Stranger: If you were careless enough to leave your car on my property with the keys inside, of course I would be free to use it as I wish.
again you use material examples, which are not analogous to digital ones. By using your car, even if you leave keys in it, I am stopping YOU from using that car at the same time. By COPYing your data, however, I am not stopping you from using your own data at the same time. Here. It will be my last post in this thread because we are all going in circles.
If you want to use this “authorization” card, please, keep your data in your head so that no one can pick it up and re-cycle.
MaikU wrote the following post at Mon, Sep 6 2010 3:19 PM:
again you use material examples, which are not analogous to digital ones. By using your car, even if you leave keys in it, I am stopping YOU from using that car at the same time. By COPYing your data, however, I am not stopping you from using your own data at the same time. Here. It will be my last post in this thread because we are all going in circles.
So if that is the case, then you can just hitch a ride in my car whenever you want, since you are not stopping me from driving it around. I of course cannot complain since you are not making a rival use of it.
I am using material analogies because there is no reason not to. Materialiaty has nothing to do with property.
An information pattern cannot be used in only one way at any given time. The number of simultaneous uses it can accommodate is infinite.
Now with that said, I see no problem with you nevertheless trying to prevent people from copying your movie “Avatar” (nice to see you with us, Mr. Cameron ) by requiring contractual agreement over permitted uses thereof, technological constraints on copying, etc. These things do not infringe upon the persons or property of others. Please note, however, that such contractual agreements cannot be enforced upon third parties (by definition).
You’ve subsequently made other statements to essentially the same point, so I won’t quote them here. For now, I think I can cover all of them by asking you this: where does the “movie-pattern” exist?
Also, you continue to draw upon what you call “the classical Austrian-economic theory of property” in your counter-arguments, which apparently (allegedly?) is based upon “production”. Even first appropriation or “homesteading” is a form of production, in your view. However, I think that introduces a flaw in your theory of property. If homesteading is a form of production, as you say, then I think you’d have to agree that I could homestead another person’s head by cutting it off and taking it. After all, my swinging of my sword or axe at your neck is a more labor-intensive process than, say, dropping a seed into the ground.
Here’s another example. It can be said that mothers “produce” their children. Based on your theory of property, as far as I understand it, I think you’d have to consider those children to be the property of their mothers. Note that this is also a more labor-intensive process (pun intended!) than seed-dropping.
Finally, let me note that you seem to be appealing both to tradition and authority (i.e. committing two logical fallacies at once) by your invocations to “the classical Austrian-economic theory of property”. None of us is obligated to adhere to this theory, nor to treat it as set in stone.
By the way, Adam Knott, did you see my latest response to you?
By the way, Adam Knott, did you see my latest response to you?
I wanted to send my reply by private message, but I didn’t see an e-mail or private message link on your forum page.
This discussion is way over my head. Props for such a thought provoking argument!
I have a few comments though I have not seen adequately addressed. Why would a business dedicate millions/billions of dollars in resources developing an idea or pattern, perhaps medicine, a movie, an oil drilling method, etc, if a competing business can use this idea against them for free, specifically for profit? Wouldn’t this stifle innovation if no one was willing to dedicate the resources to innovate? I guess the main question would be, Without IP protection, how would idea development work? And, would the pace of innovation be faster or slower? What is the alternative to no-IP?
It seems to me that the main issue with IP is using someone’s idea, patterns, for profit. Because labor hours and capital was used in the development of the idea, doesn’t the idea have monetary value?
With medicine, could it be argured that Merck would still be able to sell x drug well because they are a name brand? I’ve seen people shun unpopular brands, store brands, generic drugs because of perceived flaws in the product, (taste, quality, potency, trust). But, if a generic becomes popular, they are in a better position to offer a better product/support, etc because they did not have to spend their money on developing the idea. Do these companies even make their medicine formula common knowlede or is it forced by government?
I personally side on ani-ip. These are questions that came up that I have not seen convicninly addressed. Just saying that companies have to innovate or die seems like an incomplete arguement.
Would we seem a trend towards trade secrets, like Mcdonalds fries. Special sauce, KFC chicken.
Nope. But lets say it did somehow arbitrarily demand a value(LTV?). What value would that be? By what measurement is used to detirmine its value? What would it be worth?
Wibee wrote the following post at Tue, Sep 7 2010 3:34 AM:
This discussion is way over my head. Props for such a thought provoking argument!
