Intellectual Property rights

[CaptainAmerica]

Yes, they are. So does Mozart own the arrangement of 0s and 1s? Does Microsoft own the arrangement of 0s and 1s? Does the farmer own the arrangement of 0s and 1s?

If you don't recognize the abstract of property, then you don't recognize it. I can't get you to agree on something that is axiomatic - you either accept it as truth, and build a system upon it, or you don't, and you get a different system. Both may be equally valid - I guess what we disagree on is something very fundamental.

I think people should have exclusive right to what they produce through their effort. You think you have a right to the product of someone else's labor...contracts, agreements, promises, et al, be damned...I do what I want, and take what I want - power is master.

either a person is anarchist or they are not.Laymans terms

 

[CaptainAmerica]

If you are able to offer that competitive advantage, good for you and good for the consumer. But if you can't find good inventions (you are hinting people won't invent, right?)? You will start doing R&D yourself. Inventors will still invent. They can team up with large companies like yours to produce their product. If you make an agreement with them and screw them over, they won't come back to you when they have a new product. They will go somewhere else. The inventor still gets the benefits of being first to market. Depending on how complex the product it, it could also take you a while to reverse engineer.

without IP what would stop them from being payed to develop an invention for his business then taking that information with them and using it against him as a competitor?

 

[goldencane]

without IP what would stop them from being payed to develop an invention for his business then taking that information with them and using it against him as a competitor?

This:

If you make an agreement with them and screw them over, they won't come back to you when they have a new product. They will go somewhere else. The inventor still gets the benefits of being first to market. Depending on how complex the product it, it could also take you a while to reverse engineer.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Wow, there's been a lot of activity in this thread. Please forgive me for not reading it all, but IP is something I've thought about for a significant amount of time and have even written about.

I'm not convinced that there can be no ownership of ideas, but I also think, like Jefferson, how when one idea lights the candle of another's imagination, how can it be put out? ...Which is my way of saying, (less eloquently than Jefferson of course) that once an idea is out there it's out there, and there's no way to put it back in. It's pointless and counter-productive to try.

That's why I advocate something called "compulsory licensing." It basically means that all ideas are up for grabs (and sale), but the original creator still retains some ownership in them, but not the ability to prevent others from using them.

For instance, under compulsory licensing someone could theoretically rewrite Harry Potter as Larry Potter and in my view they have contributed something new to it. Perhaps that change represents .00001% of a modification from the original. That amount can be decided upon by the two parties, or if they can't agree, by a court.

The second user then has the ability to vary the price, up or down, by the same amount that they contributed to the new product. So, if the original price was $15, the second user would have the ability to sell their reworking of it from anywhere between $14.999999 to $15.0000001. You get the idea. This is obviously an absurd example, but the principle applies to everything.

This is the only idea that prohibits both a monopoly of ideas, and not rewarding intellectual creation, which despite what some people at Mises tell you (an org. that I love and have written for by the way) having no property rights in ideas does discourage creation. People have committed suicide over it, people have been driven into poverty because they did not receive compensation for their ideas and the hard work that went into developing them. Just take a brief look at Piracy by Adrian Johns and you will see evidence of it, yet this evidence is never, that I know of, mentioned by the no-IP crowd.

For an essay I wrote on the history of IP and the possible solution of compulsory licensing (I know libertarians hate the word "compulsory," but someone else came up with it, not me), see here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19959

I was thinking of something similar. I don't have a name for it.

Something like this would be a good way to allow for profit-sharing without the sense that someone else is swooping in and stealing another's ideas because they suck at coming up with something original.

You get +rep for a workable idea.

heavenly is right though, this idea exists in a similar form known as royalties.

 

[Travlyr]

If you are able to offer that competitive advantage, good for you and good for the consumer.

And bad for the inventor and his R&D crew.

But if you can't find good inventions (you are hinting people won't invent, right?)? You will start doing R&D yourself.

Why would I? I would invest my resources into finding good inventions, copying them, and marketing them. As a specialist who does not have to invest in R&D, I can save the most expensive costs in bringing a product to the market.

Inventors will still invent.

But I wouldn't. I would use the money I save from R&D on vacations to tropical islands.

They can team up with large companies like yours to produce their product. If you make an agreement with them and screw them over, they won't come back to you when they have a new product. They will go somewhere else.

I'm not screwing anybody over. Without IP laws I'm perfectly within my rights to copy the inventions of others.

