Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
Moderator: Global Moderator
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14318
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
I agree with you, especially that it's very subjective. One has to argue that "Apple" belongs to the Beatles when it comes to brands involving music. They have to establish that as they sue Apple Corporation for Apple iTunes. As you said, it is not apparent as it is with the bicycle that you pass on to your daughter.
Once it's established with a trademark, it is defended as if it's property, whatever the name.
A couple points about this: Sometimes it is not clear whether something physical is property, too. Such exceptions include the collection of a person's DNA, because it involves both personal privacy and law enforcement.
And speaking of privacy: do you think we have the right to control how our data is used, even though it is not physical and can be duplicated, making it not scarce?
Once it's established with a trademark, it is defended as if it's property, whatever the name.
A couple points about this: Sometimes it is not clear whether something physical is property, too. Such exceptions include the collection of a person's DNA, because it involves both personal privacy and law enforcement.
And speaking of privacy: do you think we have the right to control how our data is used, even though it is not physical and can be duplicated, making it not scarce?
If you were unable to log into Bitwarden today around 3:30pm EST, you’re not alone. (May 6) That was brief, but unsettling.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14318
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
Are there nations that ban IP outright? Not just ignore it, like the Chinese used to do (and often still do), or the way that Russian novelist ripped off The Wizard of Oz and adapted it for Russian readers, but who have something like a copyleft on everything?
If you were unable to log into Bitwarden today around 3:30pm EST, you’re not alone. (May 6) That was brief, but unsettling.
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
It's not that I didn't want to get it. I truly don't get it. If you feel that you can put an electronic copy of the song that I wrote and performed on your device without paying the price that I set for it, then I don't know what else to tell you. I believe that is stealing. I believe that a creator of a work should be able to set the terms for how that work gets enjoyed. If he wants to offer it for free, so be it. If he wants to offer it for sale, so be it. Nobody is forced to buy it. We obviously disagree. That's fine. I'm sure we'll both survive.
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
I provided several dot-point examples in one of my recent posts of ideas/inventions that could be considered as IP. I'd sincerely like to see some of you quote that section and provide your opinions on each of them as to how you think they should be treated, and your justification/logic for each one.
-
- Associate Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2020 2:59 pm
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
This is actually not the problem. THe problem is not that it's "subjective". I don't think you know what you are talking about, to be honest--you are just cobbling together things and trying to reinvent the wheel. What are you even talking about? My advice: THINK. THINK. THINK. before you start talking.
Do you really, do you really, do you really have a clue as to the difference between copyright, patent, and trademarks? Do you really? If not... why not just SHUT UP until you learn something? I don't get it. why do peopel like you who obviously know nothing about IP policy, want to pontificate about it? why?[/quote]One has to argue that "Apple" belongs to the Beatles when it comes to brands involving music. They have to establish that as they sue Apple Corporation for Apple iTunes. As you said, it is not apparent as it is with the bicycle that you pass on to your daughter.
Do you realize that ownership of fellow humans was "established" in "property" at one point? We now call that "slavery". hellooo. You people need to learn to think with some principles.Once it's established with a trademark, it is defended as if it's property, whatever the name.
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
I'm beginning to see why this anti-IP movement hasn't gained much traction.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14318
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
Earlier, I said I stood to learn a lot from you and I have not been disappointed. Really learning a lot from the above.nskinsella wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:31 pmDo you really, do you really, do you really have a clue as to the difference between copyright, patent, and trademarks? Do you really? If not... why not just SHUT UP until you learn something? I don't get it. why do peopel like you who obviously know nothing about IP policy, want to pontificate about it? why?dualstow wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 1:12 pm One has to argue that "Apple" belongs to the Beatles when it comes to brands involving music. They have to establish that as they sue Apple Corporation for Apple iTunes. As you said, it is not apparent as it is with the bicycle that you pass on to your daughter.
(DS)Once it's established with a trademark, it is defended as if it's property, whatever the name.
Yes, I've heard of that. I'm against it.(NK)Do you realize that ownership of fellow humans was "established" in "property" at one point? We now call that "slavery". hellooo. You people need to learn to think with some principles.
If you were unable to log into Bitwarden today around 3:30pm EST, you’re not alone. (May 6) That was brief, but unsettling.
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
I guess there is no difference between claiming ownership of a song that I wrote and claiming ownership of another human being.
I'm not even a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't take a very good one to find a few distinctions between those two things.
