You wouldn't steal a car...

[thebeardslastcall]

I don't think you seem to get what you're asserting. You're not claiming ownership over an idea, you're claiming ownership over other people on the basis of an idea. If you raise your hand and then I raise my hand that doesn't give you ownership or possession over my hand because I 'copied' your motion with my property. The physicality of your idea, initially, is your body and then I 'copy' your 'idea', which is now my possessed version of what you did. You keep suggesting an idea is something you possess and don't seem to get you don't and can't possess concepts as some single or physical entity like a hand. If ideas were possessions like you're talking like they are life would be long since dead and never would have gotten going in the first place.

 

 

1) Supposition.  Possibly special pleading.  Why should it only refer to one type of thing you can produce?

 

You didn't produce my body, my mind, or my hands. I'm not saying it should refer, I'm saying it does refer to physical things. You express your ideas and contain your ideas with physical matter, which is what you possess. Concepts and ideas are just abstracts or patterns that aren't themselves owned, but represented by motion of possessed physicality.

 

2) I didn't claim ownership over things which have a SIMILAR pattern, I claimed ownership over things which have the same pattern, and only so much as they have that same pattern.  I posted a response explaining this, but apparently it hasn't been approved yet.

 

Yes, you're claiming ownership over my body, which is what I'm rejecting. You don't possess my body and if you try to that's acting violently against me.

You cells are acting a lot like mine, a similar or the same pattern in many ways you could say, does that mean if I was born before you that I own you or that you owe me? Or that your parents own you since you copied the pattern from them? If I raise my eyebrow in a particular way and then you do so as well in the same fashion do you then owe me or do I now own your eyebrow?

[AncapFTW]

I don't think you seem to get what you're asserting. You're not claiming ownership over an idea, you're claiming ownership over other people on the basis of an idea. If you raise your hand and then I raise my hand that doesn't give you ownership or possession over my hand because I 'copied' your motion with my property. The physicality of your idea, initially, is your body and then I 'copy' your 'idea', which is now my possessed version of what you did. You keep suggesting an idea is something you possess and don't seem to get you don't and can't possess concepts as some single or physical entity like a hand. If ideas were possessions like you're talking like they are life would be long since dead and never would have gotten going in the first place.

 

 

 

You didn't produce my body, my mind, or my hands. I'm not saying it should refer, I'm saying it does refer to physical things. You express your ideas and contain your ideas with physical matter, which is what you possess. Concepts and ideas are just abstracts or patterns that aren't themselves owned, but represented by motion of possessed physicality.

 

 

Yes, you're claiming ownership over my body, which is what I'm rejecting. You don't possess my body and if you try to that's acting violently against me.

You cells are acting a lot like mine, a similar or the same pattern in many ways you could say, does that mean if I was born before you that I own you or that you owe me? Or that your parents own you since you copied the pattern from them? If I raise my eyebrow in a particular way and then you do so as well in the same fashion do you then owe me or do I now own your eyebrow?

No, I am not claiming ownership of your body.  You are, however, claiming ownership of the body of and one who creates an idea you want to use.

 

We're obviously not going to get anywhere if you are just going to keep projecting your own views on to me.

[dsayers]

You are, however, claiming ownership of the body of and one who creates an idea you want to use.

No he's not because using an idea isn't binding upon another. The reason we're not getting anywhere is because you're engaging in bigotry while feigning conversation. You're output only. Now if what you said accurately described the real world, you would convince others. Since it doesn't and you're output only, THIS is why we're not getting anywhere. You're projecting this stagnation to deflect attention from your engaging in it, while accusing somebody else of that very projection. That's some rather sophisticated manipulation you've got going on there!

[AynRand]

You're projecting this stagnation to deflect attention from your engaging in it, while accusing somebody else of that very projection. That's some rather sophisticated manipulation you've got going on there!

I got to agree with dsayers here.

[AncapFTW]

No he's not because using an idea isn't binding upon another. The reason we're not getting anywhere is because you're engaging in bigotry while feigning conversation. You're output only. Now if what you said accurately described the real world, you would convince others. Since it doesn't and you're output only, THIS is why we're not getting anywhere. You're projecting this stagnation to deflect attention from your engaging in it, while accusing somebody else of that very projection. That's some rather sophisticated manipulation you've got going on there!

