It does, though. Intellectual property does not protect property; it protects the use of property in a specific way.
Are you equivocating on purpose or are you unknowingly falling back to the old mistake again? Intellectual property rights do not protect physical property and claiming so does not invalidate intellectual property as such.|||Quote:
Are you equivocating on purpose or are you unknowingly falling back to the old mistake again? Intellectual property rights do not protect physical property and claiming so does not invalidate intellectual property as such.
I didn't say that it invalidates intellectual property because it does not protect physical property.
I said that it invalidates intellectual property because it restricts the USE of previously homestead physical property.
They are essentially laws which dictate the use of other's property.|||Quote:
I said that it invalidates intellectual property because it restricts the USE of previously homestead physical property.
So if there is a law that prevents me from hitting you with my own baseball bat, it's invalidated by physical property rights?|||Quote:
So if there is a law that prevents me from hitting you with my own baseball bat, it's invalidated by physical property rights?
I understand your point, but the two issues are different.
In intellectual property: My creative use of my property does not stop the creative use of your property. I am using my property as I see fit, without vandalizing, stealing, or otherwise excluding you from the use of yours.
Baseball bat: Your creative use of your baseball bat over my head has invaded the free use of my property; namely my body.
Murray Rothbard summarized all rights as property rights. The right for me to live, or for me not to get hit over the head with a bat, is because of the right of ownership I have over my own body.|||Quote:
Now, instead of insulting me, can you please answer my questions? How is labor sufficient or necessary for property rights?
Any child is fundamentally aware of this concept. A three-year old in the sandbox who builds a castle is going to be justifiably upset if someone else commandeers it. I hold this truth to be self-evident. Any artist whose song is stolen off limewire has the moral high ground.
Quote:
How long, and to what extent, should copyrights be established?
That's up to Congress, obviously. Go back and read the excerpt from the Constitution again. You know, the document also containing the thirteenth amendment: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
|||Quote:Any child is fundamentally aware of this concept. A three-year old in the sandbox who builds a castle is going to be justifiably upset if someone else commandeers it.
Upset, yes. But not justifiably.
Quote:
That's up to Congress, obviously. Go back and read the excerpt from the Constitution again. You know, the document also containing the thirteenth amendment: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
keyword: amendment|||ONYD, I don't know what you do for a living or for hobby, but the only people of sound mind that believe IP is invalid are either people who have never created anything at all, or have never created anything of any value to anyone else (and believe, usually subconsciously, that they never will). You can argue that certain laws to adjudicate time frames for limited or exclusive use for IPs are messed up or unfair or whatever, and many are, but to say that IP is a completely invalid concept is naive at best.
As Noodle has said over and over, without IP rights, there would be virtually no incentive to create anything new by anyone other than already established companies that have the power to make all the money they want out of it in ~6 months before their competitors all jump on it, dividing the profit pool into hundreds of slices. Even for them, why bother investing in creating anything when you can just make more of what already sells? As a nobody, no one would ever strive to create anything as more than loose hobby.
To find a logical equivalent to IP, I'd point at having a child. You are creating something brand new that would not have existed to just be stumbled upon in a field somewhere. You also have some say over this new creation, property rights of a sort, until they are 18. This has certain obvious flaws, but if you take out the fact that it is a new independent human being in it's own right and owns itself, it serves the purpose.
---
I find it funny how some aspects of economic libertarianism mirrors socialism/communism. By the standard of evidence used for political insults in this thread, should I start calling you guys 'comrades'?
(I'm being sarcastic, the point is that politics makes strange bedfellows and just because you share a belief with some other group does not make you part of that group.) [/political life-lesson]|||http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/bu...drug.html?_r=1Reversing a longstanding policy, the federal government said on Friday that human and other genes should not be eligible for patents because they are part of nature. The new position could have a huge impact on medicine and on the biotechnology industry.|||The problem with IP is that it doesn't need to be YOUR intellectual property, you just need to copyright/patent it first. Prior art can be difficult to prove. Then you get the other side of the coin when to get get sued because a new song sounds vaguely like and old one. "He's so fine" versus "My sweet lord" springs to mind, and for the Australians, the BS with "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree" and "Downunder".|||The whole "I thought of it first thing" is stupid, once enough background pieces are in place certain Ideas are sure to be independently conceived by a large number of people looking at them.
Also see Reverse Engineering.
I'm all for paying a price to the guy that gives me the answer to a question or protecting a inventors rights to a new product or process for a limited time but the time limits are getting too large IMHO.
7 years at most seems like about enough time to encourage innovation.
Copyrights should be limited as well, See
Melancholy Elephants
by Spider Robinson
Did you ever make up a tune or song?
"There are eighty-eight notes. One hundred and seventy-six, if your ear is good enough to pick out quarter tones. Add in rests and so forth, different time signatures. Pick a figure for maximum number of notes a melody can contain. I do not know the figure for the maximum possible number of melodies--too many variables--but I am sure it is quite high.
"I am certain that is not infinity.
"For one thing, a great many of those possible arrays of eighty-eight notes will not be perceived as music, as melody, by the human ear. Perhaps more than half. They will not be hummable, whistleable, listenable--some will be actively unpleasant to hear. Another large fraction will be so similar to each other as to be effectively identical: if you change three notes of the Moonlight Sonata, you have not created something new.
"I do not know the figure for the maximum number of discretely appreciable melodies, and again I'm certain it is quite high, and again I am certain that it is not infinity. "
Someone needs to write a program to output ever piece of Music possible and copyright them all, then Hire the RIAA to sue everyone and really get people to understand the difference.
Copyrights stop independent human creativity from having value.
No comments:
Post a Comment