Can information be Property?

[Diego1751]

Can be information be Property? https://motherboard.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/ne7nzz/here-are-the-letters-that-pepe-the-frogs-lawyers-sent-to-the-alt-right
I was reading an article about how the original creator of Pepe the frog is attempting to take legal action against Mike Cernovich and others. 
Not only cease and desist order but also suing for damages. 
I understand and accept property rights as it pertains to physical objects but I'd like to ask about property rights for books or code for example, and also if there's any rational case for privacy rights. 
 

[JoinOrDie]

Yes. If legally protected.

That's why you cant legally copy dvds or music or software, etc. Its why you have to pay for the Mayweather fights. Mayweather doesn't make his money fighting, he makes it by selling proprietary information, ie televised fights.

I didn't follow the link but it would be interesting to see the outcome if pepe was created without protection then protected after he became popular.

[Tyler H]

If you’re inquiring as to whether or not information should be property, Stephan Kinsella wrote a book on intellectual property that you may find interesting. Free in multiple formats.

Against Intellectual Property

[ShindouHikaru]

23 hours ago, JoinOrDie said:

Yes. If legally protected.

That's why you cant legally copy dvds or music or software, etc. Its why you have to pay for the Mayweather fights. Mayweather doesn't make his money fighting, he makes it by selling proprietary information, ie televised fights.

I didn't follow the link but it would be interesting to see the outcome if pepe was created without protection then protected after he became popular.

And are you ok with throwing a 13 year old in jail for illegally downloading a new Justice League movie? 

[Diego1751]

On 9/18/2017 at 12:31 AM, JoinOrDie said:

Yes. If legally protected.

That's why you cant legally copy dvds or music or software, etc. Its why you have to pay for the Mayweather fights. Mayweather doesn't make his money fighting, he makes it by selling proprietary information, ie televised fights.

I didn't follow the link but it would be interesting to see the outcome if pepe was created without protection then protected after he became popular.

Define "legally protected" 

Is it alright for me to give a book to a friend after I've read it to a friend? By your logic no, because the author makes their money when new books are bought.

What gives the author/programmer/actor the justification to stop someone else from using their own physical property to manipulate information that exists in the world

[Sir Exotic]

1 hour ago, EmeraldRequiem said:

And are you ok with throwing a 13 year old in jail for illegally downloading a new Justice League movie? 

To be fair, he was just stating facts, not his opinion of what should be the fact.

[JoinOrDie]

19 hours ago, EmeraldRequiem said:

And are you ok with throwing a 13 year old in jail for illegally downloading a new Justice League movie? 

Irrelevant. By law, said 13 year old opens themselves up to legal action by breaking the copyright laws.

Do you suggest that this 13 year old should be able to enjoy the talents, productivity, and investments of others for free? That is a slippery slope.

9 hours ago, Diego1751 said:

Define "legally protected" 

Is it alright for me to give a book to a friend after I've read it to a friend? By your logic no, because the author makes their money when new books are bought.

What gives the author/programmer/actor the justification to stop someone else from using their own physical property to manipulate information that exists in the world

I was thinking of copyrights. I presented no logic, but I see you understand the basic premise of copyrights.

The original question was regarding information property, not physical property. In the case of a book, the paper and ink are the physical. The ideas, story, and storytelling are the information. Nobody copyrights paper and ink per se (patents, yes), the copyright is on the information contained within. Same with flash drives, dvds etc. The physical object is only a substrate, or delivery mechanism for the real value which is the information contained within. Even when there is no physical medium, as in a digital download, the information has value and it is the information that is protected.

Continuing with the book example. Lets say you spent the money, blood, sweat, years, and tears to write a NYT bestseller and got it distributed nationwide in book format for $36 a pop. I bought the first copy and scanned it to my website and gave the information away free. How much are you going to make from your years of work? I have very little invested and it costs me nothing to share. Enter the copyright. If your book is protected by copyright, I would go to jail for infringing on your information property rights and you make a million dollars selling your ideas.

I agree that the situation can seem petty when talking about tween song downloads, etc. but where do you draw the line?

[luxfelix]

Can the contemporary digital version of patronage provide a solution to copyright?

