Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Rassah]

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?

Yes, I guess? Not sure where you're going with this. How is me owning the dog with the brain inside different from me owning a couch with the stuffing inside, or a friedge with the shelves inside?

[1715301402]

1715301402

[1715301402]

1715301402

[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.

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.

It's really not clear to me why you're discussing IP and data. We were discussing a black cube and white cube inside. If you did not agree to the terms, then it was not sold to you. If you did agree to the terms, then you are the owner of the black cube, but not the white cube inside. As for selling it to someone else, you can only sell what you own - the black cube. Transfer of ownership of the black cube to another still leaves me the owner of the white cube. When you sell property, it's important that you make very clear what you are selling.

For example, when the owner of the road sells to another, he must make clear that the sale only includes the road, and not the parcel of land that the road surrounds. Are these terms not clear?

[FirstAscent]

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?

Yes, I guess? Not sure where you're going with this. How is me owning the dog with the brain inside different from me owning a couch with the stuffing inside, or a friedge with the shelves inside?

You guess? Please recall, that it is you who wish to be very precise about property rights and what that entails, as it seems to be fundamental to your belief system. So let's not guess. Please answer with conviction. If you are the owner of the dog, are you the owner of the synaptic weights that exist inside the dog's brain?

[Hawker]

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.

No-one cares if you set your sofa on fire.  You risk being lynched if you set your dog on fire.  If you can't see why that is, you won't see any value in a law that punishes animal cruelty.

[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.

No-one cares if you set your sofa on fire.  You risk being lynched if you set your dog on fire.  If you can't see why that is, you won't see any value in a law that punishes animal cruelty.

So the was that MY property rights differ is based on what OTHER peoples opinion on my property is? What about if it was a white lab rat or a fish instead of a dog? Is the only difference in my property rights just that other people don't care about one animal and care about the other? What if people started to care more about fish, and less about dogs? Are you suggesting my property rights would change, and are fluid, based on the whims of others?
Sorry, but that doesn't sound like rights to me. Hell, of rights were only based on what majority of other people cared about or how it made them feel, sure as hell wouldn't be able to excersise the rights I do in my bedroom.

[Hawker]

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.

No-one cares if you set your sofa on fire.  You risk being lynched if you set your dog on fire.  If you can't see why that is, you won't see any value in a law that punishes animal cruelty.

So the was that MY property rights differ is based on what OTHER peoples opinion on my property is? What about if it was a white lab rat or a fish instead of a dog? Is the only difference in my property rights just that other people don't care about one animal and care about the other? What if people started to care more about fish, and less about dogs? Are you suggesting my property rights would change, and are fluid, based on the whims of others?
Sorry, but that doesn't sound like rights to me. Hell, of rights were only based on what majority of other people cared about or how it made them feel, sure as hell wouldn't be able to excersise the rights I do in my bedroom.

Rights are legal creations and if the law changes, your rights change.  Over the last few centuries, you've lost your right to own slaves and you've lost your right to torture animals but you've gained a right to abortion and if American you've gained a right to have a Miranda caution read you after being arrested and a right to have a free lawyer if arrested.  

Who knows what rights people will and won't have in 300 years...all these things are very fluid.

[Rassah]

Rights are legal creations and if the law changes, your rights change.  Over the last few centuries, you've lost your right to own slaves and you've lost your right to torture animals but you've gained a right to abortion and if American you've gained a right to have a Miranda caution read you after being arrested and a right to have a free lawyer if arrested.  

Who knows what rights people will and won't have in 300 years...all these things are very fluid.

Problem is, what you are calling "rights" are just laws. Slaves always had rights. They were just denied by law. Women always had rights to engage in any activity that men did. They were just denied by law.  Gays always had the right to form and consumate relationships. They were just denied by law. As the Declaration says, all men are created equal with certain inalianable rights. Those laws I mentioned changed not because society decided to change rights on a whim, but because society realized those people had rights all along, and denying them was unjust.
That's the part you seem to have a hard time grasping. Rights come from people reasoning and figuring out what is just. Laws are applied to the best of peoples ability to protect those rights. But often, people have skewed sense of entitlement, and create unjust laws. Those laws don't change the underlying rights.

300 years from now we will very likely have debates about entities some don't consider human. There will be attempts to pass laws denying people rights, such as attempts to ban marriages between a human and, say, a clone, or a human-animal hybrid (furry), or an intelligent machine/robot. Conservatives, and especially religious ones, will proclaim loudly that those "things" are not people, they have no souls, and giving them rights will take us down slippery slopes (What's next? Incest? Marrying a full animal? Marrying a toaster? Giving your refrigerator rights?). But even if the laws are passed, and those personal choices are interfered with, the fact that those "things," if they are able to think, reason, and feel, still have fundamental rights, will still have their rights of making their own reasoned, informed, and personal choices infringed upon by law.
I'm not sure how to explain this better besides asking you to think if slaves were entitled to rights while slavery was illegal.