The projection is strong with this one.

 

I've explained how it is, and explained my how I came to my conclusion multiple times.  You, however, have decided to ignore what I wrote, use special pleading, and accuse me of bigotry instead of looking at my point of view, which you reject out of hand because it doesn't fit the way you want things to be.  That would make you the bigot.  And now you are accusing me of manipulation because I recognize that you are using logical fallacies and aren't even discussing the topic, just continuously stating your point in hopes that one of these times I'll accidently accept your poor arguments.  That means that you are trying to manipulate the conversation.

 

As long as the two of you keep claiming ownership over the fruits of other people's labor and can't even acknowledge that that's what you are doing, then there's no way we can have a conversation.  You are behaving like the statists or Communists who think that there is some special situation in which it's ok to take another person's property by force, only you can't even see that that is what you are doing.

[dsayers]

As long as the two of you keep claiming ownership over the fruits of other people's labor

Begging the question. The point of contention is whether we're talking about labor or not. To not acknowledge this is a demonstration of the closed-mindedness you are again trying to project with this "I know you are, but what am I?" post.

 

I've explained how it is, and explained my how I came to my conclusion multiple times.

Two of my posts ago, I concisely explained every flaw you utilized to arrive upon that conclusion. Here and in the post before it, you are just proceeding as if those challenges have not been offered. The philosophical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling la la la la la.

 

We're at an impasse because we do not agree on an arbiter for resolving this conflict. While I'm holding the real world as the arbiter, you're holding your conclusion as the arbiter. My approach is objective while yours is subjective.

[powder]

Who decides what the bound are for anything that is subjective?  How about if two people disagree on something?  What if one person sees it as a violation of their rights and the other doesn't?  That's what arbiters are for.  Eventually you'll reach a point where a limit is understood.

 

Every society has agreed upon bounds that aren't codified or forced on people.  That's why I don't understand it when anarchists ask questions like this.  You may as well ask "why can't I have a drunken orgy in public?"  After all, you aren't technically harming anyone.

 

The reason that probably wouldn't happen in a public place in a free society is that most people don't want it to happen.  There would be people who refuse to deal with you based on such behavior, and eventually people will place restrictions on themselves performing the activity in order to avoid the consequences of it.  In this case, its doing such things in a private area.  In the case of something like IP limits will eventually arise out of the various opinions on it and such opinions may vary by area, in the same way one area may develop as a clothing-optional community, while others won't.

 

Now I'm curious as to if the people on this forum have ever thought about how rules that aren't strictly derived from NAP will arise in a free society.  

Who cares how 'rules' will be derived, as long as there are no rulers - that is what anarchy is all about.  

If determining what bounds and acceptable behaviors that do not violate the NAP are in society is subjective then it has no moral relevance.  There is no moral content in the example you gave since all the actions are voluntary and consensual.  

[powder]

dsayers, you use the phrase 'binding upon' can you explain this for me please.  I am pretty sure I understand what it means but I am unfamiliar with its usage.  

[powder]

I am an artist and I have studied much art history.  I find it interesting that the idea of intellectual property with regards to art was antithesis to the art world for centuries when so many great artists were practicing.  Indeed, copying another artist's painting, or the work of your master, was not only accepted as good practice but required by all the studios and academies.  

 

the greatest prize or award for achievement in the French art academy was the 'prix de rome' where the winner was sent to Italy to copy the works of the great Renaissance masters.  the better the copy, the more accolades.  

 

this has only became a source of anxiety and frustration in recent generations where accurate attributions meant greater prices in the auction houses.  also, art historians, critics and appraisers stake their careers on the ability to identify the true author.  it is speculated that more than half of the art in museums around the world are forgeries.  Some are modern reproductions of course, but in the day, the concept of a forgery was not even considered.  Most artists never signed their work and fully expected that it would, and should be copied.  They understood that this practice did not dilute the market for their work but only increased its value and the demand for their art.  

