intellectual property is ethically opposed to property rights. - Page 2

Too bad history, and at least US law, disagree with you. I guess I'm more an adherent to Massachusetts Justice Charles L. Woodbury, who wrote that "the labors of the mind, productions and interests are as much a man's own...as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears."|||Quote:








Too bad history, and at least US law, disagree with you.




I doubt you'll show me, but may I ask how?


Quote:




I guess I'm more an adherent to Massachusetts Justice Charles L. Woodbury, who wrote that "the labors of the mind, productions and interests are as much a man's own...as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears."




I can see that. In fact, I used that very example in my write-up. We obviously don't agree on the labor theory of value, but you haven't given me an argument for it, yet.



edit:

I mean, let's go with that example for a bit. Why does he own those wheat and flocks? Because he raised them?

If I invade your backyard, steal your tomato seeds, and start a garden, do I own the resulting "fruit of my labor" ? I do not, because I neither owned the backyard nor the seeds. In fact, I have committed trespassing and theft.

Similarly, it is because the farmer owned the land, the tools, the seeds that the resulting fruits of his labor belong to him. It is not because he tilled the land himself, perhaps he had a worker do the labor for a wage. It is because he owned the property in which the creative use of property (farming) was acted upon.

edit:

I mean, I've made an argument that the labor theory of value is wrong because labor is neither necessary nor adequate for property. Your only argument so far has been that it is. How is it necessary? How is it adequate?

Also, you have not responded to the questions on the post before. What constitutes as a violation of intellectual property? How do you decide. Even if we assert that a man does have a monopoly on the creative use of others' property, then why is this right limited?

Why is that a book's copyright lasts as long as the author's lifetime plus 75 years? Why not 74, or 2?|||So people are still trying to equate intellectual property to physical property, fail, and then conclude intellectual property is invalid? That intellectual property is not the same as physical property is pretty self-evident by the fact that they are governed by completely different laws. You don't stop owning your chair automatically after 20 years.



Try to be creative and come up with a thought that is original.|||You are making that claim that I do not have the right to receive compensation for something I create, on the grounds that it is "pre-owned property." It is not pre-owned, in fact, it did not previously exist. That is where the marble analogy falls far short. The marble existed in the ground before someone found it. A song, a novel, or an idea is not lying dormant in some field for someone to stumble upon. Until it is conceived, it does not exist and has not existed. It is brought into being purely through me - therefore, if it has value to anyone else, I have a right to receive compensation for it.

Some things have an amount of inherent value, not necessarily linked to scarcity. If I find a gadget in a store that will allow me to save $10 a week on my gas bill and will last exactly one year before running out of juice, it has an inherent value to me of $520. It may be available at a premium or a discount, but that doesn't change its inherent value.

Honestly, it sounds like you're a disgruntled former limewire user who's whining due to no longer being able to steal songs. The idea that intellectual property rights don't really exist didn't work out so well for them, or kaazaa, or napster, if I recall correctly.|||Quote:








So people are still trying to equate intellectual property to physical property, fail, and then conclude intellectual property is invalid? That intellectual property is not the same as physical property is pretty self-evident by the fact that they are governed by completely different laws. You don't stop owning your chair automatically after 20 years.



Try to be creative and come up with a thought that is original.




I am concluding that intellectual property is invalid because it violates physical property rights. It is a restriction on the creative use of others' property.|||Quote:








I am concluding that intellectual property is invalid because it violates physical property rights.




Nonsensical. You can reverse "intellectual" and "physical" in that sentence and it doesn't become any more false or true.

You can't invalidate a concept just because it is in conflict with another. Who decides what is more important?|||Quote:




You are making that claim that I do not have the right to receive compensation for something I create, on the grounds that it is "pre-owned property." It is not pre-owned, in fact, it did not previously exist. That is where the marble analogy falls far short. The marble existed in the ground before someone found it. A song, a novel, or an idea is not lying dormant in some field for someone to stumble upon. Until it is conceived, it does not exist and has not existed. It is brought into being purely through me - therefore, if it has value to anyone else, I have a right to receive compensation for it.




This isn't my argument at all. My point is that the marble was owned by someone else, so my acting upon it does not validate my ownership of it.

In an alternative example, if I both own a block of marble and sculpt it, the resulting statue is my own. Does this mean that had I not sculpted it, I would not own it? No. It means that I wouldn't have been able to sell it, because it's only a block of marble.

But if I use my property to create a light blub, and somebody sees my design, why can't they use their property to create their own light bulb? Why should I be able to restrict their use of that property for 20 years or whatever so that I make a profit?

And for how long? Why 20, and not 21?|||Quote:








Nonsensical. You can reverse "intellectual" and "physical" in that sentence and it doesn't become any more false or true.




It does, though. Intellectual property does not protect property; it protects the use of property in a specific way. That means a competitor could not develop a light bulb independently, because I've already claimed the patent on it.|||Quote:










But if I use my property to create a light blub, and somebody sees my design, why can't they use their property to create their own light bulb? Why should I be able to restrict their use of that property for 20 years or whatever so that I make a profit?





For the third time, to motivate the creator. That's what the drafters of the US Constitution had in mind, anyway, and I happen to agree with them. (And the Constitution.)

Article One, Section Eight: "The Congress shall have Power To . . . promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Why do you hate the US Constitution?|||Quote:








For the third time, to motivate the creator. That's what the drafters of the US Constitution had in mind, anyway, and I happen to agree with them. (And the Constitution.)

Article One, Section Eight: "The Congress shall have Power To . . . promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Why do you hate the US Constitution?




Do you also support slavery?

Contrary to popular belief, the constitution IS wrong in places.

Read Jefferson on the issue. And look at Locke on it. They were both queasy on the issue, and Locke never meant for his first occupier homestead rule to be applied to ideas.

Now, instead of insulting me, can you please answer my questions? How is labor sufficient or necessary for property rights?

How long, and to what extent, should copyrights be established?