[BitterTea]

Rights are legal creations and if the law changes, your rights change.  Over the last few centuries, you've lost your right to own slaves and you've lost your right to torture animals but you've gained a right to abortion and if American you've gained a right to have a Miranda caution read you after being arrested and a right to have a free lawyer if arrested. 

Who knows what rights people will and won't have in 300 years...all these things are very fluid.

So let me get this straight... people in some backwards-ass country in Africa have different rights than people in the United States merely because their country doesn't grant them those rights?

So, if there was a country that did not "grant" its people the right to live, I could go there and kill anyone I wanted? If there was a country that did not "grant" its people the right to own property, I could go take their things? I wouldn't be violating anyone's rights, so it's not immoral behavior, correct?

And maybe one day in the future, we will once again have the right to own slaves?

[Rassah]

And maybe one day in the future, we will once again have the right to own slaves?

When your Roomba or your Sex Doll 9000 becomes intelligent enough to be self-aware and reason, but people who have no concept of rights or justice keep using them as tools, yes. Yes you will.

[Hawker]

Rights are legal creations and if the law changes, your rights change.  Over the last few centuries, you've lost your right to own slaves and you've lost your right to torture animals but you've gained a right to abortion and if American you've gained a right to have a Miranda caution read you after being arrested and a right to have a free lawyer if arrested. 

Who knows what rights people will and won't have in 300 years...all these things are very fluid.

So let me get this straight... people in some backwards-ass country in Africa have different rights than people in the United States merely because their country doesn't grant them those rights?

So, if there was a country that did not "grant" its people the right to live, I could go there and kill anyone I wanted? If there was a country that did not "grant" its people the right to own property, I could go take their things? I wouldn't be violating anyone's rights, so it's not immoral behavior, correct?

And maybe one day in the future, we will once again have the right to own slaves?

Maybe if you are religious, you could say that certain rights are endorsed by the laws of nature and the laws of God?  Otherwise, rights are things we create.  

[Hawker]

Rights are legal creations and if the law changes, your rights change.  Over the last few centuries, you've lost your right to own slaves and you've lost your right to torture animals but you've gained a right to abortion and if American you've gained a right to have a Miranda caution read you after being arrested and a right to have a free lawyer if arrested.  

Who knows what rights people will and won't have in 300 years...all these things are very fluid.

Problem is, what you are calling "rights" are just laws. Slaves always had rights. They were just denied by law.

...snip...

That is true if there is a God creating rights and if we are all part of his plan.

Its not my belief but if that's your faith, I respect that. 

[BitterTea]

Maybe if you are religious, you could say that certain rights are endorsed by the laws of nature and the laws of God?  Otherwise, rights are things we create. 

Hawker, you didn't answer my questions. Please do so in order to prevent hypocrisy.

I have never espoused the view that rights are not things we create. Nice straw man though - "anyone who doesn't agree with my view must believe that God Did It".

[Hawker]

Maybe if you are religious, you could say that certain rights are endorsed by the laws of nature and the laws of God?  Otherwise, rights are things we create. 

Hawker, you didn't answer my questions. Please do so in order to prevent hypocrisy.

I have never espoused the view that rights are not things we create. Nice straw man though - "anyone who doesn't agree with my view must believe that God Did It".

Why bother?  I believe rights are things we create.  You say the same.  Even if we are wrong, does it really change the rights we actually have?

[BitterTea]

Maybe if you are religious, you could say that certain rights are endorsed by the laws of nature and the laws of God?  Otherwise, rights are things we create. 

Hawker, you didn't answer my questions. Please do so in order to prevent hypocrisy.

I have never espoused the view that rights are not things we create. Nice straw man though - "anyone who doesn't agree with my view must believe that God Did It".

Why bother?  I believe rights are things we create.  You say the same.  Even if we are wrong, does it really change the rights we actually have?

Yes, we disagree on what the concept of "rights" means. You say that our rights are whatever scraps our respective governments deem fitting to gift to us. I say that our rights are a universal statement about how humans should interact with each other, and they come from the nature of social interaction. Nobody ever had a right to own human slaves, they just could. Just as a murderer doesn't have a right to murder, he just can.

[Hawker]

Maybe if you are religious, you could say that certain rights are endorsed by the laws of nature and the laws of God?  Otherwise, rights are things we create.  

Hawker, you didn't answer my questions. Please do so in order to prevent hypocrisy.

I have never espoused the view that rights are not things we create. Nice straw man though - "anyone who doesn't agree with my view must believe that God Did It".

Why bother?  I believe rights are things we create.  You say the same.  Even if we are wrong, does it really change the rights we actually have?

Yes, we disagree on what the concept of "rights" means. You say that our rights are whatever scraps our respective governments deem fitting to gift to us. I say that our rights are a universal statement about how humans should interact with each other, and they come from the nature of social interaction. Nobody ever had a right to own human slaves, they just could. Just as a murderer doesn't have a right to murder, he just can.

If we were both alive 1000 years ago, we would both have asserted the right to own slaves and that abortion was an evil.  Or do you believe everyone from prior to a certain date in human history was a moral pygmy unable to understand social interaction?