I'm not even a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't take a very good one to find a few distinctions between those two things.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14318
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
I think that Mr Kinsella thinks that we mere mortals should all get law degrees before we give our opinions on the matter. It's almost like this is just a discussion forum and not a roomful of lawyers. I wonder what other subjects I've been spouting off on without an advanced degree. Oops, all of them.stuper1 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 5:03 pm I guess there is no difference between claiming ownership of a song that I wrote and claiming ownership of another human being.
I'm not even a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't take a very good one to find a few distinctions between those two things.
In the thread where this started, CT-Scott said he was "calling in the big guns." Wow, he wasn't kidding. Thank God he's doing this out of his love of freedom.
If you were unable to log into Bitwarden today around 3:30pm EST, you’re not alone. (May 6) That was brief, but unsettling.
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
He can't be a very big gun really, because he's only used the slavery analogies. The really big guns get to use the Hitler analogies. I think you have to go to a Top 10 law school before they let you use those though.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14318
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
That feels right, Mr. S.
I'm afraid here's what's going to happen: Mr Kinsella's writings might make him feel enlightened (I should probably use a capital E there, but there might be some Enlightened Party that he is not a member of), but they will never really win out. The concept of IP may dissolve along with capitalism, after we're all dead perhaps, but as long as people need to earn a living in the west, I suspect that we'll go on enslaving our customers, defending IP. Ironically, long after this rant (lowercase r) is forgotten, the only thing that will survive is the dollars he made from being an IP attorney. Oh well.
If you were unable to log into Bitwarden today around 3:30pm EST, you’re not alone. (May 6) That was brief, but unsettling.
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
Oh boy...
The important thing is that we're trying to convince people that the established opinion is wrong. That's never an easy thing to do, and getting worked up and insulting others isn't going to help the cause.
Stephan, chill out. This is just a discussion forum. I do think some folks here have an open mind. I personally find myself often blurring the distinctions between copyrights, patents, etc., but they all seem to have a common thread, no? The idea is that someone can "own" a non-scarce thing similar to owning physical property.nskinsella wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:31 pmDo you really, do you really, do you really have a clue as to the difference between copyright, patent, and trademarks? Do you really? If not... why not just SHUT UP until you learn something? I don't get it. why do peopel like you who obviously know nothing about IP policy, want to pontificate about it? why?
The important thing is that we're trying to convince people that the established opinion is wrong. That's never an easy thing to do, and getting worked up and insulting others isn't going to help the cause.
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
I'd like to offer a purely conceptual thought experiment for anyone who's interested. Let's ignore the existing legal system for this experiment and just consider the actions and feelings described. For what it's worth, I'm not trying to make a point or pick a side with this example. It's just an example that raises questions I don't yet know the answer to.
If someone else has already proposed a similar thought experiment in this thread and I somehow missed it, please ignore this and I apologize for the redundancy.
Imagine we live in the distant future, and "replicator" machines (like the ones in Star Trek) are widely available. You can simply aim the machine at a physical object you want to replicate, and an exact replica of that physical object will appear wherever you want. (For this thought experiment, we'll simplify things by ignoring the possibility of replicating living things.)
Now imagine I have a piano in my living room that I bought a few years ago (before replicators were invented), and I love it. Quality craftsmanship, sounds great, etc. Let's say my neighbor decides he wants a piano, too, and he really likes the one in my living room. So he aims his replicator at my piano through my living room window and creates a perfect replica of it in his own living room. Would I be upset that he did that? Honestly, probably not. I still get to enjoy my piano, and his replica doesn't change that.
Now let's imagine I spent several years inventing a clever, innovative device that I keep in my living room. Thousands of hours of my time and effort are poured into that device, and I hope that someday I can unveil it to the world and have the satisfaction of at least taking personal credit for it -- maybe even earning some money from it since it will be very valuable to many people. Let's say my neighbor sees my completed device through my living room window and decides he wants it, too -- so he replicates it. Then he rushes out and publicly takes credit for inventing the device. Maybe even makes some money through the unveiling. Everybody in the world then replicates it and benefits from it. I think I would be pretty upset about that.
In both cases -- the piano and my invention -- the physical object can be freely replicated, so there is no scarcity. Or is there? Maybe in the case of the invention, the scarce resources are the personal time and energy that I invested in creating the physical object? If that's the case, then perhaps physical objects into which I've invested my personal time and energy are qualitatively different than physical objects that I merely bought or replicated?
Just food for thought.
If someone else has already proposed a similar thought experiment in this thread and I somehow missed it, please ignore this and I apologize for the redundancy.
Imagine we live in the distant future, and "replicator" machines (like the ones in Star Trek) are widely available. You can simply aim the machine at a physical object you want to replicate, and an exact replica of that physical object will appear wherever you want. (For this thought experiment, we'll simplify things by ignoring the possibility of replicating living things.)