I have a few comments though I have not seen adequately addressed. Why would a business dedicate millions/billions of dollars in resources developing an idea or pattern, perhaps medicine, a movie, an oil drilling method, etc, if a competing business can use this idea against them for free, specifically for profit?
They wouldn’t, much like no one would go prospecting for oil if they could not own the fields they discovered. Property exists to make production possible.
Autolykos wrote the following post at Tue, Sep 7 2010 2:08 AM:
Here’s another example. It can be said that mothers “produce” their children. Based on your theory of property, as far as I understand it, I think you’d have to consider those children to be the property of their mothers.
That’s a reasonable outcome of the appropriation process - who besides a mother, and the man she entered into a marriage contract with, should own a child?
I think the protection given (or at least claimed) by current IP law can be approximated through certain contractual arrangements. For example, a contract can stipulate that no reverse engineering shall be done. Another example is a stipulation that the seller reserves the right to make (additional) copies.
These would presumably be enforced by courts, arbitration, etc. as with other legitimate contractual arrangements. Indeed, there could even come to be standardized licensing products here, just as with anti-IP licensing.
My (non-expert) understanding of patent law is that the content of the patent is made public record after the patent expires, if not before. With that said, I’m not sure why pharmaceutical companies such as Merck don’t simply declare their drug formulas to be trade secrets, as those can be protected far longer than patents can. Perhaps the government somehow stops them from doing this.
I think more varied business models would come to be followed. For example, R&D costs may be borne out by a consortium of companies that would all be able to sell the product(s) in question. Or the R&D could be farmed out to independent groups. The companies could also choose to expand product sales in order to better subsidize the R&D. In the case of pharmaceuticals, there are other factors which make things more complicated.
Hope this helps!
I don’t see the logic. So your saying entrepreneurial discovery, and market exploration would stop all together without IP? That if consumers wanted WidgetXYZ, no one would produce and provide it for them?
It sounds like your saying that market discovery occurs only because of IP.
It’s amazing to me that you cannot see the protection racket that is, IP. Your desperation to treat intangible concepts the same as if they were tangible objects is mind boggling.
According to Rothbard, come contracts are binding and some are not. Like for example, the promise of being married. Even if contracts were not legally binding, the reputation harm in breaking it may be very damaging.
What bugs me is that it seems like human nature to feel a type of ownership to an idea. Stemming from youth, when a kid at the playground steals your idea. You are genuinely hurt.
One could also say being envious is human nature as well. And people get mad when they dont get what they want. But that does not make it right.
What?
I think what you’re referring to is other people taking credit for our ideas. That is, they claim that they came up with the idea, when in fact they didn’t.
filc wrote the following post at Tue, Sep 7 2010 4:31 AM:
I don’t see the logic. So your saying entrepreneurial discovery, and market exploration would stop all together without IP? That if consumers wanted WidgetXYZ, no one would produce and provide it for them?
It sounds like your saying that market discovery occurs only because of IP.
No, I am not saying that. You are idiotically confusing demand discovery with resource discovery.
Yea, taking credit. It seems like IP is an adult way of stopping that from happening. By taking credit, they get the spoils.
And you are idiotically confusing intangibles with scarce resources.
I find it humorous though that you never grow tired of calling me an idiot. Does wonders for your character.
If they discovered the oil on my property, they still don’t own the oil. They could choose not to tell me about the oil reserves on my property and buy the land from me. And thus the oil.
Stranger wrote the following post at Mon, Sep 6 2010 11:24 PM:
filc wrote the following post at Tue, Sep 7 2010 4:31 AM:
I don’t see the logic. So your saying entrepreneurial discovery, and market exploration would stop all together without IP? That if consumers wanted WidgetXYZ, no one would produce and provide it for them?
It sounds like your saying that market discovery occurs only because of IP.
No, I am not saying that. You are idiotically confusing demand discovery with resource discovery.
If Stranger is correct than it really makes no sense whatsoever then that we have multiple providers of cars, bicycles, toasters, ect… There should be a monopolist on each tangible good. The right to produce of course is owned by the original inventor. Clearly such an economic environment would be far superior. We would have rampant technological improvements in bicycles, cars, and toasters. Right? We’ve been doing it all wrong. If IP encourages economic growth, lets increase its effectiveness to it’s logical conclusion.
What I would do is patent the toaster. Then make the royalties as such to still allow the product to be cheap enough for production. Because even though I have the toaster patent, i do not have the resources to meet the toaster demand. That way I could make way more money than providing the service myself.