Political Crossfire Forums

[Free Thinkr]

francois60 wrote: What do you do if only one company or person actually knows how to implement the technology? Force them to reveal it?
No, the argument is simply that legal protection would not be given RE: 'intellectual property.' If someone was able to guard his ideas, that'd still be fine.

[gavnook]

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
When an economy can not afford to feed, cloth, educate and employ all of it's people, that is a condition of overpopulation.

How can this occur, in your opinion? Save, of course, for a population of gimps?

How about when the world starts running out of oil?


I'd be more concerned about when the world stops running out of oil.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Nathyn wrote: I was reading through some of the stuff on Marxists.org, when I came across an old essay. Can't remember which one it was now, but in any case, a person was critiquing the relationship in capitalism between technological and unemployment. One interesting thing he said, which Libertarians would probably agree with, is that one reason why capitalism is so inefficient is because of intellectual monopoly ("intellectual property") rights. Of course, this isn't specific to capitalism, but that's not the point.

His point was that the best technology is held within a small number of hands. So, for instance, I was watching a documentary on soft drinks a while back, where the documenters had the chance to visit the Dr. Pepper factory. The factory manager explained the basic process behind creating soda, but then later on said he couldn't go into any more of the specific details, because Dr. Pepper's formula is secret, as well as some of the technology behind it.

Were everybody allowed to use all technology, labor productivity would shoot through the roof. This, I think, is probably one major part of China's soaring economic growth, as they have been criticized for not uphold intellectual monopoly rights.

I agree, of course, there needs to be a few years of protection in order to give an incentive for ingenuity, but a lifetime-and-a-half is ridiculous.

I think that you have no conceptualization of future gains and values.

If there were no intelectual property rights, then who would invest in theoretical medicine? How about creating better computers? How about designing a better medal, a better way to grow crops, a more efficient car, a faster computer... the list goes on forever

In fact, I am getting really quite angry with your ignorance Nathyn. I normally don't feel this way towards you, but it seems to me like you are just being deliberately stupid.

While it is possible that there would be a minor spike in ecconimc growth for a short period (say, maybe five years), the ramifications of such a policy would completely destory a country. We would have the bloodshed of Soviet Russia within ten years as everyone scrambled to bleed the last men of talent and intelect dry.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Harbinger wrote:
Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientists to realize that we're running full steam straight of a cliff. Once the older oil wells around the world start sucking air, oil prices are going to jump hard. Many, if not all, countries will be devastated by this. Their economies will no longer be able to afford to feed, cloth, educate and employ their people thus, they will end up suffering from conditions of overpopulation. Economic and political tensions will lead to crime and war and a lot of people will end up dying by force and famine.
Nah, we'll simply move to alternate energy sources. Man is an animal unlike any other, our adaptability is what defines us. I have little doubt that we'll adapt to use other energy sources; many already exist, but are simply not economical with the relatively-cheap oil still accessible. Malthusian doctrine is the domain of the haters of mankind, and it's sad to see it exercised these days, despite its obviously-fallacious nature. 10 minutes thought should easily demonstrate why such notions are without merit.
You're missing the point. I agree, we can and will adapt. But only after a lot of bloody chaos. Imagine you can't get to work cause you can't buy gas. Public transportation has been canceled in order to conserve fuel for police cars. Eventually, they'll run out too. Then, no more cops. Then the power goes out because the energy companies can't fuel their engines or lubricate their parts anymore. No lights, no air conditioning, no refrigeration, no TV, no radio, no internet, no telephones, no hot water. Now you've got hundreds of millions of dirty, stinky, selfish SOBs with nothing to do but stare at each other. Can you just imagine what would happen in every city of this country under those conditions?

:rofl:
seriously dude, you should never do drugs while reading philosophy--they just completely mess up your perception of reality.

"public transportation has been canceled in order to conserve fuel for police cars"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I'm sorry. I shoudn't be so cruel. But this just has to be a joke.

[bob.appleyard]

Quote: I am quite proud of being human and think we are one of the most successful species to come about on this planet to date...

By what measure are you gauging success?

[Nathyn]

Iriemon wrote: Nathyn wrote: gavnook wrote: Nathyn wrote: So, for instance, I was watching a documentary on soft drinks a while back, where the documenters had the chance to visit the Dr. Pepper factory. The factory manager explained the basic process behind creating soda, but then later on said he couldn't go into any more of the specific details, because Dr. Pepper's formula is secret, as well as some of the technology behind it.

Trade secrets are not the same thing as intellectual property. In fact, one given purpose of a patent system is to encourage innovators to publish technology they might otherwise keep as trade secrets. This was Thomas Jefferson's reason for supporting patents. Of course, thousands and thousands of patents have been issued for things that never could be trade secrets.


I am very strongly opposed to patent law. Innovation is good because it makes labor more productive, life more enjoyable, and the previously impossible possible. This is all the encouragement it needs.
"Trade secrets," are protected by law, though, too.

True, but not in the same way. I could reverse engineer Coca-cola and sell it legally. Coke as no patent or legal protection on its formula.

However, its formula is its secret. It is an asset, and like any other asset, it is against the law to steal it, which generally is what trade secret laws protect.
Trade secret law, though, is abused the same way intellectual property law is. Recently, Microsoft sued someone for stealing a trade secret. I can't remember over what, but the point is, Microsoft couldn't prove that any software-ninjas broke into the Microsoft HQ, but I believe they still were able to build a legitimate case simply by proving that the product was similar enough to Microsoft's to warrant their suit.

Iriemon wrote: perdidochas wrote: Nathyn wrote:
I agree, of course, there needs to be a few years of protection in order to give an incentive for ingenuity, but a lifetime-and-a-half is ridiculous.

Two separate issues. 1) Patents--protection in the U.S. given for 20 yrs from date the patent is applied for. 2) Copyrights--life + 70 yrs. I agree with you on copyrights--they are too long. I disagree on patents. 20 yrs is reasonable.