If content spread and/or derivative/meme production can greatly benefit the original creator, if the audience likewise prefers the authenticity/provenance, and if patronage replaces royalties as a source of income beyond direct sale, then would the resulting shift from media to creator (as in a brand) make copyrights obsolete?

Tying this back to the thread question, it may be more accurate to define information as a kind of capital, measured differently from physical property or other forms of capital.

Related: [https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40952-capital-theory-20-work-in-progress/]

[ShindouHikaru]

16 hours ago, JoinOrDie said:

Irrelevant. By law, said 13 year old opens themselves up to legal action by breaking the copyright laws.

Do you suggest that this 13 year old should be able to enjoy the talents, productivity, and investments of others for free? That is a slippery slope.

Why is it irrelevant? I'm not strictly referring to legality. OP asked the question, "can information be property". Not, "is it legal for information to be property". Hopefully you don't bring the statist paradigm to every query you engage in. 

When trying to create a system of law, one question that has to be answered is, "is it sustainable". Is it sustainable to throw millions of people under the age of 18 in a jail for downloading content? Should a 7 year old be locked behind bars for downloading a My little pony movie? My answer to this is NO, information isn't property.

Using the statist paradigm, can you honestly elevate downloading a kanye west song to a state in which shooting the individual in question can be justified if said individual refused to comply with the enforcers? If someone creates a work of art, and an entrepreneur 3d prints said painting, and throws it on their wall, should they be thrown in the penitentiary? Well so far the statists say no, as they themselves understand that such a course of actions would be ridiculous. Hence why there isn't a police unit dedicated towards locking up those pesky 8 year olds downloading Teenage Mutant Ninja turtles movies. 

[JoinOrDie]

9 hours ago, EmeraldRequiem said:

Why is it irrelevant?

The question is irrelevant because you asked my opinion which I have not expressed and which has been irrelevant to this point. I have only presented facts and an example of how the current law regarding information (intellectual) property law might work.

I should restate my original answer as Yes. Period. Because information is property. Most information is what may be considered as public domain, common knowledge, etc. That is, generally accepted knowledge that we live with everyday. The sun comes up in the morning and 2+2=4, etc. Original thought and other proprietary information has a much greater value than common information. Proprietary information has a value that can be converted to other kinds of value, ie money, if other people want the proprietary information enough to trade money for it. If I tried to sell you the solution to (6 x 1.5) for $9 you would most likely have a good laugh. If I sold you the colonal's secret recipe for $9 you might buy.

Would you say the value in information is somehow different than the value in physical objects? Should someone be able to enjoy the value of Kanye's house without paying as they might enjoy the value of his music without paying? Go give it a try, I bet he has his house protected just like he has his music protected.

As far as my "statist paradigm", I am simply explaining how the copyright laws in the US protect intellectual property from theft. If there is statism in those ideas it comes from copyright law, not me. The statist paradigm may be more accurately described by the masses freely using proprietary information created by the few. "From each according to his ability, To each according to his need." No value transfer needed. All value belongs to the state and can be freely used at state discretion.

If you want my opinion, I think intellectual property does need to be protected, but I don't know how to do that without creating the ridiculous scenarios that you have referenced.

16 hours ago, luxfelix said:

Can the contemporary digital version of patronage provide a solution to copyright?

I think it could in cases where the creators of the information value patronage more that royalties. This will happen in some individuals but most everyone else will want the money.

 

[ShindouHikaru]

On 9/21/2017 at 6:27 PM, JoinOrDie said:

If you want my opinion, I think intellectual property does need to be protected, but I don't know how to do that without creating the ridiculous scenarios that you have referenced.

I'm not sure how long you've been listening to this show for but, "ridiculous scenarios", ISN'T AN ARGUMENT! Oh boy, oh geez, he said “ridiculous”, so I guess he wins. Fuck...... why didn’t I think of that?

 Detail to me what makes my scenarios ridiculous, detail why it’s deserving derision or mockery. A statist law is an opinion with a gun. The opinion of, “information is property” is enforced at the point of a gun.

