• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

"Intellectual" "Property" "Rights"


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#1 Alex Libman

  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 27 April 2010 - 01:16 PM


From another thread:

Not ... on ... bit ... torrent ... yet ...

being a nutty tax resister making it hard to afford things? what gives you the right to steal this movie, btw? probably better in a separate thread if you wanna respond.


Even if I was a billionaire I'd still want to download this movie instead of having to deal with the inconvenience of buying online (you never know how they store your credit card number), waiting for the DVD to arrive by mail, opening the package, putting it in the DVD drive (presuming I have one), remembering to take it out afterwards, and remembering where I shelved it... Very inconvenient! More importantly, I'd want to support P2P networks by donating my upload bandwidth, which I see as a powerful censorship-resistant vehicle for free speech.

What gives me the right to copy information? My ownership of the devices involved in copying this information. The real question is - what would give anyone the alleged "right" to stop me? "Intellectual" "property" "rights" do not have any proven economic benefit and quite a few potential economic harms, from strengthening monopolies (patents) to making it easier for the government to censor politically undesirable information using the same mechanisms it uses to control "piracy".
  • like x 1

#2 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 27 April 2010 - 01:26 PM

From another thread:

Not ... on ... bit ... torrent ... yet ...

being a nutty tax resister making it hard to afford things? what gives you the right to steal this movie, btw? probably better in a separate thread if you wanna respond.


Even if I was a billionaire I'd still want to download this movie instead of having to deal with the inconvenience of buying online (you never know how they store your credit card number), waiting for the DVD to arrive by mail, opening the package, putting it in the DVD drive (presuming I have one), remembering to take it out afterwards, and remembering where I shelved it... Very inconvenient! More importantly, I'd want to support P2P networks by donating my upload bandwidth, which I see as a powerful censorship-resistant vehicle for free speech.

What gives me the right to copy information? My ownership of the devices involved in copying this information. The real question is - what would give anyone the alleged "right" to stop me? "Intellectual" "property" "rights" do not have any proven economic benefit and quite a few potential economic harms, from strengthening monopolies (patents) to making it easier for the government to censor politically undesirable information using the same mechanisms it uses to control "piracy".


Even if I was a billionaire I'd still want to download this movie instead of having to deal with the inconvenience of buying online (you never know how they store your credit card number), waiting for the DVD to arrive by mail, opening the package, putting it in the DVD drive (presuming I have one), remembering to take it out afterwards, and remembering where I shelved it... Very inconvenient!

There are other costs besides money. What you are saying is that basically you don't want to pay for it.

What gives me the right to copy information? My ownership of the devices involved in copying this information.

Copy away. But ... having rights to your property means having the right to sell it by whatever voluntary contract you want to use, which includes the license agreement and the distribution mechanism. Once you buy the movie you can copy it all you want because it is your property, but to start giving it away violates the contract you made with the seller.

#3 Alex Libman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 27 April 2010 - 01:48 PM

What you are saying is that basically you don't want to pay for it.


I might donate some money if I like it. I used to donate a couple thousand dollars a year to online media institutions I enjoyed, and I still make small donations from time to time. In some situations I am rewarded for my donations with a special image that's placed next to my forum posts, and other recognitions.


Copy away. But ... having rights to your property means having the right to sell it by whatever voluntary contract you want to use, which includes the license agreement and the distribution mechanism. Once you buy the movie you can copy it all you want because it is your property, but to start giving it away violates the contract you made with the seller.


A contract is an explicit agreement, a "meeting of minds" if you will, and I don't think simply buying a DVD with some fine print on it qualifies as a contract. Furthermore, only the original torrent uploader would be in violation of such a contract, from whom it could be quickly copied to millions of people who never agreed not to share it.

There can be no such thing as an "implicit contract", or else I could just stick a post-in note on my forehead that says "by seeing my face you owe me $20" and expect it to be enforceable as contract law!
  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 27 April 2010 - 01:55 PM

A contract is an explicit agreement, a "meeting of minds" if you will, and I don't think simply buying a DVD with some fine print on it qualifies as a contract.

