Information as Property

ClaytonB:

nirgrahamUK:

There are not different universes, there is our universe.  i deny your bizarre ontology

Didn't you know that this is as real as this?

Clayton -

Yes, they're both (1)"pages" on the same (2)"web site" called (3)"wiki": one describing a (4)"mathematical universe" and the other a (5)"physical universe". (1,2,...,5) are all equally (6)"real" as human constructs, including (6). 

Z.

 

AJ:

Stranger:

To grant unlimited access to an oil deposit then is create a race between all oil producers to extract as much oil as possible before this marginal threshold is reached. In information, the same race happens, as all producers of media attempt to supply the market as quickly as possible, with complete disregard for the damage to the source they are causing.

What on earth?

If you insist that "information = physical media," then you cannot consistently claim that the information is being "extracted," "consumed," "damaged," etc.

It's being exploited, just like the oil in an oil deposit is exploited by extracting it.

 

Stranger:

aerborne:

The Minerals argument is a red herring, and another fallacy you've committed here is to demand that we can't debunk your argument without having an alternative argument.

If the communists would just admit that they are communists, then I would not be able to raise an objection to their attempts at refuting property rights. Since they won't admit to being communists and claim that private property is justifiable, then they must provide us with their theory of property, how property can be acquired in a world of scarcity yet excluding one instance of scarcity (which they sometimes admit information is, sometimes not, sometimes both) that doesn't also create an exception for many other kinds of sometimes-scarcity.

calling them communists is an ad hominen, and your argument here still fails to justify why they should provide an alternative. You can't justify it, it's a fallacy. They're attacking YOUR argument they don't need to provide an alternative theory of property.

z1235:

aerborne:

How is this argument any different then writing on a napkin at the bar?

That's fine. Both a digitized image (at large enough resolution) of the napkin or the written text (as ASCII characters turned into bits) can be represented as 10GB sequences making them members of the 10GB-dimensional informational universe. What of it?

You've effectively copyrighted an image of a napkin.

z1235:

aerborne:

the mythical parallel universe of information, this is like the god argument, it exists because the bible says it does.

?...My informational universe and informational property within it, as concepts, are as "mythical" as the concept of physical property. They are all concepts created by humans for humans for the purpose of resolving conflicting and rival property claims.

The universe is real, gold and matter are real. Information is abstract and committing it to 1s and 0s doesn't create a new universe of information. You're trying to take an unscarce good and make it a scarce good by basicallying writing it down and telling other people they can't write it down. You've brought nothing new to the copyright debate with your argument, you've just changed the argument semantically but it's still the same copyright argument.

z1235:

aerborne:

homesteading a digital byte sequence in the "information universe" is no different then writing a book using the 26 possible letters of the english alphabet and saying you've homesteaded the information contained in the book in an "information universe." All you're claiming is that copyright is now possible because we have digital technology.

Not really. All books are by nature "digital" (i.e. quantized) as they are simply discrete finite-length sequences of letters (which come from finite sets, say size 200, in order to include all letters used by mankind). Thus the informational universe of all possible books is comprised of all possible letter sequences of whatever length would be needed to accommodate the longest book ever (to be) written. The writer of each book becomes the owner of a piece of property in the informational universe of books, which is a subset of the larger (more encompassing) universe of all possible 10GB patterns.

Pedantic. All you're doing is changing the rules from binary to alphanumeric, and not addressing the substance of what's wrong with your argument. The information is not what it's stored on. It's the same whether in alphanumeric, binary, morse code, french, spanish piglatin or etc. It's infinately reproducible in virtually any language.

 

z1235:

aerborne:

No, That's not how codecs works, and further it doesn't address analog sources. You do understand the difference between analog and digital right?

Believe me, I know quite a bit about signal processing and information theory. Any analog signal, if quantized by intensity and sampled in time and/or space with high enough granularity (bandwidth) can be easily transformed into a digital (thus binary) sequence and occupy its own spot in the 10GB-dimensional informational universe. Vice versa, any digital signal can be presented (transformed back) into what our senses perceive to be an analog signal (CD music, movie Avatar).

you're arguing nothing here.

z1235:

aerborne:

You're saying information is not infinately reproducable in the "information universe" which is a construct of your imagination.

So? Is the concept of physical property or ethics or freedom any more "real"? Everything we are discussing here is a ultimately a human construct/concept, including our concept of a 3-dimensional physical universe with 3-dimensional objects in it. It's a model/construct that best allows us to operate and thrive as agents but that doesn't necessarily make it any more "real" than our senses would allow.

another pedantic argument. It doesn't bring anything. Information is infinitely reproducible and you're trying to argue that it's not with pedantic meaningless arguments about a claim that an information universe exists in binary. Binary is computer language, Converting a book from english to binary doesn't mean anything because the medium is not the information. You're homesteading a binary sequence, Which is meaningless because if we changed the standard by which binary is translated, say from ASCII we would have to use an entirely DIFFERENT binary sequence to transcribe the book too. If we used 64 bit instead of 32 bit, an applications BINARY becomes a different sequence.

z1235:

aerborne:

You're talking about copyrighting a binary sequence as if the sequence is the information itself. It's not, and never will be.

Is that a promise or a threat?

neither it's a statement of fact.

z1235:

aerborne:

You're argument is like saying stephen king couldn't copyright The Stand until he had the ability to scan it into a PDF and homestead the byte sequence in the information universe.

Or he could just represent the sequence of ASCII characters (letters) into a binary sequence and claim THAT piece of the 10GB informational universe as his own. All instances of a 10GB representation of his book would demarcate the boundaries of his homesteaded property in the informational universe.

EITHER way, you ignore the substance of the argument to make a pedantic argument about ascii instead of PDF. in 1850, no one could have done EITHER.

 

z1235:

aerborne:

That's why your argument and analogy falls apart. You can't seperate the information from the medium it's stored on because doing so destroys your case.

Actually, it is exactly the separation of the information from any physical medium (in a physical universe) -- and placing it into an informational universe -- that  IS my case. 

