Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FredericBastiat]

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!

Excelent point. Where do I send the check?

[1715285983]

1715285983

[1715285983]

1715285983

[1715285983]

1715285983

[1715285983]

1715285983

[FirstAscent]

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.

Sorry, but no. I am not going to call all mimicry theft. By your logic, a pat on the back is the same as a cannonball hitting your back at 200 miles per hour. The two are different.

[FirstAscent]

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!

Excelent point. Where do I send the check?

What excellent point has been made by either of you? A pat on the back is not the same as a cannonball.

[BitterTea]

Sorry, but no. I am not going to call all mimicry theft. By your logic, a pat on the back is the same as a cannonball hitting your back at 200 miles per hour. The two are different.

You can't just make up some stupid shit and say "by your logic".

Both a pat on the back and a cannonball are physical force. Your logic is that physical things and ideas should treated the same. So a better analogy would be "a cannonball hitting your back at 200 miles per hour and the thought of a cannonball hitting your back at 200 miles per hour are the same thing".

[FirstAscent]

Sorry, but no. I am not going to call all mimicry theft. By your logic, a pat on the back is the same as a cannonball hitting your back at 200 miles per hour. The two are different.

You can't just make up some stupid shit and say "by your logic".

Both a pat on the back and a cannonball are physical force. Your logic is that physical things and ideas are treated the same. So a better analogy would be "a cannonball hitting your back at 200 miles per hour and the thought of a cannonball hitting your back are the same thing".

Honestly, are you dense? Copying the number 925 and a number the size of which resides on a DVD are both acts of copying. Both are different in degree though, and that is what matters. Same as something touching your back. Both are acts of force, but different in degree.

[BitterTea]

Honestly, are you dense? Copying the number 925 and a number the size of which resides on a DVD are both acts of copying. Both are different in degree though, and that is what matters. Same as something touching your back. Both are acts of force, but different in degree.

I'm referring to your continued insistence that copying == theft.

I will admit that copying a number without the permission of the "finder" does "harm" to the extent that they were entitled to profit by controlling the use of the number. However, it does not harm them in the same way that they are harmed if I take their physical property. Furthermore, I do not agree that by finding the number they are entitled to control its use by others (who use their physical property to do so).

[Rassah]

Books, movies, and music, and all intellectual property, are essentially ideas, put down on some storage medium. So why are some ideas, like stories, get to have IP protections, but many others, like business practices, do not?

[FredericBastiat]

Honestly, are you dense? Copying the number 925 and a number the size of which resides on a DVD are both acts of copying. Both are different in degree though, and that is what matters. Same as something touching your back. Both are acts of force, but different in degree.

So how much force would be applied to you if there was someone who copied your DVD in China and gives it to another chinese person? How many Newtons of Force would that be approximately?

[FirstAscent]

Honestly, are you dense? Copying the number 925 and a number the size of which resides on a DVD are both acts of copying. Both are different in degree though, and that is what matters. Same as something touching your back. Both are acts of force, but different in degree.

I'm referring to your continued insistence that copying == theft.

Tell me, is copying your fellow classmate's test answers appropriate or allowed? Is copying your fellow student's thesis acceptable?

I will admit that copying a number without the permission of the "finder" does "harm" to the extent that they were entitled to profit by controlling the use of the number.

Noted.

However, it does not harm them in the same way that they are harmed if I take their physical property.

Why are you arguing against your own perceived set of counter-arguments against your stance?

Furthermore, I do not agree that by finding the number they are entitled to control its use by others (who use their physical property to do so).

Demonstrate to me that it is statistically likely in the next trillion years or so that the number would've been found otherwise. If you can do that, your case might be stronger. Otherwise, it can mathematically be demonstrated that any other person would never benefit from the number's existence unless the original discoverer found it.