I agree, patents are a compromise. They encourage investment in new product and technologies. Companies are less likely to spend $100 million to develop a new product, if another company can copy it and sell it without having made the R&D investment. On the other hand, they discourage free competition. Its a compromise, 20 years (is that the standard patent protection? I thought it was less) may be a little on the high side, but not unreasonable, IMO.
I just think it needs to be emphasized that it's not a "right." Intellectual monopoly is somewhat of a necessity, obviously. There needs to be some minimal protection, but it's calling it intellectual "PROPERTY" that bothers me, which then implies protection beyond what's necessary for the market to work.

mathurin wrote: Retrouvailles wrote: sorry to barge into your conversation. Just curious to hear your opinions on a remedy to the patent dilemna.

on one hand companies will not perfect a drug unless they see potential profit. This means having monopoly through patent.

on the other, people may be dying because they cannot affort to pay for the high cost of these drugs. Since the drug is patented, cheaper generic brands will not be able to sprout up and meet the demands.

do you guys think this is a dilemna that has no solution?

lengthen the life of the patent on drugs
the reason the drug has such high costs is because the clinical trials and testing process takes up all but a few years of the patent, the company is left with a very valuable product but only a few years in which to regain the losses to research before generics swiftly drive the price down, with a longer period they could take a less agressive pricing strategy, this would fix both problems
Except with a monopoly, they can charge whatever price they want. Short-lasting patents can't drive prices up, because when their product reaches the market, it's determined by supply and demand. Demand for drugs is generally constant. Well, being that they're the original manufacturer, they'll have the largest supply. Allowing generics to manufacture the same drug will create an even larger supply. Thus, short patents drive prices down, not up. The argument against short patents is that it hurts ingenuity. The original manufacture benefits less than they would were they to have a long-last monopoly.

Harbinger wrote: a) Production is proportional to consumption, therefore, we must promote an increase in consumption in order to increase production.
Whoa, you're a Keynesian, now?

Harbinger wrote: b) Consumption is proportional to the population, therefore, we must increase the population in order to increase consumption.

c) Population is proportional to production, therefore, we must increase production in order to increase the population.

Thus we end up promoting overpopulation, overconsumption and overproduction until a sever lack of resources forces production down. Then, the massive populations of the world will be forced to drop as well- one way or another- until consumption falls in line with production again.
There isn't a one-to-one proportion between those three things. Modern economies produce above and beyond the population growth, and so, they can easily handle population growth.

See criticism of Malthus.

Germanstudent wrote: Quote: Production is proportional to consumption, therefore, we must promote an increase in consumption in order to increase production.


This assumption is called Say's theorem. Nowadays it isn't always true.
In times of globalization, an increasing consumption in a country A, can increase the production in a other country B, so that the production in country A stays at the same level.
That is the reason, why keynesian economics nowadays is getting into the background. E.g. the american fed is now after Greenspan changing away from the anticyclically interest policy.
What he said was the reverse of Say's law, which is why I asked if he was a Keynesian.

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
When an economy can not afford to feed, cloth, educate and employ all of it's people, that is a condition of overpopulation.

How can this occur, in your opinion? Save, of course, for a population of gimps?

How about when the world starts running out of oil?

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
When industries consume natural resources faster than nature can replenish them, that is overconsumption.

I'd agree, except I point out that this has never occurred in the history of industry; nor will it occur within our lifetimes.

And how old is modern industry? Barely over a hundred years. I sure wouldn't give it another hundred years. We may not be around when the crap hits the fan but, so much for our legacy.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
When industries expand and grow not to meet demand but to increase demand, that is overproduction.

When has this ever happened? We hear constantly of "overproduction," but is it because of lack of demand? No. It is because those who demand haven't the means to acquire such wealth.

Huh? I don't know what other people mean but, a good example of what I'm talking about would be "economies of scale". Through expansion, producers can increase their rate of production while reducing there costs of production. This not only increases profit margins, it enables them to increase market-share. Thus, businesses expand not to meet demand but to increase demand for their own products. When does this not happen?

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
The world runs on oil. There is only so much oil in the ground. Some people say there's a lot but, nobody really knows. One thing is for sure, the faster we use it, the sooner we loose it.

This is true, but you miss that it does so largely out of simple convenience; it is more economical at this point to use oil than alternatives.

Oh no! We aren't just using oil out of convenience. We're using it because there is no economic alternative to oil. Oil refineries are self sustaining but, the process of refining gasoline and diesel fuels from even tar or coal is not efficient enough to sustain itself let alone a global economy.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Despite this, our economy is designed so that great profits can be made from overproduction.

Nonsense. The suffix "over" implies a negative.

That's because it is negative. Have you tasted the 'fresh' produce in grocery stores lately. It's something I would only recommend as a prank on someone you don't like.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Naturally, this means producers are overconsuming the environment- raping the damn planet!

So the Malthus' want you to believe. But, then, the Malthus' thought our planet could never sustain 6 billion people.

It can't sustain 6 billion people. It just has six billion people at the moment because oil fed industries have made it possible. Millions of people are starving and dying from disease every day in far away places we never think about. Once the oil runs out (or even runs low), billions of people will be starving and dying everywhere.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
All the wonderful bountiful production makes room for more people so, we increase immigration and procreation.

Sure. Awesome.

Party for the moment, man!

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientists to realize that we're running full steam straight of a cliff. Once the older oil wells around the world start sucking air, oil prices are going to jump hard. Many, if not all, countries will be devastated by this. Their economies will no longer be able to afford to feed, cloth, educate and employ their people thus, they will end up suffering from conditions of overpopulation. Economic and political tensions will lead to crime and war and a lot of people will end up dying by force and famine.
Nah, we'll simply move to alternate energy sources. Man is an animal unlike any other, our adaptability is what defines us. I have little doubt that we'll adapt to use other energy sources; many already exist, but are simply not economical with the relatively-cheap oil still accessible. Malthusian doctrine is the domain of the haters of mankind, and it's sad to see it exercised these days, despite its obviously-fallacious nature. 10 minutes thought should easily demonstrate why such notions are without merit.
You're missing the point. I agree, we can and will adapt. But only after a lot of bloody chaos. Imagine you can't get to work cause you can't buy gas. Public transportation has been canceled in order to conserve fuel for police cars. Eventually, they'll run out too. Then, no more cops. Then the power goes out because the energy companies can't fuel their engines or lubricate their parts anymore. No lights, no air conditioning, no refrigeration, no TV, no radio, no internet, no telephones, no hot water. Now you've got hundreds of millions of dirty, stinky, selfish SOBs with nothing to do but stare at each other. Can you just imagine what would happen in every city of this country under those conditions?
Read the "empirical criticism" of Malthus on Wikipedia's article. Empirical observation has shown that modern economies produce beyond population growth. In fact, wealthy countries often have shrinking populations and require immigration for their overall population to even remain constant.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Nathyn wrote: Iriemon wrote: Nathyn wrote: gavnook wrote: Nathyn wrote: So, for instance, I was watching a documentary on soft drinks a while back, where the documenters had the chance to visit the Dr. Pepper factory. The factory manager explained the basic process behind creating soda, but then later on said he couldn't go into any more of the specific details, because Dr. Pepper's formula is secret, as well as some of the technology behind it.

Trade secrets are not the same thing as intellectual property. In fact, one given purpose of a patent system is to encourage innovators to publish technology they might otherwise keep as trade secrets. This was Thomas Jefferson's reason for supporting patents. Of course, thousands and thousands of patents have been issued for things that never could be trade secrets.