The inventor still gets the benefits of being first to market.

With expensive R&D overhead costs already incurred.

Depending on how complex the product it, it could also take you a while to reverse engineer.

It is always easier to copy than create.

 

[Revolution9]

They are not exclusively your talents, you just happen to reach them first.

Now that right there is an idiotic assertion that completely avoids or remains ignorant of the nature of talent.

Rev9

 

[KingRobbStark]

Yes, they are. So does Mozart own the arrangement of 0s and 1s? Does Microsoft own the arrangement of 0s and 1s? Does the farmer own the arrangement of 0s and 1s?

If you don't recognize the abstract of property, then you don't recognize it. I can't get you to agree on something that is axiomatic - you either accept it as truth, and build a system upon it, or you don't, and you get a different system. Both may be equally valid - I guess what we disagree on is something very fundamental.

I think people should have exclusive right to what they produce through their effort. You think you have a right to the product of someone else's labor...contracts, agreements, promises, et al, be damned...I do what I want, and take what I want - power is master.

Before an axiom is considered, it has to be assumed. In physics and mathematics we sometimes use "axiomatic" approach to problems in order to measure or judge a possible outcome. Depending on the outcome, an "axiom" doesn't remain so for long.

The same thing can be applied to an axiomatic approach to IP's laws. (In my opinion recognition is the ultimate reward.) From there we'll judge the outcome.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Jesus dude, are you serious? Apple has it's operating system protected, Microsoft has theirs...is there a monopoly on computer operating systems? Examples abound that stand in direct contradiction to your statement. I actually feel bad for wasting the electrons it took to type this.

Exactly. The only people who get pissed off about [IP] monopolies are the ones who can't create a competing product. They just want to copy someone else's ideas and make a fortune for themselves while spitting on the original creators.

[and yet, those who support intellectual property are the ones with an 'entitlement' complex ]

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I was thinking of something similar. I don't have a name for it.

Something like this would be a good way to allow for profit-sharing without the sense that someone else is swooping in and stealing another's ideas because they suck at coming up with something original.

You get +rep for a workable idea.

heavenly is right though, this idea exists in a similar form known as royalties.

This is what I advocate and it already exists in music copyright laws.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Now that right there is an idiotic assertion that completely avoids or remains ignorant of the nature of talent.

Rev9

LOL I'd love for someone to tell me that I was not born with a gift and that I do not have talent after they hear my music.

 

[Mr Tansill]

Before an axiom is considered, it has to be assumed. In physics and mathematics we sometimes use "axiomatic" approach to problems in order to measure or judge a possible outcome. Depending on the outcome, an "axiom" doesn't remain so for long.

The same thing can be applied to an axiomatic approach to IP's laws. (In my opinion recognition is the ultimate reward.) From there we'll judge the outcome.

You can use the word "assume," I use the word define - in truth though, it really doesn't matter, mathematically, whether or not you assume something or define it as true. Euclidean geometry is based on certain axioms...hyperbolic geometry is based on others. All logic and deduction within each of those systems is completely valid and "constructs" a certain type of universe. One of these is, more or less, in greater correspondence with reality.

Axioms always remain axioms - it's what makes them so and is what is known as a logical truth. It is true in all circumstances. An axiom is an unprovable statement. It is so basic that it must be accepted as true.

How does this relate to what we are talking about?

If we assume that there are the three fundamental "rights" (or maybe axioms, if you like)...life, liberty, property...and all that makes up "property" (your time, energy, brain power, etc). Then you cannot get to the position you hold through a valid argument. If you deny the right to IP, you deny the right to regular property as well. The actual system I think you are advocating is socialism, or community ownership. Different axioms. You're entitled to that world-view, and as a result of those socialistic axioms, a certain type of world forms...though not one I desire to live in.

All the recognition in the world won't put food on your table or a roof over your nugget.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You can use the word "assume," I use the word define - in truth though, it really doesn't matter, mathematically, whether or not you assume something or define it as true. Euclidean geometry is based on certain axioms...hyperbolic geometry is based on others. All logic and deduction within each of those systems is completely valid and "constructs" a certain type of universe. One of these is, more or less, in greater correspondence with reality.

Axioms always remain axioms - it's what makes them so and is what is known as a logical truth. It is true in all circumstances. An axiom is an unprovable statement. It is so basic that it must be accepted as true.

