Kawlinz

What you're writing seems like you are agreeing with me in one sentence and disagree in the next. The molecules don't need to travel along the wave to be in a different configuration before and after the pebble gets tossed in. If the molecules didn't move at all, there would be no wave. The only reason we can call it a wave is because the water molecules have moved, regardless of any specifics. Can you make a distinction between "intellectual property" and "a specific configuration of matter". I still don't see a distinction in your explanation, and when you explain what's happening physically, it seems to support this synonym. -- And people act as if the state exists, and people contract with it. People think that state property exists and will act on that belief.This doesn't mean that state property actually exists, would you agree? And not everyone acts as if IP exists, so only some people will voluntarily contract for it. Also to clarify, there are people who have contracted on the reliance of miracles (and even the ability to perform them), the james randi million dollar challenge being one of them.

How do you invite someone 'onto' intellectual property? I know you haven't read my last post prior to making this reply (which happens on boards sometimes) but it's like saying I've invited you onto my spiritual property. I have no Idea what that means, nor what being invited onto intellectual property might look like or what it means to you. And I understand that there are no 1's and 0's, and that a HD is just an arangement of (or pattern) matter. I don't see how that makes a difference to the point I made. Instead of if someone hacks your system and "deletes (re-arranges the 1s and 0s on your comptuer)" your files it would read if someone hacks your system and "deletes (re-arranges the matter on your ard drive)" your files And I have no idea how the electromagnietic spectrum works so I wouldn't be prepared to argue anything about it.

I'm the one who said IP needs a container. When you say the above, you're really just stating a definition. According to you, property is, by definition, physical. You simply define IP out of existence. You're free to do that, but consider the following hypothetical and questions if you please. __________ Suppose you are a computer programmer and have worked long and hard developing some code. Assume that the code is very useful, and that many people will be very eager to pay to use it, but you have not yet released it in any form. I am your competitor, and from my own home I hack into your computer system, copy your code and save it onto my own hard drive, and then I delete the code from your hard drive, and I delete all of your backups too. I then proceed to successfully market the code, and I make $1 million. 1. Have I violated your physical property rights? Specifically, have I stolen any of your physical property? 2. Have I done anything wrong at all? If yes, what would you call it? 3. Are you entitled to any form of remedy at law? If yes, under what theory? If you're the one who's saying that IP needs a container, then why did you equate my statments to the container argument and say you addressed it when I wasn't making the container argument? And I haven't defined IP out of existence. I've stated that I don't see how it's anything other than a synonym for matter configured in a specific way. If you can make a distinction, then go for it.(btw, to link to individual posts, there's "in reply to" link in the blue border of the post on the right hand side, which is difficult to see) 1. You've already answered that yourself. If you come into my home and unplug all my lights and rearrange my furniture, then you've violated my property rights. If you access my HD and rearrange the information on it, you've violated my property rights. Have you stolen anything? No. 2. yesm you've done wrong, you've violated my property. 3. Current law, probably. In "a free society" I don't really feel like speculating. And with regards to your statement above What are 'intellectual senses' and 'intellectual matter'? Can one make the same claim for using spiritual senses to understand and conceptualize spiritual matter? how about using our magic senses to understand and conceptualize magical matter?

Right, so for number one, you show that it is possible to copy someone's machine and not violate their property rights if you are invited onto their property, or you can see it without needing to be on their property. For number two, you are saying that there is a violation of property right, even if no theft occurs. Comparing it to your example, if someone hacks your system and "deletes (re-arranges the 1s and 0s on your comptuer)" your files, there is a violation in property right. We don't need to invent a term called intellectual property when property works just as well. Am I missing your point?

That's the "container" argument, which I answered up-thread. I can't figure out how to link to specific posts, although my email notifications prove it is possible. You're arguing that if X requires a physical container to be useful, then X cannot be property. Try applying that argument to gasoline or orange juice, and see what you come up with. I'm not saying intellectual property needs "a container". I'm saying that I don't see how you distinguish intellectual property from anything other than "a specific configuration of matter" - they seem like synonyms to me.

I don't think intellectual property even means anything. To me, and of course I could be wrong, that intellectual property is just the name we call a re-arranging of physical objects, or things in the real world. ideas can't exist without a brain, a representation of a song can exist in a brain, on a CD, a cassette, or on a hard drive. Without the physical matter, there is nothing to call intellectual property. So why not just deal with the physical?

This is one of the CRUCIAL points that I am going to make. The "copying = theft" construction is wrong, and has been a source of endless wrong thinking on all side of this debate forever. Are you ready? (Clears throat . . . ) Copying is trespass, not theft. (This holds for physical as well as intellectual property). Both types of property can be stolen, both types can be trespassed upon. Imagine you owned a piece of land with a factory on it. Uninvited, I come to your factory, and study all the machines you have operating. I then go to my own piece of land, and build my own factory, which is an exact copy of yours. Consider the following questions. Have I violated your physical property rights? Yes, I trespassed. By definition, a property owner has the right to exclude others. Does my copy of your factory deprive you of the use of your factory? No, you still have your factory. Does the fact that I copied your physical objects somehow prove that physical objects are not scarce, and thus eliminate the need for property rights? No, physical objects are scarce, despite the fact that they can be copied. If the ability to copy physical objects does not invalidate the concept of physical property, then why should the ability to copy intellectual objects invalidate the concept of intellectual property? Therefore, the argument stemming from “copying is not theft” is a non-sequitor founded on a faulty analogy. Can IP be stolen? Yes. As discussed, copying per se is not theft, it is trespass. But IP can in fact be stolen, further supporting the proposition that IP is property. Suppose you are a computer programmer and have worked long and hard developing some code. I am your competitor, and I hack into your computer system, copy your code and save it onto my own hard drive, and then I delete the code from your hard drive, and I delete all of your backups too. Have I violated your physical property rights? Specifically, have I stolen any of your physical property? No, your computer hardware is still right there where it was before, available for your use. And yet, because of my actions, you no longer have use of your computer code. Only by recognizing a property right in IP can we conclude that copying and deleting your code is theft. For the first point, what if you were invited?And for the second, if i come into your house uninvited and turn all of your furniture upside down, disconnect all the power plugs, pipes, throw valuables on the floor, unscrew all the lightbulbs, but don't take or break anything, have I violated your property rights?