick.

Everything is capable of morphing into an argument for slavery.  That doesn't really matter - slavery is not on the agenda here.

Actually, it is.  Perhaps if you had bothered to read the well thought out and written blog post that was presented to yourself, you'd now see the association.  The differences between a "positive right" and a slavemaster's priviliages are simply a matter of degree.  It is your claim that you have a right to an income at my expense based solely on my possession of a particular set of data that you may have created.  Very recently a Democratic candidate for the US Senate was quoted as saying that no one gets rich alone, which is actually true.  But it is at least as accurate to say that no one makes art alone, or science, or anything else.  Your programs would be useless without the inventors who applied the sciences of earlier peers to build computers.  Do they have a claim on your income as well?  How far down the rabbit hole does this lead?

[MoonShadow]

Since you're making bold assertions, morph the non aggression principle into an argument for slavery. I'll wait.

Damn, I wish I had thought of that one!

[BitterTea]

But it is at least as accurate to say that no one makes art alone, or science, or anything else.  Your programs would be useless without the inventors who applied the sciences of earlier peers to build computers.  Do they have a claim on your income as well?  How far down the rabbit hole does this lead?

Excellent point. For a great example of this concept, watch this video.

Hawker, in case you missed it, this is the blog post which he is referencing (I think): http://indsovu.com/tiki-view_blog_post.php?postId=5

I gave you this link earlier when you asked me "where do rights come from if not for law?"

Also, I highly recommending perusing the following site at your leisure: http://questioncopyright.org

edit... One further link, expounding on the "all creative work is derivative" video: http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/all_creative_work_is_derivative

[Hawker]

...snip...

Hawker, in case you missed it, this is the blog post which he is referencing (I think): http://indsovu.com/tiki-view_blog_post.php?postId=5

I gave you this link earlier when you asked me "where do rights come from if not for law?"

...snip...

I read it.  He makes a leap here "Thus the very nature of the cooperative social mode of objectifying the subjective is founded on two implicit but foundational agreements" and basically gets it wrong.  Lots of societies had cooperative social mode and at the same time had slavery.

"...the very definition of social is the respect for the voluntary actions of others in cooperation..." - wishful thinking.  

Its a brave attempt but he has made a leap from "is" to "ought" that isn't justified by the facts he started with.

I read a better attempt that does work and can't find the link.  Basically we look on good and evil in much the same way as we look on beauty and ugliness.  If we simply accept that its all subjective and act on our feelings of what standard of behaviour are good and beautiful to us, our behaviour comes shockingly close to that prescribed by superstition based moralities and in some cases is better.  Slavery is wrong at a visceral level for modern people.  Its doesn't not feel right nor does it seem nice.  The Bible shows that Jesus was OK with slavery and the old Testament God sent the Jews out ethnic cleansing and taking slaves on a regular basis.  Following an aesthetic sense of what is right and wrong at least takes us beyond that.

EDIT: Sorry if I mangled that argument.  I'll try to remember the link.

EDIT2: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/confessions-of-an-ex-moralist/

[MoonShadow]

 The Bible shows that Jesus was OK with slavery and the old Testament God sent the Jews out ethnic cleansing and taking slaves on a regular basis.  

The concept of prisoners of war as presented in the old Hebrew law, although commonly translated as slavery, isn't comparable to modern slavery.  First off, the Hebrew law makes it plain that such prisoners of war have rights under God that must be respected.  They also must be released after 7 years of faithful servitude, and offered a daughter of their 'master' in marriage.  Slavery of the modern context is highly dependent upon distinct class division, by race or otherwise, that prohibited intermarriage.  The offering of a daughter to the faithful servant undermined the cultural and racial distinctions between the conquering tribe and those of the losing tribe, which is the point of such marriage arrangements, until there is no discernable differences between one tribe and the other.  The Hebrew tribes didn't really have much of a concept of "owning" a slave like one owned a sheep, although this was common enough in nearby cultures such as the Egyptions.  Perhaps this was a reflex against the generations of true slavery in Egypt, perhaps just a means of preventing the Hebrews that came after from the temptations of claiming prisoners of war, for the risks of actually having to follow through with making this prisoner your next son-in-law.

[MoonShadow]

 The Bible shows that Jesus was OK with slavery and the old Testament God sent the Jews out ethnic cleansing and taking slaves on a regular basis.  

The concept of prisoners of war as presented in the old Hebrew law, although commonly translated as slavery, isn't comparable to modern slavery.  First off, the Hebrew law makes it plain that such prisoners of war have rights under God that must be respected.  They also must be released after 7 years of faithful servitude, and offered a daughter of their 'master' in marriage.  Slavery of the modern context is highly dependent upon distinct class division, by race or otherwise, that prohibited intermarriage.  The offering of a daughter to the faithful servant undermined the cultural and racial distinctions between the conquering tribe and those of the losing tribe, which is the point of such marriage arrangements, until there is no discernable differences between one tribe and the other.  The Hebrew tribes didn't really have much of a concept of "owning" a slave like one owned a sheep, although this was common enough in nearby cultures such as the Egyptions.  Perhaps this was a reflex against the generations of true slavery in Egypt, perhaps just a means of preventing the Hebrews that came after from the temptations of claiming prisoners of war, for the risks of actually having to follow through with making this prisoner your next son-in-law.

Basicly, old Testament slavery was closer to indentured servitude, wherein some people were indentured because they lost a battle.

[MoonShadow]

We are going about this all wrong...

