Can information be Property?

[lorry]

Incidentally this is how you spot a plagiarist, or a second hander. They have "ideas" which lack a chain of conception AND have no references to the previous conceptions used in the formation of "their idea".

[Gavitor]

54 minutes ago, lorry said:

 

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, 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.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/produce

To produce something is to take an idea and actually do something with it. IE create something outside of your mind like the plane you mentioned.

There is only 2 ways to get an idea.

1. is to come up with it yourself

2. is to be given that idea by someone else.

You can not "take" an idea from someone else without them willingly giving it to you because you cannot read minds (if you can by all means explain how)

It's impossible to steal an idea. Also if I buy your idea you still have it.

Ideas don't just vanish from your mind once transferred to someone else. they duplicate each time.

If something can be duplicated endlessly does it matter if it's property or not? Also why?

[lorry]

35 minutes ago, Gavitor said:

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/produce

To produce something is to take an idea and actually do something with it. IE create something outside of your mind like the plane you mentioned.

There is only 2 ways to get an idea.

1. is to come up with it yourself

2. is to be given that idea by someone else.

You can not "take" an idea from someone else without them willingly giving it to you because you cannot read minds (if you can by all means explain how)

It's impossible to steal an idea. Also if I buy your idea you still have it.

Ideas don't just vanish from your mind once transferred to someone else. they duplicate each time.

If something can be duplicated endlessly does it matter if it's property or not? Also why?

 

Is your argument that only that which exists independent of me can be my property? Then how is it that my work is rightly mine?

 

Do you understand that ideas require work to create?

Do you think ideas are not produced?

How do they come to be?

From whence do they come?

Are they intuited, without effort, from a different realm of existence?

 

Do you understand that work in creating is the foundation of property?

Do you understand that in the taking of property you are taking the work required to create the property?

 

Did you actually read what you linked to? Look at number 2.

 

Think conceptually, my dude. An apple is property because of the work I do in taking it out of a state of nature, if you take my apple, you take for your own my work. That my work is "infused" in an apple is by the by. It is the taking of my work which is immoral. It is that which is akin to an act of enslaving me to work for you.

[Gavitor]

7 minutes ago, lorry said:

Did you actually read what you linked to? Look at number 2.

2.to bring into existence by intellectual or creative ability

Did you? Having an idea in and of itself does not bring something into existence...

When you attain information you can not be deprived of said information.

So is it relevant or useful to call information property?

14 minutes ago, lorry said:

It is the taking of my work which is immoral.

Your work was not taken. You still have whatever it is you produced and you still have the ability to trade/sell it.

I'll ask again

If something can be duplicated endlessly does it matter if it's property or not? Also why?

[Gavitor]

3 minutes ago, lorry said:

 

So, your argument is that ideas are not brought into existence by intellectual or creative ability? Wow, just wow.

 

Ideas don't exist until I act upon them? Information is not stored? You should take the hard drive out of your computer, it isn't storing information, information only exists when it is being acted on.

Aslo, when I act in accordance with an idea, I act in accordance with something that doesn't exist............................................................?

 

Not true, information can be erased.

 

Information, by definition, can not be increased without work being done. This is the definitive characteristic of property.

 

You, literally, make use of that which exists only by virtue of a man's productive labour. If I build a car, and you use it, you have made use of that which exists only by virtue of my labour. If I have an idea, and you use it, you have made use of that which exists only by virtue of my productive labour. The principle is that you are making use of the productive work of another man.

 

That something can be duplicated endlessly is immaterial. Fiat currency can be duplicated endlessly, and this is rightly considered a theft. Why?

Storing information is putting it in the world, be it writing it down or typing it on a computer.

Information can be erased yes. it can also be copied. So if your computer catches fire and your information is lost I can simply give it back to you since I was able to copy it. Oh look, being able to copy it was actually a benefit to you.

12 minutes ago, lorry said:

If I have an idea, and you use it, you have made use of that which exists only by virtue of my productive labour.

except that I cannot use it unless you gave it to me.

14 minutes ago, lorry said:

The principle is that you are making use of the productive work of another man.

