Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[Hawker]

Copyright infringement is not larceny. Whether the medium is paper, electronic code or something else, it was your property to begin with. You have only modified it to your whim. It belongs to nobody but yourself. To claim that these mediums can become somebody elses by merely the alteration of its shape is the greatest theft of all.

That's your opinion.  You are entitled to it.  But those of us who like living in societies where innovation makes us rich compared to the rest of the world are entitled to disagree.

[1715062379]

1715062379

[1715062379]

1715062379

[1715062379]

1715062379

[ALPHA.]

Copyright infringement is not larceny. Whether the medium is paper, electronic code or something else, it was your property to begin with. You have only modified it to your whim. It belongs to nobody but yourself. To claim that these mediums can become somebody elses by merely the alteration of its shape is the greatest theft of all.

That's your opinion.  You are entitled to it.  But those of us who like living in societies where innovation makes us rich compared to the rest of the world are entitled to disagree.

It's not my opinion. It's my property right and I'm entitled to it. If you want it, you'll have to spill my blood.

[Hawker]

Copyright infringement is not larceny. Whether the medium is paper, electronic code or something else, it was your property to begin with. You have only modified it to your whim. It belongs to nobody but yourself. To claim that these mediums can become somebody elses by merely the alteration of its shape is the greatest theft of all.

That's your opinion.  You are entitled to it.  But those of us who like living in societies where innovation makes us rich compared to the rest of the world are entitled to disagree.

It's not my opinion. It's my property right and I'm entitled to it. If you want it, you'll have to spill my blood.

If you decide that stealing someone else's work and selling it for your own profit is what you want as a career, its far more likely that you'll simply be sued for the undeserved earnings.  If you decide to inflict violence on the law enforcement staff, that would be very sad.

[ALPHA.]

Copyright infringement is not larceny. Whether the medium is paper, electronic code or something else, it was your property to begin with. You have only modified it to your whim. It belongs to nobody but yourself. To claim that these mediums can become somebody elses by merely the alteration of its shape is the greatest theft of all.

That's your opinion.  You are entitled to it.  But those of us who like living in societies where innovation makes us rich compared to the rest of the world are entitled to disagree.

It's not my opinion. It's my property right and I'm entitled to it. If you want it, you'll have to spill my blood.

If you decide that stealing someone else's work and selling it for your own profit is what you want as a career, its far more likely that you'll simply be sued for the undeserved earnings.  If you decide to inflict violence on the law enforcement staff, that would be very sad.

I won't be initiating violence.

[Hawker]

...snip...

I won't be initiating violence.

I know - at heart you are a good guy.  I doubt copying a patented drug design and selling it without a license is your thing either.  The is plenty money to be made from actually creating your own stuff without leeching off other people's stuff.

[ALPHA.]

I won't have any qualms about replicating a patented life-saving drug and selling it to the poor for a price they can afford.

[Hawker]

I won't have any qualms about replicating a patented life-saving drug and selling it to the poor for a price they can afford.

I'm sure the people whose IP you are profiting from won't have any qualms about suing you for any money you make.  Provided you don't hurt anyone and don't mind the inconvenience of having your assets seized, no-one will have any qualms.

Of course if you decide to use violence on the poor law enforcement people, that would be different but you have said you won't

[chickenado]

Logic fail.  Stealing apples is not the same as stealing oranges but both are bad things.  Same with stealing any other property.  

apples are not composed of oranges and oranges are not composed of apples.  

apples can exist in the absence of oranges and vice versa.

They are independent.


Physical matter and information are NOT independent.  information cannot exist in the absence of physical matter. information cannot be created or modified without modifying physical matter.

So your analogy is invalid.



Do I need to spell it out?

Physical property = Right to exclude others from controlling a finite, delimited amount of matter.

IP = Right to control ALL physical matter in the universe in a finite, delimited amount of manners.

See how the two rights cannot hold at the same time?

[FredericBastiat]

Do I need to spell it out?

Physical property = Right to exclude others from controlling a finite, delimited amount of matter.

IP = Right to control ALL physical matter in the universe in a finite, delimited amount of manners.

See how the two rights cannot hold at the same time?

Would you vet the following for me? I'm curious about your opinion on the matter.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.msg485594#msg485594

[chickenado]

Do I need to spell it out?

Physical property = Right to exclude others from controlling a finite, delimited amount of matter.

IP = Right to control ALL physical matter in the universe in a finite, delimited amount of manners.

See how the two rights cannot hold at the same time?

Would you vet the following for me? I'm curious about your opinion on the matter.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.msg485594#msg485594

A reductionist approach to political philosophy if i have ever seen one!
It might be too reductionist. I think that property rights do exhibit irreducible complexity sometimes.


I don't agree with 5). That would imply that a vacuum is ownerless, in which case you could homestead the inside of someones vacuum chamber. Space must be part of the definition. But which space? Einstein tells us that all inertial frames are relative. There has to be a third component: scarcity of properties.

Real life example: sattelite slots in geostationary orbit are traded like real estate.

[FredericBastiat]

A reductionist approach to political philosophy if i have ever seen one!
It might be too reductionist. I think that property rights do exhibit irreducible complexity sometimes.

I don't agree with 5). That would imply that a vacuum is ownerless, in which case you could homestead the inside of someones vacuum chamber. Space must be part of the definition. But which space? Einstein tells us that all inertial frames are relative. There has to be a third component: scarcity of properties.