 

A number of colleagues of mine here in Canada are concerned about Chinese companies (they don't have copyright laws like the west) that lift images of our art from internet sites and make copies of them to sell for much cheaper.  some of them make prints and posters, others actual painted copies.  you can see the young artists lined up at their work stations with photos of the paintings they are copying.  this has been going on for years and occasionally I get requests to join in some legal assault on the perpetrators. 

 

I have been to some of these sites where they have pages dedicated to my art.  you can pick a painting, choose a frame, and a shipping method and get a copy of one of my paintings for a fraction of the price that they sell for.  I have put a request in to purchase one.  

 

I don't want them to stop, I would rather see my art be the most requested.  

[dsayers]

They understood that this practice did not dilute the market for their work but only increased its value and the demand for their art.  

This is a good point. In the infancy days of Napster (back before Metallica's assault, Dr. Dre, etc), a buddy of mine (who was gullible) told me he had been chatting with the guy who was the leader of an obscure Christian techno group called Aleixa. I really liked their music and I shared it on Napster when it couldn't be found there already. Anyways, my buddy said that during their chat, he let the guy know that I was the one that was sharing their music and he wanted to talk with me. My mailing address at the time was a PO Box, so I consented despite my apprehension about possible negative outcomes. Turns out the guy wanted to thank me for helping to get their music out there. He also said they were closing their website down and wanted to send me some CDs, a t-shirt, bumper stickers, etc. Which he did, including a note signed by Lauren since her vocals were my favorite part of their music.

 

I couldn't list the amount of musicians I thoroughly enjoy and have financially supported as the result of it being shared. Isn't that what a radio station does? Why don't IP advocates ever target broadcast companies? When I was a teen, more than half of my music trivia knowledge came from watching the original Beavis and Butt-heads back when they had music videos before IP claims started cracking down on such things.

 

Anyways, binding upon just means literally to directly and unavoidably effect. If you punch me in the face, it's not something I can ignore because it's binding upon me. If I park my car in your driveway, you cannot choose to use your driveway anyways because my physical occupation of that space is binding upon you.

[AncapFTW]

I am an artist and I have studied much art history.  I find it interesting that the idea of intellectual property with regards to art was antithesis to the art world for centuries when so many great artists were practicing.  Indeed, copying another artist's painting, the work of your master was not only accepted as good practice but required by all the studios and academies.  

 

the greatest prize or award for achievement in the French art academy was the 'prix de rome' where the winner was sent to Italy to copy the works of the great Renaissance masters.  the better the copy the more accolades.  

 

this has only became a source of anxiety and frustration in recent generations where accurate attributions meant greater prices in the auction houses.  also, art historians, critics and appraisers stake their careers on the ability to identify the true author.  it is speculated that more than half of the art in museums around the world are forgeries.  Some are modern reproductions of course, but in the day, the concept of a forgery was not even considered.  Most artists never signed their work and fully expected that it would, and should be copied.  They understood that this practice did not dilute the market for their work but only increased its value and the demand for their art.  

 

A number of colleagues of mine here in Canada are concerned about Chinese companies (they don't have copyright laws like the west) that lift images of our art from internet sites and make copies of them to sell for much cheaper.  some of them make prints and posters, others actual painted copies.  you can see the young artists lined up at their work stations with photos of the paintings they are copying.  this has been going on for years and occasionally I get requests to join in some legal assault on the perpetrators. 

 

I have been to some of these sites where they have pages dedicated to my art.  you can pick a painting, choose a frame, and a shipping method and get a copy of one of my paintings for a fraction of the price that they sell for.  I have put a request in to purchase one.  

 

I don't want them to stop, I would rather see my art be the most requested.  

So, you find their copying of your work to be beneficial to you.  That doesn't mean that it's true for everyone, and even if it was it wouldn't mean that they should be able to copy the art of everyone.  If people find it beneficial to have others copy their work, then they should be able to let others copy their work.  If you don't want others to copy you, then you shouldn't have to let them copy it.  That is what I was arguing, that the person who created an idea, information, technique, etc. should be the one to decide what does and doesn't happen to their work.

 

Also, I feel like I need to point out that the idea of personal freedom and rights also was anti-thesis at that time, as most people were essentially owned by the local lord, king, or queen, and slavery was legal.

