they are mine as much as they are yours, there is no conflict, their cannot be if they are not-rival.
you seem to believe that you have a positive right to the market value of your property
not so, you have a right to own property that you own. if you want to attempt a trade and get something in exchange for what you own you are free to make the attempt. my having knowledge of the same knowledge does not prohibit you of making an offer to share what you know. it is absurd to claim that the effect oof my actions which leave the condition of what you own untarnished. the market price of your product is not something you ‘own’ or ‘have a right to’ it is as absurd as claiming that someone has stolen from you when they outcompete you in any business venture. outcompeting someone in business is legitimate given that the competitor does not deprive the other of his rightful property, the competitor still has whatever product he has to try to sell, he must simply accept a lower price for it if he is to make his sales.
If you don’t want somebody to copy your ideas, then just keep them to yourself.
You have to seriously consider the logical implications of IP when followed to its natural conclusions.
What separates our current state of affairs from the comic absurdity of not being able to speak, hum some tune, or comb our hair is the complete arbitrary criterions and definitions that governments have invented out of thin air with the help of endless industry lobbyists, as well as the impractibility of enforcement.
But anyway, even though I agree with the anti-IP camp about ideas not being scarce, some analogies about scarcity can still humorously “apply” to those boo-hooing about stolen ideas.
Let’s suppose you really DO have an idea in your hand. Isn’t it a better idea, then, to “keep it close”(Not tell anyone about it)? By telling other people, that’s the same thing as giving out your exclusive ultra-secret patented utility knife to everybody you meet. It’s tough luck for you if they use it.
"my having knowledge of the same knowledge does not prohibit you of making an offer to share what you know"
Let us suppose while Copernicus was working on “On the Revolutions” and his assistant took what he had done so far, without Copernicus’ knowledge or permission, published it as his own, and gave Copernicus no credit. Would not Copernicus have the right to sue his assistant for taking his idea against his permission?
I still fail to see how its rival-ability has any effect on it whatsoever. It would still be Copernicus’ original idea. You can sell your own heliocentric theory, but not based off the same research with the same conclusion and “heart” of the idea. You can sell your own lemonade, but I cannot take the same exact recipe and company logo and sell it as my own (if you have patented this design).
I don’t neccesarily see Napster as a violation of IP rights. But if someone were to play a Metallica song and call it their own, I would. I think plagerism is a little worse than harmless mockery.
Are we now talking about copyright or attribution? Attribution is something I could imagine being somewhat well-enforced in certain situations in a natural order society. Copyright, much less so.
Are we now talking about copyright or attribution? Attribution is something I could imagine being somewhat well-enforced in certain situations in a natural order society. Copyright, much less so.
Copyright originally, the poster violated it, then tried to rationalize the seeming contradiction with attribution.
Not in any way. Just as Nir said that ideas are non-rival, I can have the same idea as you at the same time. Your intellectual property right isn’t in the idea itself, it is in the right to call the idea “your” idea.
Perhaps you would like to elaborate on the concept of attribution. As has been previously stated, I in no way consider myself an expert. We can come to a reasobable conclusion (even if it is to agree to disagree) without the need for petty ridicule, and general snobbery.
Not in any way. Just as Nir said that ideas are non-rival, I can have the same idea as you at the same time. Your intellectual property right isn’t in the idea itself, it is in the right to call the idea “your” idea.
So, you don’t believe in IP and copyright, just the right to call it yours? That seems pretty useless as far as rights go.
If I take your cow out of your field, it’s OK as long as I brand it with your brand? Maybe I’ll have a barn with a big sign that says “Other People’s Cows”. It’s OK then, right?
The point of my real property examples using your rules is to highlight the absurdity of pro-IP claims. If you have to create a million rules and exceptions for one class of property that aren’t needed for any of the others it’s a pretty good sign you’re on the wrong track. As was said previously, the only reason we don’t see such comic absurdity is because the government has created and continues to enforce a long list of such rules.
You aren’t even talking about property at this point. You’re talking about committing fraud and attempting to use potential fraud as a justification for IP. This is a far cry from your original statements on originators having a right to profit.
I’m not trying to be mean when I say this, but I think you started with the premise “I like IP” (presumably because you want government protection for your own industry in order to boost your profits), and are only later trying to justify it in any way possible.
I extrapolate the right to profit from the right one has to ownership of one’s own life. If you own your own life, you are free to do as you wish with that life, so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. You are also responsible for the consequences of your actions. If this means that your actions cause harm, you must make amends. If your actions create value, on the other hand, you have a right to own that value, just as you “own” your mistakes.
If, by my actions, a formula for a cure for cancer comes into being, I should be the one to benefit from all the value that comes from that, shouldn’t I? This is what seems reasonable to me. On the other hand, I’m not one to say that Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, and the rest are therefore wrong, so I figure I must be missing something. The only argument I’ve seen so far, tho, is that ideas, being intangible, can therefore not be property, and that seems weak to me. There has to be more to the anti-IP argument than that.
You are free to do as you wish as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.
So everyone has a right to profit? What about people that lose money or don’t profit? How do we guarantee them profit? Then what’s the point of being efficient or economically profitable if you “have the right to it” anyways? If a monopolist were to face competition by a new competitor in the market, would the competitor be infringing on the right for the monopolist to profit?
I think the problem here is that people still cling to the labor theory of value. The problem is, an idea that is thought up can be useful to one person (valuable) and useless to another.
Sure it gets convoluted if you bring up an unrelated analogy (and then extrapolate that I want a government to murder people to enforce my views.. a favorite tool amongst many members of this forum. Plz don’t do that :D)
It would be more like if I put a sign on my field that said “free cows, but their meat must be sold under my company logo.” I didn’t say “I like IP rights,” I said “I think people have a right to the creations of their own mind, just as they have a right to the creations of their hands.”
Killing is against the law.
But if someone tries to rob me I may have to kill them.
Was I justified in doing so? Did I use excessive force? Perhaps I could have gone with just one less punch, he seemed pretty knocked out. But I put him down once, he just kept coming.
All laws get convoluted in hypotheticals, that is the nature of law.