Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Red]

I think my test for application of the NAP toward robotic life would be the same as organic life. The NAP applies if it (does or is able to) reciprocate in applying the NAP to me.

Interesting! Definately woot worthy. Woot!  But can you define NAP for someone dumb as a stump?

[1714907981]

1714907981

[BitterTea]

Interesting! Definately woot worthy. Woot!  But can you define NAP for someone dumb as a stump?

The initiation of violence is never justified.

[Red]

The initiation of violence is never justified.

Ah! http://common-law.net/nap.html I'm a little slow.

[BitterTea]

The initiation of violence is never justified.

Ah! http://common-law.net/nap.html I'm a little slow.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were asking for a definition of the non aggression principle, not what the acronym NAP means.

[MoonShadow]

I think my test for application of the NAP toward robotic life would be the same as organic life. The NAP applies if it (does or is able to) reciprocate in applying the NAP to me.

Interesting! Definately woot worthy. Woot!  But can you define NAP for someone dumb as a stump?

Not really, but that doesn't make the NAP any worse for a mentally handicapped adult than any other base principle of law.  The same can be said for an infant.  Even if s/he could harm you, you can't rationally hold that against the child, for they don't really know what they are doing.  The only thing that you can do, since you are still bound by the NAP as a rational adult, is to take steps to prevent or avoid harm caused by the child, such as keep the matches in a high cupboard.  The same is generally true for the mentally handicapped adult, no rational person would argue that any adult that can be demonstrated to a reasonable person to be incapable of rational thought has an inalienable right to 'keep and bear arms'.  The theory of 'natural rights' assumes the rightholder in question has the capacity to understand what such a right actually is.

EDIT: I completely read that question wrong.

[Red]

EDIT: I completely read that question wrong.

No worries! Yours was a great description. I'm just a little behind on some abbreviations.

[Hawker]

The law that forbids you stealing other people's car could also be used to justify slavery.  Is it immoral to forbid theft?

Let me guess, because slaves are property right?

You are American and a fair number of your states went to war to defend their "property."  Does that mean that all defense of property is wrong?  Of course not - I am actively defending the idea of intellectual property.

As I said, saying that the same logic can be used for slavery as for defending IP doesn't make IP wrong.

[BitterTea]

You are American and a fair number of your states went to war to defend their "property."  Does that mean that all defense of property is wrong?  OF course not - I am actively defending the idea of intellectual property.

As I said, saying that the same logic can be used for slavery as for defending IP doesn't make IP wrong.

That's not what you said.

The law that forbids you stealing other people's car could also be used to justify slavery.

Show us how the law forbidding the theft of physical property also justifies slavery.

[MoonShadow]

The law that forbids you stealing other people's car could also be used to justify slavery.  Is it immoral to forbid theft?

Let me guess, because slaves are property right?

You are American and a fair number of your states went to war to defend their "property."  Does that mean that all defense of property is wrong?  OF course not - I am actively defending the idea of intellectual property.

As I said, saying that the same logic can be used for slavery as for defending IP doesn't make IP wrong.

Of course it does.  The main point is that people are not property, and neither is data.  Those states went to war over the right of seccession, not slavery per se.  And they were wrong about the slavery issue, just as you are wrong about the IP issue.  The US Constitution was flawed in that it maintained the practice of slavery in order to maintain peace among the states, and it didn't work anyway.  The Constitution is just as flawed in permitting Congress to establish copyright monopolies, and someday that will come to a head as well.  Copyright is a monopoly privilege granted by the king/goverment.  It was a common practice well before the foundation of the United States, and was regarded as about as legitimate as an inherited title or a land grant.  The early US didn't recognize copyrights issued by any foreign government for many decades, and never did recognize copyrights of anyone that date prior to 1776.  Still don't, not that it should matter.  Anything that requires the organized force of government to exist isn't a natural right.  Rights are negative in nature, meaning that to exist, they need only that others (and particularly governments) do nothing to inhibit their free exercise.  IP doesn't fit that model, since the 'right' of the producer to limit the free distribution of their work via IP laws require that agents of government do something to those who would freely distribute that data in order to prevent or limit same.  If you really can't see the distinction, I pity your children more than you; for your education has failed you, and will likewise fail your children because of you.

[Hawker]

The law that forbids you stealing other people's car could also be used to justify slavery.  Is it immoral to forbid theft?