And lastly, as you have pointed out, physical property is not the same as numbers. Given that, you're going to find it tough to demonstrate that the idea of 'copying' a number has any meaning. In mathematics, the set of all numbers means each number is unique and only exists once - rendering the idea of copying nonsensical. Since all numbers are unique and only exist once, it can be demonstrated that your possession of it is in fact stealing, as opposed to copying.

[FirstAscent]

Honestly, are you dense? Copying the number 925 and a number the size of which resides on a DVD are both acts of copying. Both are different in degree though, and that is what matters. Same as something touching your back. Both are acts of force, but different in degree.

So how much force would be applied to you if there was someone who copied your DVD in China and gives it to another chinese person? How many Newtons of Force would that be approximately?

I see you failed to comprehend the example was to point out the significance of degree.

[FirstAscent]

I will admit that copying a number without the permission of the "finder" does "harm" to the extent that they were entitled to profit by controlling the use of the number.

[Rassah]

I will admit that copying a number without the permission of the "finder" does "harm" to the extent that they were entitled to profit by controlling the use of the number.

So, you are for protecting all ideas with IP lllaws, or just some ideas?

[FirstAscent]

I will admit that copying a number without the permission of the "finder" does "harm" to the extent that they were entitled to profit by controlling the use of the number.

So, you are for protecting all ideas with IP lllaws, or just some ideas?

There is a difference between an idea and media. I am in favor of protection of media. I am not in favor of ideas nearly so much. Any idea can be expressed in countless ways, but a specific expression of an idea - a book or movie, deserves protection.

As for patents, which are more akin to ideas, some are valid, and perhaps some are not. The inventor does deserve some credit, but again, it is a matter of degree, which boils down to the complexity required to describe it.

[BitterTea]

Tell me, is copying your fellow classmate's test answers appropriate or allowed? Is copying your fellow student's thesis acceptable?

You're confusing copying with plagiarism.

Why are you arguing against your own perceived set of counter-arguments against your stance?

What? No. Continue reading. Freeing slaves "harms" the slaveowner's ability to own slaves, but it was never their right to own slaves in the first place.

Demonstrate to me that it is statistically likely in the next trillion years or so that the number would've been found otherwise.

It does not. Fucking. Matter.

Demonstrate to me that it is statistically likely in the next trillion years or so that the number a method of picking cotton without slaves would've been found otherwise.

Anyway, your fundamental premise is wrong. Ideas are simultaneously discovered all the time.

If you can do that, your case might be stronger. Otherwise, it can mathematically be demonstrated that any other person would never benefit from the number's existence unless the original discoverer found it.

So? You may, someday, benefit from us dropping logic bombs upon you as we have been doing for the past 50 pages or so. Does that entitle us to some sort of payment? NO.

And lastly, since you have pointed out, physical property is not the same as numbers. Given that, you're going to find it tough to demonstrate that the idea of 'copying' a number has any meaning. In mathematics, the set of all numbers means each number is unique and only exists once - rendering the idea of copying nonsensical. Since all numbers are unique and only exist once, it can be demonstrated that your possession of it is in fact stealing, as opposed to copying.

Ugh. No, numbers do not "exist once". If I think of a brand new number, it only exists in my mind. If I share it with others, it simultaneously exists in their minds. The fact that it exists in some other mind does not diminish the fact that it still exists in mine and I can use it. Contrast this with any physical property.

[FredericBastiat]

So how much force would be applied to you if there was someone who copied your DVD in China and gives it to another chinese person? How many Newtons of Force would that be approximately?

I see you failed to comprehend the example was to point out the significance of degree.

So are you're referring to a magical mystical (MM) kind of force? So what are the units of this force? Oh, and if it isn't this new MM force and it's still about "degrees" of force in Newtons (kg*m/s^2), what is the approximate measure and quantity of force as applied in my example? I do understand a proportionality of punishment (force applied), so I would be willing to accept that proportion I'd be found guilty of.

[FirstAscent]

Tell me, is copying your fellow classmate's test answers appropriate or allowed? Is copying your fellow student's thesis acceptable?