I guess you sort of have a point there. That can be a slippery slope though. You could make the same argument that just checking a box that says you read the license agreement doesn't qualify as a contract because you never physically signed your name, on paper, with black ink (or blood).

Furthermore, only the original torrent uploader would be in violation of such a contract, from whom it could be quickly copied to millions of people who never agreed not to share it.

There can be no such thing as an "implicit contract", or else I could just stick a post-in note on my forehead that says "by seeing my face you owe me $20" and expect it to be enforceable as contract law!

That is called theft by receiving.

Edited by RighteousReason, 27 April 2010 - 01:55 PM.


#5 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 27 April 2010 - 02:04 PM

Oh god... I am powerless to have another debate on intellectual property rights. Anyone who argues copying something is equivalent to stealing has clearly not thought things through.

Stephan Kinsella's essay "Against intellectual property" (available for free here) presents a very clear and understandable argument against IP. More importantly, it discusses and counters all objections I've ever heard in favour of IP.

I'm just so sick of talking about IP anymore that I just link to this PDF. Most people don't bother to read it, but ey, that's no my problem. BitTorrent lives.

#6 e Volution

  • Guest
  • 937 posts
  • 280
  • Location:spaceship earth

Posted 27 April 2010 - 02:14 PM

In Australia (its probably everywhere) theres a hilarious copyright add that goes "You wouldn't steal a car. You wouldn’t steal a DVD... Downloading pirated films is stealing". I don't know about you guys but if I could steal a BMW and leave the original behind (exactly how it was) I probably would :)

#7 Alex Libman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 27 April 2010 - 02:17 PM

I guess you sort of have a point there. That can be a slippery slope though. You could make the same argument that just checking a box that says you read the license agreement doesn't qualify as a contract because you never physically signed your name, on paper, with black ink (or blood).


Actually blood works very well. I've previously speculated about the various future technologies through which identity and signature could be verified for serious contracts, and timestamped DNA sample checksumming is a great way to do it. (But that's a separate discussion.)


That is called theft by receiving.


It shouldn't be called "theft" at all. An act of theft, trespassing, or destruction of property (ex. arson) is a violation of the negative Right to property. There is no such thing as a positive Right to property. A rancher who sold you two horses last year cannot make you pay for their subsequent offspring, and he certainly cannot sue automobile manufacturers for loss of potential profits. No one is denying that the filmmakers created the movie (denying this could be fraud), but the copies of their movie are "trickle-down benefits" that come as the result of technology that allows zero-cost digital copying. Technology is what made selling movies, music, etc to a mass audience possible in the first place, so those industries got extra profits from a combination of access (ex. television) and scarcity (ex. lack of VCR's) while it existed, but it no longer does.


Anyone who argues copying something is equivalent to stealing has clearly not thought things through.


Actually copying something can be equivalent to stealing, just not in the situation we're talking about. The ultimate argument for the negative Right to intellectual property comes from trying to imagine your brain virtualized inside a computer. (And maybe it already is, and this whole universe is a part of a simulation - you can't know for sure.) Since individual Rights come as the result of one's capacity as a "rational economic actor", a digital mind (whether a copy of a human mind or AI, or a derivative of the two) would have the same negative Rights as a meat-based human being does, so hacking into a computer where that mind is stored would be a Property Rights violation, and deleting it would be some degree of murder. I certainly would object to having my mind copied, in part or in whole, without my permission! But the difference is - I'm not selling copies of my mind on DVD...

Edited by Alex Libman, 27 April 2010 - 02:39 PM.


#8 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 27 April 2010 - 05:38 PM

I guess you sort of have a point there. That can be a slippery slope though. You could make the same argument that just checking a box that says you read the license agreement doesn't qualify as a contract because you never physically signed your name, on paper, with black ink (or blood).


Actually blood works very well. I've previously speculated about the various future technologies through which identity and signature could be verified for serious contracts, and timestamped DNA sample checksumming is a great way to do it. (But that's a separate discussion.)

But that's not the way it is done as of right now. You might as well start go around and start signing contracts as of now and just completely ignoring your end of the deal -- after all, they weren't timestamped DNA sample checksumming, so obviously they aren't valid.