Let me guess, because slaves are property right?

You are American and a fair number of your states went to war to defend their "property."  Does that mean that all defense of property is wrong?  OF course not - I am actively defending the idea of intellectual property.

As I said, saying that the same logic can be used for slavery as for defending IP doesn't make IP wrong.

Of course it does.  The main point is that people are not property, and neither is data.  Those states went to war over the right of seccession, not slavery per se.  And they were wrong about the slavery issue, just as you are wrong about the IP issue.  The US Constitution was flawed in that it maintained the practice of slavery in order to maintain peace among the states, and it didn't work anyway.  The Constitution is just as flawed in permitting Congress to establish copyright monopolies, and someday that will come to a head as well.  Copyright is a monopoly privilege granted by the king/goverment.  It was a common practice well before the foundation of the United States, and was regarded as about as legitimate as an inherited title or a land grant.  The early US didn't recognize copyrights issued by any foreign government for many decades, and never did recognize copyrights of anyone that date prior to 1776.  Still don't, not that it should matter.  Anything that requires the organized force of government to exist isn't a natural right.  Rights are negative in nature, meaning that to exist, they need only that others (and particularly governments) do nothing to inhibit their free exercise.  IP doesn't fit that model, since the 'right' of the producer to limit the free distribution of their work via IP laws require that agents of government do something to those who would freely distribute that data in order to prevent or limit same.  If you really can't see the distinction, I pity your children more than you; for your education has failed you, and will likewise fail your children because of you.

So your assumption is that society exists, that it can act to prevent harm to itself but should not because you say so.  

Who elected you?  

No-one.

Is treating data as property useful?  If the answer is yes, people will do it and you have no right to tell them not to.  You can try to persuade but don't get self-righteous. 

[MoonShadow]

The law that forbids you stealing other people's car could also be used to justify slavery.  Is it immoral to forbid theft?

Let me guess, because slaves are property right?

You are American and a fair number of your states went to war to defend their "property."  Does that mean that all defense of property is wrong?  OF course not - I am actively defending the idea of intellectual property.

As I said, saying that the same logic can be used for slavery as for defending IP doesn't make IP wrong.

Of course it does.  The main point is that people are not property, and neither is data.  Those states went to war over the right of seccession, not slavery per se.  And they were wrong about the slavery issue, just as you are wrong about the IP issue.  The US Constitution was flawed in that it maintained the practice of slavery in order to maintain peace among the states, and it didn't work anyway.  The Constitution is just as flawed in permitting Congress to establish copyright monopolies, and someday that will come to a head as well.  Copyright is a monopoly privilege granted by the king/goverment.  It was a common practice well before the foundation of the United States, and was regarded as about as legitimate as an inherited title or a land grant.  The early US didn't recognize copyrights issued by any foreign government for many decades, and never did recognize copyrights of anyone that date prior to 1776.  Still don't, not that it should matter.  Anything that requires the organized force of government to exist isn't a natural right.  Rights are negative in nature, meaning that to exist, they need only that others (and particularly governments) do nothing to inhibit their free exercise.  IP doesn't fit that model, since the 'right' of the producer to limit the free distribution of their work via IP laws require that agents of government do something to those who would freely distribute that data in order to prevent or limit same.  If you really can't see the distinction, I pity your children more than you; for your education has failed you, and will likewise fail your children because of you.

So your assumption is that society exists, that it can act to prevent harm to itself but should not because you say so. 

Who elected you? 

Nobody.  Who says that the elected represent society?  I don't.  You still haven't even tried to define 'society'.  Probably because you intuitively know that you can't define society in a way that is inclusive and still doesn't result in IP laws pitting one class of society against another.  We would hammer you down with that one too, no matter how you do it.  Because 'society' is an intangible concept; it is both real and false at the same time.  Certainly you know many people that you can identify with that you would consider part of your 'society', as well as many people that would completely reject being included by yourself.

And again, just because harm to one class within society can be demonstrated with the repeal of IP laws, does not mean that there is not harm caused to another class within society by the existance of IP laws.  I could sum it up in one sentence.

You are the 1%.

Guess who the 99% are?

[MoonShadow]

Is treating data as property useful?  If the answer is yes, people will do it and you have no right to tell them not to.  You can try to persuade but don't get self-righteous. 

