joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 05:58 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:
See how you said "on the contrary" that means that you're disagreeing that one owns a thing and not some bundle of rights. So why do you now claim that you didn't say anything about "owning rights"? What is it that you think one owns then if not the thing nor the rights? Could you pick a stance and stick to it?

If you spent even half the time and effort finding the genuine contradictions in your own argument as you have apparently spent vainly trying to create contradictions in mine, this thread wouldn't be 16 pages long already.
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 06:17 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
To suggest, as you do, that ownership and the rights of ownership are distinct is to miss the point entirely, and confirms the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.


I didn't suggest that actually but no matter. Let's get back on track. The point remains, when I take X from you I deprive you of X and the rights to X but if I copy X then I'm not depriving you of X nor the rights to X. See how little your red herring has accomplished?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 08:13 pm
@Night Ripper,
Actually you are depriving me of the right to profit from my work in creating X.

So do you think workers should not be compensated for their work? Do you consider it theft if you do work for someone and then they don't pay you for that work?
Night Ripper
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 08:29 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Actually you are depriving me of the right to profit from my work in creating X.


There's no such right. If you steal a block of metal from me and create a sword from it do you have the right to profit from your work? The only rights you have in regards to ownership come from owning something not creating something.

parados wrote:
So do you think workers should not be compensated for their work? Do you consider it theft if you do work for someone and then they don't pay you for that work?


I'm not stealing your labor. Your art is still there. I only have a copy. It's not like I asked you to cut my lawn and then refused to pay you. Likewise, if I asked you to make some art for money and I don't pay you, it doesn't matter if I have a copy of the art or not. I still owe you money because I hired you.
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 11:34 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:
The point remains, when I take X from you I deprive you of X and the rights to X but if I copy X then I'm not depriving you of X nor the rights to X. See how little your red herring has accomplished?

A moment's reflection would demonstrate how wrong you are.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you own a piece of land. You don't intend to do anything with that land except hold it until some future date, at which point you expect to sell it. I decide that I want to live on your land, so I pitch a tent and proceed to live there without any authorization from you. I do no damage to the land, nor I do deprive you of any use of the land, since you weren't using it or intending to use it for anything except as an investment.

1. Have you suffered any damage as a result of my squatting on your land?

2. Can you evict me as a trespasser?
parados
 
  4  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 07:07 am
@Night Ripper,
Quote:
There's no such right. If you steal a block of metal from me and create a sword from it do you have the right to profit from your work? The only rights you have in regards to ownership come from owning something not creating something.

Well then, doesn't that mean you are violating that principle by protecting the software you produce? You are doing nothing more than claiming ownership by restricting how I can use it and by making me pay for it.

Why do you put a protection system in your software?
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 09:23 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
nor I do deprive you of any use of the land


Yes you are. Just because I didn't have any plans for it means nothing at all. The point remains that you are using that bit of land that I can no longer use. It's like saying that my block of metal that I was just keeping to look at suffers no damage by your taking it and making a sword from it because I wasn't going to use it anyway. But I was using it, to look at, to possess. That's a use you're depriving me of.
Night Ripper
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 09:25 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Why do you put a protection system in your software?


Why did you use the color blue in your painting? Because you authored it. Because you can.

Also, the fallacy you are using is called an ad hominem. You're saying that I'm wrong because I don't "practice what I preach". Even if that were the case (it's not) that doesn't prove that what I advocate is wrong. That would be like ignoring advice about a healthy diet just because your doctor is overweight.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 09:49 am
@Night Ripper,
But if you're not trying to use it while it's unavailable, then you haven't lost anything.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 09:51 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
nor I do deprive you of any use of the land


Yes you are. Just because I didn't have any plans for it means nothing at all. The point remains that you are using that bit of land that I can no longer use. It's like saying that my block of metal that I was just keeping to look at suffers no damage by your taking it and making a sword from it because I wasn't going to use it anyway. But I was using it, to look at, to possess. That's a use you're depriving me of.

