Would you consistently apply and support the 'loss of potential' argument both ways, from authors to people, and people to authors?
Well, you have the element of an argument here, but you are mixing two different topics in one: 1) intrusion and 2) homesteading information space. Let's talk about them. There is nothing wrong with being the first to homestead part of information space and receive certain rights to that space. That's no different from homesteading physical space, and in practice information space is far less crowded than the physical land of earth. Therefore, if you don't have any problems with homesteading in the physical domain you shouldn't have any problems with such a homesteading process in the information domain either, based on crowdedness and scarcity.
HOWEVER, there is something to this intrusion argument, and IP must be designed with this in mind. Remember, information does not exist without a mind that animates the information. In intellectual property there are necessarily TWO minds involved, namely the creator (the author etc.) and the consumer (the reader), and BOTH their rights need to be protected in the process. Information implies that a mind needs to become intimate with the creation of the author, and since he is bombarded with impression everywhere and this amounts to stepping into the mind of another person. If done inappropriately this amounts to trespassing. (an obvious example is to show a violent grown-up movie to small children.) A mundane example of this is to run commercials for a movie on TV and in the movie theaters, except that it is *first* released in the United States, and then only 6 months later it comes to Europe. Viewers who are teased by the trailers and not allowed to enjoy the movie until many months later due to silly DVD zones and antiquated film practices are to a mild extent violated. The movie producer is allowed to intrude someone's mind, and that can never be undone. Then it is wrong to set unreasonable restrictions. Personally I have no problems with people who download a DVD-rip of a movie just to get hold of it fast and view it there and then, so long as they pay for the DVD.
While the intellectual property rights are clearly biased towards the creator (as they should be) this does not mean that the consumer should be ignored. He has certain rights which pertain to intrusion. In general intellectual property should be created in such a way as to (within reasonable boundaries) minimize the intrusiveness of information. The rights of the consumer is here protected by declaratory laws. That is, in order to receive the protection of the law by default the creator needs to fulfill certain standards of non-intrusiveness. If the creator wants to deviate from these requirements and still be protected by law he must label his products in a certain way. Consider the following warning on e.g. music from iTunes:
"Warning: this product contains restrictions which may be experienced as annoying or intrusive." Then followed by a list of what is intrusive and annoying.
Let me first give you an example from the physical world of such intrusiveness. Suppose that in order to get out of a shop you have to go thtough quite intrusive security controls, body scanning and maybe even cavity search. Then you would definitely like to be warned about this before you go INTO the shop. In this case there would be grounds for a declaratory law that states that you need to warn people with a well-placed sign, both outside your physical shop and in commercials.
Most people would find such security measures highly intrusive, especially since 98% of all people are NOT thieves. Because of this most shops prefer to accept 2-3% theft and then just add the extra price on top to cover the losses. Much less intrusive and people are allowed to go through shops without full cavity searches!
In a similar manner it is perfectly reasonable for people to be mad about all sorts of DRM on music that generates a lot of hassle. In most cases music should be just a plain file, that CAN be stolen (just like the candy in the shops) but in most cases isn't. The creators normally protect their music in five ways: 1) high quality, 2) great availability, 3) great accessability, 4) reasonable prices and 5) good consumer morality. With all these five in place you don't need DRM, and piracy will be a fringe phenomenon. You still need the IP laws, however, to prevent legal organized piracy.
It was pretty simple; property rights at that level would be protected no differently than what is conventionally acceptable.
I have a different perspective in regards to homestead (you wouldn't recognize multiple independent authors). I don't think you fully understood the consequences of that - but it could be a rather minor issue anyway, depending on the time limits.
At this point, I merely object to IP pragmatically. I may have more objections in the future based on this perspective, but for now thats all, ty. Good Luck answering others, and GL making a more elaborated argument.