I am very strongly opposed to patent law. Innovation is good because it makes labor more productive, life more enjoyable, and the previously impossible possible. This is all the encouragement it needs.
"Trade secrets," are protected by law, though, too.

True, but not in the same way. I could reverse engineer Coca-cola and sell it legally. Coke as no patent or legal protection on its formula.

However, its formula is its secret. It is an asset, and like any other asset, it is against the law to steal it, which generally is what trade secret laws protect.
Trade secret law, though, is abused the same way intellectual property law is. Recently, Microsoft sued someone for stealing a trade secret. I can't remember over what, but the point is, Microsoft couldn't prove that any software-ninjas broke into the Microsoft HQ, but I believe they still were able to build a legitimate case simply by proving that the product was similar enough to Microsoft's to warrant their suit.
I don't know the laws behind trade secrets, but I would find it odd that you could sue someone for comming up with something exaclty the same if they couldn't have known it was exactly the same (becuase it is a trade secret)


Quote: Iriemon wrote: perdidochas wrote: Nathyn wrote:
I agree, of course, there needs to be a few years of protection in order to give an incentive for ingenuity, but a lifetime-and-a-half is ridiculous.

Two separate issues. 1) Patents--protection in the U.S. given for 20 yrs from date the patent is applied for. 2) Copyrights--life + 70 yrs. I agree with you on copyrights--they are too long. I disagree on patents. 20 yrs is reasonable.

I agree, patents are a compromise. They encourage investment in new product and technologies. Companies are less likely to spend $100 million to develop a new product, if another company can copy it and sell it without having made the R&D investment. On the other hand, they discourage free competition. Its a compromise, 20 years (is that the standard patent protection? I thought it was less) may be a little on the high side, but not unreasonable, IMO.
I just think it needs to be emphasized that it's not a "right." Intellectual monopoly is somewhat of a necessity, obviously. There needs to be some minimal protection, but it's calling it intellectual "PROPERTY" that bothers me, which then implies protection beyond what's necessary for the market to work.
intelectual property the ESSENSE of what properyt is, it is absolutely and completely property down to its very core.

When you make a hammer, you mix your effort with it and it could be argued that the hammer is not completley yours becuase you did not make the metal in the hammer etc. etc.

But when you make an invention, its knowledge does is not directly imbodied in any physical object which existed before. It is completely and wholly yours.

It is more your property than anything could ever be.

[LeopardPM]

Give it a rest, we are not running out of oil, and when/if we do we will find alternatives:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70430-0.html?tw=rss.index
http://www.fao.org/docrep/W7241E/w7241e0h.htm

[LeopardPM]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: I don't know the laws behind trade secrets, but I would find it odd that you could sue someone for comming up with something exaclty the same if they couldn't have known it was exactly the same (becuase it is a trade secret)
Who cares even if they did know it was the same? Is it 'wrong' for me to look at a chair that someone else created and make one as close the same as possible? Knowledge is not ownable, to imply such means to extend ownership to the thoughts of other peoples minds - simply impossible. I 'own' the knowledge in my head, but if I tell others this knowledge (either through training, or conversation, or by me putting to use this knowledge by making a chair, then whatever other people think and do with the knowledge they gleen from my actions, is purely theirs.


Quote: intelectual property the ESSENSE of what properyt is, it is absolutely and completely property down to its very core.
only your thoughts are yours, NOT other people's thoughts!

Quote: When you make a hammer, you mix your effort with it and it could be argued that the hammer is not completley yours becuase you did not make the metal in the hammer etc. etc.

But when you make an invention, its knowledge does is not directly imbodied in any physical object which existed before. It is completely and wholly yours.
really? Did you invent all the tools you used? The mathematics you used? The language you used? Did the person who invented the 'pistol' also invent gunpowder? All 'inventors' build upon the knowledge of previous people - this is how the human race progresses and if each little addition to the pool of knowledge had a 'cost', then we would all suffer greatly and be hampered in our efforts to improve things.

Quote: It is more your property than anything could ever be.
only the exact thoughts in your head - you simply cannot own the thoughts in other peoples heads

[Atlas Bergeron]

LeopardPM wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: I don't know the laws behind trade secrets, but I would find it odd that you could sue someone for comming up with something exaclty the same if they couldn't have known it was exactly the same (becuase it is a trade secret)
Who cares even if they did know it was the same? Is it 'wrong' for me to look at a chair that someone else created and make one as close the same as possible?
if the chair has some unique design which is copyrighted and if you are going to sell it on the market, then yes, that would be wrong.

As for chairs modeled after other chairs more than, oh, a hundred years ago--no, that wouldn't be wrong.

Quote: Knowledge is not ownable, to imply such means to extend ownership to the thoughts of other peoples minds - simply impossible. I 'own' the knowledge in my head, but if I tell others this knowledge (either through training, or conversation, or by me putting to use this knowledge by making a chair, then whatever other people think and do with the knowledge they gleen from my actions, is purely theirs.
you are mixing knowledge and invention. If I discovered that E=mc^2 and I published, I could not force people to then live by a false hood--this is true for any basic truth of the universe. If a philosopher finds a basic truth of the universe, he cannot then scream at people for repeating it (although, they would have to cite him as a source if he was indeed the source). You are right, knowledge belongs to no one--it existed before the person discovered it and thus they have no right to claim its universal truth (although they have the right to the claim of the discovery)

invention on the other hand did not exist before hand, to this I will get to latter.

Quote: Quote: intelectual property the ESSENSE of what properyt is, it is absolutely and completely property down to its very core.
only your thoughts are yours, NOT other people's thoughts!
What? I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense. What is your point? Yes, if I invent an engine, that invention is mine, not others. If he invents an engine, that engine is his, not mine.

Quote: Quote: When you make a hammer, you mix your effort with it and it could be argued that the hammer is not completley yours becuase you did not make the metal in the hammer etc. etc.

But when you make an invention, its knowledge does is not directly imbodied in any physical object which existed before. It is completely and wholly yours.
really? Did you invent all the tools you used? The mathematics you used? The language you used? Did the person who invented the 'pistol' also invent gunpowder? All 'inventors' build upon the knowledge of previous people - this is how the human race progresses and if each little addition to the pool of knowledge had a 'cost', then we would all suffer greatly and be hampered in our efforts to improve things.
of course, and is it not just that each should benefit from thier contribution to all other inventions? It is thier contribution. It is thier right to gain wealth from it.

Invention is taking what exists and creating something that did not exist, taking the innate and making it more valuable (more valuable, of course, to humans)
You can not pay the dead. They are dead. Thus, you can use what they have left behind.