Z.

no it's not. You think it is, but it's not. You're just making pedantic arguments and circular arguments to avoid that the information is not the medium. Converting it to binary changes nothing because the idea is abstract and can be represented in binary, numbers and letters, vhs dvd laserdisc or anything we haven't invented yet. Your argument in a nutshell is that we can justify copyright by writing it in notepad and copyrighting the binary sequence. It's circular and pedantic, but nothing new. The information is not the binary sequence you converted it to. And the binary sequence is meaningless without the code to translate it back.

fine...but info can be copied....

so, if I copied your info on my CD, would you consider my CD your property?

 

 

limitgov:

fine...but info can be copied....

so, if I copied your info on my CD, would you consider my CD your property?

If you built a house on my farm with your own lumber, I would consider your house my property.

Stranger:

limitgov:

fine...but info can be copied....

so, if I copied your info on my CD, would you consider my CD your property?

If you built a house on my farm with your own lumber, I would consider your house my property.

There is no connection between these two issues. If I could shoot a "duplication ray gun" at your house and recreate it on my property, would that "replicate" house be yours?? That is what limitgov is saying - information can be duplicated, scarce physical resources cannot.

Clayton -

Stranger:

limitgov:

fine...but info can be copied....

so, if I copied your info on my CD, would you consider my CD your property?

If you built a house on my farm with your own lumber, I would consider your house my property.

 

what does that have to do with my example?

in your example, you would be losing out on a piece of your land....

in my example you aren't missing anything....

 

ClaytonB:

Stranger:

limitgov:

fine...but info can be copied....

so, if I copied your info on my CD, would you consider my CD your property?

If you built a house on my farm with your own lumber, I would consider your house my property.

There is no connection between these two issues. If I could shoot a "duplication ray gun" at your house and recreate it on my property, would that "replicate" house be yours?? That is what limitgov is saying - information can be duplicated, scarce physical resources cannot.

Clayton -

Argument from miracle.

limitgov:

 

what does that have to do with my example?

in your example, you would be losing out on a piece of your land....

in my example you aren't missing anything....

Fallacy 4, inflation.

Stranger:

limitgov:

 

what does that have to do with my example?

in your example, you would be losing out on a piece of your land....

in my example you aren't missing anything....

Fallacy 4, inflation.

 

don't make me read all that....just tell me....in plain english...

 

 

limitgov:

Stranger:

limitgov:

 

what does that have to do with my example?

in your example, you would be losing out on a piece of your land....

in my example you aren't missing anything....

Fallacy 4, inflation.

 

don't make me read all that....just tell me....in plain english...

 

 

I gave you the specific number to the specific paragraph.

Stranger:

ClaytonB:

Stranger:

limitgov:

fine...but info can be copied....

so, if I copied your info on my CD, would you consider my CD your property?

If you built a house on my farm with your own lumber, I would consider your house my property.

There is no connection between these two issues. If I could shoot a "duplication ray gun" at your house and recreate it on my property, would that "replicate" house be yours?? That is what limitgov is saying - information can be duplicated, scarce physical resources cannot.

Clayton -

Argument from miracle.

Huh?? It's a perfectly valid argument - if we could replicate physical resources in the same way that information can be replicated, why wouldn't it be freely permitted? It would be a happy circumstance if physical resources could be replicated as easily as information can be. Rather than restricting such replication, we should encourage it to be done as widely as possible. Since information can be copied virtually for free, we should encourage it to be copied to the nth degree - we should hope that movies, music, books, inventions and sound business practices are replicated far and wide, throughout the globe. We will all be much wealthier for it.

Those who believe they can profit from the information they have created, by selling it, have a duty to physically emborder it - hide it - so that it is clear that this is private information which cannot be copied without invasion of property rights.

Clayton -

limitgov:

Stranger:

limitgov:

 

what does that have to do with my example?

in your example, you would be losing out on a piece of your land....

in my example you aren't missing anything....

Fallacy 4, inflation.

 

don't make me read all that....just tell me....in plain english...

 

 

He tries to draw an analogy between fractional-reserve banking and rejection of intellectual property - namely, making unlimited copies of patterns is like printing unlimited amounts of money. I don't see how a person could argue in a tighter circle... but there you have it.

Clayton -

Stranger:

 

I gave you the specific number to the specific paragraph.

 

come on...just explain it to me in your own words....

if I have my CD, you have lost nothing....

 

ClaytonB:

Huh?? It's a perfectly valid argument - if we could replicate physical resources in the same way that information can be replicated, why wouldn't it be freely permitted?

In a world where the impossible is possible, all property law has to be rewritten based on the new ways to act that people choose.

This is not this world, hence there is nothing to argue over.

ClaytonB:

Those who believe they can profit from the information they have created, by selling it, have a duty to physically emborder it - hide it - so that it is clear that this is private information which cannot be copied without invasion of property rights.

Once again, this is fallacy 10, the rejection of the division of labor in security, and you haven't given it more sense.

since when can you copy and paste property?

aerborne:

You've effectively copyrighted an image of a napkin.

I've never mentioned "copyright" while you keep butting it in. Any specific reason? "Copyright" as practiced in the status-quo, may or may not be a part of the gamut of solutions for how conflicting property claims get resolved in the free market. If I try to claim the 10GB pattern created by the napkin image as my property in the informational universe, I'll have to gauge the costs of fighting the claims in court vs the benefits of enforcing it. My guess is that most (or all) ridiculous property claims would be thrown out of court as such. Any court would know the difference between a 10GB pattern representing an image of a napkin and a 10GB pattern representing the movie "Avatar". 

aerborne:

Pedantic. All you're doing is changing the rules from binary to alphanumeric, and not addressing the substance of what's wrong with your argument. The information is not what it's stored on. It's the same whether in alphanumeric, binary, morse code, french, spanish piglatin or etc. It's infinately reproducible in virtually any language.