 Scenario A

A teenager downloads a Kanye West song. The authorities find out and come to his home, demanding that he should be jailed for his federal crime. The teenager refuses to come with the police and fights back. He grabs a gun to defend himself, he is shot by the police. The teenager is killed. The cops then go to his ipod, delete the song and confiscate his computer. This is what a law is. Is this sequence of events what you call justified? They were defending Kanye’s property after all so according to you these actions must be justified.

 Scenario B

X individual breaks into Kanye West’s house, Kanye calls the cops, the cops find the robber and shoot him. The robber is killed. 

Are both of these scenarios equal? Yes or no?  Because it is morally just for humans to protect their property. And lethal force can be used to defend one’s property. So is scenario A equal to scenario B? Can the police use lethal force to protect Kanye West's digital informational property? Based on your logic, the cop in scenario A has the right to shoot the teenager for stealing Kanye’s song by downloading it online without Kanye's permission.

On 9/21/2017 at 6:27 PM, JoinOrDie said:

Would you say the value in information is somehow different than the value in physical objects? Should someone be able to enjoy the value of Kanye's house without paying as they might enjoy the value of his music without paying? Go give it a try, I bet he has his house protected just like he has his music protected.

Kanye's music has no physical reality. Kanye's house has a physical reality. This is nowhere near parallel, try again. 

 

On 9/21/2017 at 9:12 AM, EmeraldRequiem said:

When trying to create a system of law, one question that has to be answered is, "is it sustainable". Is it sustainable to throw millions of people under the age of 18 in a jail for downloading content? Should a 7 year old be locked behind bars for downloading a My little pony movie? My answer to this is NO, information isn't property.

JoinOrDie: RIDICULOUS!! Haha, I win! I just rekt your argument SCRUB! 

JoinOrDie sounds like a statist larper. Are you larping as a statist? "Join or die" is the anthem of the state. Are you an elaborate troll? 

On 9/18/2017 at 7:23 PM, Diego1751 said:

Can be information be Property?

 

[JoinOrDie]

9 hours ago, EmeraldRequiem said:

If you want my opinion, I think intellectual property does need to be protected, but I don't know how to do that without creating the ridiculous scenarios that you have referenced.

What makes your scenarios ridiculous is that they may represent the actual theoretical extreme of the law. What I meant here isn't that the scenarios you presented would never happen, it's that they theoretically could legally happen and may have happened in extreme cases.  The fact that imprisonment or violence may be legal as punishment for this crime is ridiculous. In this I think we agree. I simply stated that I believe people's property needs to have a mechanism for protection but in doing so how do you draw the line so petty crimes aren't happening all the time. No derision or mockery intended.

Your scenarios A and B are very similar, property rights violations, but differ in scale and the fact that the individual in B could be considered a threat to Mr. West's person.

 

10 hours ago, EmeraldRequiem said:

Kanye's music has no physical reality. Kanye's house has a physical reality. This is nowhere near parallel, try again. 

 Is this is really your argument against intellectual property? That you can't touch it so it doesn't exist?

 

10 hours ago, EmeraldRequiem said:

When trying to create a system of law, one question that has to be answered is, "is it sustainable". Is it sustainable to throw millions of people under the age of 18 in a jail for downloading content? Should a 7 year old be locked behind bars for downloading a My little pony movie? My answer to this is NO, information isn't property.

So by this rationale, if millions of people started stealing cars, we would have to take grand theft auto off the books because too many people are going to jail? Too many people convicted of murder last year, so this year we are going to make murder legal because too many people were getting locked up. That's cute.

I'm not sure what you think you've won. You've misunderstood my points, reduced yourself to obscenities and name calling, refuse to admit the fact that information is property despite several simple examples that prove it, and then you claimed victory in the throes of defeat. Tactics right from the modern statist playbook. Then there's the fact that copyrighted material, also known as legally protected intellectual property, literally surrounds you everyday, in all media, in all of its physical and digital manifestations.

I'll give you a point though for not attacking my spelling, grammar, or semantics. That's another trick of those losing an argument.

Just curious as to which state "Join or Die" is the anthem for. Please provide a link so I can improve myself with this knowledge.