 

Still, if you are saying that the non-existence of IP benefits creators, you are arguing effects, not principles.

[thebeardslastcall]

You, however, have decided to ignore what I wrote, use special pleading, and accuse me of bigotry instead of looking at my point of view, which you reject out of hand because it doesn't fit the way you want things to be. 

 

You keep saying special pleading. It's not that we're ignoring your point of view, but that we're rejecting it as not making any sense and with multiple challenges to your point of view you've done nothing to help explain your point of view in a way that accords with reality and what people actually physically possess (or based on what rules and logic you possess something non-physical that you clearly in reality can't control or contain). If you raise your hand and then I raise my hand I haven't taken control or stolen your hand or lowered your hand. Your hand and 'raise hand' idea and possessions, so much as you possess yourself, are fully intact. I haven't stolen or taken possession of your body. I've raised my hand. Not binding means when I raise my hand it doesn't bind to your hand and have any impact on whether or not it's raised or whether or not you can lower and raise it again. You haven't lost the idea or lost possession of your hand either. I haven't stolen anything you actually possess. You're claiming possession over the idea "raise one's hand" and we're saying reality doesn't accord with that claim to ownership since we can raise our hands and do so without removing your possession over your body or your ability to raise your hand. You're suggesting you lost possession of an idea because I raised my hand or that I 'stole' your idea by raising my hand and that I should not raise my hand without your permission or you'll attack me. That's a violent and aggressive notion and not something we agreed to. Without agreeing to copyright rules does this seem like a sensible way to view ownership and to behave to you (attacking me for raising my hand without your permission)?

[powder]

So, you find their copying of your work to be beneficial to you.  That doesn't mean that it's true for everyone, and even if it was it wouldn't mean that they should be able to copy the art of everyone.  If people find it beneficial to have others copy their work, then they should be able to let others copy their work.  If you don't want others to copy you, then you shouldn't have to let them copy it.  That is what I was arguing, that the person who created an idea, information, technique, etc. should be the one to decide what does and doesn't happen to their work.

 

Also, I feel like I need to point out that the idea of personal freedom and rights also was anti-thesis at that time, as most people were essentially owned by the local lord, king, or queen, and slavery was legal.

 

Still, if you are saying that the non-existence of IP benefits creators, you are arguing effects, not principles.

 

I am not making an argument, dsayers and thebeardslastcall have already done a much better job of that than I could.  

 

My friend had a clever idea about how to set up his studio space, I need his permission to use that idea or he has the right to use aggression against me?  

 

I believe you claimed in an earlier post that society would use subjectively agreed upon boundaries for what is acceptable to determine how to set boundaries for what would be deemed violations of property.  It was pointed out that this is not universal or objective therefore has no moral content.  How do you get around this?  

 

It is theft to copy the image I created, but not theft to use my friend's idea?  

[AncapFTW]

I am not making an argument, dsayers and thebeardslastcall have already done a much better job of that than I could.  

 

My friend had a clever idea about how to set up his studio space, I need his permission to use that idea or he has the right to use aggression against me?  

 

I believe you claimed in an earlier post that society would use subjectively agreed upon boundaries for what is acceptable to determine how to set boundaries for what would be deemed violations of property.  It was pointed out that this is not universal or objective therefore has no moral content.  How do you get around this?  

 

It is theft to copy the image I created, but not theft to use my friend's idea?  

It's unlikely your friend would have a problem with it, but if he did it would really be a matter of whether or not you harmed him by doing it.  That kind of idea copying is unlikely to affect him at all, and is probably inspired by his work, not an exact copy.  On the other hand, art is produced to make money.  You earn money by selling the artwork or copies of it.  If someone else copies your art without your permission, then they are essentially taking money from you by using your labor to out-compete you due to lower costs.

 

Let me give you a more extreme example.  Pharm company A spend 100 million developing a new drug to treat cancer.  A week after it is released, Pharm company B releases a copy of it for half the price.  Because company B doesn't have to make up 100 million worth of research costs, they can make more profit but do little of the work that company A had to do producing the drug.  While the amount of money that they cost company A is speculative, they essentially stole from company A by taking the drug formula (company A's intellectual property) and selling it for less than company A.  Because they can always undercut company A on cost due to the lack of 100 million in research costs, company A cannot earn money on the product that they put time, effort, and resources into, and therefore had their product stolen.