Information theory provides methods of quantifying (measuring, establishing) "distance" between multiple points in the 10GB-dimensional information universe. The informational "distance" between the 10GB original and any processed (coded, transformed) version of it is proportional to the amount of processing (transformation) performed. But still, the 10GB-dimensional information universe is so vast that ALL versions of an original (including ALL translations of a single book) can still be considered as a "cluster" or an "area" in the informational universe. 

Finally, appropriation and demarcation of physical property is not always crystal clear (as conflicts inevitably have and will arise). Does that make you question physical property as a concept, too? 

aerborne:

you're arguing nothing here.

You suggested that I didn't know how codecs work and questioned whether I knew the difference between analog and digital. I merely explained why the analog/digital is a false dichotomy and not relevant to the discussion at hand. 

aerborne:

another pedantic argument. It doesn't bring anything. Information is infinitely reproducible and you're trying to argue that it's not with pedantic meaningless arguments about a claim that an information universe exists in binary. Binary is computer language

Ignorance often sees rigor as pedantry. Binary is a mode of representing digital information (with an alphabet set of size 2, i.e. 0 and 1), and NOT a computer language. Information (any 10GB binary sequence in the 10GB-dimensional information universe) is as "reproducible" in the information universe as a cubic meter of space is reproducible in the physical universe. Btw, I've explained this probably half a dozen times already. Can we assume this settled?

aerborne:

Converting a book from english to binary doesn't mean anything because the medium is not the information. You're homesteading a binary sequence, Which is meaningless because if we changed the standard by which binary is translated, say from ASCII we would have to use an entirely DIFFERENT binary sequence to transcribe the book too. If we used 64 bit instead of 32 bit, an applications BINARY becomes a different sequence.

Except they're not as different as you may think. ALL of the examples listed above would be VERY CLOSE to one another in the informational universe. Any other humanly created 10GB binary sequence would be "light years" away from that cluster of points in the informational universe. I think you simply are not aware of how far information theory has been developed. The very same theory that allows you to manipulate (process) a sequence also provides the tools to measure and quantify the "movement" of that sequence in the information universe. 

 

aerborne:

You're talking about copyrighting a binary sequence as if the sequence is the information itself. It's not, and never will be.

z1235:

Is that a promise or a threat?

aerborne:

neither it's a statement of fact.

Then I beg to differ. 

z1235:

All instances of a 10GB representation of his book would demarcate the boundaries of his homesteaded property in the informational universe.

 

aerborne:

EITHER way, you ignore the substance of the argument to make a pedantic argument about ascii instead of PDF. in 1850, no one could have done EITHER.

What's the "substance" of your argument? In 1850 they had no need for a 10GB-dimensional information universe, as the information content (books mostly) was not as large. Even if they couldn't quantify it in a rigorous information theory context, they most definitely were able to distinguish one book from another and were able to recognize two copies of the same book. So the concept of informational "distance" existed even then, albeit in a very rudimentary form. 

z1235:

Actually, it is exactly the separation of the information from any physical medium (in a physical universe) -- and placing it into an informational universe -- that  IS my case.

aerborne:

no it's not. You think it is, but it's not. You're just making pedantic arguments and circular arguments to avoid that the information is not the medium.

Information is information -- most (if not all) instances of it reside at unique locations in a 10GB-dimensional information universe -- and not the media that carries it. What circular arguments are you referring to? 

aerborne:

Converting it to binary changes nothing because the idea is abstract and can be represented in binary, numbers and letters, vhs dvd laserdisc or anything we haven't invented yet. Your argument in a nutshell is that we can justify copyright by writing it in notepad and copyrighting the binary sequence. It's circular and pedantic, but nothing new. The information is not the binary sequence you converted it to. And the binary sequence is meaningless without the code to translate it back.

Information theory methods can show that one 10GB binary sequence is a simple manipulation of another 10GB binary sequence thus establishing their "proximity" in the information universe. You can steal my car, paint it a different color, and call it yours. Hence, let's reject the concept of car ownership as absurd, pedantic, circular, childish, and ridiculous. 

Z.

 

 

 

 

 

ClaytonB:

we should hope that movies, music, books, inventions and sound business practices are replicated far and wide, throughout the globe. We will all be much wealthier for it.

We (except for a few disgruntled car dealers) would also be much wealthier if we all just walked onto car dealer lots and drove off with brand new cars without paying. Wouldn't that be nice? "Everyone according to their abilities (Cameron, just make the damn Avatar, and shut up!), to everyone according to their needs (Wow, that Avatar movies was great! I wish it was free!)"

Z.

 

z1235:

ClaytonB:

we should hope that movies, music, books, inventions and sound business practices are replicated far and wide, throughout the globe. We will all be much wealthier for it.

We (except for a few disgruntled car dealers) would also be much wealthier if we all just walked onto car dealer lots and drove off with brand new cars without paying. Wouldn't that be nice? "Everyone according to their abilities (Cameron, just make the damn Avatar, and shut up!), to everyone according to their needs (Wow, that Avatar movies was great! I wish it was free!)"

Z.

Just use the numbers, brother. Saves you grief.

Fallacy 3.

The analogy between "real space" and "information space", for purposes of property discussion, is a terrible one.

Yes, you can homestead land.  You can find a piece of land, start working it, and have yourself a nice little farm that belongs to you.  An analogy was attempted between this and the application of labor to an idea to produce information.  The analogy is tempting at first because of the whole "cubic meter" language that was used, but that is where the resemblances to homesteading end.

Once a useful piece of land is discovered, the question of who gets to exploit it leads to conflict, precisely because it's a limited resource that cannot be exploited in every way at once.  Homsteading is a means to resolve such conflict.

There is no such conflict arising when a piece of information is "discovered".  This is regardless of how laborious the process of discovery was.

(As a side note, I find it ironic that while they call anti-IP people communists, their arguments often have a distincly "labor theory of value" flavor to them.)

From a Misesian standpoint, information falls under Mises' writings about the "creative genius".  Mises' contention, if I recall correctly, was that, from society's standpoint, the product of the genius is a free gift.  And I tend to agree, because this does appear to be the natural order.  Tales of great works that went unnoticed during the originator's lifetime are cliche.