That is called theft by receiving.

A rancher who sold you two horses last year cannot make you pay for their subsequent offspring

Why can't you and the rancher come to a voluntary, legally binding contract on these terms? What is this supposed principle here that somehow supersedes two people making any mutually agreed contract they want between each other? The only word I can think of to fit that is "fraud".

Edited by RighteousReason, 27 April 2010 - 05:44 PM.


#9 Alex Libman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 27 April 2010 - 06:22 PM

But that's not the way it is done as of right now. You might as well start go around and start signing contracts as of now and just completely ignoring your end of the deal -- after all, they weren't timestamped DNA sample checksumming, so obviously they aren't valid.


I agree that's not the way things are done now, but it's up to the contract signers (and the party / parties insuring the contract as enforceable, etc) to decide what level of authentication they find satisfactory, and commonly accepted standards will inevitably evolve with the times. (But that's a separate topic.)


Why can't you and the rancher come to a voluntary, legally binding contract on these terms? What is this supposed principle here that somehow supersedes two people making any mutually agreed contract they want between each other? The only word I can think of to fit that is "fraud".


OK, so let's say I really want to buy these particular male and female horses from this particular rancher, and I sign a ridiculous contract that says all their offspring belong to the rancher unless I pay for them. Then I violate that contract, or a little horsey (foal / colt / filly) runs away, etc, but other people get those horses and start breeding them. That rancher might get his pound of flesh (or whatever was stipulated in the contract) from me, but how does that affect all the offspring owners who bought, bred, and resold the descendants of those horses afterwards?

#10 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 27 April 2010 - 06:47 PM

Why can't you and the rancher come to a voluntary, legally binding contract on these terms? What is this supposed principle here that somehow supersedes two people making any mutually agreed contract they want between each other? The only word I can think of to fit that is "fraud".


OK, so let's say I really want to buy these particular male and female horses from this particular rancher, and I sign a ridiculous contract that says all their offspring belong to the rancher unless I pay for them. Then I violate that contract, or a little horsey (foal / colt / filly) runs away, etc, but other people get those horses and start breeding them. That rancher might get his pound of flesh (or whatever was stipulated in the contract) from me, but how does that affect all the offspring owners who bought, bred, and resold the descendants of those horses afterwards?

What happens when you steal a bunch of GPS devices from cars, and other people get those GPS devices and they get bought and resold to others?

#11 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 27 April 2010 - 11:46 PM

Oh god... I am powerless to have another debate on intellectual property rights. Anyone who argues copying something is equivalent to stealing has clearly not thought things through.

Stephan Kinsella's essay "Against intellectual property" (available for free here) presents a very clear and understandable argument against IP. More importantly, it discusses and counters all objections I've ever heard in favour of IP.

I'm just so sick of talking about IP anymore that I just link to this PDF. Most people don't bother to read it, but ey, that's no my problem. BitTorrent lives.

Alright I skimmed the book (essay?). It wasn't bad.

In short I mostly agree with everything written (especially everything Ayn Rand has said), however I feel that something of what Ayn Rand represented has been missed.


Starting at this part:

Some Problems with Natural Rights

One problem with the creation-based approach is that it almost invariably protects only certain types of creations—unless, that is, every single useful idea one comes up with is subject to ownership (more on this below). But the distinction between the protectable and the unprotectable is necessarily arbitrary.

--

I will tell you my thoughts on this problem, I agree with Rand that one owns the products of their labor as much as their own life. However the thing is, just because something is intangible or non-scarce doesn't mean that ownership is not possible (as this paper concludes), only that exclusive ownership is not guaranteed. Someone else can earn that same idea as much as you did. And that is the non-arbitrary standard which makes it work.

If you make a movie, you have exclusive ownership of that movie and nobody else can simply take it from you. However if someone else makes that exact same movie -- and I mean without stealing or copying your work but actually honestly laboring to produce it fully and earning the product of their labor -- they have just as much ownership of what they have produced as you do.

Edited by RighteousReason, 27 April 2010 - 11:58 PM.