How does this relate to what we are talking about?

If we assume that there are the three fundamental "rights" (or maybe axioms, if you like)...life, liberty, property...and all that makes up "property" (your time, energy, brain power, etc). Then you cannot get to the position you hold through a valid argument. If you deny the right to IP, you deny the right to regular property as well.

All the recognition in the world won't put food on your table or a roof over your nugget.

All science and mathematics are circumstantial in the sense that all is measured by consistency in a way of reverse engineering the structures of the known universe and its physics which have no end all equation. Life ,Liberty and property are based around the acknowledgement that you own yourself,and that you were endowed with self ownership and thus have the ability to own the product of your Time,Energy and Talents.

 

[goldencane]

And bad for the inventor and his R&D crew.


Why would I? I would invest my resources into finding good inventions, copying them, and marketing them. As a specialist who does not have to invest in R&D, I can save the most expensive costs in bringing a product to the market.

But I wouldn't. I would use the money I save from R&D on vacations to tropical islands.

Who cares what you would do? You are implying that people will not invent, which is not the case. If your competitive advantage is that you can produce more of the product, then you should be able to capitalize on that advantage.

I'm not screwing anybody over. Without IP laws I'm perfectly within my rights to copy the inventions of others.

Yeah, you are within your rights, but if you tell an inventor that if he works with you you will share the profits and you don't, he won't come back to you when he has a new idea. Your business model will be totally reliable on others. If that works, good for you. You are able to provide something the inventor can't.

With expensive R&D overhead costs already incurred.

It is always easier to copy than create.

If the inventor is working for you, you have paid R&D. If he is not working for you and he spent all that money on R&D and did not have a production and distribution, that was poor planning on his part. Of course it is easier to copy, but the inventor will still benefit from being first to market. For a period of time he will be the only one with the product and he will always have the original product (which does count for quite a bit). He might not make as much money per invention or idea, but he will end up inventing more to stay on the cutting edge. In the end he will still make plenty of money if he is a good inventor.

 

[Revolution9]

This brings us back to Mozart and the rearranging of notes. Aren't those operating systems merely a combinations of 0's and 1's?

To a mindless fool who does not understand the nature of those 0's and 1's and the amount of sheer intellectual effort to develop the chips, circuits and machine code to man code substrate, translation of data to the graphics world for display and the numerous clockwork driven parts, timers, syncronisers and others that make up the complexity of the computer that the OS lays over top of to allow human access it may just be ones and zeroes. But not to someone who understand the nature of computers in their current state.

I'll tell you what.. There are only 8 notes per octave in any given key in western music, outside of the pentatonic and blues scales. Why don't you just take those 8 notes and write us up one of yer famous Mozart sounding musical compositions anbd post it here about an hour from now.. After all, all you anti-IP folks are so effing talented that our jaws will drop with sheer unadulterated envy at the gifts of talent your knowledge of such things bestows. After all, if you know about a scale and Mozart then it is no sweat to recreate that style, just like rearranging 0's and 1's creates an OS.

Let's up the ante on your stupid gambit..What is even cooler is that there are about 90 elements we can get a grip on or bottle up. Nearly everything in the Universe is made from those elements. Since that is so nobody should pay for anything as it is obvious those who have manipulated those elements into unique products aren't all that unique and do not deserve the fruits of that product. It is made of the same stuff everything is and like everything it should be free.

Frakkin' dimwitted philosophical stance this anti-IP marxism is.

Rev9

 

[CCTelander]

That makes sense, except why would Ron Paul bother researching, writing, publishing, and marketing his book if anyone with a high-tech copier can take his books sales from him without doing any of the research or writing?

When the von Mises Institute started offering ALL the books whose authors would allow it in PDF format, FOR FREE, their sales of dead tree versions increased dramatically.

Then there's the example of the fashion industry to consider:

​

Then there's this guy (and MANY others like him) who gives his books away:

http://craphound.com/littlebrother/about/#freedownload

Why would someone put forth the effort to produce a book, CD or whatever?

There's a decent amount of evidence to indicate that without IP they may actually be able to make MORE from the effort than they do with IP.

Even if that's not the case, they can still make more than enough to make it worth the effort.

In my own case, I've been a musician for my entire adult life, sometimes professionally, sometimes not. I STILL play, create music, and even share it with people who may be interested, even though I don't get paid for it anymore. Plenty of others would do the same.