 

Society already has agreed upon boundaries for a number of things, some of which are NAP violations, some of which aren't.  I was merely trying to point out that the degree to which a person violated your rights were subject to society's dictates, and that we abide by those limits in order to function in society.

 

In some societies things that are violations of NAP aren't considered to be crimes, and in some societies things that aren't violations of NAP are considered crimes.  There are also various degrees to which these things are punished based on society's rules.  For example, in most nations theft is punished by a few days in jail to a few years in prison, depending on what was stolen and how valuable it is.  In the past in many countries, though, theft could be a hanging offense (such as horse theft in the 1800s, as you threatened the person's life by doing it) or by cutting your hand off.

 

If we disagree on whether or not he did violate my rights, then it would be a matter for the courts to decide, through arbiters, and eventually those judgements would form a pattern.  If the general consensus was that recording a movie or concert for personal use was ok, but distributing it was not, then that would be the rule for IP of that type, and it would form a precedent for future cases.  If the case went more extreme (say that you friend was entitled to massive compensation for you copying his studio layout) that would also establish a pattern, though it is unlikely that something that severe would last long, as it would ruin the arbiter's reputation.

 

Technically both could be considered theft, but one is so minor, like taking pens home from the office, that no one would care about it.

[Lars]

Here's a summary of why I consider intellectual property to be problematic.

Property is defined as any object associated with exclusive transfer, usage and disposal among specified individuals, contractual or intrinsic. Abstract concepts do not fit the definition of property for the following reasons:
- Ideas can only spread, they never transfer.
- We cannot ethically prevent the utilization of an idea once it has spread.
- An idea in circulation cannot be willfully destroyed without egregious ethical violations.

There are no new ideas, all knowledge is derived from the compounded contributions of previous generations ultimately stemming from empirical observations. Writing a book is not analogous to planting a new tree, it's more like helping to grow an ancient preexisting tree.

Time investment/labor does not automatically entitle anything. Infinite reproducibility means that concepts are objectively worthless, so when customers purchase a particular piece of media they're not actually paying for the media itself, but rather donating towards the future productivity of things they want to see more of. The marketplace rewards proactivity and punishes complacency.

[AncapFTW]

Here's a summary of why I consider intellectual property to be problematic.

 

Property is defined as any object associated with exclusive transfer, usage and disposal among specified individuals, contractual or intrinsic. Abstract concepts do not fit the definition of property for the following reasons:

- Ideas can only spread, they never transfer.

- We cannot ethically prevent the utilization of an idea once it has spread.

- An idea in circulation cannot be willfully destroyed without egregious ethical violations.

 

There are no new ideas, all knowledge is derived from the compounded contributions of previous generations ultimately stemming from empirical observations. Writing a book is not analogous to planting a new tree, it's more like helping to grow an ancient preexisting tree.

 

Time investment/labor does not automatically entitle anything. Infinite reproducibility means that concepts are objectively worthless, so when customers purchase a particular piece of media they're not actually paying for the media itself, but rather donating towards the future productivity of things they want to see more of. The marketplace rewards proactivity and punishes complacency.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/property No, it isn't.

 

Ownership of something is independent of possession of something.

 

Supposition.  Please prove that it is impossible.

 

Also supposition.  Also, it doesn't need to be destroyed, just not used directly.

 

There are no new lifeforms.  They are all derived from previous lifeforms.  So yes, it is analogous to planting a new tree.

 

Time investment/labor is how something becomes property if it is unowned, and it is how new property is created out of what is owned.  In a way, animals are also infinitely reproducible, so would it be accurate to say that when you buy a puppy you aren't purchasing the puppy, but supporting the future production of puppies?

[thebeardslastcall]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/property No, it isn't.