Quote: Quote: It is more your property than anything could ever be.
only the exact thoughts in your head - you simply cannot own the thoughts in other peoples heads
This is the same thing I am saying. I do not see your point.

If you mean that you cannot justly restrict others from building your motor, you are wrong. If you mean you cannot justly restrict others from thinking about how your motor works and how to improve it, you are right.

[gavnook]

A group of monkeys finds a pile of fruit sitting under a tree near the beach. They howl in excitement at the discovery, but soon discover that the fruits are covered in bugs that bite them when they try eating the fruit. Within a few minutes, most of the monkeys have given up. Then, one female carries a fruit up to the water and dunks it to wash the bugs off. She begins eating the fruit, and the other monkeys notice. A few minutes later, all the other monkeys are eating bug-free fruit. A clear violation of her intellecutual property rights.

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: I don't know the laws behind trade secrets, but I would find it odd that you could sue someone for comming up with something exaclty the same if they couldn't have known it was exactly the same (becuase it is a trade secret)
Who cares even if they did know it was the same? Is it 'wrong' for me to look at a chair that someone else created and make one as close the same as possible? Knowledge is not ownable, to imply such means to extend ownership to the thoughts of other peoples minds - simply impossible. I 'own' the knowledge in my head, but if I tell others this knowledge (either through training, or conversation, or by me putting to use this knowledge by making a chair, then whatever other people think and do with the knowledge they gleen from my actions, is purely theirs.


Quote: intelectual property the ESSENSE of what properyt is, it is absolutely and completely property down to its very core.
only your thoughts are yours, NOT other people's thoughts!

Quote: When you make a hammer, you mix your effort with it and it could be argued that the hammer is not completley yours becuase you did not make the metal in the hammer etc. etc.

But when you make an invention, its knowledge does is not directly imbodied in any physical object which existed before. It is completely and wholly yours.
really? Did you invent all the tools you used? The mathematics you used? The language you used? Did the person who invented the 'pistol' also invent gunpowder? All 'inventors' build upon the knowledge of previous people - this is how the human race progresses and if each little addition to the pool of knowledge had a 'cost', then we would all suffer greatly and be hampered in our efforts to improve things.

Somewhat surprisingly, I'm going to have to agree with Leopard on this one.

The driving force that led people to develop property rights in tangible things was the need to handle scarcity. There is no scarcity when it comes to intellectual property, OTOH. Unlike my use of your hammer, my use of your idea does not deny you anything.

Accordingly, the development of IP law had a much different origin and followed a much different course than that of real property and personal property law.

Modern IP law derives from the old English system of Royal Charters, which were a mechanism for regulating trade and had nothing to do with property.

Even in the US Constitution, the word "property" is never used with regard to patents and copyrights:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

The Founders clearly saw patents and copyrights as mechanism for encouraging science and art by granting a temporary exclusive privilege; not as a means of protecting individual property.

Here are a couple of good articles on IP:

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_10/ewing/index.html

and my favorite:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property99/history.html

[Atlas Bergeron]

RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: I don't know the laws behind trade secrets, but I would find it odd that you could sue someone for comming up with something exaclty the same if they couldn't have known it was exactly the same (becuase it is a trade secret)
Who cares even if they did know it was the same? Is it 'wrong' for me to look at a chair that someone else created and make one as close the same as possible? Knowledge is not ownable, to imply such means to extend ownership to the thoughts of other peoples minds - simply impossible. I 'own' the knowledge in my head, but if I tell others this knowledge (either through training, or conversation, or by me putting to use this knowledge by making a chair, then whatever other people think and do with the knowledge they gleen from my actions, is purely theirs.


Quote: intelectual property the ESSENSE of what properyt is, it is absolutely and completely property down to its very core.
only your thoughts are yours, NOT other people's thoughts!

Quote: When you make a hammer, you mix your effort with it and it could be argued that the hammer is not completley yours becuase you did not make the metal in the hammer etc. etc.

But when you make an invention, its knowledge does is not directly imbodied in any physical object which existed before. It is completely and wholly yours.
really? Did you invent all the tools you used? The mathematics you used? The language you used? Did the person who invented the 'pistol' also invent gunpowder? All 'inventors' build upon the knowledge of previous people - this is how the human race progresses and if each little addition to the pool of knowledge had a 'cost', then we would all suffer greatly and be hampered in our efforts to improve things.

Somewhat surprisingly, I'm going to have to agree with Leopard on this one.

The driving force that led people to develop property rights in tangible things was the need to handle scarcity. There is no scarcity when it comes to intellectual property, OTOH. Unlike my use of your hammer, my use of your idea does not deny you anything.

Accordingly, the development of IP law had a much different origin and followed a much different course than that of real property and personal property law.

Modern IP law derives from the old English system of Royal Charters, which were a mechanism for regulating trade and had nothing to do with property.

Even in the US Constitution, the word "property" is never used with regard to patents and copyrights:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

The Founders clearly saw patents and copyrights as mechanism for encouraging science and art by granting a temporary exclusive privilege; not as a means of protecting individual property.

Here are a couple of good articles on IP:

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_10/ewing/index.html

and my favorite:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property99/history.html

I will read them eventually. It is too early in the morning right now--but let me just ask you one thing.

So, when if I developed the first steam engine, any old bloke who could understand how it works would have the ethical right to copy it?

No, I cannot agree with this. He could study it, review its principals, and teach others about it. He could make a completely differnt thing using the same principals and sell that . But he does NOT have the right to sell the steam engine which you developed. That belongs to you, it is your property.

You cannot restrict thier ideas--that would be wrong. But it is unethical that they should be allowed to steal what you have created and make a profit from it.

[LeopardPM]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: So, when if I developed the first steam engine, any old bloke who could understand how it works would have the ethical right to copy it?
sure - as long as he is using his property (materials) to do so, etc. Remember, the physical thing is the property, the idea is not. Each and every physical object is unique to itself - if you made a steam engine, and I 'treid' to duplicate it exactly, it would not be comprised of the same matter, atoms, etc. Ideas, thoughts, etc simply cannot be owned by another.

Quote: No, I cannot agree with this. He could study it, review its principals, and teach others about it. He could make a completely differnt thing using the same principals and sell that . But he does NOT have the right to sell the steam engine which you developed. That belongs to you, it is your property.
What belongs to you is YOUR steam engine, not his! He used his labor, his materials, and wrapped it all up into HIS steam engine. Are you suggesting that if I tie a stick to another in a particular way that no one else should be allowed to as well without paying me some sort of tribute? If you build a steam engine, then I 'copy' it, do you own the steam engine Ibuilt, with my materials... who owns it (the physical engine I built)?