You're confusing copying with plagiarism.

Why are you arguing against your own perceived set of counter-arguments against your stance?

What? No. Continue reading. Freeing slaves "harms" the slaveowner's ability to own slaves, but it was never their right to own slaves in the first place.

Demonstrate to me that it is statistically likely in the next trillion years or so that the number would've been found otherwise.

It does not. Fucking. Matter.

Demonstrate to me that it is statistically likely in the next trillion years or so that the number a method of picking cotton without slaves would've been found otherwise.

Anyway, your fundamental premise is wrong. Ideas are simultaneously discovered all the time.

If you can do that, your case might be stronger. Otherwise, it can mathematically be demonstrated that any other person would never benefit from the number's existence unless the original discoverer found it.

So? You may, someday, benefit from us dropping logic bombs upon you as we have been doing for the past 50 pages or so. Does that entitle us to some sort of payment? NO.

And lastly, since you have pointed out, physical property is not the same as numbers. Given that, you're going to find it tough to demonstrate that the idea of 'copying' a number has any meaning. In mathematics, the set of all numbers means each number is unique and only exists once - rendering the idea of copying nonsensical. Since all numbers are unique and only exist once, it can be demonstrated that your possession of it is in fact stealing, as opposed to copying.

Ugh. No, numbers do not "exist once". If I think of a brand new number, it only exists in my mind. If I share it with others, it simultaneously exists in their minds. The fact that it exists in some other mind does not diminish the fact that it still exists in mine and I can use it. Contrast this with any physical property.

You're confusing a lot of things here. Honestly, it all sounds like a grab bag of half assed arguments to try and bolster your belief that you can disrespect the efforts of others.

[BitterTea]

You're confusing a lot of things here. Honestly, it all sounds like a grab bag of half assed arguments to try and bolster your belief that you can disrespect the efforts of others.

Can you please do me the courtesy of responding to my arguments, the same standard to which you hold me, instead of dismissing them?

[FirstAscent]

You're confusing a lot of things here. Honestly, it all sounds like a grab bag of half assed arguments to try and bolster your belief that you can disrespect the efforts of others.

Can you please do me the courtesy of responding to my arguments, the same standard to which you hold me, instead of dismissing them?

I already presented my arguments. Feel free to go back and reread them. I don't hold that your current arguments need addressing. For example, if I presented an argument to you regarding this topic, and you came back and started discussing the length of giraffe necks, I'd just shake my head and move on.

If you wish to address why you believe a particular film would just magically come into being in the absence of those who created it, or wish to address why you believe you can deny compensation to those who put forth a huge effort to make a film, then do so.

As it stands though, your arguments just aren't worth much.

[MoonShadow]

103 pages of mental masterbation as two ideological sides talk past each other, neither side willing to consider the position of the other, because they have mutually exclusive principles.

[FirstAscent]

103 pages of mental masterbation as two ideological sides talk past each other, neither side willing to consider the position of the other, because they have mutually exclusive principles.

Maybe you as well would like to comment on the following statement by me:

If you wish to address why you believe a particular film would just magically come into being in the absence of those who created it, or wish to address why you believe you can deny compensation to those who put forth a huge effort to make a film, then do so.

Either a film exists or it does not. If it does not exist, then nobody is duplicating it. Once the film exists (by virtue of effort), then why can't you respect the individuals who made it, by continuing to enforce a policy that only seeks to prevent others from doing what they never could've done before anyway?

In other words, it's physically impossible to duplicate that which does not exist. Clearly, this is nobody's fault, and those who do not have the number to duplicate cannot lay blame on others for not having said number to duplicate. Why should it be the case then, that when some group of individuals create the movie (discover the number out of thin air, so to speak) should cry foul when they are told that they still cannot do what they weren't doing in the first place? Only by virtue of the efforts of others, do these number duplicators even have the opportunity to duplicate the work of others.