Comments (4)

• Michael A. Clem

  An interesting thread to read, actually. The Randroids are easy to identify: they can quote Rand all day long, but never seem to actually try to apply her ideas to the discussion. But even the non-Randroids seem stuck in a certain perspective. I want to know what that "Steve" guy is smoking in those cigarettes of his, because it's got to be more than just tobacco.
  
  You seem to be arguing against just one particular point in favor of IP, but the idea of copyright kept coming up. So how about it? Would we be better off scrapping patents for a copyright system instead? And could such a system be developed by the market without government monopoly or power?
  

  Published: April 6, 2008 7:56 PM

• ktibuk

  The problem with Stephans argument is, he presupposes that ownership of every single thing, be it tangible or intangible or intellectual, has to be the subject of a big dispute if it is going to be called property.

  This comes from the idea that "property was invented by man to get along with each other".

  This is not true.

  Yes, stupid little things like simple patterns can be owned because they were created by whichever individual created them.

  But they don't have to be the center of a dispute, for many reasons.

  They can be given away or other people may create them just by themselves without even any contact with each other.

  But this doesn't mean every piece of intellectual property has to be given away for free or anyone can create anything. Every humans is unique and every IP that reflects that uniqueness can be created by only that person.

  Robinson Cruesoe owns the fishing pole he creates. He doesn't need some other person disputing his ownership for him to own what he creates. He de facto owns it. And the fishing pole exists, you cant just wish it away just because there is no dispute over it.

  Also he may create a poem. And he owns it. And if there is no contact there is no copying. And if some distant individual creates the same exact poem by himself he may own it too.

  Disputes can not be the defining characteristic of property it can only be a sub category of property.

  In some instances the creators wouldn't want their creations to be copied. Since the IP in question is not nature given, and since everyone would know this to be the case, anyone that comes across it doesn't have a right to freely use it. So just dont do it, just go and make your own.

  Stop trying to justify parasitism. Interspecie parasitsm is not sustainable.

  Published: April 7, 2008 7:32 AM

• More

  @ktibuk:

  You make one fallacious assumption which leads to faulty arguments: You think that ideas can be owned, whether or not they are made public and regardless of the non-existence of contracts of the former owner with potential receivers of that idea.

  Just think of Robinson Crusoe singing a "self written" song on "his" little island. What if there were others there on the island hearing this song? Do they own their heard version of the song? Yes, they picked it up, because RC gave it away voluntarily.

  Just think about the smell of a new dish that gets into the nose of some bystanders. Are they really obliged in your opinion to pay the creator of the dish, if they decide to make a dish inspired by the smell?

  Something may only be owned, as long as it is not given away voluntarily. Same goes for money or every other material possession, if it is thrown away.

  Tucker told it right away:

  "If a man scatters money in the street, he does not thereby formally relinquish title to it...but those who pick it up are thereafter considered the rightful owners... Similarly a man who reproduces his writings by thousands and spreads them everywhere voluntarily abandons his right of privacy and those who read them ... no more put themselves by the act under any obligation in regard to the author than those who pick up scattered money put themselves under obligations to the scatterer."

  So no matter if you give away just a simple line of text or a full series of adventure novels, as long as you don't get an agreement with other people (a contract with them), you have no right to attack potential finders and force them to pay you.

  You may be the owner of the "original" idea (better said: of the one instance of the idea, that came to your mind), but you are by no way owner of all instances of the idea, that are represented in the minds of other people... that would be an aggression against the principle of self-ownership and further down the road an attack on the principle of ownership.

  Published: April 10, 2008 3:30 PM

• More

  @ktibuk:

  You make one fallacious assumption which leads to faulty arguments: You think that ideas can be owned, whether or not they are made public and regardless of the non-existence of contracts of the former owner with potential receivers of that idea.

  Just think of Robinson Crusoe singing a "self written" song on "his" little island. What if there were others there on the island hearing this song? Do they own their heard version of the song? Yes, they picked it up, because RC gave it away voluntarily.

  Just think about the smell of a new dish that gets into the nose of some bystanders. Are they really obliged in your opinion to pay the creator of the dish, if they decide to make a dish inspired by the smell?

  Something may only be owned, as long as it is not given away voluntarily. Same goes for money or every other material possession, if it is thrown away.

  Tucker told it right away:

  "If a man scatters money in the street, he does not thereby formally relinquish title to it...but those who pick it up are thereafter considered the rightful owners... Similarly a man who reproduces his writings by thousands and spreads them everywhere voluntarily abandons his right of privacy and those who read them ... no more put themselves by the act under any obligation in regard to the author than those who pick up scattered money put themselves under obligations to the scatterer."

  So no matter if you give away just a simple line of text or a full series of adventure novels, as long as you don't get an agreement with other people (a contract with them), you have no right to attack potential finders and force them to pay you.

  You may be the owner of the "original" idea (better said: of the one instance of the idea, that came to your mind), but you are by no way owner of all instances of the idea, that are represented in the minds of other people... that would be an aggression against the principle of self-ownership and further down the road an attack on the principle of ownership.

  Published: April 10, 2008 3:30 PM