Patents and other intellectual property

[Robert Magoo]

I'm claiming ownership of the product of my mind, not somebody else's.

You are also claiming ownership over other peoples property and body, since you are saying that they cannot do with their property what they wish (configure it in a particular way, sell it, use their vocal chords in a certain way, play a guitar in a certain way etc.)

They can do whatever they want with their property so long as they aren't using my property.

Besides that, I thought I made clear that I don't support everything that falls under ip. But the concept itself is not flawed.

[Daistallia 2104]

Yes, the cd is your own; the information contained within is not.

The labor that went into it has been paid for.
The band played in the studio, and were paid for their labor by the record company.
The recording techs recorded, and were paid for their labor by the record company.
The factory workers produced the CD, and were paid for their labor by the record company.
I purchased the CD and what is on it, and the record company was paid.

[Robert Magoo]

Yes, the cd is your own; the information contained within is not.

The labor that went into it has been paid for.
The band played in the studio, and were paid for their labor by the record company.
The recording techs recorded, and were paid for their labor by the record company.
The factory workers produced the CD, and were paid for their labor by the record company.
I purchased the CD and what is on it, and the record company was paid.

Yes, and they made clear upon your purchase that you weren't buying ownership of the information; it's more like a lease.

Do you think because you may have leased a car, that you own it too?

[ZombieRothbard]

They can do whatever they want with their property so long as they aren't using my property.

Besides that, I thought I made clear that I don't support everything that falls under ip. But the concept itself is not flawed.

Your argument is circular, you aren't explaining how it is even property in the first place. Please cite what definition of property you are using to justify IP.

[Daistallia 2104]

I'm not defending it, just pointing out that property and capitalism go hand-in-hand.

Didn't say you were defending it (although your wording came across that way somewhat).

Yes, and they made clear upon your purchase that you weren't buying ownership of the information; it's more like a lease.

Seeing as a lease is a temporary grant of property, some quick questions:
If I don't continue to pay the record company, will they come repossess the information?
Can information even be repossessed?
How would the record company repossess the music on a CD?
Edit to follow up ZombieRothbard: Is information in and of itself property?
Are all intangables property?

[Robert Magoo]

They can do whatever they want with their property so long as they aren't using my property.

Besides that, I thought I made clear that I don't support everything that falls under ip. But the concept itself is not flawed.

Your argument is circular, you aren't explaining how it is even property in the first place. Please cite what definition of property you are using to justify IP.

I created it and claimed it as my property, therefore it's my property. That's just as legitimate as any claim of ownership.

[Robert Magoo]

I'm not defending it, just pointing out that property and capitalism go hand-in-hand.

Didn't say you were defending it (although your wording came across that way somewhat).

Yes, and they made clear upon your purchase that you weren't buying ownership of the information; it's more like a lease.

Seeing as a lease is a temporary grant of property, some quick questions:
If I don't continue to pay the record company, will they come repossess the information?
Can information even be repossessed?
How would the record company repossess the music on a CD?

There's such a thing as a permanent lease, of which music "ownership" is a good example...

[Veblenia]

Are idea's a scarce resource? No, they aren't, therefor they are not property.

Is debt a scarce resource? Are bonds property?

[ZombieRothbard]

Your argument is circular, you aren't explaining how it is even property in the first place. Please cite what definition of property you are using to justify IP.

I created it and claimed it as my property, therefore it's my property. That's just as legitimate as any claim of ownership.

No it isn't. Creation is not a starting point for property. If it was, I could go onto my neighbors property, create something from his property, and then claim it as my own.

[Daistallia 2104]

I created it and claimed it as my property, therefore it's my property. That's just as legitimate as any claim of ownership.

When did you come to my house and create the pattern of pits in the CD I copied?

[Daistallia 2104]

There's such a thing as a permanent lease, of which music "ownership" is a good example...

Yes, and? The record company, band, et al no more labored to create the CD I made than Giorgio Armani et al labored to make the jacket I sewed.

[Robert Magoo]

I created it and claimed it as my property, therefore it's my property. That's just as legitimate as any claim of ownership.

No it isn't. Creation is not a starting point for property. If it was, I could go onto my neighbors property, create something from his property, and then claim it as my own.

Well see, that involved theft. Me creating my own ideas didn't.

[Robert Magoo]

There's such a thing as a permanent lease, of which music "ownership" is a good example...

Yes, and? The record company, band, et al no more labored to create the CD I made than Giorgio Armani et al labored to make the jacket I sewed.

The band agreed to transfer ownership to the record company, who did not agree to transfer ownership to you.

[Daistallia 2104]

No it isn't. Creation is not a starting point for property. If it was, I could go onto my neighbors property, create something from his property, and then claim it as my own.

And now we get to a point of contention.

Well see, that involved theft. Me creating my own ideas didn't.

What theft? All parties were reimbursed for their labor, as I pointed out above.

[Robert Magoo]

No it isn't. Creation is not a starting point for property. If it was, I could go onto my neighbors property, create something from his property, and then claim it as my own.