 

Do you realize that definitions 6 and 7 are properties of an object as distinct from property in the ownership sense? Definitions 1 through 4 deal with the physical and 5 is a bit confused. If the person 'owns' an idea, they only control it so long as they keep it to themselves and once they 'dispose' of it, they've released it and no longer control it. But someone else can still come up with the same exact idea independently, so it's not like the idea is owned, just that they have the ability to limit its dispersion from themselves, but have no control over it elsewhere. And 'common property' would be better stated as common knowledge, as it refers to 'secrets', which upon their 'disposal' are no longer secrets and giving up a secret makes it a non-secret, but doesn't remove the idea from the original secret holder.

 

Just because it's in a dictionary doesn't mean it makes sense. Lots of definitions are logical contradictions as they're made by confused people and based off of common understandings and misunderstandings of what a word means. Like defining morality off of a notion of God versus philosophy. Even if you find a definition that agrees with you it doesn't mean you're right. It might mean the definition lacks good form.

 

How are ownership and possession independent? The terms are synonymous. Perhaps you've broken them apart because you're claiming false ownership over that which you have no possession over and want to deny ownership to people who have actual possession of something? This seems to be around the focal point of contention and lack of reconciliation for what you consider to be owned.

 

From the same dictionary, bolds are mine: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/own

"1. of, relating to, or belonging to oneself or itself (usually used after a possessive to emphasize the idea of ownership, interest, or relation conveyed by the possessive):"

"2. (used as an intensifier to indicate oneself as the sole agent of some activity or action, preceded by a possessive):"

"3. to have or hold as one's own; possess:"

 

In what way are puppies infinitely reproducible? Does that mean humans are also infinitely reproducible? Is there anything in your view that isn't infinitely reproducible?

 

it is how new property is created out of what is owned

 

If it's owned it is already property. Being property and a property or object having new properties is talking about two different things, about different types and meanings of property. There are many definitions of property because they mean different things and it's an error to use all the definitions of a word as if they are one notion because they share the same word. Pick one. Giving an object a new 'property' in the attribute sense doesn't have anything to do with ownership and property in the sense of this conversation and you seem to be confusing having a new attribute with having a new ownership. You want to possess a pattern, but you continue to avoid addressing why you think you can possess and own an intangible that is beyond your control or actual realistic ability to have possession of this intangible.

 

 

On a side note your use of coloration makes your text hard to read. Also I'm about to tap out of this as nothing I'm saying seems to be registering with you.

[dsayers]

If the person 'owns' an idea, they only control it so long as they keep it to themselves and once they 'dispose' of it, they've released it and no longer control it. But someone else can still come up with the same exact idea independently, so it's not like the idea is owned, just that they have the ability to limit its dispersion from themselves, but have no control over it elsewhere.

This accurately describes the real world.

 

As for the coloration, I like it a lot. I wish it were used for rational rebuttals instead of nuh uh! Then again, I use a browser extension that makes everything light text on dark background. If the default here is white background, I could see how non-dark texts would be easier to read.

[powder]

I think the arguments have hit the wall that Ancap has constructed around this topic and there is just a lot of repeating going on now.  

For myself, I have learned much and appreciate the input from dsyaers and thebeardslastcall.  Time to move on.  cheers.  

[nixy]

 

there is little difference between you driving my car without permission and you playing my song for profit without my permission.

No. When I drive your car you are incurring a cost, which, subject to agreement, I owe you..... if I do not pay, you have suffered a loss.

What loss have you suffered if I have whistled / sung / played 'your' song.

I think the arguments have hit the wall that Ancap has constructed around this topic and there is just a lot of repeating going on now.  

For myself, I have learned much and appreciate the input from dsyaers and thebeardslastcall.  Time to move on.  cheers.  

 Time to move on? ..... why?

 

 

sorry

[AncapFTW]

No. When I drive your car you are incurring a cost, which, subject to agreement, I owe you..... if I do not pay, you have suffered a loss.

What loss have you suffered if I have whistled / sung / played 'your' song.

 

Time to move on? ..... why?

 

 

sorry

I have already incurred the cost when I created it. I am just trying to recover that cost by selling it. True, I may not succeed, but if you provide it to others without my permission/compensating me then you are impeding my ability to do that and possibly earning money off of my labor. Because I didn't agree to let you earn money off of my labor, you are essentially saying you own my labor, therefore me. Therefore slavery.