Useful for whom?  Sure, some people are going to try to treat data as property, but that doesn't make it so. (insert slavery property reference here)  Others will treat data as data, and you have no right to use force against them to prevent it.  I can get as self-righteous as I like.  Your great-grandchildren are going to be as embarassed to know how you "earned" an income as white southerners today are about how they came to inherit a Georgia plantation.

[Hawker]

Is treating data as property useful?  If the answer is yes, people will do it and you have no right to tell them not to.  You can try to persuade but don't get self-righteous.  

Useful for whom? Sure, some people are going to try to treat data as property, but that doesn't make it so. (insert slavery property reference here)  Others will treat data as data, and you have no right to use force against them to prevent it.  I can get as self-righteous as I like.  Your great-grandchildren are going to be as embarassed to know how you "earned" an income as white southerners today are about how they came to inherit a Georgia plantation.

That's a question for the people making the decision.  You can be as self-righteous as you like - democracies are well used to authoritarians lecturing them.  Gaddify used lecture us Europeans on how to run a "fair" society should be run.  

There is good and bad news for you:

The bad news for you is that you are have only one vote and there are lots of people with their own ideas you have to compete with.  Some say all property is theft.  Others say that lizard people have taken over the world.   There are still committed socialists who say some property can only be owned by the state.  You say that intellectual property is akin to slavery.  A democracy is a free market in ideas so its all good stuff. 

The good news is that you live in a free country so feel free to lobby for a change. If you don't come up with something better than the existing system, I don't see you getting any further than the lizard conspiracy people.

[FirstAscent]

You say that intellectual property is akin to slavery.

I'm still trying to understand where various entities have placed MoonShadow into indentured servitude or are going to place him into indentured servitude because the other entities have been granted intellectual property rights to the numerical data which represents some particular film.

All of his arguments of indentured servitude are either nonexistent, or require a leap of faith and long chain of actions in which MoonShadow himself would have to knowingly commit acts that he knows would be to his detriment, and would not even be acts that he could commit had it not been for the production of the film.

Let me understand this:

1. The Coen Brothers make a film.
2. MoonShadow knowingly copies it.
3. MoonShadow is arrested.
4. MoonShadow pays a fine.
5. MoonShadow must now work to pay the fine and/or is incarcerated.

Or:

1. Consider if the Coen Brothers did not make the film.
2. MoonShadow cannot copy it because it does not exist.
3. MoonSahdow is never arrested.

Now, how is the third alternative below different from the second?

1. The Coen Brothers make a film.
2. MoonShadow does not copy it.
3. MoonShadow is never arrested.

Now, consider the virtually infinite number of films which are never made:

1. An infinite number of films are not made.
2. MoonShadow is not copying all of those infinite quantity of films.
3. MoonShadow is never arrested for copying those infinite quantity of films never made (because MoonShadow didn't copy them).
4. He is no wiser or less wiser for not having had the opportunity to see them.

Consider this:

1. I make a spaceship which can take MoonShadow to the nearest star.
2. MoonShadow knowingly uses it to go where no man has gone before.
3. He arrives, and aliens enslave him.

In the last example, I have empowered MoonShadow to do something which nobody could do before. The wise person will tread carefully, glad for the empowerment.

The Coen brothers have, in a sense, empowered people the opportunity to see something which nobody has seen before, nor will see otherwise. The wise person will enjoy the benefits of that empowerment without demanding a free ride.

[Red]

Really, I was going to argue in favor of intellectual property laws.
But you guys are so bad at it, that I don't want to be associated with you!

It's not like the concept was imposed on people. We willingly wrote it into our constitution. Nobody will even acknowledge why. It was one of the most successful decisions "we the people" ever made. Now you are arguing to let Hollywood turn it into the one thing it was meant to prevent. I refuse to argue "with" you people. As such I will not argue "against" the libertarian views.

[MoonShadow]

Really, I was going to argue in favor of intellectual property laws.
But you guys are so bad at it, that I don't want to be associated with you!

It's not like the concept was imposed on people. We willingly wrote it into our constitution. Nobody will even acknowledge why. It was one of the most successful decisions "we the people" ever made. Now you are arguing to let Hollywood turn it into the one thing it was meant to prevent. I refuse to argue "with" you people. As such I will not argue "against" the libertarian views.