Onar Åm: Would you consistently apply and support the 'loss of potential' argument both ways, from authors to people, and people to authors? Well, you have the element of an argument here, but you are mixing two different topics in one: 1) intrusion and 2) homesteading information space. Let's talk about them. There is nothing wrong with being the first to homestead part of information space and receive certain rights to that space. That's no different from homesteading physical space, and in practice information space is far less crowded than the physical land of earth. Therefore, if you don't have any problems with homesteading in the physical domain you shouldn't have any problems with such a homesteading process in the information domain either, based on crowdedness and scarcity. HOWEVER, there is something to this intrusion argument, and IP must be designed with this in mind. Remember, information does not exist without a mind that animates the information. In intellectual property there are necessarily TWO minds involved, namely the creator (the author etc.) and the consumer (the reader), and BOTH their rights need to be protected in the process. Information implies that a mind needs to become intimate with the creation of the author, and since he is bombarded with impression everywhere and this amounts to stepping into the mind of another person. If done inappropriately this amounts to trespassing. (an obvious example is to show a violent grown-up movie to small children.) A mundane example of this is to run commercials for a movie on TV and in the movie theaters, except that it is *first* released in the United States, and then only 6 months later it comes to Europe. Viewers who are teased by the trailers and not allowed to enjoy the movie until many months later due to silly DVD zones and antiquated film practices are to a mild extent violated. The movie producer is allowed to intrude someone's mind, and that can never be undone. Then it is wrong to set unreasonable restrictions. Personally I have no problems with people who download a DVD-rip of a movie just to get hold of it fast and view it there and then, so long as they pay for the DVD. While the intellectual property rights are clearly biased towards the creator (as they should be) this does not mean that the consumer should be ignored. He has certain rights which pertain to intrusion. In general intellectual property should be created in such a way as to (within reasonable boundaries) minimize the intrusiveness of information. The rights of the consumer is here protected by declaratory laws. That is, in order to receive the protection of the law by default the creator needs to fulfill certain standards of non-intrusiveness. If the creator wants to deviate from these requirements and still be protected by law he must label his products in a certain way. Consider the following warning on e.g. music from iTunes: "Warning: this product contains restrictions which may be experienced as annoying or intrusive." Then followed by a list of what is intrusive and annoying. Let me first give you an example from the physical world of such intrusiveness. Suppose that in order to get out of a shop you have to go thtough quite intrusive security controls, body scanning and maybe even cavity search. Then you would definitely like to be warned about this before you go INTO the shop. In this case there would be grounds for a declaratory law that states that you need to warn people with a well-placed sign, both outside your physical shop and in commercials. Most people would find such security measures highly intrusive, especially since 98% of all people are NOT thieves. Because of this most shops prefer to accept 2-3% theft and then just add the extra price on top to cover the losses. Much less intrusive and people are allowed to go through shops without full cavity searches! In a similar manner it is perfectly reasonable for people to be mad about all sorts of DRM on music that generates a lot of hassle. In most cases music should be just a plain file, that CAN be stolen (just like the candy in the shops) but in most cases isn't. The creators normally protect their music in five ways: 1) high quality, 2) great availability, 3) great accessability, 4) reasonable prices and 5) good consumer morality. With all these five in place you don't need DRM, and piracy will be a fringe phenomenon. You still need the IP laws, however, to prevent legal organized piracy.
Your statement is both contradictive and flawed. It is not easy to dissect what is your personal wishes for intellectual property right laws and what your moral argument for intellectual property rights are, but I'm going to try and explain your contradictions.
You think it's perfectly moral (and probably should be legal?) to break the wish of a movie producer to control his own works ("download a DVD-rip to watch it").
You think it's perfectly fine that someone uses illegal means to get what they want, if the producer of such a thing have "teased" the individual. From this logic, I would conclude that it's perfectly legal in your world to rape a girl (have non-consensual sex) if she earlier the same evening have "teased me sexually". As long as I pay her in some way(?), perhaps a couple of vodka shots? ("if the movie producer shows you a trailer, which you really want, you should have the right to watch the full movie, as long as you pay for it").
In both declarative laws and in the introduction of movies, you are informed about your legal rights to only use the movie in a very narrow and specific manner (viewing in private home for a limited number of individuals). Yet still, you think it's fine to break that agreement as you see fit.
I totally agree with the idea that the consumer needs to have his rights protected. In today's IP-law world, the consumer rights have been reduced to a bare and absolute minimum. It's gone as far as, content owners remotely disabling your access to games, software and media you have purchased - if you violate their demands on how you use (consume) it. This is a gross violation of private property rights, the rights of the consumer, that is.
The example with a security in stores is irrelevant, not based on reality. No stores would enforce security in such a manner, as they would be out of business quickly, due to competition in a free market, where other stores clearly wouldn't enforce such harsh security protocols. In the world of intellectual property rights, the creator has the right to enforce any extreme form of security to control it's creation.
DRM is not here due to the (lack of?) moral amongst the consumers, it's the wish to have complete control of the distribution, use and licensing of the content. Wouldn't you want to control it, if you could? Movie producers want money when you watch a movie in the cinema, they want money when you rent or buy the same movie on a physical medium. When you buy the movie digitally, it's copy-protected. And obviously they want money whenever the same movie is shown on your network TV channels. Additionally they want money if you want the music (official sound track) from the movie and they even want money if you want to have music from the movie as your mobile phone ringtone (ref. Apple iPhone and "SMS ringtone providers"). At the end of the day, they make it very hard to reuse (in a mashup for instance) any of the very same creative work. I have previously done multiple attempts to contact right-owners to get a right for re-use, with no response at all. If I was a big-shot movie producer, it wouldn't be a problem arranging with the legal contracts and payments for a right to re-use the creative works, but for anyone else with limited resources - it's not even remotely possible to get any rights to any creative work of other ("important people", most normal people freely share photos and content under Creative Common terms) people.
"Homesteading information space" does involve contributions of other existing "information objects" that you mentally process. Original and new ideas doesn't spawn from the inner depths of our brains, they are transformations of existing knowledge and experience combined with the conscious processes to produce something unique and new. Therefor "homesteading" a mashup of other creative works, which is not legal today, should with your reasoning in reality be completely legal.