To be blunt, it's pretty obvious from this thread that this guy invested his ego into his idea to such an extent that he is simply unwilling to recognize that it has been thoroughly demolished.  I can't believe people here are still keeping up the debate.  The anti's have won this thread intellectually, but the OP will never surrender.  Why are you guys still wasting your time?

Mike:

The analogy between "real space" and "information space", for purposes of property discussion, is a terrible one.

Yes, you can homestead land.  You can find a piece of land, start working it, and have yourself a nice little farm that belongs to you.  An analogy was attempted between this and the application of labor to an idea to produce information.  The analogy is tempting at first because of the whole "cubic meter" language that was used, but that is where the resemblances to homesteading end.

Once a useful piece of land is discovered, the question of who gets to exploit it leads to conflict, precisely because it's a limited resource that cannot be exploited in every way at once.  Homsteading is a means to resolve such conflict.

There is no such conflict arising when a piece of information is "discovered".  This is regardless of how laborious the process of discovery was.

(As a side note, I find it ironic that while they call anti-IP people communists, their arguments often have a distincly "labor theory of value" flavor to them.)

From a Misesian standpoint, information falls under Mises' writings about the "creative genius".  Mises' contention, if I recall correctly, was that, from society's standpoint, the product of the genius is a free gift.  And I tend to agree, because this does appear to be the natural order.  Tales of great works that went unnoticed during the originator's lifetime are cliche.

To be blunt, it's pretty obvious from this thread that this guy invested his ego into his idea to such an extent that he is simply unwilling to recognize that it has been thoroughly demolished.  I can't believe people here are still keeping up the debate.  The anti's have won this thread intellectually, but the OP will never surrender.  Why are you guys still wasting your time?

2, 3, 4, 8

Stranger:

Just use the numbers, brother. Saves you grief.

Fallacy 3.

Btw, I may have forgotten to commend you on the great 'Fallacies' write up.

Z.

 

Stranger:

ClaytonB:

Huh?? It's a perfectly valid argument - if we could replicate physical resources in the same way that information can be replicated, why wouldn't it be freely permitted?

In a world where the impossible is possible, all property law has to be rewritten based on the new ways to act that people choose.

This is not this world, hence there is nothing to argue over.

ClaytonB:

Those who believe they can profit from the information they have created, by selling it, have a duty to physically emborder it - hide it - so that it is clear that this is private information which cannot be copied without invasion of property rights.

Once again, this is fallacy 10, the rejection of the division of labor in security, and you haven't given it more sense.

Nonsense. You are free to outsource the securing of your premises which contain secrets to anyone who will do the work. You are also free to legally transfer the responsibility for safe-keeping of the secrets to someone else who does this kind of thing and you are also free to reveal your secrets to others on condition they sign an NDA binding them to maintain the secrecy of the information in any of the ways I've listed. I'm sure there are more combinations I'm not thinking of right now. The division of labor in security (and computing and everything else) can be fully leveraged. What you can't do is export the costs of enforcing these agreements onto taxpayers, or force people to abide by contracts they did not sign, as our current system does

Clayton -

z1235:

ClaytonB:

we should hope that movies, music, books, inventions and sound business practices are replicated far and wide, throughout the globe. We will all be much wealthier for it.

We (except for a few disgruntled car dealers) would also be much wealthier if we all just walked onto car dealer lots and drove off with brand new cars without paying. Wouldn't that be nice?

As I pointed out in response to Stranger, this is not a logically equivalent analogy... the logically equivalent analogy would be possessing a "duplication ray gun" that can zap a car on a car lot and instantly create a perfect replica of that car with no detriment to the original and no depletion of resources not owned by the holder of the duplication ray gun.

And, yes, we should hope that people did this to the maximum possible extent if such a technology existed. The fate of car dealers would be the same as that of buggy whip makers.

"Everyone according to their abilities (Cameron, just make the damn Avatar, and shut up!), to everyone according to their needs (Wow, that Avatar movies was great! I wish it was free!)"

Again, no one is forcing or coercing Cameron to release Avatar once he's produced it. He is free to keep it a secret on his own property and charge admittance to those who would like to view it - including stripping them of cameras or other recording equipment as a condition for seeing it. He's also free to release it to theaters on the same terms. He's free to make a deal with iTunes to allow to be played back only on Apple's DRM-controlled iPod hardware. Etc, etc.

This is why I disagree with Richard Stallman's GPL - it coerces (well, kind of, it would if it were law) code developers to release their source code. Code developers should be free to keep their source code secret, if they like. But they should not be able to patent their interfaces or prohibit people from reverse engineering their binary - or copying it, for that matter. The attempt to cast this as some kind of communism is cute... but a massive fail.

Clayton -

ClaytonB:

As I pointed out in response to Stranger, this is not a logically equivalent analogy... the logically equivalent analogy would be possessing a "duplication ray gun" that can zap a car on a car lot and instantly create a perfect replica of that car with no detriment to the original and no depletion of resources not owned by the holder of the duplication ray gun.

I'm pretty sure the free market would find ways to restrict your freedom to just shoot with your ray gun and duplicate whatever object you wanted. You know why? Because the free market would prefer to ensure there are still agents left to create anything original. Why would I risk capital to originally create anything of value to the market when I could just sit -- my ray gun resting on my lap -- and wait for someone else to do the work (and take the risk) so I can just shoot and copy it? You seem to have a hard time imagining how the world (and the market) would look like if everyone did what you do.

ClaytonB:

Again, no one is forcing or coercing Cameron to release Avatar once he's produced it. He is free to keep it a secret on his own property and charge admittance to those who would like to view it - including stripping them of cameras or other recording equipment as a condition for seeing it. He's also free to release it to theaters on the same terms. He's free to make a deal with iTunes to allow to be played back only on Apple's DRM-controlled iPod hardware. Etc, etc.

