Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Rassah]

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.  

*sigh* Sorry, let me rephrase that:

Not if you were a slave or a close friend of one.

[1714062306]

1714062306

[1714062306]

1714062306

[1714062306]

1714062306

[1714062306]

1714062306

[Hawker]

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.

People are no smarter now than they were 1000 years ago.  And even though almost everything was barbaric 1000 years ago, I doubt people have evolved a moral region of the brain.  

Anyway, its nothing to do with intellectual property.  Its probably a co-incidence that the movement to abolish slavery and the concept of IP both emerged around the same time.

[Hawker]

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.  

*sigh* Sorry, let me rephrase that:

Not if you were a slave or a close friend of one.

You would have objected to your personal slavery but you would have not objected to the concept of slavery. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amistad_%28film%29

The guy the book film is based on returned to Africa and became a slave trader himself.

[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.

People are no smarter now than they were 1000 years ago.  And even though almost everything was barbaric 1000 years ago, I doubt people have evolved a moral region of the brain.  

Anyway, its nothing to do with intellectual property.  Its probably a co-incidence that the movement to abolish slavery and the concept of IP both emerged around the same time.

Nah, I'd have to say that people back then were pretty ignorant. We know a hell of a lot more now than we did back then, and not just about sciences. If you think that slavery was a perfectly fine and moral thing 1000 years ago, that's your prerogative. I'll keep believing that we simply didn't know any better.

As for IP, this is a discussion about rights. You can't have a discussion about intellectual property rights without establishing what is a right first.

[Hawker]

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.

People are no smarter now than they were 1000 years ago.  And even though almost everything was barbaric 1000 years ago, I doubt people have evolved a moral region of the brain.  

Anyway, its nothing to do with intellectual property.  Its probably a co-incidence that the movement to abolish slavery and the concept of IP both emerged around the same time.

Nah, I'd have to say that people back then were pretty ignorant. We know a hell of a lot more now than we did back then, and not just about sciences. If you think that slavery was a perfectly fine and moral thing 1000 years ago, that's your prerogative. I'll keep believing that we simply didn't know any better.

As for IP, this is a discussion about rights. You can't have a discussion about intellectual property rights without establishing what is a right first.

I admire your faith that there are some immutable rights out there which live forever but as a practical matter, rights are legal creations used to make society better.  IP rights were created to make society better and, to get rid of them, you have to offer something even better.

[Rassah]

I admire your faith that there are some immutable rights out there which live forever but as a practical matter, rights are legal creations used to make society better.  IP rights were created to make society better and, to get rid of them, you have to offer something even better.

I think at this point the only question that matters is how can we keep a business going without having to rely on IP laws. Thanks to computers and internet, IP is pretty much dying or failing like the war against drugs. It being a law isn't stopping anyone from downloading, people are getting better TVs and sound systems, making going to the movies less necessary, and DRM in music has been practically abandoned. Young kids don't even see pirating music and movies as anything wrong. And if we ever switch to mesh networking, you can pretty much kiss the concept of IP good bye. About only thing left is patent protections for physical stuff sold, and that is apparently only protected by sue-happy mega corp (does make me worry about our patent). Once 3D printers are more prevalent, that'll start disappearing, too, with people downloading gadget schematics.

[FredericBastiat]

I admire your faith that there are some immutable rights out there which live forever but as a practical matter, rights are legal creations used to make society better.  IP rights were created to make society better and, to get rid of them, you have to offer something even better.

Let the free market come up with a solution. You conflate offer with force. The second you use law, you imply consequences related to law. Laws use force. Careful.

We don't need laws that produce millions of monopolies to get things done. If you don't think your idea as applied to a product will produce a profit, don't do it. Monopolizing information/ideas/inventions isn't productive, it's counterproductive.

It was bad enough when just the "royals" did it. Now we have everybody acting like the royals do. It's a smogasbord of information "kingdoms" and "serfdoms" with hundres of thousands of lawyer swimming amongst us like sharks waiting to strike and extract their pound of flesh to return to the robber barons.

More money is wasted in suing, patenting, trademarking, copyrighting, lawyering, manipulation and threatening than actually doing stuff. GO AND DO! Stop whining about not "getting yours" from everybody else.

[FirstAscent]

Fred,

I take it you haven't read the short story "The Library of Babel"? Tell me now, did you see "Pride and Prejudice" starring Keira Knightley? What's significant about these two products, and why do they essentially make your points pointless? Furthermore, why haven't you addressed my latest posts in this thread?

[FredericBastiat]

Fred,

I take it you haven't read the short story "The Library of Babel"? Tell me now, did you see "Pride and Prejudice" starring Keira Knightley? What's significant about these two products, and why do they essentially make your points pointless? Furthermore, why haven't you addressed my latest posts in this thread?

Been vacationing. Politicking gets tiring after awhile.