This image of Obama is an illegal creative work, a mashup of an existing creative work done without permission of the original author: http://cosmopolisjournalen.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/obama.jpg
Is it destructive moral to allow this type creative works? And how is this different than if someone actually painted the same illustration instead of using another persons photograph?
You IP communists
Most of you simply don't want to pay for other people's mental labor and are looking for ways to rationalize theft.
I noticed the pro IP, freeloading hypocrites are still pirating symbols to advocate theft.
IP communists have yet to give any reason why anything could be owned by an individual. No wonder they are communists.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
You confuse me with someone else because in order to be a communist someone must be coercing you to freeload and pirate symbols to advocate theft. I was under the impression you were voluntarily freeloading and pirating symbols. Please correct me if there is in fact a communist holding a gun to your head coercing you to freeload and pirate.
Except, of course, for the volumes published in which we have. But go right on pretending they don't exist instead of addressing them; it makes our job much easier. After all, the purpose of a debate is not to convince one's opponent, but the spectators.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I noticed the pro IP, freeloading hypocrites are still pirating symbols to advocate theft.
As I said before, I consider piracy to be much less evil than communism. The pirates, clever as they are, realize the necessity of property rights by instituting those rights amongst themselves. They just enjoy, for reasons of short time-preference, invading property. They also must realize that, without property rights, the very things they are pirating could not exist. (If boats were not protected, there would be no boats to hijack. All production would take place within the home and there would be no trade. If software was not protected, no software would be sold. All software would be made in-house and there would be no division of labor in software.) They can only live as parasites as long as there are some property rights allowing hosts to grow.
The supreme evil of intellectual communism is not so much that it promotes piracy but that it condemns to death a major share of industrial civilization for purely ideological reasons. It is no different from any other kind of communism in that respect.
Stranger: IP communists have yet to give any reason why anything could be owned by an individual. No wonder they are communists.
Stranger: I noticed the pro IP, freeloading hypocrites are still pirating symbols to advocate theft. As I said before, I consider piracy to be much less evil than communism. The pirates, clever as they are, realize the necessity of property rights by instituting those rights amongst themselves. They just enjoy, for reasons of short time-preference, invading property. They also must realize that, without property rights, the very things they are pirating could not exist. (If boats were not protected, there would be no boats to hijack. All production would take place within the home and there would be no trade. If software was not protected, no software would be sold. All software would be made in-house and there would be no division of labor in software.) They can only live as parasites as long as there are some property rights allowing hosts to grow. The supreme evil of intellectual communism is not so much that it promotes piracy but that it condemns to death a major share of industrial civilization for purely ideological reasons. It is no different from any other kind of communism in that respect.
Linux and Open Office are free software products, why are there so few people using them as oppose to Mac OS X + iWorks or Windows + Microsoft Office?
Most software did not have the level of protection which they have today in the earlier years, yet software was still sold. Software has been pirated since the early days of computing.
Most software are built by individuals who work at or for corporations that have business needs they need to fulfill. These individuals does not own the right in their creative works, the companies they work for own the rights. Most of these software solutions are built by leveraging the existing work of other programmers, of which a lot is open source. Lots of developers share their creative works without restrictions. The way most people look at software is how Microsoft builds and sell software products, yet that is only a very small portion of the software industry.
"Pirates" who like to put their names on whatever they distribute doesn't care about intellectual property rights, they care about their "street-credibility". They want fame and glory. When I do any writings, I share them under Creative Commons Attributions. If anyone else can make money on what I write, then they should be free to bear fruits of the labor of actually transforming my creative works into something anyone would pay for. All I want in return, is recognition as the original author.
And that attribution can be justly required, since it would be fraud for someone to claim that the unaltered work was their own. Though the fraud would be against the consumers of the work, not the creator.
21`Stranger: "IP communists have yet to give any reason why anything could be owned by an individual. No wonder they are communists."
Ah! Yes! Because we believe that IP should be owned communally. /facepalm
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
The IP-monopolists could do well looking at the history of IP:
Patents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies_1623
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law
Copyright:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationers%27_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
Now, I wonder why they called it "Statute of Monopolies" to begin with?
Allow me to quote:
"The granting of these patents was highly popular with the monarch, both before and after the statute of Monopolies, because of the potential for raising revenue. A patentee was expected to pay heavily for the patent, and unlike a tax raise (another method of raising Crown money) any public unrest as a result of the patent was normally directed at the patentee, not the monarch. Over time, this became more and more problematic; instead of temporary monopolies on specific, imported industries, long-term monopolies came about over more common commodities, including salt and starch."
Ofcourse, the way IP was born does in no way prove that IP is unjust, and simply a State-Granted Monopoly (ie artificial property).