The "Join or Die" Political cartoon I'm using as my avatar was drawn by Benjamin Franklin as a call for the colonies to unite against the tyrannical statist power of King George III. Some colonists recognized that the Imperial power of Great Britain would never voluntarily relinquish its stranglehold on American colonies. They knew that the only way for them to achieve true freedom and self determination was by violent expulsion of occupying forces. However the colonies at the time were essentially their own little countries and would not survive a war with Great Britain unless united. It's not copyrighted, BTW.

 

 

 

[Diego1751]

On 9/20/2017 at 4:28 PM, JoinOrDie said:

 ...The physical object is only a substrate, or delivery mechanism for the real value which is the information contained within. Even when there is no physical medium, as in a digital download, the information has value and it is the information that is protected.

Continuing with the book example...

I agree that the situation can seem petty when talking about tween song downloads, etc. but where do you draw the line?

Is it possible to have information that is NOT contained in physical property? How do you define the distinction between physical property and physical "delivery mechanisms" and why do they have different property rights?

The Internet is still physical, physical cables, physical computers, servers, routers, etc. When you download a digital file you are still using physical property. 

Also your entire nyt bestseller book example is an argument from consequences.

Also Molyneux has a great business model of internet busking. As do many other channels supported on patreon.   If I re-uploaded content that I didn't contribute to in any way then nobody would support my channel. They would just seek out the original sources

 

[Diego1751]

On 9/21/2017 at 6:27 PM, JoinOrDie said:

Yes. Period. Because information is property. Most information is what may be considered as public domain, common knowledge, etc. That is, generally accepted knowledge that we live with everyday. The sun comes up in the morning and 2+2=4, etc. Original thought and other proprietary information has a much greater value than common information. Proprietary information has a value that can be converted to other kinds of value, ie money, if other people want the proprietary information enough to trade money for it.

"Period" 

Who determines what is valuable or not valuable information?

Is a house not property unless it's made out of solid gold?  If it's made out of wood it's made from common materials and is just like most other houses 

Once information is stored on a medium that is not owned by the Creator (ie another brain, flashdrive, paper or picture) how can the Creator legitimately extend any ownership to the information 

 

[Mole]

Philosophically speaking, yes. I would say so. I would say that you owe the effects of your actions. Information may be an effect of your actions.

Practically, it not matter so much. A free society wouldn't be based on dogmatic principles but rather on cause and effect, and rational self-interest. If intellectual property lines up with those things, then so be it. Whether it lines up with those things I think depends upon the way it is causally linked to individuals, as that knowledge is key to a free market where prediction and objectivity are required.

 

[JoinOrDie]

This is getting frustrating. Can we first agree that our ideas are ours? Our personal property in much the same way our shoes are our personal property. Or do our personal thoughts immediately become property of a collective mind once they are created?

Can we also agree that once in a while somebody has an idea that others are willing to pay money for? Think Music, movie, invention, hairstyle, process, etc. Any kind of innovation.

What we are arguing here is basic property rights, maybe the single most important idea behind free speech in a free society. It's that important.

Because property may not have a physical component is irrelevant. Information/intellectual/idea property is not physical but does need physical matter for creation, storage, and transfer.

When you pay for and download information, lets say a movie, you are not receiving physical property. You are receiving permission to view someone else's intellectual property along with the electronic code of the property itself. Yes, the information does flow across hardware but the hardware is only the delivery mechanism for the information.

Let me ask this, How much is a DVD with no information on it? Now, How much is a DVD with Spiderman 3 on it? Same thing physically, why the difference in price? Its the proprietary information on the disk that has the value.

Like all other property, the value of intellectual property is dictated by what someone will pay, aka free market.

12 hours ago, Diego1751 said:

your entire nyt bestseller book example is an argument from consequences.

Im not familiar with such things, please explain this concept and how it affects my argument. Thank you.

 

[ShindouHikaru]

19 hours ago, JoinOrDie said:

The fact that imprisonment or violence may be legal as punishment for this crime is ridiculous. In this I think we agree. I simply stated that I believe people's property needs to have a mechanism for protection but in doing so how do you draw the line so petty crimes aren't happening all the time. No derision or mockery intended.

Interesting, you didn't call it, "intellectual property" in this statement but you elevated it to the level of a physical property, like your person or your car. Interesting trick. 

