Copyright Infringement

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

I think that insufficient supply doesn't really work for me because that would include things that are limited in number but just don't have much of a demand, as a random example, vomit flavored jelly beans.

They shouldn't be owned or they should?

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Yes, it really doesn't work for you because you were referring to finiteness, not scarcity Smile

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

But you did agree with me earlier that forms are scarce, right? In fact they are singular.

I'm not sure I agree with your distinction between forms as things above and beyond the instances. When I copy an MP3 I'm not depleting the number of forms so how can I be said to reduce the supply?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Yes, it really doesn't work for you because you were referring to finiteness, not scarcity

I'm using the term as economists use the term.

"Scarcity is the fundamental economic problem of having seemingly unlimited human needs and wants, in a world of limited resources. It states that society has insufficient productive resources to fulfill all human wants and needs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity

In short, scarcity and finiteness only overlap because human demands are unlimited.

0 Replies

Let's revise your argument here, since we know you meant finiteness, not scarcity:

(1) Iff an asset is finite it should have legal protection
(2) Intangible assets are not finite
(C) Therefore intangible assets should not have legal protection

Now, what EN is saying is that there is a form, a creation, which is what the MP3 is derived from. These sorts of forms are finite, and they are what the intellectual property laws are designed to protect; the laws of course aren't designed to protect the MP3's!

In short, I believe he's questioning your premise number (2).

Night Ripper wrote:

I'm using the term as economists use the term.

Oh, alright, I was using the term as it is ordinarily used.

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:
But you did agree with me earlier that forms are scarce, right? In fact they are singular.

I'm not sure I agree with your distinction between forms as things above and beyond the instances. When I copy an MP3 I'm not depleting the number of forms so how can I be said to reduce the supply?

But you agree that these forms above instances exist? There are always less of them than we need and they have to be created, and therefore are they scarce.

So if you recognize that forms are scarce, you agree that property rights should apply to them.

And if property rights should apply to them, that means that the owner should exclusively control them.

And what is the exclusive control of a form? - People can't just copy an instance of them.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
I'm using the term as economists use the term.

Oh, alright, I was using the term as it is ordinarily used.

Don't give up, you almost got him...

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

But you agree that these forms above instances exist? There are always less of them than we need and they have to be created, and therefore are they scarce.

No, I disagree. If we can all have a copy of X then X is not scarce. I'm not going to keep arguing this since it's a dead end.

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Oh, alright, I was using the term as it is ordinarily used.

It's the meaning behind the word, not which word you use that matters. Now that you understand what I mean we can quit arguing about which word to use.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

I'm not going to keep arguing this since it's a dead end.

Ok, can I ask you something else?

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Suppose I design a schematic for a new air conditioning system. At what point does the schematic become not finite? The moment I put the schematic into a computer system? Was the idea itself an infinite form?

But what about in the days of no digitalization - Suppose the only way to show the schematic was by using paper. Is the schematic now finite since it is on paper, and cannot be copied indefinitely (there are a finite number of trees)? Would you think find it reasonable to offer the person who designed the schematic legal protection?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

But what about in the days of no digitalization. Suppose the only way to show the schematic was by using paper. Is the schematic now finite since it is on paper, and cannot be copied indefinitely (there are a finite number of trees)?

There is a finite amount of hard disk space too so it's not clear why you think digitization does anything different.

Anyways, this argument has been offered before. Paper, hard disks and other physical mediums are scarce but I'm not taking your paper, hard disk, or other physical medium. I'm using my own physical medium to write your schematics on. That's why taking the original Mona Lisa is theft but making a copy of it isn't.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
I'm not going to keep arguing this since it's a dead end.

Ok, can I ask you something else?

Don't ask to ask, just ask.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Do humans reproduce at a fixed rate, like bacteria?

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

But don't you see that copying my schematic and then presenting it to a company would allow you to profit off of my design? Why don't you think there should be anything in place to disallow, or at least protect against, that?

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Do humans reproduce at a fixed rate, like bacteria?

I'm not an anthropologist. What would be the implications for and against? What are you getting at, in other words?

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:

Do humans reproduce at a fixed rate, like bacteria?

I'm not an anthropologist. What would be the implications for and against? What are you getting at, in other words?

It's a question about your intuitive feeling, not the anthropological fact. The implications for would be that human populations would just grow until they run out of resources, like bacteria. The implications against would be that they adjust population growth to productive capacities.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

But don't you see that copying my schematic would allow you to profit off of my design? Why don't you think there should be anything in place to disallow, or at least protect against, that?

Why should there be? Does the world owe you a living?

These are the first principles I start with. You own yourself. You own property by trading for it or claiming unowned property. Only things that are scarce are eligible as property. None of these principles can get me to the point where intangibles should be protected.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

It's a question about your intuitive feeling, not the anthropological fact. The implications for would be that human populations would just grow until they run out of resources, like bacteria. The implications against would be that they adjust population growth to productive capacities.

Well, I do know that starvation hinders human population growth and abundance promotes it. We're smarter than bacteria, at least some of us. Of course, the people with 8 children on welfare can give us counterexamples.

0 Replies

Night Ripper wrote:

Why should there be?

Because you own your idea, ideas can be stolen just like any tangible thing, and theft of all sorts ought to be illegal. That is why.

Not to mention the economic reasons that were spoken of earlier.

1 Reply

Copyright Infringement

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know