Quote: You cannot restrict thier ideas--that would be wrong.
wrong...immoral... and impossible

Quote: But it is unethical that they should be allowed to steal what you have created and make a profit from it.
What are they stealing from you? Your 'idea'? If they stole it, then you wouldn't have it anymore, right? No, you still have your idea, and they have their idea (which happens to be their perception of your idea). Ideas and thoughts are the ultimate positive (or negative) externality.

Let's go to Crusoe Land again:
Two people on an island, one builds a shack to protect from rain. They other sees this nifty invention and builds one as well - is the first person harmed, did he lose something, should he own both shacks? If he didn't want his idea to be a free positive externality to the other then he could have hidden it from view, that is his right as well. If he desired profit from his idea he could charge folks to view it, to be trained in building it, or he could be hired to build replicas of it. Whatever the case is, if the second person gets his idea to build a shack from the first, or from watching one tree fall upon another, the idea in HIS head is unique to him, is not owned by the first, and he is always free to put to use his labor guided by his thoughts in whatever manner he chooses and the resulting products are his property. The fact that the first person thought of, and then proceeded to build, the first instance of a particular product does not convey some sort of obligation upon others to restrict the use of their own labor. THe only thing that it means is a matter of historical recodr - person A was the 'first', for whatever that is worth.

[Atlas Bergeron]

LeopardPM wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: So, when if I developed the first steam engine, any old bloke who could understand how it works would have the ethical right to copy it?
sure - as long as he is using his property (materials) to do so, etc. Remember, the physical thing is the property, the idea is not. Each and every physical object is unique to itself - if you made a steam engine, and I 'treid' to duplicate it exactly, it would not be comprised of the same matter, atoms, etc. Ideas, thoughts, etc simply cannot be owned by another.
good to know your stance
Quote: Quote: No, I cannot agree with this. He could study it, review its principals, and teach others about it. He could make a completely differnt thing using the same principals and sell that . But he does NOT have the right to sell the steam engine which you developed. That belongs to you, it is your property.
What belongs to you is YOUR steam engine, not his! He used his labor, his materials, and wrapped it all up into HIS steam engine. Are you suggesting that if I tie a stick to another in a particular way that no one else should be allowed to as well without paying me some sort of tribute? If you build a steam engine, then I 'copy' it, do you own the steam engine Ibuilt, with my materials... who owns it (the physical engine I built)?
he did NOT buid it. It was NOT his ideas which built it, it was yours--and he is coppying and stealing them from you.
Without you, he would have never been able to construct it, just as a thief could never be fed without the rich. But a thief is a thief, and a man who plagarizes another man's ideas it worse. For he takes credit for the achievement as if it were his, and sells the product of another man's thought as the product of his own thought.

You opinion is nothing short of evil. It holds that men have the right to iron which they hammer out, but not for [the design] of thier factory. If I discover the bessemer process, you claim that I do not have the right to be the sole user, you claim others rights to rob me of my intelectual property.

If property is determined by the mixing of effort, then there can be no better example than intelectual property--for it is pure mental effort with the mixing of nothing material. So, even under classical georgist definitions, where land, etc. belongs to "society", an idea must always belong to the individual who developed it. An invention is the creation of something out of what was nothing--there can be no better way to demonstrate the "creation of value".


Quote: You cannot restrict thier ideas--that would be wrong.[/quote]
wrong...immoral... and impossible[/quote]
exaclty

Quote: Quote: But it is unethical that they should be allowed to steal what you have created and make a profit from it.
What are they stealing from you? Your 'idea'? If they stole it, then you wouldn't have it anymore, right? No, you still have your idea, and they have their idea (which happens to be their perception of your idea). Ideas and thoughts are the ultimate positive (or negative) externality. It is not the [strictly] the idea they are stealing, it is its physical refferent--the referent which is the creation of your mind (i.e. if I invented the motor, all motors which are like mine would be the physical referent of my invention).
that referent is the result of my labor--it the result of my effort. It is what I sell to make a living after I have developed it. It is not logical under natural law that if a man put effort into something which will benifit himself and all those who buy it, that others have the right to steal that something and benefit themselves from his labor.

Let us look at movies, music, and video games.
All of the above are completely digitized and fully available illegally on the internet for free. They are in unlimited supply (or, rather, near unlimited), since all it takes is the click of any person's button to replicate them and deliver them within seconds. Who is being harmed by these transactions?

The people who own the intelectual property rights are being harmed. All that they are reduced to is a pattern of digital 0's and 1's--the same as any "idea"--but that patern is what is unique, and that pattern is what is owned. Those who developed the movies, wrote the songs, and created the video games should be the only people who can make a profit from such invention. It is thier property, and it is being stolen every single day.

Quote: Let's go to Crusoe Land again:
Two people on an island, one builds a shack to protect from rain. They other sees this nifty invention and builds one as well - is the first person harmed, did he lose something, should he own both shacks? If he didn't want his idea to be a free positive externality to the other then he could have hidden it from view, that is his right as well. If he desired profit from his idea he could charge folks to view it, to be trained in building it, or he could be hired to build replicas of it. Whatever the case is, if the second person gets his idea to build a shack from the first, or from watching one tree fall upon another, the idea in HIS head is unique to him, is not owned by the first, and he is always free to put to use his labor guided by his thoughts in whatever manner he chooses and the resulting products are his property. The fact that the first person thought of, and then proceeded to build, the first instance of a particular product does not convey some sort of obligation upon others to restrict the use of their own labor. THe only thing that it means is a matter of historical recodr - person A was the 'first', for whatever that is worth.
This is all very nice, but you have completely ignored my "for profit" contention.
The second man could build a shack exactly the same, but he could not make a profit off selling shacks which are exaclty the same to others. That right would rest soley with the owner of the first shack.

[perdidochas]

LeopardPM wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: I don't know the laws behind trade secrets, but I would find it odd that you could sue someone for comming up with something exaclty the same if they couldn't have known it was exactly the same (becuase it is a trade secret)
Who cares even if they did know it was the same? Is it 'wrong' for me to look at a chair that someone else created and make one as close the same as possible? Knowledge is not ownable, to imply such means to extend ownership to the thoughts of other peoples minds - simply impossible. I 'own' the knowledge in my head, but if I tell others this knowledge (either through training, or conversation, or by me putting to use this knowledge by making a chair, then whatever other people think and do with the knowledge they gleen from my actions, is purely theirs.


Quote: intelectual property the ESSENSE of what properyt is, it is absolutely and completely property down to its very core.
only your thoughts are yours, NOT other people's thoughts!

Quote: When you make a hammer, you mix your effort with it and it could be argued that the hammer is not completley yours becuase you did not make the metal in the hammer etc. etc.