I thought you aren't supposed to sidestep the dilemmas posed by hypotheticals. I guess that only applies to some hypotheticals.

In any event, you prove my point: the right to exclusive possession to property can be enforced, even if the property itself isn't being used or isn't damaged. That's because the right is different from the property itself. Even if the property isn't suffering any damage, the right is. And that's true whether the property is tangible or intangible. To say, then, that someone's intangible intellectual property doesn't suffer any damage/diminishment due to unauthorized copying simply misses the point: it isn't the property that's being diminished, it's the right to the property that's being diminished.

Let me offer another hypothetical for you to ignore: you are looking to purchase a plot of land. I offer you the choice of two plots that are side-by-side, and identical in all relevant respects except that the lot on the left doesn't have any restrictions, while the lot on the right comes with the restriction that you will not have the exclusive right to possess that property. In other words, although you would own the lot on the right, you wouldn't be allowed to evict unauthorized intruders from it. Now, would you be willing to pay the same amount for the right lot as you would for the left?
Night Ripper
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 10:14 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
I thought you aren't supposed to sidestep the dilemmas posed by hypotheticals. I guess that only applies to some hypotheticals.


I didn't sidestep anything.

Like I said, the point remains that you are using that bit of land that I can no longer use. So just because I don't have any plans doesn't mean you aren't depriving me of something.

joefromchicago wrote:
it isn't the property that's being diminished, it's the right to the property that's being diminished.


That's nonsense and I've told you already before. I'm not diminishing your rights by copying X because you still retain the original X and all the rights that come with it.

joefromchicago wrote:
Now, would you be willing to pay the same amount for the right lot as you would for the left?


Obviously not. Now let's see what you think that implies so I can shoot that down as well.
joefromchicago
 
  6  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 11:33 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:
I didn't sidestep anything.

Like I said, the point remains that you are using that bit of land that I can no longer use. So just because I don't have any plans doesn't mean you aren't depriving me of something.

You would using the land in the same way whether I was on it or not, since you weren't using it at all. What makes you think you can "no longer use" the land when I'm squatting on it?

Night Ripper wrote:
That's nonsense and I've told you already before. I'm not diminishing your rights by copying X because you still retain the original X and all the rights that come with it.

Including the creator's right to prevent unauthorized copies?

Night Ripper wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Now, would you be willing to pay the same amount for the right lot as you would for the left?


Obviously not. Now let's see what you think that implies so I can shoot that down as well.

It means that you understand the distinction between a thing and the right to a thing. Obviously, if a piece of land is more valuable with the right to exclusive possession than it is without that right, then the right itself has some value. Presumably, then, the right itself can also be damaged (anything that has value, after all, can lose value).

Now, moving over to the copyright context: you argue that unauthorized copying doesn't "damage" the creator's property because it doesn't diminish the original. But a piece of intellectual property that lacks the right to prevent unauthorized copies is like the piece of land that lacks the right to exclusive possession -- it's less valuable than comparable property because it lacks the right. The unauthorized copying, therefore, doesn't damage the original, but it does damage the right by making it worthless.

Your argument, then, that the creator of an artistic work doesn't suffer damage because the original remains intact ignores the fact that the creator's rights are valuable in themselves and they suffer a good deal of damage due to unauthorized copying.
Night Ripper
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 11:36 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
You would using the land in the same way whether I was on it or not, since you weren't using it at all. What makes you think you can "no longer use" the land when I'm squatting on it?


I don't have that opportunity even if I'm not planning on taking advantage of it.

joefromchicago wrote:
Including the creator's right to prevent unauthorized copies?


There's no such right. How do you even come up with that from your analogy to owning a piece of land?

joefromchicago wrote:
But a piece of intellectual property that lacks the right to prevent unauthorized copies is like the piece of land that lacks the right to exclusive possession -- it's less valuable than comparable property because it lacks the right. The unauthorized copying, therefore, doesn't damage the original, but it does damage the right by making it worthless.


