Political Crossfire Forums

[gavnook]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: Quote: Rather, you deserve whatever you can get from selling the products of your mind on the market. You do NOT deserve a special privilege from the government that enables you to prevent other people from selling something on the market.
don't be silly Rue, for that to be true, you must prove that intelectual property is not property. Which you have not done. You get a "special privelege" from the government for all your other property.

This is absurd. You can say that intellectual property is not property and you can say that it is. Either statement is meaningless. What matters is that there's a distinction between IP and physical property, and that we all understand this distinction.

Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: Please understand, patents and copyrights are nothing more than artificial, government-granted, temporary monopoly privileges that give you exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute something.
'Please understand, property is nothing more than artificial, government-granted, temporary monopoly prvileges that give you exclusinve rights to reproduce and distribute something'

Nonsense. For one, physical property rights are never temporary. If you own a piece of physical property, that means that it is yours to do with what you please, including preventing others from using it. It's a completely different thing.

[Atlas Bergeron]

sneaking into microsoft and copying the software - sure, they trespassed and committed all manner of crime, but then what? What if they showed some code to another programmer and that programmer got ideas that he incorporated into his software - the programmer didn't sign a contract, the thief can be prosecuted for his criminal activities, but the programmer gets away scott-free.[/quote]and you belive this is right?
My argument is reducto ad absurdium--does it make common sense that this is the way it should be?

Quote: Quote: and you leave it impossible to place something on a market without loosing all rights to it.
true. But I am suggesting that there are no 'rights' to knowledge, so the inventor loses nothing.

Quote: no, value is determined by the market. Use is subjective and personal. I believe you have them switched.
'market value' is determined by the market, which is an algemation of all the personal values within that market. It all boils down to individual values, which are subjective, which makes the market value subjective as well. this is an argument about semantics, so it is not horribly important. But is value not determined by use? (something is more personally valueable becuase it is more personally usefull).
In this way, to diferentiate between personal value and "use" is nearly pointless, unless your just being romantic. Thus, I take "value" to always mean "market value".

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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?
although I am not understanding your point, I would have to say "no"
I was saying that I created value--and the value created belongs to me.
Do I own the value that I create to my neighbors by making my lawn nicer? Sure, my property value may improve, but theirs may as well, and sure as heck can not lay claim to getting a check from them when they sell their house, right? 'Value' is an idea, a mental creation, it is subjective and individual to each of us... and is 'unownable'. I do not think we want to get into a discussion on property right now, unless you wish to get way off of the topic of intelectual property.
Since I am a neo-Georgist, we will have many differences of opinion. You don't own thier property, but you are contributing to the value of all of the property, thus that property is yours if they are not using it in relation to its potentiol use. It gets somewhat complex, especially with such a slippery question.

Quote: Quote: this is quite an interesting suggestion. Rather than creating a government agency which deals with such things, they are dealt with by common law. I encourage you to go farther on this point, you may have me drawn into this line of thought.
Contract protection is something I believe in, yet, I haven't spent much time delving into the guts of it. alright, if in the contract I stated "you must keep the information within this product secret from all others," then the information would belong to them (i.e. as you say, it would be "in thier head" and "thier property", but, according to the contract, they would not have the right to distrubute it).

Now, if you had this clause, then if anybody attempted to take the information out of it, then they would be infringing on the protections and walls instilled in the contract, no?


the idea is still somewhat hazzy, tell me if you need clarification.

Quote: Quote: But, just one question. What if you snuck into microsofts headquarters, broke into thier mainframe, and downloaded thier program and began selling it. Would it be prosecutable? Would you be stealing?
I would have trespassed, possibly vandalized, but stealing? No, because nothing was stolen, Microsoft still retains all of its property and has no claim to future possible sales or 'value'. exactly, you have trespassed on thier intelectual property--a very punishable offense.
Quote:
There is a rather large debate going on in Libertarian/propertarian circles regarding IP, I am sure this point is addressed yet I do not know the current state of the debate.