Now imagine I have a piano in my living room that I bought a few years ago (before replicators were invented), and I love it. Quality craftsmanship, sounds great, etc. Let's say my neighbor decides he wants a piano, too, and he really likes the one in my living room. So he aims his replicator at my piano through my living room window and creates a perfect replica of it in his own living room. Would I be upset that he did that? Honestly, probably not. I still get to enjoy my piano, and his replica doesn't change that.
Now let's imagine I spent several years inventing a clever, innovative device that I keep in my living room. Thousands of hours of my time and effort are poured into that device, and I hope that someday I can unveil it to the world and have the satisfaction of at least taking personal credit for it -- maybe even earning some money from it since it will be very valuable to many people. Let's say my neighbor sees my completed device through my living room window and decides he wants it, too -- so he replicates it. Then he rushes out and publicly takes credit for inventing the device. Maybe even makes some money through the unveiling. Everybody in the world then replicates it and benefits from it. I think I would be pretty upset about that.
In both cases -- the piano and my invention -- the physical object can be freely replicated, so there is no scarcity. Or is there? Maybe in the case of the invention, the scarce resources are the personal time and energy that I invested in creating the physical object? If that's the case, then perhaps physical objects into which I've invested my personal time and energy are qualitatively different than physical objects that I merely bought or replicated?
Just food for thought.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14318
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
^ I think Scott did shoot down the 'time invested' assertion. I'll find it tomorrow if someone in another time zone hasn't done so already.
If you were unable to log into Bitwarden today around 3:30pm EST, you’re not alone. (May 6) That was brief, but unsettling.
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
As I recall, he asserted that time invested is irrelevant. I don't recall an iron-clad logistical proof of that assertion. I do recall a conventional saying of "time is money" so if a person spends 10 hours doing something it presumably is more valuable than something he spends 1 hour on, all other things being equal.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14318
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
Right. That's what I should have said.
If you were unable to log into Bitwarden today around 3:30pm EST, you’re not alone. (May 6) That was brief, but unsettling.
-
- Associate Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2020 2:59 pm
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
And... this is part of my argument: nobody who argues for IP knows what they are talking about. For example we were talking about copyright and patent, and now you have switched to trademark. Which is it?dualstow wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 1:12 pm I agree with you, especially that it's very subjective. One has to argue that "Apple" belongs to the Beatles when it comes to brands involving music. They have to establish that as they sue Apple Corporation for Apple iTunes. As you said, it is not apparent as it is with the bicycle that you pass on to your daughter.
Once it's established with a trademark, it is defended as if it's property, whatever the name.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
I know quite a bit about IP and argue for it.nskinsella wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:05 pmAnd... this is part of my argument: nobody who argues for IP knows what they are talking about. For example we were talking about copyright and patent, and now you have switched to trademark. Which is it?dualstow wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 1:12 pm I agree with you, especially that it's very subjective. One has to argue that "Apple" belongs to the Beatles when it comes to brands involving music. They have to establish that as they sue Apple Corporation for Apple iTunes. As you said, it is not apparent as it is with the bicycle that you pass on to your daughter.
Once it's established with a trademark, it is defended as if it's property, whatever the name.
Thus, your argument is invalid.
Hope that helps.
- Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4965
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
Since everything is "free" if the replicators are widely available, and they should be since I assume you can replicate the replicator, the only remaining things in your scenario that are of value is your personal time and desire for adoration/respect.Tortoise wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 7:16 pm I'd like to offer a purely conceptual thought experiment for anyone who's interested. Let's ignore the existing legal system for this experiment and just consider the actions and feelings described. For what it's worth, I'm not trying to make a point or pick a side with this example. It's just an example that raises questions I don't yet know the answer to.
If someone else has already proposed a similar thought experiment in this thread and I somehow missed it, please ignore this and I apologize for the redundancy.
Imagine we live in the distant future, and "replicator" machines (like the ones in Star Trek) are widely available. You can simply aim the machine at a physical object you want to replicate, and an exact replica of that physical object will appear wherever you want. (For this thought experiment, we'll simplify things by ignoring the possibility of replicating living things.)
Now imagine I have a piano in my living room that I bought a few years ago (before replicators were invented), and I love it. Quality craftsmanship, sounds great, etc. Let's say my neighbor decides he wants a piano, too, and he really likes the one in my living room. So he aims his replicator at my piano through my living room window and creates a perfect replica of it in his own living room. Would I be upset that he did that? Honestly, probably not. I still get to enjoy my piano, and his replica doesn't change that.