Ironicly, they do suck.  And it's not that I'm arguing that IP is akin to slavery.  I'm arguing that their support for IP laws are forced upon a wider public that did not agree to the terms; and like slavery and (more recently) segregation, society will eventually look upon such laws as fundamentally immoral favoritism of one group of people over another.

I shall address the reasons why copyright exists in the Constitution, and why it's there in another post.

[Red]

I shall address the reasons why copyright exists in the Constitution, and why it's there in another post.

Cool! will you start another thread? This one is kind of bloated!

I'm pretty sure we are going to end up arguing on the same side. What industry is trying to do to copyright law is completely contrary to why people created it in the first place. However, at the time, and quite probably today, the original intent/consequences of copyright/patent/trademark laws was much better for *everyone* than the consequences of not having them at all.

[BitterTea]

I shall address the reasons why copyright exists in the Constitution, and why it's there in another post.

Cool! will you start another thread? This one is kind of bloated!

I'm pretty sure we are going to end up arguing on the same side. What industry is trying to do to copyright law is completely contrary to why people created it in the first place. However, at the time, and quite probably today, the original intent/consequences of copyright/patent/trademark laws was much better for *everyone* than the consequences of not having them at all.

If you want to talk about the original intent of copyright law, you'll have to go back further than the constitution, further than the Statute of Anne. The printing press was allowing faster and easier distribution of information. This worried the church and the state, so the Stationer's guild was given a monopoly on the right to make copies in exchange for an agreement to censor any unwanted materials. This was great for the guild, not so much for anyone else. After a change in parliament, this monopoly was revoked. Shortly afterward, the Statute of Anne was passed, which as its stated prupose was to benefit artists. However, what ended up happening was quite different...

"Authors themselves were excluded from membership in the company and could not therefore legally self-publish, nor were they given royalties for books that sold well."

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_1709

[Hawker]

...snip...

Nobody.  Who says that the elected represent society?  I don't.  You still haven't even tried to define 'society'.  Probably because you intuitively know that you can't define society in a way that is inclusive and still doesn't result in IP laws pitting one class of society against another.  We would hammer you down with that one too, no matter how you do it.  Because 'society' is an intangible concept; it is both real and false at the same time.  Certainly you know many people that you can identify with that you would consider part of your 'society', as well as many people that would completely reject being included by yourself.

And again, just because harm to one class within society can be demonstrated with the repeal of IP laws, does not mean that there is not harm caused to another class within society by the existance of IP laws.  I could sum it up in one sentence.

You are the 1%.

Guess who the 99% are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society

That's society. I've linked it before.

Once you have a society, it will organise itself to prevent harm to its members.  Where there are conflicts, laws will be made to resolve them.  Ideally, the body that makes those laws should be elected so that as broad a range of people as possible get represented.  In the best systems, the "losers" will still have sets in the parliament so their opinions cannot be ignored.  I would content that the US where you live and the UK where I live have good examples of the best systems. 

If your issue is that the elected don't represent society, then you have a basic issue with democracy.  That's sort of off topic to this thread. 

[MoonShadow]

...snip...

Nobody.  Who says that the elected represent society?  I don't.  You still haven't even tried to define 'society'.  Probably because you intuitively know that you can't define society in a way that is inclusive and still doesn't result in IP laws pitting one class of society against another.  We would hammer you down with that one too, no matter how you do it.  Because 'society' is an intangible concept; it is both real and false at the same time.  Certainly you know many people that you can identify with that you would consider part of your 'society', as well as many people that would completely reject being included by yourself.

And again, just because harm to one class within society can be demonstrated with the repeal of IP laws, does not mean that there is not harm caused to another class within society by the existance of IP laws.  I could sum it up in one sentence.

You are the 1%.

Guess who the 99% are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society

That's society. I've linked it before.

Once you have a society, it will organise itself to prevent harm to its members.  Where there are conflicts, laws will be made to resolve them.  Ideally, the body that makes those laws should be elected so that as broad a range of people as possible get represented.  In the best systems, the "losers" will still have sets in the parliament so their opinions cannot be ignored.  I would content that the US where you live and the UK where I live have good examples of the best systems. 

If your issue is that the elected don't represent society, then you have a basic issue with democracy.  That's sort of off topic to this thread. 

I guess you could say that my issue is with representative democracy, but since this is a federated republic and not a democracy, is such a complaint unfair?