Political Theory

Re: Where IP law is actually a good thing

Daniel James Sanchez — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:55:37 GMT

Locked for ridiculously high heat-to-light ratio.

Re: Where IP law is actually a good thing

filc — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:44:52 GMT

z1235:
I did no such thing. My suggestion (and not a provable argument, btw) was that perhaps the ones who are not themselves involved in the production of IP (information, patterns, i.e. intangibles) are simply unaware of how much work and capital goes into creating it, whereas the ones involved are aware and find it absurd to accept mere thieves as "competitors".

Maxliberty:
Just keeping hitting LS's softball arguments right out of the park Z. I love it.

Or perhaps it's the opposite. People in the production of IP don't realize how much capital investment is involved in other industries, as refuted above. Such an argument is made from ignorance, and I don't mean that in a negative way. I'm simply stating it as a matter of fact, consider Hazlitt's position. Consider that what is not considered, that what is not seen. The argument here is that capital investments in software development is very high. This is simply not true, as refuted above. You cannot make this argument without first knowing whats in involved in all other industries.

But ultimately the point is mute. The amount of capital involved in an industry does not prove or disprove need for government regulation. This is one of the strawmen people are talking about and it's sad that we keep moving away from the actual point of the discussion. We must disabuse ourselves from subscribing to these ultimately insiginfigtant details if we desire to progress.

At least in this case it seems that anyone who thinks that software development requires an extensive amount of invested capital above, and as opposed to, other industries must not be aware of whats involved in manufacturing of tangible goods. Again as refuted above.

Re: Where IP law is actually a good thing

liberty student — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:44:33 GMT

z1235:
I did no such thing. My suggestion (and not a provable argument, btw) was that perhaps the ones who are not themselves involved in the production of IP (information, patterns, i.e. intangibles) are simply unaware of how much work and capital goes into creating it, whereas the ones involved are aware and find it absurd to accept mere thieves as "competitors".

Right, which is semantics, and you have been refuted by so-called intellectual capitalists. Which shouldn't be necessary anyways, when you make an obviously fallacious and collectivistic (or do I repeat myself) argument. It is provable. Proven to be fallacious.

z1235:
And please stop using "monopoly" as if that's somehow going to hurt the feelings of a free market IP supporter.

You're asserting again.

z1235:
Nitpickers come in and say, "But what if I took Avatar and changed one bit (out of the billions)

And yet what portion of anything you do is entirely and completely unique? Or do you exist and function in this world with absolutely no intellectual capital of your own?

z1235:
Just as in the case of tangible property, not all answers are there (nor they need to be). People will know. Arbiters will know. The market will figure it out.

I agree with this. However, the positivists are asserting that Intellectual monopoly is really intellectual property. If the market accepts monopoly, so be it. But that doesn't change that it is a monopoly.

z1235:
Free markets ALREADY treat information as property.

Which free market is that?

z1235:
And that's only going to increase as percentage of global GDP. This argument is already finished.

Ah yes, the infamous and inevitable "appeal to reality". The world is flat, everyone knows that. Argument over.

Re: Where IP law is actually a good thing

DanielMuff — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:42:23 GMT

liberty student:

DM, I fixed your post. You regularly copy paste, instead of using the quoting function and it trashes the thread display. Do not copy paste please.

I almost always hit the "quote" button. But on that one post, I think I did copy and paste some of it.

Re: Where IP law is actually a good thing

liberty student — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:38:27 GMT

DM, I fixed your post. You regularly copy paste, instead of using the quoting function and it trashes the thread display. Do not copy paste please.

Re: Where IP law is actually a good thing

liberty student — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:37:04 GMT

Maxliberty:
By your taking from me, information that is in my possession

You still have it in your possession.

Maxliberty:
I have lost the right of free association as I no longer am free to decide with whom I would like to share the information that I have

Sure you can. You can share the information YOU have with anyone you want. You never lost your information. You still have it. You still control it.

Maxliberty:
By allowing me no means of redress to secure rights you have effectively eliminated this right.

You do not have positive rights.

Maxliberty:
In short, if you are able to violate my security systems or contracts I have protecting these rights then there is no punishment for you.

Trespass is not the same as observation.

Maxliberty:
This is contrary to liberty and the basic ideas of property.

Neither you or Stranger have offered a coherent definition of intellectual property qua property.

Re: Where IP law is actually a good thing

Maxliberty — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:34:21 GMT

liberty student:

kiba:
Oh please. Lot of people here, including myself, are computer programmers. We know how much work and capital goes into creating software, thank you very much.

Indeed. I only produce specialized digital products and services, probably on a scale that dwarfs nearly everyone here, and I find it very amusing that I am being lectured on how my business and industry runs.

How is the view in your ivory tower?

Re: Where IP law is actually a good thing

Maxliberty — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:32:38 GMT

z1235:

liberty student:
Please don't pretend to speak for all IP capitalists as though they are of one mind on monopoly or of one model with their businesses. That's sloppy argumentation.

I did no such thing. My suggestion (and not a provable argument, btw) was that perhaps the ones who are not themselves involved in the production of IP (information, patterns, i.e. intangibles) are simply unaware of how much work and capital goes into creating it, whereas the ones involved are aware and find it absurd to accept mere thieves as "competitors".

And please stop using "monopoly" as if that's somehow going to hurt the feelings of a free market IP supporter. The number of ALL possible 10gig combinations of 0s and 1s is larger than the number of all atoms in the known universe. Most of these combinations are garbage, but SOME -- like the pattern of Avatar -- are not and customers are willing to pay to experience it. Everyone is absolutely free to invest in their own prospecting tools and dive into this vast digital universe to find the next pattern of 0s and 1s for which customers will pay. There's no monopoly on 10gig patterns, or any size patterns for that matter.