But when you make an invention, its knowledge does is not directly imbodied in any physical object which existed before. It is completely and wholly yours.
really? Did you invent all the tools you used? The mathematics you used? The language you used? Did the person who invented the 'pistol' also invent gunpowder? All 'inventors' build upon the knowledge of previous people - this is how the human race progresses and if each little addition to the pool of knowledge had a 'cost', then we would all suffer greatly and be hampered in our efforts to improve things.

Quote: It is more your property than anything could ever be.
only the exact thoughts in your head - you simply cannot own the thoughts in other peoples heads

However, that is why patents have a very limited length--20 yrs, which is very reasonable. Also patent law began in the 1470s. I don't think it hindered inventors at all, and in fact, I argue that the opposite is true.

[LeopardPM]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: So, when if I developed the first steam engine, any old bloke who could understand how it works would have the ethical right to copy it?
sure - as long as he is using his property (materials) to do so, etc. Remember, the physical thing is the property, the idea is not. Each and every physical object is unique to itself - if you made a steam engine, and I 'treid' to duplicate it exactly, it would not be comprised of the same matter, atoms, etc. Ideas, thoughts, etc simply cannot be owned by another.
good to know your stance
an opinion is one thing, but I am providing more than just that - I am building the foundation of an argument: do you disagree that each physical object is unique to itself? Do you disagree that ideas, our very thoughts, cannot be owned by others?

Quote: he did NOT buid it. It was NOT his ideas which built it, it was yours--and he is coppying and stealing them from you.
Ideas don't build anything - labor does. Technology, knowledge, experience, insight, etc are all things (and thoughts) that direct labor in certain ways, but we cannot influence matter with just our thoughts).

Quote: Without you, he would have never been able to construct it, Says who? He obviously could have constructed it in the future if he was able to here!

Quote: just as a thief could never be fed without the rich.
a theif steals actual property, physical matter - this is the very difference we are talking about

Quote: But a thief is a thief, and a man who plagarizes another man's ideas it worse. For he takes credit for the achievement as if it were his, and sells the product of another man's thought as the product of his own thought.
why do you assume this 'copycat' is taking credit for inventing? If you invent a steam engine and I copy it, are you saying that as long as I do not try to claim that I was the first to produce it, then it is OK?


Quote: You opinion is nothing short of evil. It holds that men have the right to iron which they hammer out, but not for [the design] of thier factory.
sure they have a right to the 'design' of their factory - just not to other people's factories. They are free to improve their factory, build it in any way they desire, and they have exclusive use of their property: their factory.


Quote: If I discover the bessemer process, you claim that I do not have the right to be the sole user, you claim others rights to rob me of my intelectual property.
Please don't put words in my mouth, I never claimed that you do not have the right to be 'sole user' of your idea. If you live in isolation, then no one can 'copy' it, or, if you choose to live with others, then keep the process to yourself and hide it from others. But if someone else also comes up with the exact same 'process' (as witnessed by your Bessemer example: the Chinese) they are free to use THEIR process as well. It doesn't matter if they came up with the same process through their own discovery, or by trying to reverse-engineer yours, or however. No one has robbed you of anything.


Quote: If property is determined by the mixing of effort, then there can be no better example than intelectual property--for it is pure mental effort with the mixing of nothing material.
yup, and as long as it stays in the realm of your mind, then it is 'yours' - your thoughts. But if you show others this process, the information they glean from such exposure is theirs. You do not own their thoughts, just as they do not own yours.

Quote: So, even under classical georgist definitions, where land, etc. belongs to "society", an idea must always belong to the individual who developed it.
what?

Quote: An invention is the creation of something out of what was nothing--there can be no better way to demonstrate the "creation of value".
not at all! An invention is not a 'creation' of matter, the idea is the amalgamation of thoughts from a wide variety of other people, possibly mixed in with some new discovery of the natural world, then, this idea is put into the world by transforming matter in ways described by the thought patterns. The resultant physical object definitely IS property, and all the thoughts behind it reside in the inventors head and are his, but the thoughts which come from another's perception of the 'invention' are HIS.

Quote: Quote: You cannot restrict thier ideas--that would be wrong.
wrong...immoral... and impossible[/quote]
exaclty[/quote]
and yet, you would do this.

Quote: Quote: Quote: But it is unethical that they should be allowed to steal what you have created and make a profit from it.
What are they stealing from you? Your 'idea'? If they stole it, then you wouldn't have it anymore, right? No, you still have your idea, and they have their idea (which happens to be their perception of your idea). Ideas and thoughts are the ultimate positive (or negative) externality. It is not the [strictly] the idea they are stealing, it is its physical refferent--the referent which is the creation of your mind (i.e. if I invented the motor, all motors which are like mine would be the physical referent of my invention).
...and the copper windings on the motor, the shape of the magnets, the metal used in the housing, even the armature and 'axle' used in 'your' motor are the referent of other people's 'inventions'... knowledge is not a static thing, it has evolved since man began, with each generation building on the progress made by previous generations. It is our human legacy.

Quote: It is what I sell to make a living after I have developed it. It is not logical under natural law that if a man put effort into something which will benifit himself and all those who buy it, that others have the right to steal that something and benefit themselves from his labor.
whether or not you 'sell' an object which you created along certain designs has no matter here. Effort or labor does not equate to value. If others value your invention, or the products thereof, then you are free to sell them (you might want to keep the process secret to possibly enhance the time of monopoly like profits). But others are just as free to produce things based on their thoughts as well, even if their thoughts were triggered from gleaning your product. If you don't want others to benefit or be exposed, then hide it away - that is also your right. But once shared, either by sale or training, the object (and hints to its production) are owned by no one.


Quote: Let us look at movies, music, and video games.
All of the above are completely digitized and fully available illegally on the internet for free. They are in unlimited supply (or, rather, near unlimited), since all it takes is the click of any person's button to replicate them and deliver them within seconds. Who is being harmed by these transactions?
no one. I see you choose to use items which have a near-zero production cost, interesting.


Quote: The people who own the intelectual property rights are being harmed.
Only if you consider a person being denied an immoral monopoly over the thoughts and free ability of others as 'harm'! There are many ways through contract law which can extend the normal length of proprietary time an inventor may retain exclusivity over his process.

Quote: All that they are reduced to is a pattern of digital 0's and 1's--the same as any "idea"--but that patern is what is unique, and that pattern is what is owned.
no, patterns can't be owned, only physical property - thus the actual media/location where the 1's and 0's are retained.

Quote: Those who developed the movies, wrote the songs, and created the video games should be the only people who can make a profit from such invention.
Says who? There are plenty of ways that these people can earn money from their efforts - live concerts, private engagements, etc.