#12 Alex Libman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 28 April 2010 - 04:53 AM

What happens when you steal a bunch of GPS devices from cars, and other people get those GPS devices and they get bought and resold to others?


Now that's actually stealing, and it cannot be compared to BitTorrent, where copies / facsimiles of a work are shared amongst people who've never entered into any explicit contract not to share.

A world where people are consistently subject to contractual obligations merely by accessing a piece of information is a scary world to contemplate. Security cameras, for example, would be impossible, because all criminals would simply copyright their faces and deny you their use. Spammers would send you "aha, you opened this e-mail, now you owe me" type messages. Etc. Furthermore, while all negative Rights that are based in Natural Law (aka the Non-Aggression Principle) are universal and self-enforcing, IP laws require a centralized government-like bully to go around and impose those laws on others. Even the Taliban was willing to hand over Bin Laden if his guilt for 9/11 could be documented! (Something that the U.S. refused to do - but that's a separate discussion.) No modern society on earth can exist for long without recognizing Natural Law, but IP laws do not constitute a competitive advantage for a society, they actually stifle innovation and only benefit an elite few, and therefore IP laws can only be imposed from above.

A world without a "positive right" to IP protection is a world where Britney Spears might have a slightly smaller yacht, unless of course she goes on more tours, gets more people to join her "official fan club", etc. If her talents are truly that unique then she will find some way to part her fans from their dollars. If she's not that unique, on the other hand, and her fame is simply a result of the centralizing effect of mass-media marketing, then absence of IP enforcement would only level the playing field and benefit the music industry as a whole. Companies like Microsoft would still be able to make some money through hardware bundling, support contracts, business services, training and certification, SaaS membership fees, etc. There are many creative ways content providers can make money without IP enforcement. I would pre-pay big bucks to reputable filmmakers to buy stock in a "make Atlas Shrugged movie initiative", for example, which would get me some bragging rights, some limited edition merchandise, perhaps access to exclusive parties with the filmmakers and stars of the film, perhaps even a role as an extra in a crowd of train passengers in the background - ya know, something to tell your grandkids about. :p

#13 donjoe

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 3

Posted 28 April 2010 - 06:01 AM

"Copyright" wasn't originally seen as a "right", it was - and should be - just a temporary privilege awarded to authors not for their own benefit, but for the purpose of maximizing total creative output for the benefit of the consumer. At least that's how the U.S. defined it when they first adopted it. In the meantime it's been changed under corporate pressure into something it was never meant to be.

http://www.gnu.org/p...-copyright.html


(Worried about the enforcers of the broken law knocking at your door? Make your filesharing untraceable - do it through Freenet. You didn't hear this from me. :p)

Edited by donjoe, 28 April 2010 - 06:03 AM.


#14 Alex Libman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 28 April 2010 - 09:13 AM

If there is one alternative worse than the current "intellectual property" racket it's the "copyleft" racket. At least with the IP laws someone like myself could make a decent living... Copyleft uses the same amount of government force [2], and is a lot more economically destructive!

#15 Lallante

  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 3

Posted 28 April 2010 - 10:45 AM

As a student of law and its philosophy, I have to be honest (and these views are not driven by any agenda or political view a la Libman, but rather just knowledge):

Intellectual Property is basically an imaginary concept. There are no principles underlying the seperate intellectual property "rights" (contrast, for example, the function served by trademarks with that served by copyright), and several concepts usually referred to as IP or IP protection are in fact nothing of the sort. IP is, in short, a fiction used to give economic value to compensate effort and skill expended in certain actions.

This is not to say it is a bad thing
merely that it is unprincipled and has no internal logic.

That said, in my opinion all IP law should be abolished with the exception the english law tort of "Passing Off" which is actually basically a tort of deceit not a protection of IP at all. The tort basically says that if one person produces or distributes goods and pretends that they are produced, or have the properties, of, another person's produce, they can be sued.

I would create a parallel crime, or tweak the definition of fraud to catch it.

Suddenly, you don't need trademarks and all of the injustices of trademarks are removed. Similarly copyright (as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing wrong with publishing or distributing someone else's work provided it is correctly attributed) could be abolished.