Real life example: sattelite slots in geostationary orbit are traded like real estate.

If you have any examples of irreducible property issues, I'd be interested in hearing them. The definition of 5) is further modified by 6.2) and 6.3) which would include the "space", or less dense PMM, embordered by more dense PMM. I'd say there is no such thing as a vacuum, just less dense PMM, which if controlled in some reasonably exclusive manner, would make it yours. Density is a non issue I think.

Your example of satellite orbits should be explained by 6.1. Which is to say, you could attempt to claim the entire universe (or orbital paths), but by mere proclamation that wouldn't necessarily make it property. If you can't physically occupy it yet, or you haven't occupied it yet, you haven't homesteaded it, so it's up for grabs by somebody clever enough to figure out the physical problem of acquiring it.

To wit, if the satellite orbit had never been occupied before, your attempt at trading/exchanging it would be a partial farce, or at least not logically enforceable in a court of law, because you haven't occupied that "space" yet to make it yours. That's not to say you couldn't trade that space with anybody else in any legally contractual way, just that if you didn't occupy it first and somebody else did, I don't think you have a case (or a leg) to stand on.

I've always felt some squeamishness when it came to homesteading and property abandonment definitions. I'd like to hear some competing opinions on the matter if you've got the stomach for it.

[Hawker]

Logic fail.  Stealing apples is not the same as stealing oranges but both are bad things.  Same with stealing any other property.  

apples are not composed of oranges and oranges are not composed of apples.  

apples can exist in the absence of oranges and vice versa.

They are independent.


Physical matter and information are NOT independent.  information cannot exist in the absence of physical matter. information cannot be created or modified without modifying physical matter.

So your analogy is invalid.



Do I need to spell it out?

Physical property = Right to exclude others from controlling a finite, delimited amount of matter.

IP = Right to control ALL physical matter in the universe in a finite, delimited amount of manners.

See how the two rights cannot hold at the same time?

Sorry - still wrong in logic.  I can sue someone who takes my car and I can sue someone who resells my software.  Being able to protect my IP does not prevent me protecting my car. It simply means that if you want to sell products like mine, hire some staff and write your own.  

Still baffled as to how you can say that the alternative, where you wait for someone else to hire staff and create a product, then take their work and sell it for your profit, is not aggression.  

[ALPHA.]

www.everythingisaremix.info

It's not aggression because nothing scarce was stolen. Ideas are not original.

[Hawker]

www.everythingisaremix.info

It's not aggression because nothing scarce was stolen. Ideas are not original.

That's fine if you are happy that all medical research and technical innovations that can be found have been found.  Most people will not agree with you and want to encourage development of new drugs and other things that might improve life.

[ALPHA.]

www.everythingisaremix.info

It's not aggression because nothing scarce was stolen. Ideas are not original.

That's fine if you are happy that all medical research and technical innovations that can be found have been found.  Most people will not agree with you and want to encourage development of new drugs and other things that might improve life.

Strawman. I never argued that. What I did argue was ideas are only based on previous ones. They are public territory.

[Hawker]

www.everythingisaremix.info

It's not aggression because nothing scarce was stolen. Ideas are not original.

That's fine if you are happy that all medical research and technical innovations that can be found have been found.  Most people will not agree with you and want to encourage development of new drugs and other things that might improve life.

Strawman. I never argued that. What I did argue was ideas are only based on previous ones. They are public territory.

Um - not a strawman.  Inventions take investment.  Drugs costs hundreds of millions to develop.  If you remove the protection of the patent system, research stops as there is no way to pay for it.

Take responsibility for the consequences of your argument.

[ALPHA.]

www.everythingisaremix.info

It's not aggression because nothing scarce was stolen. Ideas are not original.

That's fine if you are happy that all medical research and technical innovations that can be found have been found.  Most people will not agree with you and want to encourage development of new drugs and other things that might improve life.

Strawman. I never argued that. What I did argue was ideas are only based on previous ones. They are public territory.

Inventions take investment.  Drugs costs hundreds of millions to develop.  If you remove the protection of the patent system, research stops as there is no way to pay for it.

Strawman. That's not what we are talking about.

[ALPHA.]

Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:

    Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.
    Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants".[1] It is a logical fallacy because Person A never made that claim. This example is also a slippery slope fallacy.

Another example:

    Person A: Our society should be taxed less.
    Person B: It is unjust to promote a society that neglects the poor.

In this case, Person B has transformed Person A's position from "less taxation" to "neglecting the poor", which is easier for Person B to defeat.

- Wikipedia

[Hawker]

...snip...
Inventions take investment.  Drugs costs hundreds of millions to develop.  If you remove the protection of the patent system, research stops as there is no way to pay for it.

Strawman. That's not what we are talking about.

ALPHA - we are talking about why IP laws are a good idea.  The preference for encouraging research is one reason.  Wittering on about straw men doesn't advance your case.

[ALPHA.]

...snip...
Inventions take investment.  Drugs costs hundreds of millions to develop.  If you remove the protection of the patent system, research stops as there is no way to pay for it.

Strawman. That's not what we are talking about.

ALPHA - we are talking about why IP laws are a good idea.  The preference for encouraging research is one reason.  Wittering on about straw men doesn't advance your case.

Okay, so riddle me this: How has most of human civilization advanced without idea protection? Why was the Industrial Revolution so successful with all the captains of industry "stealing" from each other?