A question: What if two people totally independent of each other developed the same, or nearly identical inventions - which one 'owns' this intellectual property? The first one? Why? The second one spent just as much thought, time, whatever as the first. this was, I will admit, one of the most difficult things to adress. If they developed it at the same time, then I would say they both "own" the rights. (i.e. they both can inforce thier rights under contract)


Quote: Quote: Quote: what has an 'intellectual thief' stolen? How is the 'victim' harmed? he has lost the potentiol wealth that the value of his creation (his 'pattern') would give him were he to put it on market.--a truely enourmous amount.

knowledge is worthless without production, and production is worthless without knowledge

Quote: and it is from production which people reap profits. An invention accomplishes some task, right? And that task can always be accomplished using multiple methods, or variations in method - each of which have pros and cons. Does an inventor have rights to profit? Only the profit he can obtain from the sale of his knowledge - not of the production of goods by people he hasn't contracted with. Does this mean that this strips out all profit motive from inventing? Not at all! just because the thieves steal 80% of your crop, does this strip out all the motive for planting? Not at all!!

The argument is clearly invalid.
Quote: How many shovel makers are there out there, cup makers, table makers, car makers, computer makers, Accounting software, etc. Each business desires to find a better way to out compete their competitor and thus have incentive to research and discover (and possibly make it harder for others to reverse engineer their designs, but that is truly a hard task) and they will gain an initial advantage over others when their product is first brought to market, in addition to having the reputation of being the first discoverer (which implies a greater knowledge about the invention and the processes that surround it). these are all true.

Quote: Now, from the consumer point of view, killing IP would be a great boon - there would be less time (and money) spent 're-inventing' the wheel: for instance, software - each software maker creates their own subroutines to handle specific tasks, like displaying graphics, dealing with input, or accessing databases, etc... without IP, the best routines would tend to be used industry wide which might even tend to make software more compatible on the whole. On one hand, the operating systems have taken on this task of standardization, like microsofts 'direct x' routines which are available for other developers to use and save time from recreation, but, if no IP existed, then the best parts of direct x would tend to be used, and the parts of direct x which may not be so good would be substituted by competing routines. you ignore the possiblity of whether or not it would have been invented in the first place (or perhaps a better consideration, "as quickly").
This would certainly be disadvantagous to the consumer.

Quote: The result would be faster development cycles, accelerated gains in efficiency, and would greatly chang the landscape of how software and computers interacted. As far as money-making possibilities (I don't know if you are familiar with the computer gaming industry), game makers now create 'super manuals', guides to using their games with tricks and hints. These manuals are created along side of the game itself and sell for another 50% of the games price in stores. These manuals are virtually indispensible to playing the game, especially online games in which you compete against other players. This is a way for a company to capitalize on its 'discovery' - the sale of the specific knowledge regarding the discovery.

I think I have digressed, or possibly even ranted here. I will stop now.
You are ignoring that the "super manuals" would have very little value for the producer if anybody else could create it with the only invested cost being a photocopier and the only extended cost a printer.
The gaming industry must pay the english major to write the manual, the game designers to record the tricks (not to mention actually desiginging the game), the artists to make the art, etc. etc.

The leech must only copy the paper and print it off. Both would be exaclty the same and thus have the same value.

[Atlas Bergeron]

gavnook wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: Quote: Rather, you deserve whatever you can get from selling the products of your mind on the market. You do NOT deserve a special privilege from the government that enables you to prevent other people from selling something on the market.
don't be silly Rue, for that to be true, you must prove that intelectual property is not property. Which you have not done. You get a "special privelege" from the government for all your other property.

This is absurd. You can say that intellectual property is not property and you can say that it is. Either statement is meaningless. What matters is that there's a distinction between IP and physical property, and that we all understand this distinction.

Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: Please understand, patents and copyrights are nothing more than artificial, government-granted, temporary monopoly privileges that give you exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute something.
'Please understand, property is nothing more than artificial, government-granted, temporary monopoly prvileges that give you exclusinve rights to reproduce and distribute something'

Nonsense. For one, physical property rights are never temporary. If you own a piece of physical property, that means that it is yours to do with what you please, including preventing others from using it. It's a completely different thing.
these are horrible distinctions. First of all, it is in all likelyhood harder to loose a piece of intelectual property than it is to loose a piece of physical property. As the bible "do not put your treasures on earth, where moss and rust destroy, and thieves break in and steal. Instead store your treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy and thieves do not break in and steal." --not a direct quote (just some humor, as I do not believe in the bible)

Secondly, if you own intelectual property, you can prevent others from using it--by not telling them. So you need differnt points, I would advise the ones that Leopard has already adressed.