Yes, this would destroy the music distribution industry, and heavily damage the film industry, but this is not a bad thing. Lets look at the effects:
Good bands would still get recognised as such (even more so as distribution would be wider spread), and would make plenty of money for their members, agents etc through concerts.
Manufactured, mass produced and low quality bands would (in most cases) fail, as merchandising and CD sales would not generate much revenue or justify the huge advertising cost that gives rise to their fame.
Films - Film production companies would have to go to great lengths to ensure they remain in possesion of all of the super-high quality versions of the films used in cinemas. They should rely on physical property rights (over the actual film) and contract to ensure this. Blockbusters make most of their money from ticket sales anyway, they would remain. Perhaps budgets would decrease slightly due to lost DVD and merchandising sales, but not hugely. High quality films would continue to be made and would continue to be profitable.
Games - Less bad games would be made. Games would focus on subscription models, with continuous value added for access to the service (multiplayer servers, regular updates, free expansions and patches). Eventually all games will be developed based on a free release subscription model currently only used by MMORPGs. Games would be more of an investment for the developer - they would not be able to churn out sequel after sequel (or rather, they could, but business would likely dictate that the sequel be treated as a patch to the original version and given to all existing subscribers for free).
Photographers/Artists - some artists relient on merchanidising and prints would be disadvantaged, but exhibitions, and sales of originals would continue to reward the most talented.

Society would change, but end up a much better place. The idea that people would create less if the incentives were lower or different is a fallacy, or rather it only applies to the worst kind of creation (lowest common denominator ideas).

#16 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 28 April 2010 - 11:34 AM

Weak weak weak. Somebody debunk me because I'm standing around here without any opposition.

#17 Alex Libman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 28 April 2010 - 12:10 PM

Welp, I know when I'm beaten.

I fold.

#18 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 28 April 2010 - 12:16 PM

Ok. Yeah I rarely use bit torrent anymore. I got a blockbuster card now for watching movies.

#19 Lallante

  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 3

Posted 28 April 2010 - 12:31 PM

There is no distinction between negative and positive rights. Even if there were such a distinction on the very muddy grounds you lot use, copyright would be a negative right not a positive one.

Edited by Lallante, 28 April 2010 - 12:33 PM.


#20 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 28 April 2010 - 01:48 PM

Starting at this part:

Some Problems with Natural Rights

One problem with the creation-based approach is that it almost invariably protects only certain types of creations—unless, that is, every single useful idea one comes up with is subject to ownership (more on this below). But the distinction between the protectable and the unprotectable is necessarily arbitrary.

--

I will tell you my thoughts on this problem, I agree with Rand that one owns the products of their labor as much as their own life. However the thing is, just because something is intangible or non-scarce doesn't mean that ownership is not possible (as this paper concludes), only that exclusive ownership is not guaranteed. Someone else can earn that same idea as much as you did. And that is the non-arbitrary standard which makes it work.

If you make a movie, you have exclusive ownership of that movie and nobody else can simply take it from you. However if someone else makes that exact same movie -- and I mean without stealing or copying your work but actually honestly laboring to produce it fully and earning the product of their labor -- they have just as much ownership of what they have produced as you do.


Where does R&D fit in to this. Reverse engineering can be a very simple in comparison to creation of an innovative and useful product. Should there be enforcement ensuring "a temporary privilege awarded to authors not for their own benefit, but for the purpose of maximizing total creative output for the benefit of the consumer"? If not, will it be self-defeating? Did the reverse engineering person really earn that idea to a similar extent as the creator? For example, if it takes 6 years of R&D to create a molecule for a specific purpose and a month to replicate and produce it?

There are two ways to go about protecting your work to ensure that you earn the product of your work, the creator can have the burden of protecting his work or an enforced social contract can be made. With advances in technology, the ability for the creator to protect his work and earn the product of his work is becoming more and more limited.

Edited by cnorwood, 28 April 2010 - 02:51 PM.


