Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[BitterTea]

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.

How about you paraphrase the important parts?

[1713240746]

1713240746

[1713240746]

1713240746

[1713240746]

1713240746

[BitterTea]

Yes. First, you're in violation, as you have indicated.

Agreed. Standard contract law, as enforced by various state and non-state systems of law.

Second, upon copying the contents of the white cube, you violated my property.

That does not follow. We agree that I have violated our agreement, you have not demonstrated that I've violated your property.

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.

What the fuck?

[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.

How about you paraphrase the important parts?

If you're too lazy or not able to digest the wikipedia link and draw some conclusions regarding it, then I don't think you're intelligent enough to engage in this discussion.

[FirstAscent]

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.

What the fuck?

Not worth answering. Argue against it if you can.

[Rassah]

Ok, so i read that Library of Babel thing... Not sure how it's relevant to protecting copyright.

[BitterTea]

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.

What the fuck?

Not worth answering. Argue against it if you can.

It doesn't even make any sense to me. Can you rephrase?

[FirstAscent]

Ok, so i read that Library of Babel thing... Not sure how it's relevant to protecting copyright.

Because you don't want to see. How many books are in The Library of Babel? How much effort does it take to find a book in the library that is actually meaningful, literary, coherent, complete, etc? What is the value of that search? You can think of that interesting book (as well as all the ones that are not interesting) as a unique number. Does that number exist independent of its discovery? It does, but in the same sense as a nugget of gold buried deep in the ground. Naturally, there are permutations of some particular number, but we'll leave that to the mathematicians to decide what constitutes a largely similar work. Moby Dick with a few misspelled words and a deleted paragraph or two is still Moby Dick.

When you copy a number, it's not really a copy, as you believe it is. For example, 3,453,232,343 copied results in 3,453,232,343. According to mathematical theory, it's the same entity. There really is only one 3,453,232,343. While the number used as an example here is too small to warrant copyrighting, the size of a number representing a book or a film does, due to the fact that it can be mathematically proven that it is statistically unlikely (impossible for all practical purposes) that any other human being ever born would ever discover it, or produce it again.

A filmmaker or an author is really just someone exploring that space within The Library of Babel. The space is so huge, there's enough to go around for everyone. The resources so vast, it makes the resources of our planet, even the Universe appear minuscule by comparison. Therefore, if you argue for ownership of physical property (something which is very limited in extent), then it is rather hypocritical to deny the value that should be accorded to those who discover or produce a meaningful number.

In summary: to copy a very large number is to steal it, because the notion of copying a number is meaningless mathematically. Owning a DVD which contains the number is only ownership of the plastic DVD, not the number.

If you wish to think of it as homesteading, then by all means, think of it that way. This is what renders all small numbers generally uncopyrightable - say numbers less than 2^1000.

[BitterTea]

In summary: to copy a very large number is to steal it, because the notion of copying a number is meaningless mathematically. Owning a DVD which contains the number is only ownership of the plastic DVD, not the number.

Stealing a physical object deprives the legitimate owner use of it.

Copying a very large number only deprives the legitimate "finder" of his claim to control the use of it.

Why does the finder deserve to dictate the ways in which the number he found is used?

While useful numbers may be scarce, copies of the number are not. For something to be scarce, it means that no more than one person can use it to their full desire at any time. A lawnmower is scarce because we cannot both mow our lawns with it. However, if I could make a copy of your lawnmower, we could both mow our lawns simultaneously. How are you being harmed that you get to dictate that I cannot use the copy of your lawnmower?

This is what renders all small numbers generally uncopyrightable - say numbers less than 2^1000.

At least you admit that it's completely fucking arbitrary.

Also, please don't forget to respond to my above posts (1 (the first two parts) and 2), unless you enjoy being a hypocrite.

[FirstAscent]

In summary: to copy a very large number is to steal it, because the notion of copying a number is meaningless mathematically. Owning a DVD which contains the number is only ownership of the plastic DVD, not the number.

Stealing a physical object deprives the legitimate owner use of it.

Stealing a very large number deprives the legitimate discoverer of it his earnings from expending the effort it making it available to everyone else, because it wouldn't be available otherwise. We're done here.

[Hawker]

In summary: to copy a very large number is to steal it, because the notion of copying a number is meaningless mathematically. Owning a DVD which contains the number is only ownership of the plastic DVD, not the number.

Stealing a physical object deprives the legitimate owner use of it.

Copying a very large number only deprives the legitimate "finder" of his claim to control the use of it.

Why does the finder deserve to dictate the ways in which the number he found is used?...snip...

Because he pays the salaries of the scriptwriters, directors, producers, actors, cameramen, scenery staff and other people who "find" the movie and unless he has a way to get paid, there will be no movie.

We've discussed this - why are you going back over it?

[MoonShadow]

In summary: to copy a very large number is to steal it, because the notion of copying a number is meaningless mathematically. Owning a DVD which contains the number is only ownership of the plastic DVD, not the number.

Stealing a physical object deprives the legitimate owner use of it.

Copying a very large number only deprives the legitimate "finder" of his claim to control the use of it.

Why does the finder deserve to dictate the ways in which the number he found is used?...snip...

Because he pays the salaries of the scriptwriters, directors, producers, actors, cameramen, scenery staff and other people who "find" the movie and unless he has a way to get paid, there will be no movie.

We've discussed this - why are you going back over it?

Because you can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that data isn't property, so that any business model based upon the use of force to treat data as property is fundamentally unjust.

[BitterTea]

Because you can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that data isn't property, so that any business model based upon the use of force to treat data as property is fundamentally unjust.

In an analogous way, humans are not property, so any business model based upon the use of force to treat humans as property is fundamentally unjust.