And now we get to a point of contention.

Well see, that involved theft. Me creating my own ideas didn't.

What theft? All parties were reimbursed for their labor, as I pointed out above.

I was talking about rothbard's example. Yours is theft because the original owner didn't transfer ownership to you. They granted a right to use under certain conditions.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Well see, that involved theft. Me creating my own ideas didn't.

Nonsense. New ideas are pretty much ALWAYS built upon previous ideas as a background. New ideas are often made by stealing and modifying old ideas. It's how knowledge is increased in many disciplines, like engineering, mathematics, and science. The arts do it too, with musicians stealing riffs and styles from previous musicians and then finding new things to do with them, or painters copying and modifying old ways of painting.

[Daistallia 2104]

The band agreed to transfer ownership to the record company, who did not agree to transfer ownership to you.

They most certainly did, or at least the retailer did, when I bought and paid for the CD.

[Robert Magoo]

Well see, that involved theft. Me creating my own ideas didn't.

Nonsense. New ideas are pretty much ALWAYS built upon previous ideas as a background. New ideas are often made by stealing and modifying old ideas. It's how knowledge is increased in many disciplines, like engineering, mathematics, and science. The arts do it too, with musicians stealing riffs and styles from previous musicians and then finding new things to do with them, or painters copying and modifying old ways of painting.

That isn't theft because the creator hasn't claimed ownership. That's the difference. When talking intellectual property, the creator claimed ownership. When talking other ideas, the creator never claimed ownership.

[Four-sided Triangles]

That isn't theft because the creator hasn't claimed ownership. That's the difference. When talking intellectual property, the creator claimed ownership. When talking other ideas, the creator never claimed ownership.

1. So if I claim ownership, that automatically means I have ownership?

2. You don't think musicians consider their riffs, styles, etc. to be intellectual property? Scientific ideas and mathematical proofs aren't patented, for mostly pragmatic reasons. Are they not intellectual property? Or is the progress of science built on theft? If so, I'm pro theft.

[Robert Magoo]

The band agreed to transfer ownership to the record company, who did not agree to transfer ownership to you.

They most certainly did, or at least the retailer did, when I bought and paid for the CD.

Bought and paid for the cd, yes.

How about an analogy:

I know somebody involved in manufacturing, at intel. They use very expensive lithography equipment, which they paid for. But they don't own it. They have a permanent lease on it. The manufacturer still owns the equipment. It's the same idea here. You own the physical cd, but you do not own the information on it. You have a permanent grant of usage, for specified purposes, but you do not have ownership of the information.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

Your argument is circular, you aren't explaining how it is even property in the first place. Please cite what definition of property you are using to justify IP.

I created it and claimed it as my property, therefore it's my property. That's just as legitimate as any claim of ownership.

Does this cover a justification of genetic patents? Seems that genetic patents are more about decoding a genes activating protein - I understand you are technically patenting the synthisized protein but how can you really justify ownership of a proteins mimicked molecular structure?
Seems like its just a way for corperations to limit competitive research...

[Daistallia 2104]

That isn't theft because the creator hasn't claimed ownership. That's the difference. When talking intellectual property, the creator claimed ownership. When talking other ideas, the creator never claimed ownership.

Claiming it is so does not make it so. Nor does it answer the question of whether information, or other intangables, can even be owned.

[Daistallia 2104]

How about an analogy:

I know somebody involved in manufacturing, at intel. They use very expensive lithography equipment, which they paid for. But they don't own it. They have a permanent lease on it. The manufacturer still owns the equipment. It's the same idea here. You own the physical cd, but you do not own the information on it. You have a permanent grant of usage, for specified purposes, but you do not have ownership of the information.

Your analogy assumes facts not yet in evidence.

[ZombieRothbard]

No it isn't. Creation is not a starting point for property. If it was, I could go onto my neighbors property, create something from his property, and then claim it as my own.

Well see, that involved theft. Me creating my own ideas didn't.

Again, you are dodging the point. How did my neighbor acquire the property in the first place? He likely bought it correct? And how did the person he bought it from acquire it? And how was it originally acquired? What is legitimate property and what isn't?

Lockean homesteading is how property is acquired. To acquire land, you have to be the first there. For something to be considered property, it needs to possess scarcity. If everything was super abundant, there would be no need for property, because there would be no conflict in usage of resources (air for example). Since things are scarce however, they need to be rationed and there needs to be ways to settle conflict over who has a claim to use of the resources. The best way to settle this is by determining who has a rightful claim over the property.

Ideas do not possess this scarcity, thus not rendering them property at all.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Nor does it answer the question of whether information, or other intangables, can even be owned.

Also, how complex must information be before it can be owned? After all, natural, physical systems have information content associated with them. Certain decoding ciphers applied to information from some physical system could happen to yield identical information to something you had copyrighted. The less information you copyright, the more likely this is. A couple bytes? I'm sure the DNA of several animals in nature have violated your copyright before you even filed for it. Can you sue nature?