What's wrong with that?

17 minutes ago, lorry said:

Fiat currency can be duplicated endlessly, and this is rightly considered a theft.

How is it rightly considered theft?

Duplicating something means the original is still in place.

Stealing means removing the original thing without the owners consent.

Since copying something does not remove the original thing and doesn't deprive the owner their property copying is not stealing.

[Somewhere]

Another good book on the subject is Boldrin and Levine's "Against Intellectual Monopoly" although it mainly covers patents.

http://www.micheleboldrin.com/research/aim.html

You will learn about how Watt's patents held back the industrial revolution by decades, how his business flourished AFTER his patents expired, how Germany had a thriving pharma industry with no patents, how some Western countries did not adopt pharma patents till the 1970s, etc.

[Jsbrads]

Printing fiat currency is fraud

only the government is legally permitted to enact that fraud, even tho it is immoral that they do so.

 

[Tyler H]

13 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Printing fiat currency is fraud

only the government is legally permitted to enact that fraud, even tho it is immoral that they do so.

 

I think the moral issue is not that they print money, but that they force citizens to use it in the first place. Every time someone digs up gold they are adding to the supply, inflating it, but that’s not stealing from all gold holders.  So it’s not just the fact that they create money in their hands by siphoning the value of all other money in everyone else’s hands, it’s that people don’t have a choice to abandon that medium of exchange. If you create your own crypto currency and maintain the right to create more at will, you’re not stealing because people voluntarily agree to that format when they use it, and will wisely abandon it when the scam is revealed. Anyways, perhaps that’s a debate for a different thread. 

[lorry]

Let all work = 1

Let all money representing work = 1

Work per money = 1

 

Keep constant the amount of work 1

Double the amount of money to 2 (by copying money, duplicating it)

Work per money = 1/2

 

Pre copying, I had 1 money and 1 work per money, thus, 1 work.

Post post, I have 1 money (it hasn't been taken from me, whats the big deal?) I now have 1/2 work per money, thus I have 1/2 work.

Copying a thing is a taking of work, in this case, it takes 1/2 work.

 

Stop being parasites.

[luxfelix]

Would you say this also applies to remixes? (Meme evolution?)

[lorry]

50 minutes ago, luxfelix said:

Would you say this also applies to remixes? (Meme evolution?)

 

Don't creators of memes want them to be used as such? Like, if I create a meme, I want you to take it and play with it and spread it. That is why I would make it, right? Presumably because I gain value in the creation and in the spreading of the magic (idea) of the meme.

[meetjoeblack]

Well, if you write a book, why not? If you get super abstract, create a channel, youtube or something else, you did as well but, then again, when a media removes your access lets say, like twitter and Milo, it puts things into perspective as to what one should or shouldn't invest his time in.

[lorry]

Try to think of information as in formation. It helps, like: here is a rock in a state of nature, and by working on it so as to produce a sculpture (and by working on it make it my property) I transform it from a state of nature to a state of being in formation. If you call the state of nature un-ordered (not in formation), then I work so as to order the un-ordered, and in the ordering (putting in formation) it becomes my property.

[lorry]

With that conception, you can get to J Peterson talking about Logos (ie, a human as the potential to create order from chaos AS human thinking and AS human creating property)

JP: Logos is a (potential) property of man, and it is this property infused (by infusing ones labour in the Lockean sense) which makes economic property a property (ie, we infuse the human property Logos into the economic "property", or, that which makes a economic good a property is the property: Logos). <------ metaphorically speaking.

[lorry]

I guess that would make the taking of a economic property the taking of Logos? I dunno, I'm not fluent in the idea. Something like...... the appropriation of Logos? Is that something like the taking of that which God created and thus an assumption of Godhood in the taking? Like, your Logos is infused into your property, God created your Logos, so your Logos is a property of the divine, so by taking your property I take your Logos and assume for myself the right of Godhood (because God owns the Logos as God created the Logos in man)?

[lorry]

Same with murder? I murder and thus destroy the Logos (the creation of God and thus rightly God's property) and in doing so I assume for myself the state of Godhood?