While there's nothing at all wrong with wanting to profit from your efforts, that's CERTAINLY not the ONLY motivation to create.

 

[goldencane]

LOL I'd love for someone to tell me that I was not born with a gift and that I do not have talent after they hear my music.

Then use that talent to continually make good music. If people rip you off, go after them like Joe Rogan did in the video posted earlier. People don't like rip offs, they like the original. If you make good music, people will buy your stuff and go see you live. If someone sings your lyrics better than you and they are more successful with them, become a better singer.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Yes, they are. So does Mozart own the arrangement of 0s and 1s? Does Microsoft own the arrangement of 0s and 1s? Does the farmer own the arrangement of 0s and 1s?

The farmer doesn't own the "arrangement" or "pattern" of matter. He owns the particular instance of that arrangement matter which he manipulates and controls.

 

[Revolution9]

Who cares what you would do? You are implying that people will not invent, which is not the case. If your competitive advantage is that you can produce more of the product, then you should be able to capitalize on that advantage.



Yeah, you are within your rights, but if you tell an inventor that if he works with you you will share the profits and you don't, he won't come back to you when he has a new idea. Your business model will be totally reliable on others. If that works, good for you. You are able to provide something the inventor can't.



If the inventor is working for you, you have paid R&D. If he is not working for you and he spent all that money on R&D and did not have a production and distribution, that was poor planning on his part. Of course it is easier to copy, but the inventor will still benefit from being first to market. For a period of time he will be the only one with the product and he will always have the original product (which does count for quite a bit). He might not make as much money per invention or idea, but he will end up inventing more to stay on the cutting edge. In the end he will still make plenty of money if he is a good inventor.

Let me guess. Yer a teenager or trustafarian. You do not understand how the real world works. What you say would not occur. The inventor would starve and resort to whatever work he could to eat and pay for lodgings. The stealer of his ideas would get wealthy in the meantime and wait for the next hapless inventor he could copy and get to market in quantity prior and kill that entrepreneur as well. This would lead to monopolies of all kinds.

Rev9

Rev9

 

[CaptainAmerica]

To a mindless fool who does not understand the nature of those 0's and 1's and the amount of sheer intellectual effort to develop the chips, circuits and machine code to man code substrate, translation of data to the graphics world for display and the numerous clockwork driven parts, timers, syncronisers and others that make up the complexity of the computer that the OS lays over top of to allow human access it may just be ones and zeroes. But not to someone who understand the nature of computers in their current state.

I'll tell you what.. There are only 8 notes per octave in any given key in western music, outside of the pentatonic and blues scales. Why don't you just take those 8 notes and write us up one of yer famous Mozart sounding musical compositions anbd post it here about an hour from now.. After all, all you anti-IP folks are so effing talented that our jaws will drop with sheer unadulterated envy at the gifts of talent your knowledge of such things bestows. After all, if you know about a scale and Mozart then it is no sweat to recreate that style, just like rearranging 0's and 1's creates an OS.

Let's up the ante on your stupid gambit..What is even cooler is that there are about 90 elements we can get a grip on or bottle up. Nearly everything in the Universe is made from those elements. Since that is so nobody should pay for anything as it is obvious those who have manipulated those elements into unique products aren't all that unique and do not deserve the fruits of that product. It is made of the same stuff everything is and like everything it should be free.

Frakkin' dimwitted philosophical stance this anti-IP marxism is.

Rev9

James Horner was amazing at plagiarizing Mozart.Even then it took skill to do and still James doesn't come close.Of course someone can always get away with copying if they just take an entire score and transpose it into a different key and call it their own.I HEAVILY despise James Horner, John Williams and Hans Zimmer most of all.Hans Zimmer is a POS lazy musician.

 

[Revolution9]

Then use that talent to continually make good music. If people rip you off, go after them like Joe Rogan did in the video posted earlier. People don't like rip offs, they like the original. If you make good music, people will buy your stuff and go see you live. If someone sings your lyrics better than you and they are more successful with them, become a better singer.

I do not do live gigs anymore. The stress of setting up and tearing down and travel is not my cup of tea. Studio musicians able to keep the fruits of their labor could perform and record and make a living crafting music for the interested listener without playing live. There is alot of cost in playing live, both timewise, fuel-wise and euipment-wise.

Your view of this genre of artistry is immature in the extreme.

Rev9