Quote: It is thier property, and it is being stolen every single day.
If something was stolen, then it would be missing... the only thing 'missing' from a non-IP society would be the legalized and enforced monopoly.

Quote: Quote: Let's go to Crusoe Land again:
Two people on an island, one builds a shack to protect from rain. They other sees this nifty invention and builds one as well - is the first person harmed, did he lose something, should he own both shacks? If he didn't want his idea to be a free positive externality to the other then he could have hidden it from view, that is his right as well. If he desired profit from his idea he could charge folks to view it, to be trained in building it, or he could be hired to build replicas of it. Whatever the case is, if the second person gets his idea to build a shack from the first, or from watching one tree fall upon another, the idea in HIS head is unique to him, is not owned by the first, and he is always free to put to use his labor guided by his thoughts in whatever manner he chooses and the resulting products are his property. The fact that the first person thought of, and then proceeded to build, the first instance of a particular product does not convey some sort of obligation upon others to restrict the use of their own labor. THe only thing that it means is a matter of historical recodr - person A was the 'first', for whatever that is worth.

This is all very nice, but you have completely ignored my "for profit" contention.
The second man could build a shack exactly the same, but he could not make a profit off selling shacks which are exaclty the same to others. That right would rest soley with the owner of the first shack.
I don't believe you mention anything about 'profit' in your first post. So, you are saying a man could build a shack, yet split-ownership with the first person for some reason. Being able to sell or destroy a thing is one of the key aspects of ownership

[Atlas Bergeron]

LeopardPM wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: So, when if I developed the first steam engine, any old bloke who could understand how it works would have the ethical right to copy it?
sure - as long as he is using his property (materials) to do so, etc. Remember, the physical thing is the property, the idea is not. Each and every physical object is unique to itself - if you made a steam engine, and I 'treid' to duplicate it exactly, it would not be comprised of the same matter, atoms, etc. Ideas, thoughts, etc simply cannot be owned by another.
good to know your stance
an opinion is one thing, but I am providing more than just that - I am building the foundation of an argument: do you disagree that each physical object is unique to itself? Do you disagree that ideas, our very thoughts, cannot be owned by others?
each physical object is uniuqe only becuase each physical object possesses differnt atoms in it.
However, a concept pertains to all entities of its class, and two chairs which are exactly the same (except, of course, they do not posses the same atoms) exist under the concept "chair" (or, to be more specific, tall wooden chair--or such).
You should read sometime on the definition of concepts within epistemology

Quote: Quote: he did NOT buid it. It was NOT his ideas which built it, it was yours--and he is coppying and stealing them from you.
Ideas don't build anything - labor does. Technology, knowledge, experience, insight, etc are all things (and thoughts) that direct labor in certain ways, but we cannot influence matter with just our thoughts).
and we cannot meaningfully influence matter without thoughts.

why would someone farm if everything they farmed was to be stolen from them?

Why would someone build if people were simply going to conquire their home?

Why would someone think if people who didn't were going to copy what they did and not allow them the benefit of thier own thoughts?

Quote: Quote: Without you, he would have never been able to construct it, Says who? He obviously could have constructed it in the future if he was able to here!
what?

Quote: just as a thief could never be fed without the rich.
a theif steals actual property, physical matter - this is the very difference we are talking about[/quote]
the difference is what you are mistaken about. There is no difference. In fact, I would consider the theif of intelectual property worse than the thief of matter.

Quote: Quote: But a thief is a thief, and a man who plagarizes another man's ideas it worse. For he takes credit for the achievement as if it were his, and sells the product of another man's thought as the product of his own thought.
why do you assume this 'copycat' is taking credit for inventing? If you invent a steam engine and I copy it, are you saying that as long as I do not try to claim that I was the first to produce it, then it is OK?
nope, its still not ok (unless I say it is ok, of course)

Quote: Quote: You opinion is nothing short of evil. It holds that men have the right to iron which they hammer out, but not for [the design] of thier factory.
sure they have a right to the 'design' of their factory - just not to other people's factories. They are free to improve their factory, build it in any way they desire, and they have exclusive use of their property: their factory.
I think you are mistaken on definitions, for here you are contradicting everything that I said before (which I do not think you are intentionally doing)
by "design" I mean blueprint. They intelectual base from which the factory is constructed. I mean that nobody has the right to copy your furnace (if you own the rights to your furnace)

Quote: Quote: If I discover the bessemer process, you claim that I do not have the right to be the sole user, you claim others rights to rob me of my intelectual property.
Please don't put words in my mouth, I never claimed that you do not have the right to be 'sole user' of your idea.
actually, you have, multiple times. "
What belongs to you is YOUR steam engine, not his! He used his labor, his materials, and wrapped it all up into HIS steam engine. Are you suggesting that if I tie a stick to another in a particular way that no one else should be allowed to as well without paying me some sort of tribute? If you build a steam engine, then I 'copy' it, do you own the steam engine Ibuilt, with my materials... who owns it (the physical engine I built)?"

Quote: If you live in isolation, then no one can 'copy' it, or, if you choose to live with others, then keep the process to yourself and hide it from others.
so only hermits have the right to think and not be exploited?

Quote: But if someone else also comes up with the exact same 'process' (as witnessed by your Bessemer example: the Chinese) they are free to use THEIR process as well. It doesn't matter if they came up with the same process through their own discovery, or by trying to reverse-engineer yours, or however. No one has robbed you of anything.
sure they have. read above.

Quote: Quote: If property is determined by the mixing of effort, then there can be no better example than intelectual property--for it is pure mental effort with the mixing of nothing material.
yup, and as long as it stays in the realm of your mind, then it is 'yours' - your thoughts. But if you show others this process, the information they glean from such exposure is theirs. You do not own their thoughts, just as they do not own yours.
but you own the eccomic benefits gained from the invention of the process. You do not own the information in thier mind, that would be just silly.

Quote: Quote: So, even under classical georgist definitions, where land, etc. belongs to "society", an idea must always belong to the individual who developed it.
what?
are you a georgist?

Quote: Quote: An invention is the creation of something out of what was nothing--there can be no better way to demonstrate the "creation of value".
not at all! An invention is not a 'creation' of matter,
i didn't say matter. Don't use strawmen.