I already responded to this. Your inability or unwillingness to place an electric barb-wired fence around your plot does not entitle me to build my house on it. I say Cameron is free to sell his product whichever way he wants, and you can't. He has homesteaded his plot in the information universe. You copying his movie and selling it to the public is tantamount to trespassing onto his information property and extracting rent from it. 

ClaytonB:

The attempt to cast this as some kind of communism is cute... but a massive fail.

If information is property in the information universe, your non-recognition of it as such makes you a communist, in the same way that communists are characterized by non-recognition of physical property in the physical universe. I know it's harsh, but I have to be fully consistent in applying my analogy lest Nir questions its relevance again.

Z.

 

 

 

 

z1235:

aerborne:

You've effectively copyrighted an image of a napkin.

I've never mentioned "copyright" while you keep butting it in. Any specific reason? "Copyright" as practiced in the status-quo, may or may not be a part of the gamut of solutions for how conflicting property claims get resolved in the free market. If I try to claim the 10GB pattern created by the napkin image as my property in the informational universe, I'll have to gauge the costs of fighting the claims in court vs the benefits of enforcing it. My guess is that most (or all) ridiculous property claims would be thrown out of court as such. Any court would know the difference between a 10GB pattern representing an image of a napkin and a 10GB pattern representing the movie "Avatar".

Again with the semantics over my use of the word copyright. The point is, you didn't "homestead" the information written on the napkin in your example, you've homesteaded the image of the napkin, in the same way a professional photographer, copyrights his picture of a book cover so other people can't use it without his permission. Other people can take all the pictures they want of the book.

 

z1235:

aerborne:

Pedantic. All you're doing is changing the rules from binary to alphanumeric, and not addressing the substance of what's wrong with your argument. The information is not what it's stored on. It's the same whether in alphanumeric, binary, morse code, french, spanish piglatin or etc. It's infinately reproducible in virtually any language.

Information theory provides methods of quantifying (measuring, establishing) "distance" between multiple points in the 10GB-dimensional information universe. The informational "distance" between the 10GB original and any processed (coded, transformed) version of it is proportional to the amount of processing (transformation) performed. But still, the 10GB-dimensional information universe is so vast that ALL versions of an original (including ALL translations of a single book) can still be considered as a "cluster" or an "area" in the informational universe. 

Finally, appropriation and demarcation of physical property is not always crystal clear (as conflicts inevitably have and will arise). Does that make you question physical property as a concept, too?

What does "Distance" have to do with anything, this is still pedantic nonsense that has nothing to do with the counter argument to your propsal that you have YET to address: Information is infinately reproducible. No matter how much mitutiae you argue over your information theory universe, I can distribute Avatar to every person in the world through no extra cost to me, by posting a torrent of it on a website that doesn't belong to me. Information theory doesn't change that fact, and that fact is exactly why you can't own information, Because it's Abstract. I could reenact the whole movie with bad costumes and bad actors in my own home.

z1235:

aerborne:

you're arguing nothing here.

You suggested that I didn't know how codecs work and questioned whether I knew the difference between analog and digital. I merely explained why the analog/digital is a false dichotomy and not relevant to the discussion at hand.

I didn't present you a dichotomy, false or otherwise. Analog sources can't be reproduced digitally. Take Audio for instance. A higher sample rate only makes the reproduction more accurate but can never reach 100%. This is a known fact. the binary representation of which you homestead is not the information, nor could it ever be.

z1235:

aerborne:

another pedantic argument. It doesn't bring anything. Information is infinitely reproducible and you're trying to argue that it's not with pedantic meaningless arguments about a claim that an information universe exists in binary. Binary is computer language

Ignorance often sees rigor as pedantry. Binary is a mode of representing digital information (with an alphabet set of size 2, i.e. 0 and 1), and NOT a computer language. Information (any 10GB binary sequence in the 10GB-dimensional information universe) is as "reproducible" in the information universe as a cubic meter of space is reproducible in the physical universe. Btw, I've explained this probably half a dozen times already. Can we assume this settled?

No, It's pedantic because you're arguing irrelevant minutiae to divert the discussion away from the error in your argument. I could argue that a blue ray of Avatar would never fit within 10gb. While it's true, it's a pedantic detail that isn't relevant to your arguement, so this minutiae of pedantic arguments about your information universe, is not relevant to my argument.

z1235:

aerborne:

Converting a book from english to binary doesn't mean anything because the medium is not the information. You're homesteading a binary sequence, Which is meaningless because if we changed the standard by which binary is translated, say from ASCII we would have to use an entirely DIFFERENT binary sequence to transcribe the book too. If we used 64 bit instead of 32 bit, an applications BINARY becomes a different sequence.

Except they're not as different as you may think. ALL of the examples listed above would be VERY CLOSE to one another in the informational universe. Any other humanly created 10GB binary sequence would be "light years" away from that cluster of points in the informational universe. I think you simply are not aware of how far information theory has been developed. The very same theory that allows you to manipulate (process) a sequence also provides the tools to measure and quantify the "movement" of that sequence in the information universe.

again what relevence does distance and movement have? Another pedantic argument that doesn't address the infinitely reproducible problem. You say that it's not infinitely reproducible in the "information universe" but i don't live in that universe, i live in this universe where i CAN upload avatar a torrent site. I can't however, upload a gold ring and distribute copies.

z1235:

aerborne:

You're talking about copyrighting a binary sequence as if the sequence is the information itself. It's not, and never will be.

z1235:

Is that a promise or a threat?

aerborne:

neither it's a statement of fact.

Then I beg to differ.

so a text file of stephen kings the stand is the information itself? I beg to differ.

z1235:

z1235:

All instances of a 10GB representation of his book would demarcate the boundaries of his homesteaded property in the informational universe.

 

aerborne:

EITHER way, you ignore the substance of the argument to make a pedantic argument about ascii instead of PDF. in 1850, no one could have done EITHER.