 

19 hours ago, JoinOrDie said:

What makes your scenarios ridiculous is that they may represent the actual theoretical extreme of the law. What I meant here isn't that the scenarios you presented would never happen, it's that they theoretically could legally happen and may have happened in extreme cases. 

Fail, it is not the theoretical extremity of a law, it is the reality of the nature of laws. The nature of a law in a statist society is, if you do not conform, you will die. Join or die. The founding fathers were statists as well. Libertarians are still statists. Minarchists are still statists. If you don't pay your taxes, and if you choose to defend yourself, you will be killed. If you steal someone's car, and if you try to evade the police, and if you try defending yourself from the police with a gun (hence not joining/conforming), you will killed. I will repeat this again, the nature of a law is an opinion with a gun. Therefore, if you apply this reality to the property of a digital song (I'll elevate intellectual property to property in this example as you're fond of doing), then the property of a digital song must be PROTECTED. Meaning, if X individual illegally downloads a song, and refuses to delete it, and runs away from the police and chooses to defend themselves with a gun, then it is morally permissible to kill them in order to protect the property of the digital song. This is the logical conclusion of your rationale. It is not abstract, it is the reality. It is not a red herring, it is the logical conclusion. In the realm of philosophy we deal with PRINCIPLES. We do not deal with minutiae, the principles are all that matter. The principle known as, "protection of property", extended to a digital song would mean that lethal force would be morally permissible to protect said property. This is the logical conclusion of your rationale. Do you understand any of this? I'd like to ask you again, are you ok with using lethal force to protect the property that is a digital song? If the answer to this is no, that's ridiculous, then you're against the concept of "intellectual property" and the conclusion hence forth is that you do not believe that it exists since you're not willing to protect that property with lethal force (as is morally permissible when confronted with a robber or someone threatening to murder you - defending the property of the self).

If you say that it's not ridiculous, that lethal force should be used to protect the property that is Kanye's digital song, then you're ok and think its morally just to defend the property of Kanye West song by shooting the robber since he won't hand over his mp3 player. Which of these 2 logical conclusions are you on the side on?

 

20 hours ago, JoinOrDie said:

 Is this is really your argument against intellectual property? That you can't touch it so it doesn't exist?

I never suggested such a thing. 2+2 is still 4 and yet it has no tangible reality, but still exists as a concept. I'm simply stating that your analogy is nowhere near parallel because Kanye West's house has a physical reality and Kanye West's music has no physical reality. Hence your analogy was disgustingly bad. As in, try again. 

 

20 hours ago, JoinOrDie said:

So by this rationale, if millions of people started stealing cars, we would have to take grand theft auto off the books because too many people are going to jail? Too many people convicted of murder last year, so this year we are going to make murder legal because too many people were getting locked up. That's cute.

Once again, nowhere near parallel. Cars have a tangible reality, a my little pony movie does not. There is no initiation of force for a 7 year old downloading a my little pony movie, there is an initiation of force in stealing someone's car.  Once again, you fail. Find something that's parallel. 

20 hours ago, JoinOrDie said:

I'm not sure what you think you've won. You've misunderstood my points, reduced yourself to obscenities and name calling, refuse to admit the fact that information is property despite several simple examples that prove it, and then you claimed victory in the throes of defeat. Tactics right from the modern statist playbook. Then there's the fact that copyrighted material, also known as legally protected intellectual property, literally surrounds you everyday, in all media, in all of its physical and digital manifestations.

I promise you your points are very easy to understand, I've misunderstood nothing. You are not a philosopher, you're not talking about philosophy, you're not talking about principles. Your proof of the existence of intellectual property is the paradigm presented by a statist world. The foundation of your entire argument is the following:

 

JoinOrDie 2017: hyuck, hyuck, "refuse to admit the fact that information is property...... then there's the fact that copyrighted material, also known as legally protected intellectual property, literally surrounds you everyday, in all media, in all of its physical and digital manifestations", hyuck hyuck

JoinOrDie 2017: hyuck, hyuck, well, there are already laws that state intellectual property exists, is moral and should be protected therefore it exists, is moral and should be protected, it's a fact, hyuck, hyuck