Quote: the idea is the amalgamation of thoughts from a wide variety of other people, possibly mixed in with some new discovery of the natural world, then, this idea is put into the world by transforming matter in ways described by the thought patterns.
all seems good

Quote: The resultant physical object definitely IS property, and all the thoughts behind it reside in the inventors head and are his, but the thoughts which come from another's perception of the 'invention' are HIS.
yep, the thoughts are, but the design (as represented by the physical entity of the engine, etc.) is not

Quote: Quote: Quote: You cannot restrict thier ideas--that would be wrong.
wrong...immoral... and impossible
exaclty[/quote]
and yet, you would do this.[/quote]
nope, read above.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But it is unethical that they should be allowed to steal what you have created and make a profit from it.
What are they stealing from you? Your 'idea'? If they stole it, then you wouldn't have it anymore, right? No, you still have your idea, and they have their idea (which happens to be their perception of your idea). Ideas and thoughts are the ultimate positive (or negative) externality. It is not the [strictly] the idea they are stealing, it is its physical refferent--the referent which is the creation of your mind (i.e. if I invented the motor, all motors which are like mine would be the physical referent of my invention).
...and the copper windings on the motor, the shape of the magnets, the metal used in the housing, even the armature and 'axle' used in 'your' motor are the referent of other people's 'inventions'... knowledge is not a static thing, it has evolved since man began, with each generation building on the progress made by previous generations. It is our human legacy.
certainly when someone dies (or rather, twenty or so years after they die), the blueprints would go to what could be considered a "state of nature"--except anybody could use them and in unlimited number.

Quote: Quote: It is what I sell to make a living after I have developed it. It is not logical under natural law that if a man put effort into something which will benifit himself and all those who buy it, that others have the right to steal that something and benefit themselves from his labor.
whether or not you 'sell' an object which you created along certain designs has no matter here. Effort or labor does not equate to value.
how about use? does use equate to value?

oh, I know, what if putting my intelectual effort improves something's use without harming anybody? Does that equate value with the use of effort? Does it? does it?

Quote: If others value your invention, or the products thereof, then you are free to sell them (you might want to keep the process secret to possibly enhance the time of monopoly like profits).
so if a computer hacker can determine how to steal Movies, then he has the right to? If the same hacker can steal windows software, he has the rights to them?

Quote: But others are just as free to produce things based on their thoughts as well, even if their thoughts were triggered from gleaning your product. If you don't want others to benefit or be exposed, then hide it away - that is also your right. But once shared, either by sale or training, the object (and hints to its production) are owned by no one.
of course you have the right to hide it. But you also have the right to sell it without others stealing your process.

Quote: Quote: Let us look at movies, music, and video games.
All of the above are completely digitized and fully available illegally on the internet for free. They are in unlimited supply (or, rather, near unlimited), since all it takes is the click of any person's button to replicate them and deliver them within seconds. Who is being harmed by these transactions?
no one. I see you choose to use items which have a near-zero production cost, interesting.
video games and movies don't have any production cost?

Quote: Quote: The people who own the intelectual property rights are being harmed.
Only if you consider a person being denied an immoral monopoly over the thoughts and free ability of others as 'harm'!
immoral? you mean the "immoral" rights to your labor and thier result?

Quote: There are many ways through contract law which can extend the normal length of proprietary time an inventor may retain exclusivity over his process.
ok... what is your point?


Quote: Quote: All that they are reduced to is a pattern of digital 0's and 1's--the same as any "idea"--but that patern is what is unique, and that pattern is what is owned.
no, patterns can't be owned, only physical property - thus the actual media/location where the 1's and 0's are retained.

Quote: Those who developed the movies, wrote the songs, and created the video games should be the only people who can make a profit from such invention.
Says who? There are plenty of ways that these people can earn money from their efforts - live concerts, private engagements, etc.
yep, there are certainly lots of ways to make money. Dont see a point here though...
*looks around corner*

Quote: Quote: It is thier property, and it is being stolen every single day.
If something was stolen, then it would be missing... the only thing 'missing' from a non-IP society would be the legalized and enforced monopoly.
oh, I know whats missing! I know whats missing!

maybe the profit which could have been made off the product of your labor?

Quote: Quote: Quote: Let's go to Crusoe Land again:
Two people on an island, one builds a shack to protect from rain. They other sees this nifty invention and builds one as well - is the first person harmed, did he lose something, should he own both shacks? If he didn't want his idea to be a free positive externality to the other then he could have hidden it from view, that is his right as well. If he desired profit from his idea he could charge folks to view it, to be trained in building it, or he could be hired to build replicas of it. Whatever the case is, if the second person gets his idea to build a shack from the first, or from watching one tree fall upon another, the idea in HIS head is unique to him, is not owned by the first, and he is always free to put to use his labor guided by his thoughts in whatever manner he chooses and the resulting products are his property. The fact that the first person thought of, and then proceeded to build, the first instance of a particular product does not convey some sort of obligation upon others to restrict the use of their own labor. THe only thing that it means is a matter of historical recodr - person A was the 'first', for whatever that is worth.

This is all very nice, but you have completely ignored my "for profit" contention.
The second man could build a shack exactly the same, but he could not make a profit off selling shacks which are exaclty the same to others. That right would rest soley with the owner of the first shack.
I don't believe you mention anything about 'profit' in your first post. So, you are saying a man could build a shack, yet split-ownership with the first person for some reason. Being able to sell or destroy a thing is one of the key aspects of ownership
what is this about splitting ownership? I don't know what you are talking about.

[bob.appleyard]

LeopardPM wrote: we know that infinite resources exist in the universe

Well, maybe. Due to certain limitations, namely the speed of light, the observable universe is finite, so as far as we know there are finite resources. But who's to say the universe isn't infinite in scope? Probably some cosmologist, but what does he know? He's only got a phD. I doubt very much whether this question will be answered, or is even answerable.

Now, when it comes to the resources we as humans will ever consume, that is resoundingly finite.

[RueTheDay]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: So, when if I developed the first steam engine, any old bloke who could understand how it works would have the ethical right to copy it?

Sure, why not? Copying it does no harm to you. If you don't want your idea copied, you are free to keep it a secret and never build the engine. Once you build it for all to see, you have no right whatsoever to stop others from doing the same.

Quote:
No, I cannot agree with this. He could study it, review its principals, and teach others about it. He could make a completely differnt thing using the same principals and sell that . But he does NOT have the right to sell the steam engine which you developed. That belongs to you, it is your property.


That's an assertion without any logical foundation whatsoever.

Remember the discussion about rights and duties on the Philosophy forum. Every right implies a corresponding duty to respect that right. How does your building the steam engine create any such duty on my pasrt to not build an identical steam engine? I never consented to any such arrangement.

Quote:
You cannot restrict thier ideas--that would be wrong. But it is unethical that they should be allowed to steal what you have created and make a profit from it.

Theft implies a loss on the part of the victim of the theft. If I steal your hammer, you have suffered an actual loss as you no longer have the hammer. If I copy your idea, you have suffered no such loss. You still have the idea. You still have the steam engine you built. You still have the right to sell that steam engine you built. You have lost nothing.