[Rassah]

Rights are legal creations and if the law changes, your rights change.  Over the last few centuries, you've lost your right to own slaves and you've lost your right to torture animals but you've gained a right to abortion and if American you've gained a right to have a Miranda caution read you after being arrested and a right to have a free lawyer if arrested.  

Who knows what rights people will and won't have in 300 years...all these things are very fluid.

Problem is, what you are calling "rights" are just laws. Slaves always had rights. They were just denied by law.

...snip...

That is true if there is a God creating rights and if we are all part of his plan.

Its not my belief but if that's your faith, I respect that. 

I am a hard line anti religious atheist. I despise religion. I just try to be polite and not show it. In my explanation of where I believed rights came from, reason =/= faith.

The problem I have with your argument is that the logic doesn't follow. If slaves did not have rights because the law didn't give them rights, then why bother giving them rights? If blacks or gays did not have rights because the law didn't give them any rights, then why were they given rights? Surely if the majority opinion of society was that blacks and gays are inferior and don't deserve rights, then the idea of them having rights shouldn't have even been considered? Why was Martin Luther King proclaiming that blacks have rights, and demanding equal treatment for them, when the law said otherwise?

Basicall, your line of logic is: Law makes rights > A has no rights > Rights for A should not even be taken into consideration, since there is no law giving A rights > Since rights of A should not be considered, A should never have rights.
But eventually, and despite the beliefs of majority and despite the law, someone came by and declared that A does indeed have rights, and set upon trying to convince the rest of the world of that. If rights come from law, and thus A has no rights, where did that someone get the idea that A DOES have rights?

[Rassah]

If we were both alive 1000 years ago, we would both have asserted the right to own slaves.

Not if you wereblack/jewish/eastern european (or if you were friends with one). Those people sure as hell feel they didn't have a right to be owned. (See Bible, part 1)

[Hawker]

Rights are legal creations and if the law changes, your rights change.  Over the last few centuries, you've lost your right to own slaves and you've lost your right to torture animals but you've gained a right to abortion and if American you've gained a right to have a Miranda caution read you after being arrested and a right to have a free lawyer if arrested.  

Who knows what rights people will and won't have in 300 years...all these things are very fluid.

Problem is, what you are calling "rights" are just laws. Slaves always had rights. They were just denied by law.

...snip...

That is true if there is a God creating rights and if we are all part of his plan.

Its not my belief but if that's your faith, I respect that.  

I am a hard line anti religious atheist. I despise religion. I just try to be polite and not show it. In my explanation of where I believed rights came from, reason =/= faith.

The problem I have with your argument is that the logic doesn't follow. If slaves did not have rights because the law didn't give them rights, then why bother giving them rights? If blacks or gays did not have rights because the law didn't give them any rights, then why were they given rights? Surely if the majority opinion of society was that blacks and gays are inferior and don't deserve rights, then the idea of them having rights shouldn't have even been considered? Why was Martin Luther King proclaiming that blacks have rights, and demanding equal treatment for them, when the law said otherwise?

Basicall, your line of logic is: Law makes rights > A has no rights > Rights for A should not even be taken into consideration, since there is no law giving A rights > Since rights of A should not be considered, A should never have rights.
But eventually, and despite the beliefs of majority and despite the law, someone came by and declared that A does indeed have rights, and set upon trying to convince the rest of the world of that. If rights come from law, and thus A has no rights, where did that someone get the idea that A DOES have rights?

I don't know.

Serious answer.  How did we regard slavery as 100% fine for 60,000 years and suddenly come to regard it as an abomination?  For the same period we regarded abortion as evil and now most countries treat it as a human right.  How does that happen?  I don't know.  But the fact that it does happen.

[Hawker]

If we were both alive 1000 years ago, we would both have asserted the right to own slaves.

Not if you wereblack/jewish/eastern european (or if you were friends with one). Those people sure as hell feel they didn't have a right to be owned. (See Bible, part 1)

Sorry wrong.  Africans were the last to give up slavery and its still practiced by the Tuareg and by the North Sudanese.  The Bible clearly says you have the right to own slaves, to sell them breaking up families and to torture them for misbehaviour.  The Eastern Europeans didn't exist 1000 years ago - there were people there but not with an Eastern European identity.

http://bible.cc/matthew/18-25.htm "Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt."

http://bible.cc/matthew/18-34.htm "In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed."

[Rassah]

I don't know.

Serious answer.  How did we regard slavery as 100% fine for 60,000 years and suddenly come to regard it as an abomination?  For the same period we regarded abortion as evil and now most countries treat it as a human right.  How does that happen?  I don't know.  But the fact that it does happen.

I think it happens because the person on the receiving end of that law eventually reasons that what is being done to them is not just, asserts their own rights, and uses logic and reason to convince others of his own rights. Using logic and reason in this way, we can figure out what rights people should have even if we are not on the receiving end of the law, and then change the law we realized was a mistake.

Ukraine was founded 1,400 years ago. I used Eastern European in the context of living in the eastern part of the European continent, like Asians or Africans.