However, on the other hand it does give some cause for suspicion, and as always I believe the burden of proof is on those that wishes to use State Power to threathen others with violence. Now if Onar would just respond to the issue of the time-limitation (without any more falsa analogies). You're not scared of me are you?
Myself, I believe in intellectual property without any time limitations, so you will all understand that the fact that Onar wishes to use the State to take away all my valuable intellectual property and distribute it free to to all is something I find thoroughly disturbing, especially since most of it is inside my head!
Onar,
You responded to a fallacious farmer analogy above,
I like the analogy presented by a one of the contributors here with growing grop. In growing a crop a farmer is using three resources that are renewable and virtually unlimited: water( rain), light (sun) and CO2 (air). Why shouldn't people be allowed to freely take the crop from the farmer?
This analogy was repeated and developed by several members on this forum, but the analogy is not relevant to this topic since it describes taking crops from a farmer (theft). This is not analogous since the crops are physical property and are not the information in his mind. Your position was that the information in the mind is property that can be stolen. But when I corrected your analogy to make it more appropriate to the discussion, you ignored it. I see you have been busy with other matters. Let me summarize my post of the new analogy here:
1) Farmer A's mind recognizes certain climatic and environmental conditions are favorable to growing certain crops including and obscure flower called crocus. Farmer A's mind recognizes certain unmet consumer demand and high prices for products derived from crocus flowers (saffron). Farmer expends further brain power to study and learn the production techniques associated with saffron production. - these are all "products of the mind". 2) Farmer A plants acres of crocus flowers and begins saffron production. Before this, no one has ever planted crocus or produced saffron in this region. His "idea" is unique and original and the result of genuine intellectual efforts. 3) Farmer B drives past crocus flowers and saffron stand and "steals idea" from farmer A, planting his own "copy" of the crocus field on his own land. 4) Farmer A, enlists the state power to stop Farmer B and prevent him from profiting by the theft of Farmer A's intellectual property, since such duplication of his plan and idea would diminish Farmer A's "future profits."
1) Farmer A's mind recognizes certain climatic and environmental conditions are favorable to growing certain crops including and obscure flower called crocus. Farmer A's mind recognizes certain unmet consumer demand and high prices for products derived from crocus flowers (saffron). Farmer expends further brain power to study and learn the production techniques associated with saffron production. - these are all "products of the mind".
2) Farmer A plants acres of crocus flowers and begins saffron production. Before this, no one has ever planted crocus or produced saffron in this region. His "idea" is unique and original and the result of genuine intellectual efforts.
3) Farmer B drives past crocus flowers and saffron stand and "steals idea" from farmer A, planting his own "copy" of the crocus field on his own land.
4) Farmer A, enlists the state power to stop Farmer B and prevent him from profiting by the theft of Farmer A's intellectual property, since such duplication of his plan and idea would diminish Farmer A's "future profits."
Now I shall dissect the analogy as it applies to property rights extending to the so-called products of the mind:
1) This step includes inspiration and preparation or training – necessary prerequisites to any creative endeavor such as music composition, writing a book or farming.
2) This step is turning the product of the mind, into human action. If "A" were writing a book this would be typing those unique concepts or thoughts in an organized way.
3) In this step, another individual, with whom there is no existing contract "reads the book or hears the music". In effect his mind is equally inspired to action, so he duplicates the planting patterns of Farmer A – potentially diminishing Farmer A's opportunity for monopoly on saffron. Farmer B takes nothing physical from Farmer A. Farmer B uses his own land, his own seeds, his own water and builds his own produce stand. Farmer A still maintains full ownership and control over his own fields and production, he has not been assaulted nor trespassed upon in any way. To put this into the book or music scenario, I would say that "B" printed his own book, poem, or music with the same formula as "A". For the sake of the analogy, let's also say it uses the all the exact same words or notes. It is a true copy. In the copying process "B" also uses his own paper and ink. Still, nothing has been taken from "A", he has suffered no theft, assault and no trespass on his person or property.
4) In this step, "A" enlists the coercive forces of the state to block the competition from "B" in order to protect is "future potential profits" that he hoped to enjoy from his monopoly. But this force harms "B" and deprives him of the use of his own property (land, seeds, water or paper and ink).
To bring this all the way back, it should be plain to see that the use of force in this way by the state harms the property rights and prevents competition. How can this be moral or ethical?
Having read your numerous posts, I anticipate that you would say that you would object to my conclusions in step 3. You would probably assert that the "product of his mind" has been stolen from "A" and that is his property since he had a "homestead claim to the information space". You might even say that since the concept applies to authors and musicians, it should also apply to farmers. If not, why not? If so, we must go down the slippery slope that others have already brought up:
Can property rights be so arbitrary and subjective? Who is smart enough to decide?
Why, the magnificent and benevolent state, of course!
Because open source software cannot be produced under a capitalistic division of labor, and so the only people who can use Linux and Open Office are those with the skills to create it.
Most software are built by individuals who work at or for corporations that have business needs they need to fulfill. These individuals does not own the right in their creative works, the companies they work for own the rights.