There's no such right. I can't damage a right that you don't have.
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 02:02 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
You would using the land in the same way whether I was on it or not, since you weren't using it at all. What makes you think you can "no longer use" the land when I'm squatting on it?

I don't have that opportunity even if I'm not planning on taking advantage of it.

That doesn't make any sense.

Night Ripper wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Including the creator's right to prevent unauthorized copies?

There's no such right.

On the contrary, there is such a right. Remember, you're arguing that there shouldn't be that right. It's incumbent upon you, then, to convince us that the right that currently exists shouldn't. That's the conclusion you should be working toward. If, on the other hand, you use that as a premise for your argument, then you're simply begging the question.
Night Ripper
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 02:50 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
That doesn't make any sense.


I suggest you look up opportunity cost. If I can do X or Y but not both then doing X costs me the opportunity of doing Y. You're costing me opportunity.

joefromchicago wrote:
On the contrary, there is such a right.


I should have been clearer. There's no such right with regards to tangible property. You're talking about intellectual property which is currently being argued over. How do you go from property rights, which I recognize, to talking about intellectual property rights?
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 04:15 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:
I suggest you look up opportunity cost. If I can do X or Y but not both then doing X costs me the opportunity of doing Y. You're costing me opportunity.

No I'm not. In my hypothetical, you didn't plan on doing anything with your property. My squatting on your property, therefore, didn't involve any opportunity costs at all. In order to incur an opportunity cost, you have to forgo an opportunity.

Night Ripper wrote:
I should have been clearer. There's no such right with regards to tangible property. You're talking about intellectual property which is currently being argued over. How do you go from property rights, which I recognize, to talking about intellectual property rights?

There's no right to make unauthorized copies of tangible property? Are you serious?
Night Ripper
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 04:18 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
No I'm not. In my hypothetical, you didn't plan on doing anything with your property. My squatting on your property, therefore, didn't involve any opportunity costs at all. In order to incur an opportunity cost, you have to forgo an opportunity.


It doesn't matter what I plan to do. I no longer have that opportunity. What are you trying to prove with this anyways?

joefromchicago wrote:
There's no right to make unauthorized copies of tangible property? Are you serious?


I didn't say that. I said that I agree with property rights as far as tangible property. You're trying to use that to somehow claim new rights that cover intellectual property.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 04:46 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:

parados wrote:
Why do you put a protection system in your software?


Why did you use the color blue in your painting? Because you authored it. Because you can.
No. I would use blue because I want to convey meaning. It would have a purpose.

Quote:

Also, the fallacy you are using is called an ad hominem. You're saying that I'm wrong because I don't "practice what I preach". Even if that were the case (it's not) that doesn't prove that what I advocate is wrong. That would be like ignoring advice about a healthy diet just because your doctor is overweight.
I asked why you put it in there. Let's use the blue analogy again. Suppose I am doing a graphic piece for a client and they want me to make the grass blue. I don't have to agree with it in order to do it. But even if I don't agree with it, the client has a reason for making the grass blue. Why does any company put a protection system in their software? Why is that so prevalent in software?

I think you would have to agree that those companies feel they have the right to protect their work product. If they don't feel that then they are just writing bad code, don't you agree?
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 09:13 am
@parados,
Just like you have the right to author a piece of art how you see fit, using blue, using red, using whatever, so too do I have the right to author software however I see fit. In my case, I put some code in there that makes it harder to copy freely. If you don't like it, don't use my software.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 10:32 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:
It doesn't matter what I plan to do. I no longer have that opportunity. What are you trying to prove with this anyways?

I'm not trying to prove anything. You're the one who brought up opportunity costs.

Night Ripper wrote:
I didn't say that. I said that I agree with property rights as far as tangible property. You're trying to use that to somehow claim new rights that cover intellectual property.

Those aren't new rights, those are existing rights. Remember, your position is that those rights shouldn't exist, not that they don't exist.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2019 at 05:06:10