[LeopardPM]

Atlas,
I see some of your points made, and I do not have all the answers in this area - I don't think either of us has put enough thought into researching the various alleyways and tangents and possible circumstances regarding IP or non-IP and so it appears we both are coming from a 'gut instinct' opinion and as such, we won't be able to mount a detailed debate here. As you can probably see, I am participating in a variety of threads currently, threads where I have more knowledge and interest in the subject matter and I think that it would be better for me to step aside on this point (especially since it, itself, is a tangent to the thread topic) and conceed the floor to you. Thank you for being open to the possibility of non-IP!

Quote: Since I am a neo-Georgist, we will have many differences of opinion.
oh no! WTF is a 'neo-Georgist', or dare I even ask? You guys are like weeds sprouting up all over the place! I need some 'Weed-B-Gone' and right quickly!

[Gus]

Reductio ad absurdum arguments are pretty much irrelevant in the realm of ethics (if they are applicable, then they are very weak). The purpose of a reductio ad absurdum is to arrive at a contradiction, thereby proving that the original statement is not the case. What you are calling a reductio ad absurdum, Atlas, is nothing but an appeal to emotion or intuition--e.g. it should be that way because it feels right, or "makes common sense." Giving it a title of a real logic strategy does not make it logical...

That said, I've been asking around, and nobody can tell me where they keep their ideas--from what I've heard, Microsoft doesn't even keep them in a safe! Nobody can show them to me either, I can't smell them, touch them, taste them, or hear them. With all this intellectual property floating around, I'm wondering why I'm having so much trouble finding some to take. Maybe someone could show me how to find an intellectual property or an idea so I could at least lay eyes on it? Where can I find some unused intellectual "stuff" that I can mix my labor with and thereby own (or pay a severence tax, for your all you geoists floating around)?

[LeopardPM]

Gus wrote: Where can I find some unused intellectual "stuff" that I can mix my labor with and thereby own (or pay a severence tax, for your all you geoists floating around)?

OMG Gus! You are right! Don't tell the Georgists about this Intellectual Property stuff or else they will start advocating some sort of crazy tax scheme to redistribute 'value' created by society back to the people! ACK! Don't tax my brain, PLEASE! I can't afford it!

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote:
Quote: Since I am a neo-Georgist, we will have many differences of opinion.
oh no! WTF is a 'neo-Georgist', or dare I even ask? You guys are like weeds sprouting up all over the place! I need some 'Weed-B-Gone' and right quickly!

It'll take much more than that.


"The chief weapon against the teaching of Henry George was that which is always used against irrefutable and self-evident truths. This method, which is still being applied in relation to George, was that of hushing up. People do not argue with the teaching of George, they simply do not know it. It is impossible to do otherwise with his teaching, for he who becomes acquainted with it cannot but agree."
--Leo Tolstoy

[bob.appleyard]

RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote:
Quote: Since I am a neo-Georgist, we will have many differences of opinion.
oh no! WTF is a 'neo-Georgist', or dare I even ask? You guys are like weeds sprouting up all over the place! I need some 'Weed-B-Gone' and right quickly!

It'll take much more than that.


"The chief weapon against the teaching of Henry George was that which is always used against irrefutable and self-evident truths. This method, which is still being applied in relation to George, was that of hushing up. People do not argue with the teaching of George, they simply do not know it. It is impossible to do otherwise with his teaching, for he who becomes acquainted with it cannot but agree."
--Leo Tolstoy

Leo Tolstoy was a quality guy. Great author, great anarchist.

[Free Thinkr]

LeopardPM wrote: Gus wrote: Where can I find some unused intellectual "stuff" that I can mix my labor with and thereby own (or pay a severence tax, for your all you geoists floating around)?

