Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

The Existence of Intellectual Property

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 10:37:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Personally, I struggle to grasp why intellectual property exists. Property requires scarcity, there's no scarcity to it. When I tell you an idea of mine, you have a copy of that idea, so how could I say that I actually own the idea?

Additionally, it's like having ownership over the economic value of something rather than the something. If I were to buy a house with the intent of selling it, and it depreciates in value, I'm not exactly being stolen from.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 1:20:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 10:37:29 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Personally, I struggle to grasp why intellectual property exists.
It is an interesting concept who's understanding didn't come so naturally to me.

Property requires scarcity, there's no scarcity to it.
I don't see how property requires scarcity at all. If I own a bag of rice, it is my property even though rice isn't exactly scarce. The only thing that scarcity seems to determine is price: the more scarce the higher the price.

When I tell you an idea of mine, you have a copy of that idea, so how could I say that I actually own the idea?
You can say that because you came up with the idea. Apparently, it took a particular set of skills (among other things) that you posses to come up with the idea and ownership of the idea is a reward.

Additionally, it's like having ownership over the economic value of something rather than the something.
I don't see a difference.

If I were to buy a house with the intent of selling it, and it depreciates in value, I'm not exactly being stolen from.
No, because you're doing it voluntarily; it's stealing when it's forced. In your example, YOU are choosing to loose money but are not being forced to.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 3:13:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 10:37:29 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Personally, I struggle to grasp why intellectual property exists. Property requires scarcity, there's no scarcity to it. When I tell you an idea of mine, you have a copy of that idea, so how could I say that I actually own the idea?

Additionally, it's like having ownership over the economic value of something rather than the something. If I were to buy a house with the intent of selling it, and it depreciates in value, I'm not exactly being stolen from.

Intellectual property exists for the same reason any property does: the right to one's own labor. Imagine a situation in which someone wants to be an author for a living, but lives in a society in which they have no right to intellectual property, and thus cannot. Now compare this to a situation in which someone wants to make chairs for a living, but has no right to their labor, and thus cannot. For the individuals in question, how are these situations any different? Since rights are properly individualistic to begin with, this is the only perspective that need be considered, no?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 2:43:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 1:20:24 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/11/2014 10:37:29 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Personally, I struggle to grasp why intellectual property exists.
It is an interesting concept who's understanding didn't come so naturally to me.

Property requires scarcity, there's no scarcity to it.
I don't see how property requires scarcity at all. If I own a bag of rice, it is my property even though rice isn't exactly scarce. The only thing that scarcity seems to determine is price: the more scarce the higher the price.

But rice is potentially scarce, while ideas are not scarce fundamentally. It's like comparing "rice" to "the wheel".
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 3:17:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Perhaps because patent trolls are usually very wealthy, and they have a lot of lobbyists. Even for companies that don't [overtly] do this, e.g., Google, the motivation is usually analogous to an arms race between superpowers--it is unfortunately necessary to gather as many patents as one can to avoid being blindsided by a weighty, frivolous lawsuit (e.g., Apple's suit against Samsung for "stealing" the rounded rectangle shape characterizing the iPad). My research indicates that, in the best case, patents usually have no correlation with innovation (except in cases in which innovation is measured by the number of patents, which is plainly unhelpful), and, in the worst case, actually stifles entrepreneurship. Silicon Valley is a nice example of this, since the tech industry is one of the biggest industries for which patent law is contemporarily relevant. It's quite difficult, so I understand, for any startup to be successful, because they usually have to fight through so many patent suits from larger predator companies that, if and when they manage to happen upon a legal clearing, they're usually bankrupt or worse.

The short of it is that it's so easy to metagame, and its maintenance so terribly important to big companies (and far less than you might think to individual inventors or small businesses), that it is more of a political instrument than an economic protection.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 5:17:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 3:17:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
My research indicates that, in the best case, patents usually have no correlation with innovation (except in cases in which innovation is measured by the number of patents, which is plainly unhelpful), and, in the worst case, actually stifles entrepreneurship.

What evidence have you come across that would indicate such? I can see a number of ways in which the data on this could be misleading.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 5:41:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 3:17:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Perhaps because patent trolls are usually very wealthy, and they have a lot of lobbyists.

This is certainly not a deciding factor for the existence of IP (assuming that's what you meant). According to a TIME survey, 81 percent of Americans think the patent system is 'very important', with similar figures for other countries.

http://www.qualcomm.com... (page 36).
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 8:10:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 10:37:29 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Personally, I struggle to grasp why intellectual property exists. Property requires scarcity, there's no scarcity to it.

First of all, property does not require scarcity, I own a car, most people do, I wouldn"t call them scarce, but it is property.

Second, ideas that have monetary value are in fact relatively scarce, that"s why people are inclined to steal them, and it"s why they should be protected.

When I tell you an idea of mine, you have a copy of that idea, so how could I say that I actually own the idea?

If it is your idea and it has monetary value you"d have the right to benefit from it and to have that benefit protected.

Additionally, it's like having ownership over the economic value of something rather than the something.

Yes, that"s the point, if the intellectual property has economic value you have the right to that economic value and it should be legally protected. Valuable intellectual property usually results from an investment of resources like time, effort, and money, if the valuable results of those investments weren"t protected people wouldn"t make them, and there would be less innovation, art, or whatever it is the intellectual property rights protect.

If I were to buy a house with the intent of selling it, and it depreciates in value, I'm not exactly being stolen from.