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

Whenever speaking of free and voluntary societies I’m often asked, “What would we do about this”, or, “who would take care of that.”  I used to rattle off answers to these questions that were supplied by minds sharper than mine without even examining the questions. Then I realized I was focusing on the wrong part of the question. I was simply explaining how a different system would work, and hoping the ones asking the question would be won over with the clever and well thought out answers I had either memorized, or thought of myself. I have been trying to persuade people away from their system using the promise of a new and improved system. I realized I was no different than any other philosophical political peddler, and I would no longer tempt people with “our system.”

The truth is no one knows what “we” will do in a completely voluntary society, there is just no way of knowing. Any answer that is given to questions pertaining to the problems that individuals would face in such a society are purely speculation. I cannot tell you what we would do, I can only tell you what I would do. I would honor my contracts; I would defend myself; I would choose to help others in need; I would expect no one to support me; and I would plan accordingly. I want to be very clear here, I do not disagree with the theory that is being presented on how the logistics of society would be handled. There is no doubt that these organizations and such would arise and be needed in a voluntary society. I disagree with the fact that these theories are being pushed as answers before addressing the only real and true problem; collectivist thought. When those who are curious about voluntarism ask the “we” questions, the underlying collectivist philosophy is still there, and this is what needs to be addressed first before any practical questions can or should be answered. Otherwise, you are just trying to get them to abandon their system for your system."

http://zerogov.com/?p=2334

[FirstAscent]

So yes, this topic is done, because you can't come up with an argument for IP that isn't also an argument for slavery, and I think that is fucking sick.

Can you do with my property as you wish?

[BitterTea]

So yes, this topic is done, because you can't come up with an argument for IP that isn't also an argument for slavery, and I think that is fucking sick.

Can you do with my property as you wish?

No. I see where you're going with this, but just because it's called intellectual property doesn't make it the same as property. Just as me calling you human property does not make you the same as actual property.

[FirstAscent]

So yes, this topic is done, because you can't come up with an argument for IP that isn't also an argument for slavery, and I think that is fucking sick.

Can you do with my property as you wish?

No. I see where you're going with this, but just because it's called intellectual property doesn't make it the same as property. Just as me calling you human property does not make you the same as actual property.

Where am I going with it?

Also, were you right there with everyone else when I said owning a sofa is not like owning a dog which is not like owning land, and so on? Because, it appears that you're now conveniently stating that some property is not like other property.

Final question, do I still maintain property rights to my parcel of land if all the roads encircling my property are owned by some single individual?

Finally, answer my original question in my prior post. Assume it's not intellectual property, but physical property.

[Rassah]

Can you please explain to me how owning property in the form of a dog differs from owning property of a couch, and differs from owning property of a fridge? I don't get it, and you just kinda stated that they are diferent without explaining how or why.

[Rassah]

Final question, do I still maintain property rights to my parcel of land if all the roads encircling my property are owned by some single individual?

Plenty of examples of this is real life. Just means you have an easment contract with the road owner, or own a helipad.

[FirstAscent]

Final question, do I still maintain property rights to my parcel of land if all the roads encircling my property are owned by some single individual?

Plenty of examples of this is real life. Just means you have an easment contract with the road owner, or own a helipad.

Two different questions (try not to confuse them):

So, when you own a dog, I assume that you own his skull and his brain inside the skull as well? Do you agree with this? By virtue of you owning the dog's brain, you then own the synaptic weights of the dog's brain as well? Correct?

Let's say I sell you a black cube, 3" on a side with 1/4" thick walls. Inside the black cube is a white cube, 2 1/2" on a side, with 1/4" thick walls. Although I have sold you the black cube, I have specifically stated that the sale does not grant you ownership of the white cube or its contents. However, by virtue of taking possession of the black cube, I give you permission to transport the white cube where you wish, but I do not give you permission to inspect the contents of the white cube, as it is my property. Do you have any disagreement with this?

I have effectively granted ownership to you only the mass and volume of the black 1/4" thick shell.

[MoonShadow]

Final question, do I still maintain property rights to my parcel of land if all the roads encircling my property are owned by some single individual?

Plenty of examples of this is real life. Just means you have an easment contract with the road owner, or own a helipad.

Two different questions (try not to confuse them):

So, when you own a dog, I assume that you own his skull and his brain inside the skull as well? Do you agree with this? By virtue of you owning the dog's brain, you then own the synaptic weights of the dog's brain as well? Correct?

Let's say I sell you a black cube, 3" on a side with 1/4" thick walls. Inside the black cube is a white cube, 2 1/2" on a side, with 1/4" thick walls. Although I have sold you the black cube, I have specifically stated that the sale does not grant you ownership of the white cube or its contents. However, by virtue of taking possession of the black cube, I give you permission to transport the white cube where you wish, but I do not give you permission to inspect the contents of the white cube, as it is my property. Do you have any disagreement with this?

I have effectively granted ownership to you only the mass and volume of the black 1/4" thick shell.

If I have agreed to these terms, then that's fine.  But I haven't.  I paid for the black box with the functionality of the white box, and did not agree to your terms concerning the white box.  Or, alternatively, I did but the guy I sold it to second hand certainly did not.  If I agreed not to resell it, or to only resale it under the same terms, then you have a contract beef with me; but not with the next owner.  Your business secret is gone.  IP is the attempt to assert control on the next guy, which is the problem because he had no arrangement with you and whatever agreement you had between yourself and me is our problem.  You can claim that the idea is your property all you like, but it's not.  It's just data, information that allows the black box device to operate in a particular manner.  If the next guy has the means to replicate the white box, you have no honest claim on what he does.  IP is all about creating a monopoly on that data, but it cannot exist without the force of government.  What you refuse to acknowledge is the gun that is in the room, and that it may grant you the ability to compel others to your will but it cannot grant you the right.