[Rassah]

Ok, so, let's say I am a business owner running a fast food restaurant. My restaurant is a typical fast food joint run just like any other. Some week ago, I realize an ingeniuous way in which I can improve my business productivity and profits by changing how I am managing and compensating my employees, and the positions they are in while assembling burgers. This takes some time thinking the idea out, and then some time implementing it. As a result, my restaurant profits increase, and my business becomes much more profitable than other standard fast food joints.

Is the way my employees are positioned, or the way I now compensate them, something I can copyright, or is it even intellectual property? Like with books and music, this is something I spent time thinking about and creating entirely out of my mind in hopes to get compensated for it. So, it certainly fits your IP mold, but what kind of recource should I have if the fast food joint across the street sees the way I'm doing things and starts doing the same thing (i.e. if they steal my business management practices)?

[FredericBastiat]

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

And yet here we are. I'm not too concerned that there isn't a universe. Books of fiction don't interest me much either unless they have a very good point to make.

[FredericBastiat]

Stealing a very large number deprives the legitimate discoverer of it his earnings from expending the effort it making it available to everyone else, because it wouldn't be available otherwise. We're done here.

You can't steal a number. It's just information. You may have spent a lifetime looking for it, but copies of it are easily transferable. Nobody forced you to search for it. I suppose you would then propose that if one of the first proto-humans, were he to find a number (say the #1), he could, of logic and reason, be able to manipulate all of mankind (demand payment) for all eternity because he was the first to represent a number in some written or transliterated form.

Or the first to invent fire, or build a house, a boat, make clothes, shoes, create an alphabet, words in a dictionary, etc.

It would seem if property were of the sort you suggest, much of innovation would come to a standstill.

[FredericBastiat]

Because he pays the salaries of the scriptwriters, directors, producers, actors, cameramen, scenery staff and other people who "find" the movie and unless he has a way to get paid, there will be no movie.

We've discussed this - why are you going back over it?

So he paid people to "find" the movie, or book, or any other combination or permutation of information. So what? If I were to pay somebody to "find" something different, should I be able to charge other people once it's found?

If you are merely the discoverer of information, that would imply you never owned the information in the first place. Why should a re-arrangement of bits of data be any different than a random set of bits of data? Your interpretation doesn't change the intrinsic "info-bits" themselves. Why should we be contractually bound to you because you think your permutation is any better than any other.

And don't say because you spent money and effort on it. We all do that. If that were the case, I could charge you for all the effort I've expended in re-arranging the information I have. Weird.

[FirstAscent]

Stealing a very large number deprives the legitimate discoverer of it his earnings from expending the effort it making it available to everyone else, because it wouldn't be available otherwise. We're done here.

You can't steal a number. It's just information. You may have spent a lifetime looking for it, but copies of it are easily transferable.

What does ease of transferability have to do with it? Using that logic, I might argue that if I am able to commit a crime against you with ease, then it must be justified.

Besides, how easy would it be for you to transfer the next film by the Coen Brothers when they have not yet made it? There comes a point when you have to recognize and respect the efforts of others, especially when it can be mathematically demonstrated that even if everyone alive today lives a billion years, nobody else is going to make available the next Coen Brothers movie until they make it. That number, whatever it is, has not yet been pulled off the shelf of The Library of Babel, and except for their efforts, will essentially never be pulled of the shelf. From both a moral standpoint (your lack of respect and recognition of the work of others), and from a mathematical standpoint, your argument fails.

[FirstAscent]

Because he pays the salaries of the scriptwriters, directors, producers, actors, cameramen, scenery staff and other people who "find" the movie and unless he has a way to get paid, there will be no movie.

We've discussed this - why are you going back over it?

So he paid people to "find" the movie, or book, or any other combination or permutation of information. So what? If I were to pay somebody to "find" something different, should I be able to charge other people once it's found?

Why not, since it would never be found otherwise?

If you are merely the discoverer of information, that would imply you never owned the information in the first place. Why should a re-arrangement of bits of data be any different than a random set of bits of data? Your interpretation doesn't change the intrinsic "info-bits" themselves. Why should we be contractually bound to you because you think your permutation is any better than any other.

And don't say because you spent money and effort on it. We all do that. If that were the case, I could charge you for all the effort I've expended in re-arranging the information I have. Weird.

Actually, your post is weird. You haven't thought it through. The first thing you need to do is grasp the extent of large numbers yet discovered.

[BitterTea]

Why not, since it would never be found otherwise?

You just quoted his post, which is copying the information he found, without permission. Pay him restitution or we will come kidnap you!

[FredericBastiat]

What does ease of transferability have to do with it? Using that logic, I might argue that if I am able to commit a crime against you with ease, then it must be justified.

Besides, how easy would it be for you to transfer the next film by the Coen Brothers when they have not yet made it? There comes a point when you have to recognize and respect the efforts of others, especially when it can be mathematically demonstrated that even if everyone alive today lives a billion years, nobody else is going to make available the next Coen Brothers movie until they make it. That number, whatever it is, has not yet been pulled off the shelf of The Library of Babel, and except for their efforts, will essentially never be pulled of the shelf. From both a moral standpoint (your lack of respect and recognition of the work of others), and from a mathematical standpoint, your argument fails.

I was referring to the transfer of a copy, and not the location of the original number as inscribed in the pattern on the object of the original owner. Mimicry is just applied observation. Everybody does it. Are you going to call all mimicry theft? Because if that were the case, we would all be thieves. Theft is physical material matter transferred to another without the permission of the owner. Stop making special exceptions, it makes your logic look ridiculous.

Copyright owners are disrespecting the transferability and use of my property. From a moral standpoint your arguments fail even worse.