JoinOrDie 1820: hyuck, hyuck, Well, there are already laws that state that slavery exists , is moral and should be protected therefore it exists, is moral and should be protected, it's a fact, hyuck, hyuck

JoinOrDie 1972: hyuck, hyuck, well there are already laws that state that conscription exists, is moral and should be protected, therefore it exists, is moral and should be protected, it's a fact, hyuck, hyuck

JoinOrDie ∞: hyuck, hyuck, this politician and the government said that X exists, is moral, and should protected, therefore it exists, is moral and should be protected. Don't ya know, its a fact! Hyuck, hyuck

 

JoinOrDie ∞:                        S              I            M          P         L           E          T          O          N

You have an excellent "thought" process (this is sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell). 

[lorry]

I go yes.

 

Information can not be "created" without work being done. As doing work, infusing labour into a good, is basis of property, i.e. I own my self, thus I own my labour, thus I own that which my labour is infused into (when taken from the state of nature), I can not see how information can not be property by such a definition.

[luxfelix]

If I recall, the scientific definition of information is the arrangement of matter.
 

However, we could be talking about three different cases for this: a particular arrangement of matter (i.e. a book), the repeated arrangement of matter (i.e. the story in the book), or the abstracted arrangement of matter (i.e. the concept of storytelling, or language in general).

On that last one, can we say whom owns the English language? If not memes, what of genes? Can one own DNA and acquire a copyright for each division of a cell?

Whether we say information can or can not be property, does this apply for one, some, all, or none of the scales of perspective?

[JoinOrDie]

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 11:43 PM, EmeraldRequiem said:

You are not a philosopher

You are correct. However, I am interested in philosophy as it relates to interactions between people and groups of people.

I see what is going on here. I'm dealing with a philosophical absolutist. You either obey the principles or you die, you are either an anarchist or a totalitarian, It's black or white based purely on philosophical principles. I cannot debate from this perspective. I think most people realize that, in practice, such things involve a spectrum.

We have been debating this concept from 2 different angles. You from the purely philosophical viewpoint and mine from a wider perspective where philosophy is tempered by ethics and reason. In the illegal download scenario, nobody is advocating killing someone for an illegal download. It may or may not be morally permissible to do so but ethics and reason don't allow it. Killing a person for initiation of force demonstrates both the nature of laws AND the theoretical extreme of the law if a compromise is not reached between the law and the lawbreaker.

I can see where if you do not accept the premise that information is property, nothing I have said makes much sense. If you can agree that information can have the same property rights as tangible objects, which society as a whole has done, my position holds more weight. My argument was not that intellectual property rights exist because the law says so, but rather that the laws exist because people wanted protection for this type of property. The law is effect, not the cause of intellectual property rights.

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 11:43 PM, EmeraldRequiem said:

I'm simply stating that your analogy is nowhere near parallel because Kanye West's house has a physical reality and Kanye West's music has no physical reality.

The analogy is parallel because these are both examples of the man's property. There is a difference in scale.

On ‎9‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 9:12 AM, EmeraldRequiem said:

Should a 7 year old be locked behind bars for downloading a My little pony movie? My answer to this is NO, information isn't property.

If you do not accept the premise that information is property, there is no theft here. If you will recognize that a huge amount of resources have been expended to create the movie, and those resources belong to someone, and the movie belongs to someone, and someone takes that information without consent, then theft has occurred. This is true whether either party is aware or not, no consent given. Locking the kid up may be the nature, and extreme of the law but not the only possible outcome. That being said, I do admit that I am having a hard time answering yes to this question. I get a lot of "yes, buts". I suppose given the absolutes, I have to answer yes. If information is property, and property is taken without permission, and imprisonment or death is the extreme/nature of laws, then yes the kid is in trouble. This is not a real world answer but given the constraints of yes or no, then yes.

 

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 9:49 PM, JoinOrDie said:

Can we first agree that our ideas are ours?

  Does the concept of possession apply to ideas? Ideas are information. Is the information our property? Or do our ideas, once conceived, belong to a collective mind where they can be used freely by everyone?