[FirstAscent]

Fred,

I take it you haven't read the short story "The Library of Babel"? Tell me now, did you see "Pride and Prejudice" starring Keira Knightley? What's significant about these two products, and why do they essentially make your points pointless? Furthermore, why haven't you addressed my latest posts in this thread?

Been vacationing. Politicking gets tiring after awhile.

Well, that answered the question in the last sentence. What about the rest of my post? And one more thing: what is 2^24 * 5,000 * 3,000 * 24 * 60 * 120?

EDIT: changed the equation so that the large number is not a denominator.

[FirstAscent]

And once you've solved that equation, you might want to consider this number as well: 2^43,486,543,900,000,000,000.

That's a really big number. And your arguments need to address the size of that number.

[Rassah]

And once you've solved that equation, you might want to consider this number as well: 2^43,486,543,900,000,000,000.

That's a really big number. And your arguments need to address the size of that number.

2^43,486,543,900,000,000,000  +  1

My number is bigger.

[FredericBastiat]

Fred,

I take it you haven't read the short story "The Library of Babel"? Tell me now, did you see "Pride and Prejudice" starring Keira Knightley? What's significant about these two products, and why do they essentially make your points pointless? Furthermore, why haven't you addressed my latest posts in this thread?

Even if I did read it, it wouldn't change my mind. I've read enough about the basic principles, concepts and purpose of law that any book written about it (if that's what your referring to), would change my mind. It's very logical if you start from the NAP. Any construction of law has to address that, otherwise it's just force legalized for any purpose. That always results in the have's and the have-not's. Viz., those who wield the law as a means to their ends, exercised upon those who are on the receiving end of it.

Your duty in the law-making process is to never write a law that directly or indirectly injures another. The law is to protect against physical injury and physical tresspass, not cause it. How hard could that be? Give people their freedom, and it's amazing what they can do with it (and no, not freedom to maim and injury, that's not freedom, or for that matter, justice).

[FirstAscent]

Fred,

I take it you haven't read the short story "The Library of Babel"? Tell me now, did you see "Pride and Prejudice" starring Keira Knightley? What's significant about these two products, and why do they essentially make your points pointless? Furthermore, why haven't you addressed my latest posts in this thread?

Even if I did read it, it wouldn't change my mind. I've read enough about the basic principles, concepts and purpose of law that any book written about it (if that's what your referring to), would change my mind.

If you can't actually address even some of the content written by someone else, then how possibly can you believe that anything you write is relevant? The Library of Babel is hardly a book on law. And incidentally, a book on law would be irrelevant in the absence of a universe to apply knowledge of law to.

Here is a synopsis of The Library of Babel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel

[FirstAscent]

And once you've solved that equation, you might want to consider this number as well: 2^43,486,543,900,000,000,000.

That's a really big number. And your arguments need to address the size of that number.

2^43,486,543,900,000,000,000  +  1

My number is bigger.

And Rassah, I see you're online. Feel free to address the posts I made a week or more ago.

[BitterTea]

And Rassah, I see you're online. Feel free to address the posts I made a week or more ago.

If they're that salient, you can repost them in terse form so we don't have to dig through the thread.

[FirstAscent]

And Rassah, I see you're online. Feel free to address the posts I made a week or more ago.

If they're that salient, you can repost them in terse form so we don't have to dig through the thread.

Just go to the prior page and start scrolling. It will take you four seconds.

[BitterTea]

Is this the post you're referring to? (I have no way of knowing since you won't do the courtesy of being specific)

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 then make a copy of the black cube and its contents and give the copy to someone else, I have indeed violated the terms of our contract, but they have done nothing of the sort. If they then make further copies and give them to others, they still have done nothing wrong. Pretty soon, everyone in the world has a black cube with a white cube inside and none of them are bound by your agreement. Problem?

[FirstAscent]

Is this the post you're referring to? (I have no way of knowing since you won't do the courtesy of being specific)

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 then make a copy of the black cube and its contents and give the copy to someone else, I have indeed violated the terms of our contract, but they have done nothing of the sort. If they then make further copies and give them to others, they still have done nothing wrong. Pretty soon, everyone in the world has a black cube with a white cube inside and none of them are bound by your agreement. Problem?

Yes. First, you're in violation, as you have indicated. Second, upon copying the contents of the white cube, you violated my property. You can bear the burden of violating my property rights in full, or you can stand behind my rights and support them by adopting the following:

If the recipient uses the information in the white cube, they will become aware of what it is, at which point, they should question the legality of it by researching its source. We do not live in a world in which individuals are generally not aware of such things, and it will take some significant demonstration on the recipient's part to demonstrate their ignorance of such things.

[FirstAscent]

Also, from a moral standpoint, none of you against intellectual property rights have any case. This is easy to demonstrate. If you wish to think philosophically about it, then become familiar with The Library of Babel and its ramifications, which I have mentioned a few posts back.