“What about people that lose money or don’t profit?”
I think he meant you have the right to profit or de-profit, and was describing profit much like acceleration; wherein you cant de-accelerate, it is simply negative acceleration. In this case it would be profit, and negative profit (or loss). In other words, “people have the right to SEEK profit.”
The Rev
actually something like ‘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?’ is a facepalm, since it shows you don’t believe cancer patients should derive any benefit from the knowledge of a cancer cure.
I think that is an intentionally misleading comment, “mincing words” if you will. Patients of course will benefit, why else develop the cure. The question is who has the right to make interest off its dissemination.
And not whether people should or should not disseminate the information freely, but who has the right to decide what to do with the theory, song, painting, sculpture, corporate logo, etc.
well, if you can go back and make Rev’s point without the confusions this thread would be all the better for it.
Haha. how can I make anyone’s point for them? Tho I did try earlier, if you see “people have the right to seek profit, in other words to recieve positive profit OR negative profit (loss).”
Using that as a basis, I believe he was asking, why he doesn’t (in your view) have the right to seek profit off his mental labors.
Why, in your view, should I be able to make and distribute “Wintendo Wii?”
Or Fuubuu (as it was put in a movie haha)
Why, in your view, should I be able to make and distribute “Wintendo Wii?”
why shouldn’t you? you certainly arent engaging in competition over something that is rival that belongs to another person, if you are rearranging your own physical property to instantiate some concept/pattern/idea that whoever knows it knows
oh look, it is this thread again.
P.S. I still love them evil laugh
haha, oh wow, quoted for truth.
Explain to me this, why does it’s rival status have anything to do with it being property or not?
if physical goods were non-rival there would be no conflict over their control. the talk of ‘property’ would never arise.
Which is what I was getting at when mentioning the labor theory of value. Profit doesn’t come from labor. Profit is gain - cost. Profit is a result of exchange or exchanges, not of labor in and of itself. People should be free to exchange. IP limits people in their choices in making exchanges. If A and B wish to make an exchange, why should an outside party, C, have the right to decide if this is ok? That would be because of intellectual property laws. In that case, physical property transfer is barred because they are infringing on C’s property rights. Likewise, if someone learned something that was intellectual property, and they were to use it to change one of their own goods for their own use, they could still be breaking that law. Since they are breaking that law, intellectual property once again trumps physical property rights. But doesn’t A have the right to profit from their labor? Don’t A and B each have a right to profit from their labourous exchange?
But why is it that so many ideas aren’t protected by these property rights? Does the constant, immutable, form of an idea all of a sudden become free for everyone to use? I guess it depends on whether or not the legal system supports it.
IMO, homesteading and physical property rights have a much more solid foundation in philosophy than do Intellectual property rights. IP assumes that an idea is like one of plato’s forms, thus rejecting the idea that ideas can be slightly different from mind to mind. (Perspectivism)
By “life” do you mean “body”?
What do you mean by “you have the right to own that value”? How is “value” ownable? Do you mean to say that if someone values a cancer cure over a set of Legos, the inventor of the cancer cure now owns the subjective valuation of that someone?
You are implying that the cancer patient cannot benefit from the value of the cancer cure. Then what would be the purpose of the having the right to profit from the cancer cure?
At this point, I don’t what you mean by “profit” nor “value”. Please define them. Also, when you say “cure for cancer”, do you mean something physical like a drug or an abstraction like a formula?
Why?
Why? And, also, there is. Suggest you read Stephan Kinsella.
“if physical goods were non-rival there would be no conflict over their control. the talk of ‘property’ would never arise”
Then why do people argue for IP rights, as they are non-rival. I still fail to see how its rival status has anything to do with the ownership of it. A created it, it is A’s.
Profit doesn’t come from labor. Profit is gain - cost. Profit is a result of exchange or exchanges
And the cost of those exchanges are most often, if not always, based on the labor put into the making of the product, whether by the first worker/s or by the merchant himself in finding/aquiring it. (no that is not an opening to attack me for anti-profitry, you would be wrong)
If A and B wish to make an exchange, why should an outside party, C, have the right to decide if this is ok?
In IP you can exchange those things if they were placed in the public sphere. You just can’t make a profit off someone else’s IP without their permission. I can give you 5 tickets to a Laker’s game, but I can’t charge you more than I paid for them. You can play Blackbird all you want, but you can’t try to sell it as your own without the permission of the Beatle’s (for a period of time before which it reverts back to the public domain as there is none to claim ownership of it left alive.)
Then why do people argue for IP rights, as they are non-rival.
its precisely because they argue for payment in real rival goods they are not asking to be supplied with non-rival things.
Many times the only profit wanted is recognition, and not monetary.
again you confuse attribution with property rights.
but if you pursue this line, of accepting that ‘gains in real rival goods’ are not the issue, but mere ‘recognition’ is the important thing, it amounts to a mere exercise in vanity, a fetish for ‘being acknowledged’
I have asked multiple times for someone to elaborate on this concept of attribution, yet noone has taken up my request. The wiki answer was short, and did not contradict the idea that one can have intellectual property.
Perhaps the hang up is I don’t see the difference between attribution and property in IP terms.
elaborate on the concept? attribution is ‘who did what’, what are you asking for?
I don’t see the difference between attribution and property in IP terms.
i dont understand how you can say that you don’t differentiate between attribution for the genesis of some idea/pattern/concept on the one hand and ‘claims over rival goods that instantiate some idea/pattern/concept’ when you explicitly said just a post before that its not about the claims to the rival goods that instantiate the idea, but attribution that bothers you. it would seem you do see a difference !