On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 4:32 AM, luxfelix said:

Can one own DNA

 Ask Monsanto, They own several patents for proprietary DNA that was created in their labs. Most corn and soy grown contain these genes. The physical aspect of the plant belongs to the farmer but the genetic information contained within belongs to Monsanto. Monsanto makes the farmer sign a huge contract before they sell seed that prohibits them from using seeds (genetics) for anything other that market sale. It is illegal to plant these F2 seeds.

[Jsbrads]

Intellectual property, copyrights, patents is a myth.

it started after the printing press.

jewish law debates admitted there can be no such property but attempted to protect "first printings" with social pressure to protect the investments of the authors (who were basically self publishing, thus after authoring, raising significant capital) to cover the cost to print (a few hundred?) books.

the advent of US government and Ben Franklin's patent rights just expanded these non-existent rights to protect inventors and in theory spur invention. 

[luxfelix]

On ‎9‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 11:06 PM, JoinOrDie said:

 Ask Monsanto, They own several patents for proprietary DNA that was created in their labs. Most corn and soy grown contain these genes. The physical aspect of the plant belongs to the farmer but the genetic information contained within belongs to Monsanto. Monsanto makes the farmer sign a huge contract before they sell seed that prohibits them from using seeds (genetics) for anything other that market sale. It is illegal to plant these F2 seeds.

So then we have precedent.

Would this also apply to designer-babies when DNA is edited prior to birth (or for curing someone's genetic disorder?)? Would attempts to own human DNA become void due to anti-slavery laws? (Or would there be some re-classification of "edited human simulations" concocted to deny rights to these individuals?)

(Can ownership of epigenetics also be established?)

On the other hand, maybe concerns of a slippery slope are unwarranted? (Pros/Cons?)

[Diego1751]

On 9/24/2017 at 10:14 AM, Mole said:

Philosophically speaking, yes. I would say so. I would say that you owe the effects of your actions. Information may be an effect of your actions.

Practically, it not matter so much. A free society wouldn't be based on dogmatic principles but rather on cause and effect, and rational self-interest. If intellectual property lines up with those things, then so be it. Whether it lines up with those things I think depends upon the way it is causally linked to individuals, as that knowledge is key to a free market where prediction and objectivity are required.

 

Interesting, I do accept that we are responsible for the effects of our actions, but I don't know how this translates into ownership

A definition would be helpful. Information is fundamentally a recognizable pattern

Information is clearly something other than an object. In order to copy information all that must be done is recreate the pattern.  An object obviously does not fit this definition

[lorry]

On 10/3/2017 at 7:27 PM, Diego1751 said:

Interesting, I do accept that we are responsible for the effects of our actions, but I don't know how this translates into ownership

A definition would be helpful. Information is fundamentally a recognizable pattern

Information is clearly something other than an object. In order to copy information all that must be done is recreate the pattern.  An object obviously does not fit this definition

 

It translates into ownership ala the labour theory of property (John Locke).

1 bit of information is that which enables us to chose correctly between 2 equally probably outcomes.

Information is embodied in an object, to speak of information as not being stored somewhere is unphysical.

Counter-fitting is the "copying" of information. If I copy a $5 note (counterfit it) I am copying the information on the $5 note. The dimensions, the colours, the patterns, etc. We recognize that copying the information on money is bad, but it is just the copying of the information on the note, eh?

[Tyler H]

2 hours ago, lorry said:

 

It translates into ownership ala the labour theory of property (John Locke).

1 bit of information is that which enables us to chose correctly between 2 equally probably outcomes.

Information is embodied in an object, to speak of information as not being stored somewhere is unphysical.

Counter-fitting is the "copying" of information. If I copy a $5 note (counterfit it) I am copying the information on the $5 note. The dimensions, the colours, the patterns, etc. We recognize that copying the information on money is bad, but it is just the copying of the information on the note, eh?

The first guy to build a teepee; does he own the teepee, or the teepee and the method by which he built it? Is he justified in forcibly preventing someone else from applying the idea to their own property, i.e. building their own teepee?

[Gavitor]

if food, water, fuel, and raw materials in general could be duplicated would you forbid others from doing so when it doesn't remove those things from you?

Would a star trek style replicator be outlawed?

[lorry]

2 minutes ago, Gavitor said:

if food, water, fuel, and raw materials in general could be duplicated would you forbid others from doing so when it doesn't remove those things from you?