What's the "substance" of your argument? In 1850 they had no need for a 10GB-dimensional information universe, as the information content (books mostly) was not as large. Even if they couldn't quantify it in a rigorous information theory context, they most definitely were able to distinguish one book from another and were able to recognize two copies of the same book. So the concept of informational "distance" existed even then, albeit in a very rudimentary form.

the substance of my argument is that in 1850 they simply had different arguments for "The creator of information is the owner of the information" That's essentially what your argument is, with the exception that you're saying it wasn't possible in 1850 because digital didn't exist. Your response quoted above, subsequently defeats your argument about an information universe because it renders the need for binary Irrelevant. If creator/owner relationship of the 1850s was valid, why the need to digitize everything? It's moot now, because of existing creator/owner relationships. Which of course the creator/owner relationship is disputed by the argument that Information is infinitely reproducible.

z1235:

z1235:

Actually, it is exactly the separation of the information from any physical medium (in a physical universe) -- and placing it into an informational universe -- that  IS my case.

aerborne:

no it's not. You think it is, but it's not. You're just making pedantic arguments and circular arguments to avoid that the information is not the medium.

Information is information -- most (if not all) instances of it reside at unique locations in a 10GB-dimensional information universe -- and not the media that carries it. What circular arguments are you referring to?

That very argument IS the circular argument. Information exists in a theoretical binary information universe why? You keep going back in circles. The only existence of this universe is your assumption that it exists, That argument is the god argument. God exists because the bible says so. The bible is right because it's the word of God. The information universe exists because you say it does. We can homestead information because there's an information universe.

z1235:

aerborne:

Converting it to binary changes nothing because the idea is abstract and can be represented in binary, numbers and letters, vhs dvd laserdisc or anything we haven't invented yet. Your argument in a nutshell is that we can justify copyright by writing it in notepad and copyrighting the binary sequence. It's circular and pedantic, but nothing new. The information is not the binary sequence you converted it to. And the binary sequence is meaningless without the code to translate it back.

Information theory methods can show that one 10GB binary sequence is a simple manipulation of another 10GB binary sequence thus establishing their "proximity" in the information universe. You can steal my car, paint it a different color, and call it yours. Hence, let's reject the concept of car ownership as absurd, pedantic, circular, childish, and ridiculous. 

Z.

Your argument is not represented by this analogy. I suppose it is since the car is imaginary and only exists in the imaginary universe. But really, Stealing your car, and Downloading Avatar from a torrent site are not the same thing are they? A more ACCURATE analogy for your argument would be if i were to open an Xwing Tie fighter dealership downtown and sell Xwings and Ties that exist only in the star wars universe. After all, it TOO is a construct of our minds. Xwings and Tie fighters exist in that universe, in the same way that information exists in your information universe construct. Xwing and Tie fighters aren't infinitely reproducible in THAT universe so i can sell those in THIS universe right?

Your information universe theory doesn't in any way refute, or relate to actual property rights, or the problem that information is not property because it's infinitely reproducible and once someone HAS the information they can redistribute at will.

 

To make this really simple: You know that 1 + 1 = 2. That's information. Homestead it.

 

 

 

Stranger:

ClaytonB:

Stranger:

limitgov:

fine...but info can be copied....

so, if I copied your info on my CD, would you consider my CD your property?

If you built a house on my farm with your own lumber, I would consider your house my property.

There is no connection between these two issues. If I could shoot a "duplication ray gun" at your house and recreate it on my property, would that "replicate" house be yours?? That is what limitgov is saying - information can be duplicated, scarce physical resources cannot.

Clayton -

Argument from miracle.

That isn't an argument from miracle. It isn't even close.

Your numbered fallacies are all derived from faulty premises. I stopped responding to that thread because you completely dodged my whole post and instead call out a number that had nothing to do with what I said.

An encoded form of Avatar exists and is easily locatable in the Champernowne constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champernowne_constant

It's not proven, but pi is believed to have similar properties ("normal" digits). Thus we find Avatar here, too: 4/1-4/3+4/5-4/7+...

Clearly the makers of Avatar should be sued for criminal trespass and squatting on someone else's informational homestead. Or, maybe they can seize ownership over pi through adverse posession.

aerborne:

so a text file of stephen kings the stand is the information itself? I beg to differ.

So what, in your opinion, IS the information, then?

aerborne:

the substance of my argument is that in 1850 they simply had different arguments for "The creator of information is the owner of the information" That's essentially what your argument is, with the exception that you're saying it wasn't possible in 1850 because digital didn't exist.

So we're agreement, then.

aerborne:

We can homestead information because there's an information universe.

Yes, I'm glad you finally got it.

aerborne:

Your information universe theory doesn't in any way refute, or relate to actual property rights, or the problem that information is not property because it's infinitely reproducible and once someone HAS the information they can redistribute at will.

They most certainly can't if courts accept my claim that by doing so they're trespassing over my information property in the information universe and criminally extracting a rent from it. Let's see which way markets go. Chart for yourself the % of global GDP and trade in information over the last few decades and extrapolate that trend couple of decades into the future, then you tell me which way we're headed. Do you seriously expect a global economy whose 50% of GDP is based on creating and trading information will be oblivious to people that refuse to even recognize its main product as property?

Z.

 

baxter:

An encoded form of Avatar exists and is easily locatable in the Champernowne constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champernowne_constant

If it's easily locatable, where is it?

P.S. you are not allowed to reference the Avatar data to find it.

baxter:

An encoded form of Avatar exists and is easily locatable in the Champernowne constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champernowne_constant

It's not proven, but pi is believed to have similar properties ("normal" digits). Thus we find Avatar here, too: 4/1-4/3+4/5-4/7+...

Clearly the makers of Avatar should be sued for criminal trespass and squatting on someone else's informational homestead. Or, maybe they can seize ownership over pi through adverse posession.

Why? You cannot decode it.

z1235:

aerborne:

so a text file of stephen kings the stand is the information itself? I beg to differ.

So what, in your opinion, IS the information, then?

