Jack,
Is IP property? If so, what qualities of property do you feel it meets in order to be classed so?
so you think there arent breaches of contract if one party doesnt know/realise the other party transgressed?
Would you deny that the specific ideas that you have in your head are property? And that removal of the idea would be a violation of your property?
No, the contract is void, since ownership of my mind, the “good” the contract concerns and what is effectively being transferred to you, is a prerequisite for me signing the contract. It’s contradictory.
What?
yes, ideas arent property.
is there a way to remove ideas? a way of doing it without hurting my brain?
ouch, that guy must have trespassed on some property.
j/k
He trespassed on non-property, and a statist authoritarian went all gangsta on him.
There will be literal breaches of contract, but that only gives the other members of the contract the right to bring complaint of not fulfilling the terms of the contract. In this manner, legal view on the fulfilment of the contract is relative to the individual parties after literal breach has ocurred.
I am creating an imaginary construct. But, correct me if I am wrong, you just said that if I clear your mind of all ideas (without physical trespass) I am not guilty of agression of property, since (as you have said) ideas are not property.
My specific idea in my head is my property, your specific idea in your head is property. Ideas are not always non-scarce, they are not floating in some nether-region waiting to be grabbed. They originate in the mind of the individual. At this point that idea is my own, i own it. I can now go and disseminate this idea but create contract limiting other parties on how they will use this information.
Serves him right…
After a few days away from this, I have to jump back in real quick. A = A. LS keeps up this mantra, which he takes from Rand, whom he doesnt like. Thats cute, but beside the point. A = A. You say a contract cannot control my thoughts, nor place limits on them. But a contract can control my actions, or place limits upon them. IE, you say I can sign a contract to not eat an apple, but not a contract to not copy your book and sell it as my own. Now a equaling a, the brain function that controls my physical actions is exactly identical to the brain function that controls my mind. Electrons firing in neurons. There is absolutely no difference, because as the proponents of COPYRIGHT (screw this IP word, we want copyright, which is currently under the IP umbrella) have pointed out time and time again, only to be ignored b/c you were too busy wasting time arguing with max, copyright is nothing but a contract that limits physical action. Not your thoughts. I do not presume to tell you that you cannot come up with cold fusion the same time I do. But I do presume that we can contractually declare that you cannot produce cold fusion after I show you how its done. We’re not limiting your mind, but your actions. If Jack Chan from Nicaragua comes up with the same idea as me, let the market sort out who is more effecient in their implemintation. If you walk into my fusion plant and learn how it works, and before you entered you signed a contract saying you will not use anything you see in the production of cold fusion, then you cannot go build your own plant. The solution to this is simple for books and software as well. There is a ELA that comes up before you use your software (sound familiar?) that lets you know that you may not reproduce anything within it for yourself, and may not sell it to someone else unless they agree to the same contract. This limits not your mind, but your actions.
It seems your only argument is truely cocurrent discoveries. We’re talking about I create cold fusion, and you steal the plans from me. If this is how the world works in your society, why would I ever let cold fusion out of my head? Sure, someday someone might come up with it. But personally, I’d rather watch the world burn than let my great discovery be owned by anyone who can d/l it from piratebay.
Strawman.
Let’s assume you can do this. Do you plan to contract with every working mind in the world? Of course not. Which is why you rely on state enforcement via social contract. There is no way for you to guarantee you can meet every single individual’s price to agree not to consider cold fusion, and thus use the state to subsidize the cost of negotiating your own contract, by forcing it on everyone by law.
Then you have not read closely. IP is not property, and thus it is not subject to ownership. I can contract you to take a certain route to work everyday, but that doesn’t mean I “own” the directions, and no one else can travel that same path without my permission. Btw, there seems to be an underlying assumption here that everyone will be able to contract. Obviously, if I’m going to agree to get your secret, even if I must keep it secret, there must be something I gain. With subjective value, this will be different for everyone. But it is an additional overhead cost that free ideas won’t have to bear.
In some circumstances, it might be profitable, but as information becomes easier to come by, people will just work around for a cheap solution than trying to steal yours, or necessarily paying your high price. That’s just an observation I have from watching the digital revolution. The push is to get to market first (spurring innovation) not trying to maintain monopoly control, hemorrhaging cashflow trying to hide your product and thus limiting your revenue.
Which is precisely why we shouldn’t have IP. Where bitter people seek to hold back the ability of other people to solve problems, that claim to have a monpoly on the answers for. If your discovery was the cure for cancer, could you rationalize holding it back out of spite, and limiting anyone else from discovering your solution?
Rand was wrong on a lot of important things. Like that a state is compatible with or necessary for liberty. But she had some good stuff too.
But the pro-state position contradicts everything else she stood for. It’s irrational.
I agree with every word JParker just wrote.
So are ideas unique or not? Is there any difference between an idea in your brain and the same idea in my brain?
You still didn’t answer the question about property. What defines property, and which of those qualities does IP have?
Did you or did you not agree that a contract where I sell you an apple upon the condition you not eat it was ok? Do I have to go pull the direct quote from you in this thread? And you are clearly saying that you can take a book I write and sell it as your own, as you dont believe that I can limit your ability to do so. Not strawmen, but summations of your entire position on this matter. If I must, I’ll dig back through the 18 pages of you stating exactly this.
And there is your huge logic gap. You’re somehow assuming that if I discover cold fusion, it is instantly in the public domain? How, if every person who ever stepped foot in my plant, including those who constructed it, is under contract to not disclose to anyone the method used, nor create their own plant using my method, am I controlling “every working mind in the world”. My method is not known to the working mind. It is not released, it is not common knowledge, because I protected it via contract.
Keep repeating your mantra without refuting my point. Cold fusion is not directions to work. It is not in the public domain. I can protect it via contract to never enter the public domain. If someone else discovers it independently, then good for them. But unless they do, it is mine and mine alone.
You’d rather I give up my mind to better society? You, who scream social contract and socialism at every turn, just told me that I should give up the profits I could create via my cure for cancer, presumably because it is for the good of society. A = A. We are a selfish species intent on our personal survival. If I cannot profit from a cure for cancer, then why should I release it? I should, in fact, hold it back. More people die from cancer = less competition for scarce resources = better for me personally. Now, to turn a profit from it is better for me right now, as opposed to later. So time value/utility would suggest I’d rather profit now from my discovery than hope enough people die for me to profit later. But it is my choice. To call me “bitter” and say I hold it back “out of spite” is you putting your valuations of the well-being of others upon me. My mind is my own, and I can chose to not release its creations to the world if I cannot profit from doing so.
As to the last part, “limiting anyone else from discovering your solution”, where have I said this? No where. Not once did I say if someone independently discovered something or wrote the same song would there be an issue. So, to quote you, STRAWMAN.
Ideas are not always unique, I did not mean that I own the entire concept of the idea (just the one in my head). We can both posess the same idea, and we have equal property rights.
Before I answer the question on property, I would like to know your definition?
No. I’ve asked twice already. Plus, I’ve pretty much posted my definition, or the key parts relative to this discussion, at least a half dozen times to this thread already.
If you’re not going to answer, just say so.