Karl Marx wrote the exact same complaint. Capitalists pay for labor in advance of the product being ready, and so take the entrepreneurial risk that goes with it. That is a mutually beneficial relationship for the worker and the capitalist.
Pro-IP's will argue that violating whatever controlling right on the ideas, is in itself the initiation of force, but there are absolutely no logical reasoning that can get any rational human being to such a conclusion.
Onar Am is perfectly right, you simply reject the materiality of information. Information is a thing. It can be invaded. It can be restricted. It meets all the standards that you set for property ownership. The only reason that you could avoid this conclusion is blindness.
When I do any writings, I share them under Creative Commons Attributions. If anyone else can make money on what I write, then they should be free to bear fruits of the labor of actually transforming my creative works into something anyone would pay for. All I want in return, is recognition as the original author.
That's great, but what does that have to do with other people needing to own the product of their investment in order to take entrepreneurial risks to create goods under the division of labor, which is what you are claiming needs to be stopped?
Stranger: Linux and Open Office are free software products, why are there so few people using them as oppose to Mac OS X + iWorks or Windows + Microsoft Office? Because open source software cannot be produced under a capitalistic division of labor, and so the only people who can use Linux and Open Office are those with the skills to create it.
For years now, each time you speak about technology, you completely miss the mark. I use Open Office and Linux, and I do not have the skills to create either. In fact, there are 100s of thousands (if not millions) of people in a similar situation.
Your claims about the market don't even pass the most basic evidence or a quick test of reality.
Linux is produced under a division of labor, and true market anarchy. It is designed, tested and deployed in a decentralized fashion, adopting temporary heirarchies as necessary along the way, with no prevailing hierarchy permanently entrenched at the top.
Examples like this completely undermine your argument.
Stranger: Karl Marx wrote the exact same complaint. Capitalists pay for labor in advance of the product being ready, and so take the entrepreneurial risk that goes with it. That is a mutually beneficial relationship for the worker and the capitalist.
Stranger: Because open source software cannot be produced under a capitalistic division of labor, and so the only people who can use Linux and Open Office are those ?with the skills to create it.
Wikipedia: Division of labour is the specialization of cooperative labour in specific, circumscribed tasks and roles. Stigmergy is a mechanism of indirect coordination between agents or actions.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Stranger: Pro-IP's will argue that violating whatever controlling right on the ideas, is in itself the initiation of force, but there are absolutely no logical reasoning that can get any rational human being to such a conclusion. Onar Am is perfectly right, you simply reject the materiality of information. Information is a thing. It can be invaded. It can be restricted. It meets all the standards that you set for property ownership. The only reason that you could avoid this conclusion is blindness.
That's clearly rubbish. Unless I woke up this morning and some big news have happened, we still don't have the tools to do precise manipulation of the human mind. If information is a "thing", then clearly you should somehow be able (and allowed) to remove that information from the head of any individual who have gained access to it without your permissions. Additionally, you should obviously be allowed to install surveillance cameras on the property of all those individual you have given your information too, as a means to document any violation of your right to control that information.
Anyone claiming right on any information, would be the one responsible for documenting the claims that a third party has violated it's rights. But since this clearly is impossible in most normal cases (which doesn't involve copying and sharing full copies of books and music), you have the state give individuals patent (and other) rights, which gives exclusive access, no matter how third parties came about the same information patterns.
A correct analogy in the physical world to the concept "homesteading of information space", would be that you find a piece of land that contains a tree with fruits. Then at the same time, across the planet, I find another piece of land that also contains a tree with the very same kind of fruit. In this situation, you think it's morally correct to utilize an armed state to rob that property from me, due to the fact that you found a similar piece of land "before" me. I write "before" me, cause you actually don't need to find it before me, only be the one who claims to have found it with the state before anyone else. Even if I spent thousand of dollars to travel across the world and I lived in the forest a whole year to find the discovery of this fruit, and you only spent an evening taking a stroll in your back yard, you think you are the one with the right to control and restrict.
That my friend, is what I think is clearly rubbish and I think it's highly immoral.
Let me see if I got this correct:
The freeloading, symbol pirating, hypocrite pro IP Nazi's want a blessing to use force against employed engineers, scientists, and programmers who act on their own ideas outside of the workplace but thought up in the workplace in order to protect IP because engineers, scientists, and programmers own their own thoughts?
I never knew it made such perfect sense. Where can I apply for this benevolent slavery?
David wrote the following post at Wed, Oct 20 2010 3:10 AM:
This analogy was repeated and developed by several members on this forum, but the analogy is not relevant to this topic since it describes taking crops from a farmer (theft). This is not analogous since the crops are physical property and are not the information in his mind.