OMG Gus! You are right! Don't tell the Georgists about this Intellectual Property stuff or else they will start advocating some sort of crazy tax scheme to redistribute 'value' created by society back to the people! ACK! Don't tax my brain, PLEASE! I can't afford it!
Oh, I don't think that will be a problem for you.... ;) JK, man. :twisted:

[Free Thinkr]

RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote:
Quote: Since I am a neo-Georgist, we will have many differences of opinion.
oh no! WTF is a 'neo-Georgist', or dare I even ask? You guys are like weeds sprouting up all over the place! I need some 'Weed-B-Gone' and right quickly!

It'll take much more than that.


"The chief weapon against the teaching of Henry George was that which is always used against irrefutable and self-evident truths. This method, which is still being applied in relation to George, was that of hushing up. People do not argue with the teaching of George, they simply do not know it. It is impossible to do otherwise with his teaching, for he who becomes acquainted with it cannot but agree."
--Leo Tolstoy
I find this quote to be very accurate (though I've never read any Tolstoy). I'm nearly finished with The Science of Political Economy, which will conclude my reading of all of George's major works. I must say: I'm particularly blown away by this book. The way the man treats political economy as a pure science, and works to conclusions is truly something to behold. Doubtless, there are imperfections, but I think just about every man alive could benefit from reading that book. Taking Mill head on? Ho ho! I may actually prefer it to Progress and Poverty. Agree or disagree with the conclusions, you cannot help but think, often from a wholly new perspective.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Gus wrote: Reductio ad absurdum arguments are pretty much irrelevant in the realm of ethics (if they are applicable, then they are very weak). The purpose of a reductio ad absurdum is to arrive at a contradiction, thereby proving that the original statement is not the case. What you are calling a reductio ad absurdum, Atlas, is nothing but an appeal to emotion or intuition--e.g. it should be that way because it feels right, or "makes common sense." Giving it a title of a real logic strategy does not make it logical... it is using intuition, which is better than nothing.

I never said it was a valid sylogism. In fact, I openly admitted it was reducto ad absurdium. But if he agreed that what was obserd was obserd, then the argument would surely be valid. In fact, all arguments, at thier root are reducto ad absurdium--i.e. you must take some premise to be true and for its converse to be insane.

Quote: That said, I've been asking around, and nobody can tell me where they keep their ideas--from what I've heard, Microsoft doesn't even keep them in a safe! Nobody can show them to me either, I can't smell them, touch them, taste them, or hear them. With all this intellectual property floating around, I'm wondering why I'm having so much trouble finding some to take. Maybe someone could show me how to find an intellectual property or an idea so I could at least lay eyes on it? Where can I find some unused intellectual "stuff" that I can mix my labor with and thereby own (or pay a severence tax, for your all you geoists floating around)? try breaking into thier room and steal thier computer. Or just downloading thier information.

[Atlas Bergeron]

LeopardPM wrote: Gus wrote: Where can I find some unused intellectual "stuff" that I can mix my labor with and thereby own (or pay a severence tax, for your all you geoists floating around)?

OMG Gus! You are right! Don't tell the Georgists about this Intellectual Property stuff or else they will start advocating some sort of crazy tax scheme to redistribute 'value' created by society back to the people! ACK! Don't tax my brain, PLEASE! I can't afford it! :lol:

[gavnook]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: gavnook wrote:
Atlas Bergeron wrote:
Quote: Please understand, patents and copyrights are nothing more than artificial, government-granted, temporary monopoly privileges that give you exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute something.
'Please understand, property is nothing more than artificial, government-granted, temporary monopoly prvileges that give you exclusinve rights to reproduce and distribute something'

Nonsense. For one, physical property rights are never temporary. If you own a piece of physical property, that means that it is yours to do with what you please, including preventing others from using it. It's a completely different thing.
these are horrible distinctions. First of all, it is in all likelyhood harder to loose a piece of intelectual property than it is to loose a piece of physical property. As the bible "do not put your treasures on earth, where moss and rust destroy, and thieves break in and steal. Instead store your treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy and thieves do not break in and steal." --not a direct quote (just some humor, as I do not believe in the bible)

Secondly, if you own intelectual property, you can prevent others from using it--by not telling them. So you need differnt points, I would advise the ones that Leopard has already adressed.