A text file is like a jar of water. The Jar is not the water is it?

z1235:

aerborne:

the substance of my argument is that in 1850 they simply had different arguments for "The creator of information is the owner of the information" That's essentially what your argument is, with the exception that you're saying it wasn't possible in 1850 because digital didn't exist.

So we're agreement, then.

What are we agreeing on? That your argument has no merit because it doesn't justify creator/owner in the past?

z1235:

aerborne:

We can homestead information because there's an information universe.

Yes, I'm glad you finally got it.

Wow, your arguments don't hold up so you resort to quote trolling? That's pretty pathetic.

 

z1235:

aerborne:

Your information universe theory doesn't in any way refute, or relate to actual property rights, or the problem that information is not property because it's infinitely reproducible and once someone HAS the information they can redistribute at will.

They most certainly can't if courts accept my claim that by doing so they're trespassing over my information property in the information universe and criminally extracting a rent from it. Let's see which way markets go. Chart for yourself the % of global GDP and trade in information over the last few decades and extrapolate that trend couple of decades into the future, then you tell me which way we're headed. Do you seriously expect a global economy whose 50% of GDP is based on creating and trading information will be oblivious to people that refuse to even recognize its main product as property?

It's your argument you do it. But first, explain to me how you can homestead 1+1=2?

You've completely ignored the counter arguments against you to quote troll and argue pedantic minutiae that consists of you making up the rules as you go to your information universe. 1+1=2 is information, just like avatar. If James Cameron can convert that information into binary, you can convert 2 into binary, and homestead it. That's the problem you don't get. How to speak english is information, homestead it. How to breath is information, How to peel a banana. Homestead this. Make it yours, or make someone OWN it.

 

 

 

baxter:

An encoded form of Avatar exists and is easily locatable in the Champernowne constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champernowne_constant

It's not proven, but pi is believed to have similar properties ("normal" digits). Thus we find Avatar here, too: 4/1-4/3+4/5-4/7+...

Clearly the makers of Avatar should be sued for criminal trespass and squatting on someone else's informational homestead. Or, maybe they can seize ownership over pi through adverse posession.

Refer to my response to Clayton's attempt to prospect for Avatar in the information universe by firing up a bunch of random generators. I estimate both your chances of finding it to be those of a drunkard trying to "nail down" my living room on planet Earth from four light years away in space... with his eyes closed. And when you DO find Avatar in pi, you still may have to prove to the judge that you're pi's first creator. Feeling lucky?

Z.

 

 

>P.S. you are not allowed to reference the Avatar data to find it.

Nonsense, any court or arbitrator will certainly have to see the data when judging whether informational squatting occured. An iota of mathematical skill suffices for showing that the encoded Avatar data already exists in Champernowne's constant.

The idea of homesteading information is completely ridiculous. Can I homestead the number 3, and then sue you because you possess 3 objects? Can I sue you for having 4 walls, because 4 is constructed from 3 + 1? Can I sue you for using the number 15, because 15 is constructed from 3 x 5?

Is there some formula for deciding whether a number is large enough to be homesteaded, vs. being public property? Can I homestead the empty set {} or infinitesimal numbers like 3/H + 2/(HH), where H is an integer larger than any real number (a hyperreal number)? 

aerborne:

z1235:

aerborne:

so a text file of stephen kings the stand is the information itself? I beg to differ.

So what, in your opinion, IS the information, then?

A text file is like a jar of water. The Jar is not the water is it?

No, really. If the text file is not the information, what IS ?

aerborne:

z1235:

aerborne:

the substance of my argument is that in 1850 they simply had different arguments for "The creator of information is the owner of the information" That's essentially what your argument is, with the exception that you're saying it wasn't possible in 1850 because digital didn't exist.

So we're agreement, then.

What are we agreeing on?

I don't know but look at the bolded parts in your quote. Aren't you saying that your argument is what my argument is?

aerborne:

But first, explain to me how you can homestead 1+1=2?

If you can prove in court that you're its original creator, sure. My guess is that all trivial and ridiculous claims would be impossible to defend in court and would be laughed out of any court room. But you can always try. 

Z.

 

 

baxter:

>P.S. you are not allowed to reference the Avatar data to find it.

Nonsense, any court or arbitrator will certainly have to see the data when judging whether informational squatting occured. An iota of mathematical skill suffices for showing that the encoded Avatar data already exists in Champernowne's constant.

The idea of homesteading information is completely ridiculous. Can I homestead the number 3, and then sue you because you possess 3 objects? Can I sue you for having 4 walls, because 4 is constructed from 3 + 1? Can I sue you for using the number 15, because 15 is constructed from 3 x 5?

Is there some formula for deciding whether a number is large enough to be homesteaded, vs. being public property? Can I homestead the empty set {} or infinitesimal numbers like 3/H + 2/(HH), where H is an integer larger than any real number (a hyperreal number)? 

If you can't find Avatar on your own in Champerowne's constant, then that is because it is not trivial. Finding a path to this information is scarce.

Now even if you were to use the exact copy of Avatar to find this, it would be a very complicated computational exercise. If you were to start looking in Champerowne's constant for any valuable information without knowing in advance what valuable information is, you would search for all eternity and produce only junk.

There is simple explanation why Champerowne's constant cannot be used to produce valuable information: no one, anywhere, is doing this.

baxter:

>P.S. you are not allowed to reference the Avatar data to find it.

Nonsense, any court or arbitrator will certainly have to see the data when judging whether informational squatting occured. An iota of mathematical skill suffices for showing that the encoded Avatar data already exists in Champernowne's constant.

The idea of homesteading information is completely ridiculous. Can I homestead the number 3, and then sue you because you possess 3 objects? Can I sue you for having 4 walls, because 4 is constructed from 3 + 1? Can I sue you for using the number 15, because 15 is constructed from 3 x 5?

Is there some formula for deciding whether a number is large enough to be homesteaded, vs. being public property? Can I homestead the empty set {} or infinitesimal numbers like 3/H + 2/(HH), where H is an integer larger than any real number (a hyperreal number)? 