Normally I try to be flexible with my opponents' terms and their semantics. I don't try to quibble when a different word than expected is used (e.g. "threshold" instead of "boundary") as long as the meaning conveyed is appropriate, but in this case I must react because you seem to genuinely not understand what an analogy is. The example you gave is NOT an analogy, but another *example* or *instance* of a category. A cat as a mammal is not *analogous* to dog as a mammal. They ARE both mammals. The example YOU gave is just an *instance* of intellectual property. Analogies however refer to when there are essential differences, yet some impotrant similarities. Example: an airplane is analogous to a bird.
The analogy *I* was referring to is the following situation:
anti-IP focus on the WRONG and IRRELEVANT non-scarce resource (the physical copyability of information), and ignore the one that is important (the scarcity of a mind)
in the farmer example, the people who steal the crop and the farmer's labor (which is a scarce resource, just like the mind) focus on the WRONG and IRRELEVANT abundant resources (sun, rain, air).
The reason why you are obviously capable of seeing this is because a crop is a physical thing, and as materialists you recognize that as an existent. You can touch and feel it and therefore you more easily imagine that it is something that can be owned. But intellectual work and its fruit (the particular information pattern that results from that work) cannot be touched and therefore you deny that it is something real. THIS is the crux of the debate. Everything else, including the examples you gave, is just noise.
In your example of the farmer who copies another farmer, the question is this: was this common knowledge or was he copying something unique and very innovative, for instance a special kind of farm practice? If the knowledge copied is common knowledge or of common engineering grade then it is nothing unique and hence no information theft has occurred. If on the other hand, the farming technique is unique and very beneficial then the inventor of that technique has a right to protect that technique for a limited period of time (say 20 years) to reap the full benefits of it. As I mentioned earlier, the best way to protect it may not be patents, but might often rather be academic property rights.
How long does "A" own this simple idea? How long should competition from "B" be suppressed by the state?
How long should competition from "B" be suppressed by the state?
Well, simple farming was maybe innovative 10-12,000 years ago. Clearly it is not now. Any novelty has worn off long ago. The approximate lifetime of intellectual property should be about 1 generation +/-.
What happens if "B" is inspired by a dream or develops the same idea through the same mechanism as A's original process?
Shit happens. Life ain't supernaturally perfect.
What if "B" never even sees A's crocus fields but only reads about it in the newspaper?
He has still accessed the same *information*.
What if B's copy is similar to A's book or music, but not an exact copy?
Similarity can be accurately measured and if it is clear that a music work is a copy if not exact, then copyright laws still apply. Here is an example of something that in my view is a violation of copyright:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqBQ9eA5-P4
This is Fugees "Ready or not" which "quotes" a phrase from Enya's Boadicea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_uE9Qkm1-0
In this case Fugees weasles out of paying royalties to Enya by only quoting a few second's worth of Enya, yet they LOOP it and it goes as an element through the whole song. Any normal MIND is capable of immediately recognizing that this is sampled from Enya, and since information only exists in the mind this is where the similarity must be judged. Copyright laws should be revised for music to include musical quotes that make up a significant portion of a song. Fugees would thus have had to pay Enya for quoting her so extensively and making it an integral part of the song.
Did YOU recognize Enya in Fugees' song? Do you think most people will recognize this? If so then you have just seen an example of something that is not arbitrary. Information exists only in the mind and therefore one constantly have to measure the mind's response to information to determine where the boundaries of IP are.
You confuse reality orientation and empirical investigation with being arbitrary and subjective. There is nothing arbitrary about IP. The principles used to determine what the IP should be are the same. I would liken the process to archeology. In archeology you unearth new and surprising things all the time that you could not have known in advance. Every site is unique and may have to be treated differently due to different issues, such as flooding, soil condition, structural integrity etc. However, this does not mean that archeology is an arbitrary and subjective field. There is a strict method behind it to uncover and preserve the evidence. So what you should be asking is not why the boundaries in IP are such an such, but by which method one arrived at them. What is the reasoning behind them? Is there a consistent methodology? What is it? What are the principles of unearthing the structure of IP?
Re symbol pirating:
Symbols that have been in use for a long time are no longer intellectual property. Their novelty has worn off long ago. This is not piracy.
THIS is the crux of the debate.
Shit happens.
The crux of the debate is that when Shit happens it should never involve pointing a gun at someone else. Gun pointing should be reserved for something serious, not just some Shit happening.
Musicians must be estatic about the internet and such a cheap distribution medium where they can forgo traditional record labels and also weasel out of paying royalties while piggybacking on other peoples ideas who think up all this technology. They are first in the weasel line when it comes to using other peoples ideas and first in the bitch line when it comes to anyone using their ideas.
Novel to whom? I assure you they are pretty novel to each child that learns to read and write.
You don't have to invade something to copy it. Expectations of future monopoly profit cannot be homesteaded.
I think we could benefit a thing or two by helping the freeloading, symbol pirating, technology piggybacking, royalty weasling, hypocritical pro IP Nazi's out by lobbying to stilfe more competition in the current economy and expedite the future. Heck, I can sell this:
Underpaid? Overworked?
Let's face it you are getting screwed by the man.
