Discussion of the legitimacy of Intellectual Property

[level.eleven]

The key point - which was supposed to be obvious in the analogy - is that the rock has no value, whereas the IP may have enormous value.

I thought the rock was the IP. I guess I misread. My bad.

 

[dross]

Is copying theft? If I steal from you, you are down 1. If I copy something from you, there are now 2 in existance and you still have yours. I believe in copyright law because it exists, but I do not agree with the theory.

I will also readily admit that IP is not an area of particular interest to me. I envision myself getting in way over my head here and looking like a fool when I am not able to accurately argue my position. I will also contend that much of my research, haven't really done any for years, comes from market based entities and economists. Needless to say, it is biased towards IP as legal scab on the free market. It simply isn't an area that I am well versed in or have a strong, well thought-out argument either for of against.

If you buy a book from me and then copy it and keep that copy in your house, I guess I wouldn't necessarily call that stealing. If however, you copy my book and sell it, you are stealing the money I can make for selling something that is mine. Again, it's not the words, the paper, or even the book they are buying from me, it's my unique arrangement of words. That's the part that belongs to me.

As to you not being versed in this issue, neither am I. I'm just answering your comments.

 

[jsgolfman]

The issue, level, is one where there are those who argue there is no difference between tangible and intellectual property and those who argue the opposite. Your example of copying is appropriate. What is the definition of theft? Must it include the deprivation of an article on the part of one party by another party?

 

[dross]

I thought the rock was the IP. I guess I misread. My bad.

The rock is only the IP in that analogy for the purposes of absurd comparison. It's saying that someone is treating a thing of value as if it were a thing with no value.

 

[smoking357]

Again, it's not the words, the paper, or even the book they are buying from me, it's my unique arrangement of words. That's the part that belongs to me.

The argument goes: "But how can you prevent another from having an idea?"

 

[jsgolfman]

Dross, but you haven't been deprived of your book. Are you now claiming the right to tell me how to use/dispose of my property (since I purchased your book)? Can you really claim a unique arrangement of words as your property?

 

[smoking357]

The issue, level, is one where there are those who argue there is no difference between tangible and intellectual property

Define your terms, please. Show proof of categories.

 

[dross]

The argument goes: "But how can you prevent another from having an idea?"

Please expand on this question's relevancy to my statement.

 

[smoking357]

Dross, but you haven't been deprived of your book.

Yes, he has. He had the only one in the world. Now, he doesn't. The bare reproduction has diminished the nature of his book.

 

[jsgolfman]

Define your terms, please. Show proof of categories.

You alleged wholesale theft. Theft consists of deprivation of property. How else can you be deprived of property unless it is tangible? Thus, IP=tangilbe to you. Are you stating you can be deprived of an idea?

 

[smoking357]

Please expand on this question's relevancy to my statement.

Grumble. Being laconic is part of Philosophy. If you think up a pump or a poem, it's an idea, only an idea. You propose to bar other people from having certain thoughts. How can you bar what other people think?

 

[jsgolfman]

Yes, he has. He had the only one in the world. Now, he doesn't. The bare reproduction has diminished the nature of his book.

The nature of his book is irrelevant to deprivation, he still has his book.

 

[dross]

Dross, but you haven't been deprived of your book. Are you now claiming the right to tell me how to use/dispose of my property (since I purchased your book)? Can you really claim a unique arrangement of words as your property?

I've been deprived of the right to dispose of my unique arrangement of words in the way I wish.

Yes, I think I can claim a unique arrangement of words as my property. The value is not in an individual book, nor is it in the words themselves, which are free. It is MY arrangement of the words that makes that ARRANGEMENT mine. Books themselves (arrangements of words on pages) are not mine, nor are the words. All that is mine is the arrangement. You can sell all the books you want, you just can't sell MY arrangement of words in those books.

 

[smoking357]

How else can you be deprived of property unless it is tangible?

Whoa, Nellie, that's a whopper of a circular argument.

You're presuming the nature of the property, and you're being asked to justify your premises.

Say you held a beautiful thought in your mind that you recalled whenever you wished and it brought you great joy. Your life was better for this thought. Say I had a thought stealer and I deleted this thought from your mind. Would you consider yourself harmed? If I were contracted to delete some thoughts from your mind and I deleted this one, by accident, would you have a claim against me?

Now, don't laugh, kids. This is how Philosophy is done.

 

[smoking357]

I've been deprived of the right to dispose of my unique arrangement of words in the way I wish.

Yes, I think I can claim a unique arrangement of words as my property. The value is not in an individual book, nor is it in the words themselves, which are free. It is MY arrangement of the words that makes that ARRANGEMENT mine. Books themselves (arrangements of words on pages) are not mine, nor are the words. All that is mine is the arrangement. You can sell all the books you want, you just can't sell MY arrangement of words in those books.

I'll gladly buy a Van Gogh for the paint and canvas value.

 

[smoking357]

The nature of his book is irrelevant to deprivation, he still has his book.

No, he doesn't. Before you created your copy, his book was described with certain attributes, among them, uniqueness. "His book" now has less attributes than before you made your copy.

 

[jsgolfman]

How can you determine that you came up with that arrangement of words first? What monetary recompense has been deprived? Perhaps you would not sell one copy of your book, as it had a red cover, where mine sells 1000 copies due to its blue cover.

 

[jsgolfman]

Whoa, Nellie, that's a whopper of a circular argument.

You're presuming the nature of the property, and you're being asked to justify your premises.

Say you held a beautiful thought in your mind that you recalled whenever you wished and it brought you great joy. Your life was better for this thought. Say I had a thought stealer and I deleted this thought from your mind. Would you consider yourself harmed? If I were contracted to delete some thoughts from your mind and I deleted this one, by accident, would you have a claim against me?

Now, don't laugh, kids. This is how Philosophy is done.

Of course I wouldn't have a claim, you're not a walrus.

 

[jsgolfman]

No, he doesn't. Before you created your copy, his book was described with certain attributes, among them, uniqueness. "His book" now has less attributes than before you made your copy.

Again, his enjoyment of the book is irrelevant to whether he has it or not. Are you now claiming his enjoyment is property as well?

 

[smoking357]

How can you determine that you came up with that arrangement of words first?

Let the aggrieved come forward and demand recompense of me.

What monetary recompense has been deprived?

How is that essential? If I commission a portriat of my wife, I don't want to see it on boxes of cake mix.

Perhaps you would not sell one copy of your book, as it had a red cover, where mine sells 1000 copies due to its blue cover.

Then sell your cover-selection services to the author. This is your economic contribution.