Now let's imagine I spent several years inventing a clever, innovative device that I keep in my living room. Thousands of hours of my time and effort are poured into that device, and I hope that someday I can unveil it to the world and have the satisfaction of at least taking personal credit for it -- maybe even earning some money from it since it will be very valuable to many people. Let's say my neighbor sees my completed device through my living room window and decides he wants it, too -- so he replicates it. Then he rushes out and publicly takes credit for inventing the device. Maybe even makes some money through the unveiling. Everybody in the world then replicates it and benefits from it. I think I would be pretty upset about that.
In both cases -- the piano and my invention -- the physical object can be freely replicated, so there is no scarcity. Or is there? Maybe in the case of the invention, the scarce resources are the personal time and energy that I invested in creating the physical object? If that's the case, then perhaps physical objects into which I've invested my personal time and energy are qualitatively different than physical objects that I merely bought or replicated?
Just food for thought.
Thus, what might you have done in the time it took you to build the clever, innovative device that could have brought you even greater adoration/respect? I was reminded of these articles that touch on the subject:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... ogy-regret
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/op ... tycost.asp
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14318
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
I may have used the wrong terminology, but I was answering Scott as to why people, ordinary people, can’t protect their own names from being copied. And I just looked up the lawsuit and saw that I’m basically right. Every time Apple the computer company sold something having to do with music, Apple Records sued them. Trademark, patent, whatever. It’s clearly one entity preventing another from producing and selling something under a specific name.nskinsella wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:05 pmAnd... this is part of my argument: nobody who argues for IP knows what they are talking about. For example we were talking about copyright and patent, and now you have switched to trademark. Which is it?dualstow wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 1:12 pm I agree with you, especially that it's very subjective. One has to argue that "Apple" belongs to the Beatles when it comes to brands involving music. They have to establish that as they sue Apple Corporation for Apple iTunes. As you said, it is not apparent as it is with the bicycle that you pass on to your daughter.
Once it's established with a trademark, it is defended as if it's property, whatever the name.
As for Fiona Apple...
If you were unable to log into Bitwarden today around 3:30pm EST, you’re not alone. (May 6) That was brief, but unsettling.
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
As for the subject of the Star Trek "replicator." Wouldn't most agree that the world would be a better place for everyone if everyone could easily replicate things? A world where replicator technology existed, but was not allowed to be used, is a world where we're inflicting unnecessary harm on people by making them expend a lot more effort to produce something that could have been replicated instantly.
Permitting only one person to have the right to make "copies" of their invention is nothing more than a government-enforced monopoly.
I think people spend too much time worrying about inventors who wouldn't be able to profit in the exact same way that they can profit today. I'm confident that they'll adapt and find ways to continue to do what they're passionate about get compensated under a different model. Not enough time/effort is spent worrying about all of the other people who would benefit if IP laws were abolished.
Permitting only one person to have the right to make "copies" of their invention is nothing more than a government-enforced monopoly.
I think people spend too much time worrying about inventors who wouldn't be able to profit in the exact same way that they can profit today. I'm confident that they'll adapt and find ways to continue to do what they're passionate about get compensated under a different model. Not enough time/effort is spent worrying about all of the other people who would benefit if IP laws were abolished.
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
Again, you're missing the point of my original post on this. I was listing a bunch of things that should be allowed to be protected by IP laws if all IP was treated equally and equal to real/actual/physical property. And for anyone who disagreed, I was looking for a logical argument as to *why* a particular example should not be considered property and given the same rights as property.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14318
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
That's why I conceded to you that it's subjective.CT-Scott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:32 amAgain, you're missing the point of my original post on this. I was listing a bunch of things that should be allowed to be protected by IP laws if all IP was treated equally and equal to real/actual/physical property. And for anyone who disagreed, I was looking for a logical argument as to *why* a particular example should not be considered property and given the same rights as property.
You wrote
but I don't accept your (unspoken) premise that a name you give to your child or to yourself constitutes IP in the first place. It's unprotectable, like turning left at a fork in the road is unprotectable. It's not IP.Proponents of IP laws want to say that "it's just another type of property."
How do you define what *is* IP? I don't know. I read about examples of things that do get protected, but I don't have a logical argument that fits all cases.
When I read about a firm trying to copyright protect a gene sequence, I was shocked. I don't know that I would call it immoral, but my immediate reaction was a hope that the legal system would not allow it.
If you were unable to log into Bitwarden today around 3:30pm EST, you’re not alone. (May 6) That was brief, but unsettling.
- Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4965
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Intellectual Property (IP) & Theft
Sorry, I have a weird sense of humor today. OK, I confess, everyday.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.