The idea of homesteading physical property is completely ridiculous. How densely do I exactly need to mix my labor with the land? Every half acre? Every square yard? Every 10^(-6) inches? If my homesteading density hasn't been up to your standard could you homestead the spaces in between my homesteaded areas? How deep underground does my property extend? All the way to China? What about the Chinese? How far up into space does my property expand? 10 yards? 10 miles? 4 light years? Let's just call the whole thing off. 

Z.

 

 

z1235:

aerborne:

z1235:

aerborne:

so a text file of stephen kings the stand is the information itself? I beg to differ.

So what, in your opinion, IS the information, then?

A text file is like a jar of water. The Jar is not the water is it?

No, really. If the text file is not the information, what IS ?

Gosh I wonder.... We're back to this fallacy, if i can't provide an alternative answer your argument must not be wrong? A text file is a text file, information is information. The jar is not the water. A point you refuse to acknowledge because your theory rests on the text file being the information, and not the jar.

z1235:

aerborne:

z1235:

aerborne:

the substance of my argument is that in 1850 they simply had different arguments for "The creator of information is the owner of the information" That's essentially what your argument is, with the exception that you're saying it wasn't possible in 1850 because digital didn't exist.

So we're agreement, then.

What are we agreeing on?

I don't know but look at the bolded parts in your quote. Aren't you saying that your argument is what my argument is?

Ah, you're not comprehending what I said. That's probably my fault allow me explain: My argument is "They had different arguments for creator/owner" in the 1850s, and that your argument is essentially the same as their arguments but your argument says they couldn't own information because digital didn't exist yet" They argue that the creator is the owner because he could commit it to paper, your argument is the creator is owner because you can commit it to binary. Same basic premise, but yours means they couldn't own their works because they couldn't commit their works to binary, lacking the means to do so.

z1235:

aerborne:

But first, explain to me how you can homestead 1+1=2?

If you can prove in court that you're its original creator, sure. My guess is that all trivial and ridiculous claims would be impossible to defend in court and would be laughed out of any court room. But you can always try.

Another evasive answer to dodge a simple point: You have no metric by which information can and can't be owned, because NO information can be owned.

But here lets follow you to your logical conclusion. Since baxter introduced us to Champernowne Constant. It's information, and we can easily demonstrate who the owner of that information is then we have to account for that information because even if he doesn't persue it, parties on his behalf (children whatever) can prove that he is the rightful owner. Since 10gb isn't enough for an h264 version of avatar, we have to expand your universe to 18 or 20 to fit that movie. Since champernowne constant is information and owned, it's the new largest, and it's size is infinite. Because it exists in binary as C2 All information in the universe is owned by champernowne.

 

 

 

z1235:

No, really. If the text file is not the information, what IS ?

aerborne:

Gosh I wonder.... We're back to this fallacy, if i can't provide an alternative answer your argument must not be wrong? A text file is a text file, information is information. The jar is not the water. A point you refuse to acknowledge because your theory rests on the text file being the information, and not the jar.

No, really. If the text file is not the information, what IS ?

aerborne:

My argument is "They had different arguments for creator/owner" in the 1850s, and that your argument is essentially the same as their arguments but your argument says they couldn't own information because digital didn't exist yet" They argue that the creator is the owner because he could commit it to paper, your argument is the creator is owner because you can commit it to binary. Same basic premise, but yours means they couldn't own their works because they couldn't commit their works to binary, lacking the means to do so.

That is not my argument (the bolded part) and I have no idea what you're trying to do here. I already explained to you that books (though not necessarily binary) are already "digital" (or discretized) in the sense that they are finite discrete sequences of units pulled out of a finite set (letters from an alphabet). Are you having difficulty understanding that even in 1850 one could easily create a "book universe" of all possible books without ever having to resort to binary sequences?

z1235:

My guess is that all trivial and ridiculous claims would be impossible to defend in court and would be laughed out of any court room. But you can always try.

aerborne:

Another evasive answer to dodge a simple point: You have no metric by which information can and can't be owned, because NO information can be owned.

So if you have no metric of how deep under ground, how high into space, or how small (2 square inches?) a piece of land can be, then NO land can be owned? Unless I am able to resolve ALL possible conflicts and "lifeboat" paradoxes right here and now, my concept of property is no good? What would the courts be left with then?

aerborne:

Since 10gb isn't enough for an h264 version of avatar, we have to expand your universe to 18 or 20 to fit that movie. Since champernowne constant is information and owned, it's the new largest, and it's size is infinite. Because it exists in binary as C2 All information in the universe is owned by champernowne.

Not all infinities are equal. A sequence of all 1s is infinite but I can guarantee you there's no Avatar there. Heck, I can define a "z1235 constant" that by definition contains all possible 10GB binary sequences, including the Avatar sequence, making me the owner of ANY and ALL information ever created and about to be created in the future. Get out of your house and pee in a circle around yourself by which action you have just homesteaded the whole known physical universe as your property, then look for a court that would hear your case. 

Z.

 

 

 

Stranger:

AJ:

Stranger:

To grant unlimited access to an oil deposit then is create a race between all oil producers to extract as much oil as possible before this marginal threshold is reached. In information, the same race happens, as all producers of media attempt to supply the market as quickly as possible, with complete disregard for the damage to the source they are causing.

What on earth?

If you insist that "information = physical media," then you cannot consistently claim that the information is being "extracted," "consumed," "damaged," etc.

It's being exploited, just like the oil in an oil deposit is exploited by extracting it.

"Exploited" means what? I do not think you can fully articulate this argument, because it's just the fallacy of magical thinking. Just as the LTV proponent seems to think that by calling employment "exploitation" they have magically explained how it is something bad, unfair, etc.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Logical_Fallacies_by_Todangst:

Fallacy of Magical Thinking

Also known as the Labeling Fallacy, and similar to reification, the fallacy of magical thinking occurs when a debater claims that by merely naming or providing a name for a phenomenon, he has in fact provided an argument in favor of his position.

The contention that "information = media" remains your Achilles heal. It is essentially a self-induced reductio ad absurdum.