Would a star trek style replicator be outlawed?

 

Fiat currency can be duplicated and the duplication doesn't remove anything from you.

[Gavitor]

Just now, lorry said:

 

Fiat currency can be duplicated and the duplication doesn't remove anything from you.

That's why I'm investing my fiat into things that can't be duplicated as easily or at all.

[lorry]

25 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

The first guy to build a teepee; does he own the teepee, or the teepee and the method by which he built it? Is he justified in forcibly preventing someone else from applying the idea to their own property, i.e. building their own teepee?

Not "the idea", his idea. Which, incidentally, is a product of his labour and so rightly his property.

Can he stop someone from using his idea? Absolutely, the idea is his property.

Can he stop someone from creating their own idea? Absolutely not, that is the creation of new property.

[Gavitor]

1 minute ago, lorry said:

Not "the idea", his idea. Which, incidentally, is a product of his labour and so rightly his property.

Can he stop someone from using his idea? Absolutely, the idea is his property.

Can he stop someone from creating their own idea? Absolutely not, that is the creation of new property.

what if 2 people come up with the same idea at the same time? Who owns the idea?

[Tyler H]

4 minutes ago, Gavitor said:

what if 2 people come up with the same idea at the same time? Who owns the idea?

Yes, how do you prove the other guy stole your idea and didn’t generate it on his own?

Also, you can’t forcibly prevent him from building his own teepee because using force was someone else’s idea first. 

[lorry]

2 minutes ago, Gavitor said:

what if 2 people come up with the same idea at the same time? Who owns the idea?

There is no THE IDEA.

If two people work, and as a function of their work, generate ideas, then they both own their idea (because their idea is a function of the work done to produce it, which, they own).

Information and energy are not these unrelated things, they are directly related.

[Gavitor]

1 minute ago, lorry said:

There is no THE IDEA.

If two people work, and as a function of their work, generate ideas, then they both own their idea (because their idea is a function of the work done to produce it, which, they own).

Information and energy are not these unrelated things, they are directly related.

So you're saying they own what they create outside of their mind correct?

So how are they losing ownership of the thing they created if I use my own energy and resources to create the same thing for myself?

[lorry]

22 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

Yes, how do you prove the other guy stole your idea and didn’t generate it on his own?

Also, you can’t forcibly prevent him from building his own teepee because using force was someone else’s idea first. 

 

Because an idea is a conceptualization, and any conceptualization is of a very high order, ie, it is a conceptualization of a conceptualization of a conceptualization of a conceptualization.

 

You can prove an idea is your own work by explaining how it is that you came by the idea, you can trace the chain on conceptualization all the way back to the start (perceptions of reality).

 

You can't breathe because I had the idea of breathing first. GET REKT, LOLZ.

[lorry]

27 minutes ago, Gavitor said:

So you're saying they own what they create outside of their mind correct?

So how are they losing ownership of the thing they created if I use my own energy and resources to create the same thing for myself?

 

No, I'm saying you own what you produce. I didn't say inside or outside of the mind. Ideas are of the mind, they are conceptualizations, a function of your consciousness. But they require work to produce, purposeful work. As it is the working, the infusing of labour (energy) into a thing that makes it a property so then it must be that the work done in the production of an idea makes the idea a property. If you copy my idea, then you are making use of my property, the function of my work. If you work so as to create your own idea (without copying mine!), you have created your own property.

 

That ideas can be the same AND be the product of individuals work, ie, not copyed, is right. This is because ideas, as a form on knowledge, are (if correct) a conceptualization (abstraction) of perceptions of reality, and reality has a given nature.

 

To give you an example:

I can have an idea on how to make a plane, and you can have an idea on how to make a plane, and we can have never met each other and both of us own our ideas because we both worked for their creation. Our ideas are the same because, to make a plane, you must conform to the laws of physics (which rather constrains the nature of a plane).

This is different if I have the idea on making a plane and you copy my idea without doing the work to generate the idea. Just as with counterfitting currency, you are appropriating the function of my work.

And, if I sell you my idea, or rent you my idea, then I am taking payment for the work required to create the idea. We are exchanging the product of our work.