Nitpickers come in and say, "But what if I took Avatar and changed one bit (out of the billions)? Can I claim THAT pattern as mine, then?" -- as if this somehow shows the absurdity of the concept of information as property. Does the vagueness of homesteading (What piece of land did you exactly "mix your labor" with? How about these two square feet? Did you mix your labor there too?), land ownership (How deep underground? How high in the sky?) make the concept of tangible property ridiculous, as well? Just as in the case of tangible property, not all answers are there (nor they need to be). People will know. Arbiters will know. The market will figure it out.

Free markets ALREADY treat information as property. And that's only going to increase as percentage of global GDP. This argument is already finished.

Z.

Just keeping hitting LS's softball arguments right out of the park Z. I love it.

Re: Where IP law is actually a good thing

Maxliberty — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:26:01 GMT

AJ:

Stranger, when you're done grasping at straws you might want to answer this:

Stranger:

AJ:

Maxliberty:
...my being forced to share information...

You've dismantled your entire position in six words. Because: What actual action are you being forced to perform or refrain from performing when someone copies something from you? (Remember we're assuming no other laws are broken by that person in the process - no trespass, etc.)

You are forced to allow them to access your media.

Not when it's out on the net already, or when you don't effectively restrict access. Those are the scenarios being discussed - obviously, as all others would entail violating other laws ("actual property rights") as I wrote above.

Now name the actual action you are forced to perform or refrain from, or you have no argument.

By your taking from me, information that is in my possession, without my permission, I have lost the right of free association as I no longer am free to decide with whom I would like to share the information that I have. By allowing me no means of redress to secure rights you have effectively eliminated this right. In short, if you are able to violate my security systems or contracts I have protecting these rights then there is no punishment for you. This is contrary to liberty and the basic ideas of property.

Re: Where IP law is actually a good thing

twistedbydsign99 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:56:16 GMT

filc:

I understand your argument Twisted. Just an FYI I'm also in the industry.

I live in Seattle so all I have around me are software development firms. I do business with 5 of them locally. Some big some small.

Its a fantastic job if you work at the right place.

Re: Where IP law is actually a good thing

filc — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:53:16 GMT

I understand your argument Twisted. Just an FYI I'm also in the industry.

I live in Seattle so all I have around me are software development firms. I do business with 5 of them locally. Some big some small.

Re: Where IP law is actually a good thing

twistedbydsign99 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:45:09 GMT

filc:
Hurts to be wrong don't it Stranger? Humble up a bit.

I think what stranger is saying is that there is different types of software just like there are airplanes. Its not so simple to just say that industry a takes more capital than industry b. There is a software project that rivals the capital cost of an airplane, its cost is born into wages and previous efforts at making software. Also there is a whole area of software that supports the creation of software itself, such as CVS. These software projects are analagous to the different services available at a production plant. Any interesting piece of software takes around 1 million lines of code minimum. Think about that. Your mind can generally handle around 7 things, and the scale of the project is greater than a million. Its a gigantic effort to make a piece of software.

Re: Where IP law is actually a good thing

filc — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:05:57 GMT

Stranger:
Just because there is "hobbyist" software development that costs nothing to make and that you can sell on the iPhone store for a dollar, does not mean that the entire capitalist structure of the industry is redundant. Just like people aren't going to fly on airplanes that were built for a dollar, they aren't going to use an operating system that had nothing invested in it (which is why Linux, more than a decade after claiming to be able to do so, has still not been adopted by the mass market).

Fallacy of composition
Non Sequitur

Not even worth responding to. :[p]

Hurts to be wrong don't it Stranger? Humble up a bit.

Re: Where IP law is actually a good thing

Stranger — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:54:42 GMT

filc:

Its great when you make my argument for me. Hence it's much easier to get started in software development.Which is w hat this minor detailed point was about.

Just because there is "hobbyist" software development that costs nothing to make and that you can sell on the iPhone store for a dollar, does not mean that the entire capitalist structure of the industry is redundant. Just like people aren't going to fly on airplanes that were built for a dollar, they aren't going to use an operating system that had nothing invested in it (which is why Linux, more than a decade after claiming to be able to do so, has still not been adopted by the mass market).

Re: Where IP law is actually a good thing

meambobbo — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:50:31 GMT

Stranger:
The publishing company or movie studio pays them an advance on their work so they will be able to survive while they produce the information

Right - without IP rights, this becomes an awkward process if you try to follow the traditional model. Ideas for films could come from anywhere, even a concept done just months before. Entrepreneurs that drive what gets produced would be more concerned about selling a general idea to "investors" - he doesn't take the traditional market risk. He takes a cut of what he can get others to invest. If he inaccurately gages how many investors he can draw in and exhausts his funds mid-production and fails to deliver a workable end product, he still gets paid - he will simply be unable to find future investors for future projects. On the other hand, if he can deliver a satisfactory project without spending all the investors' money, he can pocket it.

The "investors" who provide the capital to sustain the workers and expenses incurred during the production period would actually be the end consumers, who receive no marketable product, only the end information. Just like the "prosumer" has come to software, the investor/consumer would have to come to film.

The consumer here bears the most risk for the lifecycle of any project. This is awkward for the market, which usually attempts to push risk onto entrepreneurs operating on a commercial basis. Perhaps this risk would be passed back onto the entrepreneur in the above model. For example, maybe consumers get a vote for every dollar invested on whether the end product is satisfactory, with the level of satisfaction determining the entrepreneur's pay - of course, that is open to corruption to occur in both directions.