I should repeat what has already been said in this thread? I was responding specifically to what you said. You straight-out applied what Rue said about IP to physical property rights as if it applies. It was such nonsense, that I suppose there's no point in trying to address it, although your use of the word 'temporary' for physical property rights screams that you aren't even thinking about what you're saying. And now, that you go on to defend your claim that physical property rights are temporary, I'm wondering whether you're a troll or something worse.

[Gus]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: Gus wrote: Reductio ad absurdum arguments are pretty much irrelevant in the realm of ethics (if they are applicable, then they are very weak). The purpose of a reductio ad absurdum is to arrive at a contradiction, thereby proving that the original statement is not the case. What you are calling a reductio ad absurdum, Atlas, is nothing but an appeal to emotion or intuition--e.g. it should be that way because it feels right, or "makes common sense." Giving it a title of a real logic strategy does not make it logical... it is using intuition, which is better than nothing.

I never said it was a valid sylogism. In fact, I openly admitted it was reducto ad absurdium. But if he agreed that what was obserd was obserd, then the argument would surely be valid. In fact, all arguments, at thier root are reducto ad absurdium--i.e. you must take some premise to be true and for its converse to be insane.
Your argument didn't say anything--I believe it is wrong, therefore it is wrong--you might as well not had even made an argument.

Atlas Bergeron wrote: Quote: That said, I've been asking around, and nobody can tell me where they keep their ideas--from what I've heard, Microsoft doesn't even keep them in a safe! Nobody can show them to me either, I can't smell them, touch them, taste them, or hear them. With all this intellectual property floating around, I'm wondering why I'm having so much trouble finding some to take. Maybe someone could show me how to find an intellectual property or an idea so I could at least lay eyes on it? Where can I find some unused intellectual "stuff" that I can mix my labor with and thereby own (or pay a severence tax, for your all you geoists floating around)? try breaking into thier room and steal thier computer. Or just downloading thier information.
You mean receiving electrical pulses over a wire to my computer, where they are converted to magnetic patterns on a spinning platter? Where are these elusive ideas in all that? Wires carry electricity, not ideas...

[Atlas Bergeron]

Gus wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: Gus wrote: Reductio ad absurdum arguments are pretty much irrelevant in the realm of ethics (if they are applicable, then they are very weak). The purpose of a reductio ad absurdum is to arrive at a contradiction, thereby proving that the original statement is not the case. What you are calling a reductio ad absurdum, Atlas, is nothing but an appeal to emotion or intuition--e.g. it should be that way because it feels right, or "makes common sense." Giving it a title of a real logic strategy does not make it logical... it is using intuition, which is better than nothing.I never said it was a valid sylogism. In fact, I openly admitted it was reducto ad absurdium. But if he agreed that what was obserd was obserd, then the argument would surely be valid. In fact, all arguments, at thier root are reducto ad absurdium--i.e. you must take some premise to be true and for its converse to be insane.
Your argument didn't say anything--I believe it is wrong, therefore it is wrong--you might as well not had even made an argument. a reducto ad absurdium argument says something if you agree that something is absurd.

Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: Quote: That said, I've been asking around, and nobody can tell me where they keep their ideas--from what I've heard, Microsoft doesn't even keep them in a safe! Nobody can show them to me either, I can't smell them, touch them, taste them, or hear them. With all this intellectual property floating around, I'm wondering why I'm having so much trouble finding some to take. Maybe someone could show me how to find an intellectual property or an idea so I could at least lay eyes on it? Where can I find some unused intellectual "stuff" that I can mix my labor with and thereby own (or pay a severence tax, for your all you geoists floating around)? try breaking into thier room and steal thier computer. Or just downloading thier information.
You mean receiving electrical pulses over a wire to my computer, where they are converted to magnetic patterns on a spinning platter? Where are these elusive ideas in all that? Wires carry electricity, not ideas...
You mean recieving electricla pulses over a neruon to my cerebral cortex and converted into layers of biological information? Where are these elusive ideas? Brain cells carry electricity and chemicals, not ideas....