#21 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 28 April 2010 - 04:50 PM

I will tell you my thoughts on this problem, I agree with Rand that one owns the products of their labor as much as their own life. However the thing is, just because something is intangible or non-scarce doesn't mean that ownership is not possible (as this paper concludes), only that exclusive ownership is not guaranteed. Someone else can earn that same idea as much as you did. And that is the non-arbitrary standard which makes it work.


I have to say I disagree with Rand on IP. I think she was blinded by her wanting to earn more money from her book sales. I mean christ, didn't she even try to stop other people from using the term 'objectivist' to describe themselves?

I just don't see how ownership would be relevant in non-scarce and intangible things. Property rights are based on scarcity -- when there's a possibility of conflict, we have to have some mechanism for how to say who owns what. But when there's no scarcity, what is ownership needed for?

If you make a movie, you have exclusive ownership of that movie and nobody else can simply take it from you. However if someone else makes that exact same movie -- and I mean without stealing or copying your work but actually honestly laboring to produce it fully and earning the product of their labor -- they have just as much ownership of what they have produced as you do.


You have exclusive ownership of the film roll or tape or whatever, but the idea itself? Why?

#22 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 28 April 2010 - 04:52 PM

"Copyright" wasn't originally seen as a "right", it was - and should be - just a temporary privilege awarded to authors not for their own benefit, but for the purpose of maximizing total creative output for the benefit of the consumer. At least that's how the U.S. defined it when they first adopted it. In the meantime it's been changed under corporate pressure into something it was never meant to be.

http://www.gnu.org/p...-copyright.html

(Worried about the enforcers of the broken law knocking at your door? Make your filesharing untraceable - do it through Freenet. You didn't hear this from me. :p )


Copyright was originally invented by publishing companies to maximize their profits, not the authors'.

#23 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 28 April 2010 - 10:43 PM

Starting at this part:

Some Problems with Natural Rights

One problem with the creation-based approach is that it almost invariably protects only certain types of creations—unless, that is, every single useful idea one comes up with is subject to ownership (more on this below). But the distinction between the protectable and the unprotectable is necessarily arbitrary.

--

I will tell you my thoughts on this problem, I agree with Rand that one owns the products of their labor as much as their own life. However the thing is, just because something is intangible or non-scarce doesn't mean that ownership is not possible (as this paper concludes), only that exclusive ownership is not guaranteed. Someone else can earn that same idea as much as you did. And that is the non-arbitrary standard which makes it work.

If you make a movie, you have exclusive ownership of that movie and nobody else can simply take it from you. However if someone else makes that exact same movie -- and I mean without stealing or copying your work but actually honestly laboring to produce it fully and earning the product of their labor -- they have just as much ownership of what they have produced as you do.


Where does R&D fit in to this. Reverse engineering can be a very simple in comparison to creation of an innovative and useful product. Should there be enforcement ensuring "a temporary privilege awarded to authors not for their own benefit, but for the purpose of maximizing total creative output for the benefit of the consumer"? If not, will it be self-defeating? Did the reverse engineering person really earn that idea to a similar extent as the creator? For example, if it takes 6 years of R&D to create a molecule for a specific purpose and a month to replicate and produce it?

There are two ways to go about protecting your work to ensure that you earn the product of your work, the creator can have the burden of protecting his work or an enforced social contract can be made. With advances in technology, the ability for the creator to protect his work and earn the product of his work is becoming more and more limited.

Reverse engineering is the same thing as copying which is the same thing as stealing, which means you didn't earn it and therefore you don't own it. You are violating the creator's property rights.

#24 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 28 April 2010 - 10:57 PM

I will tell you my thoughts on this problem, I agree with Rand that one owns the products of their labor as much as their own life. However the thing is, just because something is intangible or non-scarce doesn't mean that ownership is not possible (as this paper concludes), only that exclusive ownership is not guaranteed. Someone else can earn that same idea as much as you did. And that is the non-arbitrary standard which makes it work.


I have to say I disagree with Rand on IP. I think she was blinded by her wanting to earn more money from her book sales. I mean christ, didn't she even try to stop other people from using the term 'objectivist' to describe themselves?

I definitely do not blame her for trying to stop other people from describing themselves as "Objectivist". Most of the people I have come across who do that utterly fail to live up to it and end up giving Objectivism a bad name.