They tell you what to do, pay you peanuts, and steal all of your ideas in the workplace.
Support HR-GETPAID today and demand Congress reform minimum wage laws to include minimum mental wages!
While were at it let's demand an inflation raise!
Again Support HR-GETPAID... thats HR-4387243 for those in the know...
Let's get the minimum wage laws doubled and really make the economy interesting. :)
That's clearly rubbish. Unless I woke up this morning and some big news have happened, we still don't have the tools to do precise manipulation of the human mind. If information is a "thing", then clearly you should somehow be able (and allowed) to remove that information from the head of any individual who have gained access to it without your permissions. Additionally, you should obviously be allowed to install surveillance cameras on the property of all those individual you have given your information too, as a means to document any violation of your right to control that information.
This objection is nonsensical. The ability to remove illegal property intact is not a condition for maintaining ownership. If I build a house illegally on someone else's land, the only way for him to remove the house is to destroy it. That does not mean he loses ownership of land.
Regardless no one is arguing that minds need to be invaded except you. IP is quite reasonably based on restricting action, not denying information from entering the mind.
How cannot agents who specialize in specific tasks, roles, labour, etc. indirectly co-ordinate? Isn't this what de-facto occurs in most open source projects, where people, to each their own abilities, contribute to the greater whole project? You can understand with the last part why I find your post a little ridiculous, unless of course you merely meant there is no one single planner in the role of capitalist in open source projects, of which I would say both: "Maybe not in a lot of cases, but some people do emerge as planners, or trend setters in projects, regarding the direction of said project". & a resounding "Duh." Then again, I happen to think that in actual free-market (meaning no preferential madness or enforcement of capitalism upon those who want to have none of that capitalism stuff), OSS would probably operate a lot more efficiently, what with the lack of forced use & laws regarding proprietary softwares, so perhaps I'm talking past you or something.
Then again, I happen to think that in actual free-market (meaning no preferential madness or enforcement of capitalism upon those who want to have none of that capitalism stuff), OSS would probably operate a lot more efficiently, what with the lack of forced use & laws regarding proprietary softwares, so perhaps I'm talking past you or something.
The question asked to me was why Linux and OpenOffice were less popular than MacOS X and Pages. The reason, if you understand economics and the division of labor, is obvious. The features of MacOS X were carefully chosen for the typical customers that Apple cultivates. The features of Linux were chosen for the programmers of Linux. Since Linux cannot be capitalized, it cannot be turned into a customer-driven product.
Whether or not open source is stigmergy is irrelevant, it is still not a division of labor relationship.
Musicians must be estatic about the internet and such a cheap distribution medium where they can forgo traditional record labels and also weasel out of paying royalties while piggybacking on other peoples ideas who think up all this technology.
The role of record labels was to finance the production of studio-quality music out of their own capital, taking an entrepreneurial risk on an artist using the limited professional-grade recording studios available. This is why they were owed royalties or even owned the music produced. It was pure capitalism and it made possible a consumer music business.
It is not so much piracy that has changed the relationship between musicians and labels, since studio-quality music must still produced. What has changed is that the costs of setting up a studio have fallen significantly. Popular music can almost be produced by computer software alone. Once that happens a label investment is no longer needed.
Stranger: That's clearly rubbish. Unless I woke up this morning and some big news have happened, we still don't have the tools to do precise manipulation of the human mind. If information is a "thing", then clearly you should somehow be able (and allowed) to remove that information from the head of any individual who have gained access to it without your permissions. Additionally, you should obviously be allowed to install surveillance cameras on the property of all those individual you have given your information too, as a means to document any violation of your right to control that information. This objection is nonsensical. The ability to remove illegal property intact is not a condition for maintaining ownership. If I build a house illegally on someone else's land, the only way for him to remove the house is to destroy it. That does not mean he loses ownership of land. Regardless no one is arguing that minds need to be invaded except you. IP is quite reasonably based on restricting action, not denying information from entering the mind.
Since you did not comment on my analogy, I have to presume you agree to the absurdity of claiming ownership on being "first" to find a tree with fruits.
My example with the mind is only to illustrate that it's not possible to remove information that enters the brain, and which you surely confirm. If someone builds a house on your property, that clearly is a violation of your private property and you can use retroactive force (he initiated it) to destroy the house he has built illegally. This is the core principle of private property, that you are actually able to protect it (or not).
How will you practically restrict the action of others in regards to creative works? How will you prove that others have violated your IP? The example that Onar gives with music sampling is clear, digital copying of anything is much easier to prove as digital bits doesn't change. How will you protect information that have entirely gone through the mind of any individual?
restricting action even when it doesn't affect anyone?
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
The human mind cannot process enough information without using copyrighted media that this problem would come up.
Regardless the burden of proof is on you to prove that your creation is an original and not a copy. It is simple to show.
If it did not affect anyone, we would not have this argument.