I just don't see how ownership would be relevant in non-scarce and intangible things. Property rights are based on scarcity -- when there's a possibility of conflict, we have to have some mechanism for how to say who owns what. But when there's no scarcity, what is ownership needed for?

There is a scarcity. The differential between your state of owning the product of your labor that you have earned, and the state of someone else who has not labored to produce that product (or labored to produce something else which they can trade) and therefore does not own. That's the whole point of money. See the money speech below.

If you make a movie, you have exclusive ownership of that movie and nobody else can simply take it from you. However if someone else makes that exact same movie -- and I mean without stealing or copying your work but actually honestly laboring to produce it fully and earning the product of their labor -- they have just as much ownership of what they have produced as you do.


You have exclusive ownership of the film roll or tape or whatever, but the idea itself? Why?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the idea itself".

"So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor--your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions--and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made--before it can be looted or mooched--made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.'

To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss--the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery--that you must offer them values, not wounds--that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade--with reason, not force, as their final arbiter--it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability--and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality--the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money--and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich--will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt--and of his life, as he deserves.

Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard--the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money--the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law--men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims--then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion--when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing--when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors--when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you--when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice--you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.'

When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world? You are.

You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood--money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves--slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers--as industrialists.

To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money--and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being--the self-made man--the American industrialist.

If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose--because it contains all the others--the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-- as, I think, he will.

Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other--and your time is running out."

- Francisco d' Anconia, Atlas Shrugged



#25 Alex Libman

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 29 April 2010 - 05:33 AM

I think I need to emphasize the fact that I WAS WRONG. IP might not have any documented competitive advantages in a world that achieves stability and wide-spread recognition of all other Natural Rights, but it has definite benefits in a world where some societies recognize Natural Rights more than others, in that it ensures the bad societies collapse more quickly.

Ayn Rand was very much motivated by limiting trickle-down benefits lest the commies get it, and she was right: the only thing that kept the Soviet Union economically afloat for so long, aside from the empire they inherited from the Czar and prison labor on a massive scale, are ideas they've imported from the West.

I've lived in Moscow for the first 10 years of my life and had all the commie propaganda forced down my throat, but I still can't think of a single accomplishment that the Soviet economy achieved on its own. Even being able to conquer brains from Germany / Eastern Europe and throw massive amounts of stolen capital at getting the space program off the ground wasn't much of an accomplishment - Americans were able to leapfrog them as soon as they got the political will to invest that much capital into what at the time clearly had no commercial benefits.

I've always been on the fence on the issue of intellectual property, but I always leaned on the side of not recognizing it, in part due to my long-term bias that ignores the present-day realities of the American government being, by far, not the greatest evil that exists in the world today. That's why IP is justifiable on the same grounds why American military spending is justifiable until it can be phased away gradually, as the external threat fades away first.

So remember kids - when you contribute to open source software, you contribute to Hugo Chavez's prisoner database mainframes! When you BitTorrent pirated software, you upload to Kim Jong-il!

Edited by Alex Libman, 29 April 2010 - 05:51 AM.


#26 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 29 April 2010 - 08:23 AM

I've read the money speech... it's a good one, but not sure how it's related to this.

There is a scarcity. The differential between your state of owning the product of your labor that you have earned, and the state of someone else who has not labored to produce that product (or labored to produce something else which they can trade) and therefore does not own. That's the whole point of money. See the money speech below.


Ownership does not require that you labored to produce something. I can buy a car and own it without having built it myself. The ownership in this case applies to scarce resources being voluntarily traded -- money and a car.

If I could magically wave my finger and create a car just like yours from nothing, how could you say my magical copy also belongs to you?

#27 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 29 April 2010 - 11:26 AM

I've read the money speech... it's a good one, but not sure how it's related to this.

There is a scarcity. The differential between your state of owning the product of your labor that you have earned, and the state of someone else who has not labored to produce that product (or labored to produce something else which they can trade) and therefore does not own. That's the whole point of money. See the money speech below.


Ownership does not require that you labored to produce something. I can buy a car and own it without having built it myself. The ownership in this case applies to scarce resources being voluntarily traded -- money and a car.

If I could magically wave my finger and create a car just like yours from nothing, how could you say my magical copy also belongs to you?

Because you didn't create it from nothing. You copied it. You didn't earn the right to that design by laboring to produce it like its creator did and therefore you have no right to own that design.

(I'm assuming the constituent matter is from your privately owned nano-machine feedstock so you can keep that :p)

#28 wydell

  • Guest
  • 503 posts
  • -1

Posted 29 April 2010 - 01:58 PM

Reverse engineering is legal in many instances. From a moral or ethical perspective, you should realize that almost every work is probably based upon the work of another in part. There is hardly any work that is entirely original. Each work is derived from studying the works and body of knowledge that come before it in some form or fashion. If an individual was not allowed to learn from the works of others, our technological development would be stymied. Perhaps we would still be in the stone ages.

Of course, inventors may be rewarded for their contributions with patents or copyrights, but those are not absolute rights. They have time limits and they generally don't prevent learning, though in some ways they can. If you read a Stephen King story and discover that he has a certain writing style, you are free to emulate it.
Likewise, if you use or study a patented invention, and through it's use, you find an alternative way to accomplish the same goal without violating the patent, you're free to do it.

If an inventor does not want someone to learn from his work, he can try to use reverse engineering contractual restrictions, which may or may not be enforceable in various jurisdictions, or he may attempt to hold his work as a trade secret. If one widely disseminates their work without confidentiality agreements, in most instances, trade secret protection will not be available.


Starting at this part:

Some Problems with Natural Rights

One problem with the creation-based approach is that it almost invariably protects only certain types of creations—unless, that is, every single useful idea one comes up with is subject to ownership (more on this below). But the distinction between the protectable and the unprotectable is necessarily arbitrary.

--

I will tell you my thoughts on this problem, I agree with Rand that one owns the products of their labor as much as their own life. However the thing is, just because something is intangible or non-scarce doesn't mean that ownership is not possible (as this paper concludes), only that exclusive ownership is not guaranteed. Someone else can earn that same idea as much as you did. And that is the non-arbitrary standard which makes it work.

If you make a movie, you have exclusive ownership of that movie and nobody else can simply take it from you. However if someone else makes that exact same movie -- and I mean without stealing or copying your work but actually honestly laboring to produce it fully and earning the product of their labor -- they have just as much ownership of what they have produced as you do.


Where does R&D fit in to this. Reverse engineering can be a very simple in comparison to creation of an innovative and useful product. Should there be enforcement ensuring "a temporary privilege awarded to authors not for their own benefit, but for the purpose of maximizing total creative output for the benefit of the consumer"? If not, will it be self-defeating? Did the reverse engineering person really earn that idea to a similar extent as the creator? For example, if it takes 6 years of R&D to create a molecule for a specific purpose and a month to replicate and produce it?

There are two ways to go about protecting your work to ensure that you earn the product of your work, the creator can have the burden of protecting his work or an enforced social contract can be made. With advances in technology, the ability for the creator to protect his work and earn the product of his work is becoming more and more limited.

Reverse engineering is the same thing as copying which is the same thing as stealing, which means you didn't earn it and therefore you don't own it. You are violating the creator's property rights.


Edited by wydell, 29 April 2010 - 02:01 PM.


#29 donjoe

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 3

Posted 29 April 2010 - 02:01 PM

With advances in technology, the ability for the creator to protect his work and earn the product of his work is becoming more and more limited.

If we had tech-progressive economists leading us, they'd ensure that the same advances in technology make it less and less a necessity to earn money from one's work. When you're beyond survival and some degree of comfort, there's barely any justification left for asking people to pay you for something you would do anyway out of sheer pleasure and passion.

#30 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 29 April 2010 - 02:27 PM

Because you didn't create it from nothing. You copied it. You didn't earn the right to that design by laboring to produce it like its creator did and therefore you have no right to own that design.


I understand what you're saying, but what I'm asking is why do you connect ownership with labor? I can give you several counterexamples that disconnect the two.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users