SondreB:A correct analogy in the physical world to the concept "homesteading of information space", would be that you find a piece of land that contains a tree with fruits. Then at the same time, across the planet, I find another piece of land that also contains a tree with the very same kind of fruit.
Not an analogy at all, as it still only refers to the physical universe. A correct analogy would go like this:
"The tangible (physical) property universe comprises of 10^80 cubic meters of known universe, or 5x10^80 atoms in known physical universe. It would only take 266 bits to map (mark) every cubic meter of known universe with a different 266 bit number.
Each separate instance of information ever created (and is about to be created in the forseeable future) -- all books, movies, songs, images, software, etc -- can be represented by a 10 gigabyte binary sequence. (This size was chosen to accommodate the longest individual piece of information created, such as the movie Avatar, but could be any size without loss of generalization). The size of the informational universe blanketed by all possible 10 gigabyte sequences is 2^(8x10^9) separate instances which is vastly larger than the 2^266 cubic meters of the known tangible universe.
By creating a unique 10 gigabyte sequence of information an author/producer "homesteads" a particular portion of the whole (vast) informational universe (comprised of all possible 10 gigabyte sequences) much in the same way the first appropriator homesteads (has the strongest claim to ownership of) a particular portion of the whole tangible universe (comprised of all 2^266 cubic meters available). The "area" (in the informational universe) that is "homesteaded" (thus owned) by the creator/producer of any 10 gigabyte sequence is defined by all sufficiently similar 10 gigabyte sequences in the "vicinity" of the original sequence and all (signal processing and information theory-based) transformations thereof.
Thus the case for information as property is presented. Explorers and potential "homesteaders" have the vast informational universe at their disposal. Much of that universe is useless (any random 10 gigabyte sequence), just like most of the 2^266 cubic meters of known tangible universe are useless and yet to be claimed (or homesteaded). However, entrepreneurs, explorers, and potential "homesteaders" willing to commit capital and labor to find the valuable pieces of BOTH informational and tangible universe shall be rewarded by a claim of ownership of such discovered property -- informational or tangible, regardless."
Z.
Stranger: How cannot agents who specialize in specific tasks, roles, labour, etc. indirectly co-ordinate? Isn't this what de-facto occurs in most open source projects, where people, to each their own abilities, contribute to the greater whole project? You can understand with the last part why I find your post a little ridiculous, unless of course you merely meant there is no one single planner in the role of capitalist in open source projects, of which I would say both: "Maybe not in a lot of cases, but some people do emerge as planners, or trend setters in projects, regarding the direction of said project". & a resounding "Duh." Then again, I happen to think that in actual free-market (meaning no preferential madness or enforcement of capitalism upon those who want to have none of that capitalism stuff), OSS would probably operate a lot more efficiently, what with the lack of forced use & laws regarding proprietary softwares, so perhaps I'm talking past you or something. The question asked to me was why Linux and OpenOffice were less popular than MacOS X and Pages. The reason, if you understand economics and the division of labor, is obvious. The features of MacOS X were carefully chosen for the typical customers that Apple cultivates. The features of Linux were chosen for the programmers of Linux. Since Linux cannot be capitalized, it cannot be turned into a customer-driven product. Whether or not open source is stigmergy is irrelevant, it is still not a division of labor relationship.
Linux is used on millions of machines, way more than there are actual developers coding Linux. The latest version of Ubuntu is so simple that most people should be able to install, configure and use it.
There is no limitation on capitalizing on open source, you can go out into the streets and sell copies of Ubuntu if you choose to do so. The only limitation you have, is that you have to include the (or make available) the source code to anyone who wants it.
Open source is a wide topic and there are many types of licenses and manners of developing software as open source. There are commercial software vendors who build open source software and sell it at a cost, often with a dual-licensing model. Some individuals like to think that open source is communism, which it clearly is not.
Stranger: Musicians must be estatic about the internet and such a cheap distribution medium where they can forgo traditional record labels and also weasel out of paying royalties while piggybacking on other peoples ideas who think up all this technology. The role of record labels was to finance the production of studio-quality music out of their own capital, taking an entrepreneurial risk on an artist using the limited professional-grade recording studios available. This is why they were owed royalties or even owned the music produced. It was pure capitalism and it made possible a consumer music business. It is not so much piracy that has changed the relationship between musicians and labels, since studio-quality music must still produced. What has changed is that the costs of setting up a studio have fallen significantly. Popular music can almost be produced by computer software alone. Once that happens a label investment is no longer needed.
Why MUST studio-quality music still be produced?
Stranger: Regardless the burden of proof is on you to prove that your creation is an original and not a copy. It is simple to show.
actually, the burden of proof is on the one who acusses (or claims), that I don't have original "idea" or whatever :) I don't have to prove that thoughts in my head are original. I don't have to prove, that music I create is original, even though I was influenced by many musicians, movies and other things (like emotions etc.)
The burden of proof will always be on you.
Simple to show, impossible to prove. I guess we all need to have notaries following us around in case we have an idea.