That"s not a valid comparison, if you built a house and somebody just moved in before you could either occupy or sell it, you"d consider that theft wouldn"t you? And if you weren"t protected from such theft, you certainly wouldn"t make the investment of time, materials, and money to build the house in the first place. Laws protecting your intellectual property rights are an incentive that drives the arts, literature, inventions, and innovation, and stealing intellectual property is not much different than stealing other types of property.

If you wrote a song, a book, the software for a video game, or invented a product, or developed an innovative process, and any of them had monetary value then you should be protected from having it stolen.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 10:30:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 10:37:29 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Personally, I struggle to grasp why intellectual property exists. Property requires scarcity, there's no scarcity to it. When I tell you an idea of mine, you have a copy of that idea, so how could I say that I actually own the idea?

Additionally, it's like having ownership over the economic value of something rather than the something. If I were to buy a house with the intent of selling it, and it depreciates in value, I'm not exactly being stolen from.

The problem is you are comparing intellectual property with physical property, which is like comparing apples and oranges.

Also, property does not require scarcity, or value, or anything if the sort. Property just means ownership, that you are either the creator of something or that property derives from the the fruits of one's labor or abilities.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 7:52:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 10:37:29 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Personally, I struggle to grasp why intellectual property exists. Property requires scarcity, there's no scarcity to it. When I tell you an idea of mine, you have a copy of that idea, so how could I say that I actually own the idea?

Property doesn't require scarcity. Ownership is granted because of the effort a man exerts on his surroundings. It is the exclusive right to act on something. Patents shouldn't protect ideas, they should protect the exact implementations of those ideas in reality. An inventor has the exclusive right to the actions which create his invention.

Additionally, it's like having ownership over the economic value of something rather than the something. If I were to buy a house with the intent of selling it, and it depreciates in value, I'm not exactly being stolen from.

There is no guarantee that others will find your idea valuable. That's irrelevant. Not every patented invention makes money. The invention does, however, have the potential to make money for the inventor, not for anyone else.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 4:13:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 2:43:51 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/11/2014 1:20:24 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/11/2014 10:37:29 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Personally, I struggle to grasp why intellectual property exists.
It is an interesting concept who's understanding didn't come so naturally to me.

Property requires scarcity, there's no scarcity to it.
I don't see how property requires scarcity at all. If I own a bag of rice, it is my property even though rice isn't exactly scarce. The only thing that scarcity seems to determine is price: the more scarce the higher the price.

But rice is potentially scarce, while ideas are not scarce fundamentally. : It's like comparing "rice" to "the wheel".
Uh, no. Ideas can be scarce too: Dark Ages vs Enlightenment; Communism vs Free Market Capitalism, etc.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 10:54:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 3:13:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2014 10:37:29 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Personally, I struggle to grasp why intellectual property exists. Property requires scarcity, there's no scarcity to it. When I tell you an idea of mine, you have a copy of that idea, so how could I say that I actually own the idea?

Additionally, it's like having ownership over the economic value of something rather than the something. If I were to buy a house with the intent of selling it, and it depreciates in value, I'm not exactly being stolen from.

Intellectual property exists for the same reason any property does: the right to one's own labor. Imagine a situation in which someone wants to be an author for a living, but lives in a society in which they have no right to intellectual property, and thus cannot. Now compare this to a situation in which someone wants to make chairs for a living, but has no right to their labor, and thus cannot. For the individuals in question, how are these situations any different? Since rights are properly individualistic to begin with, this is the only perspective that need be considered, no?

The right to one's own labour is sentimental nonsense.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 10:57:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 7:52:00 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/11/2014 10:37:29 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Personally, I struggle to grasp why intellectual property exists. Property requires scarcity, there's no scarcity to it. When I tell you an idea of mine, you have a copy of that idea, so how could I say that I actually own the idea?

Property doesn't require scarcity. Ownership is granted because of the effort a man exerts on his surroundings. It is the exclusive right to act on something. Patents shouldn't protect ideas, they should protect the exact implementations of those ideas in reality. An inventor has the exclusive right to the actions which create his invention.

Additionally, it's like having ownership over the economic value of something rather than the something. If I were to buy a house with the intent of selling it, and it depreciates in value, I'm not exactly being stolen from.

There is no guarantee that others will find your idea valuable. That's irrelevant. Not every patented invention makes money. The invention does, however, have the potential to make money for the inventor, not for anyone else.

Since it's become a personal mission to point out false justifications for private property whenever I encounter them...

"Ownership is granted because of the effort a man exerts on his surroundings" is, again, sentimental nonsense.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 11:00:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 1:20:24 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/11/2014 10:37:29 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Personally, I struggle to grasp why intellectual property exists.
It is an interesting concept who's understanding didn't come so naturally to me.

Property requires scarcity, there's no scarcity to it.
I don't see how property requires scarcity at all. If I own a bag of rice, it is my property even though rice isn't exactly scarce. The only thing that scarcity seems to determine is price: the more scarce the higher the price.

When I tell you an idea of mine, you have a copy of that idea, so how could I say that I actually own the idea?
You can say that because you came up with the idea. Apparently, it took a particular set of skills (among other things) that you posses to come up with the idea and ownership of the idea is a reward.

Additionally, it's like having ownership over the economic value of something rather than the something.
I don't see a difference.

If I were to buy a house with the intent of selling it, and it depreciates in value, I'm not exactly being stolen from.
No, because you're doing it voluntarily; it's stealing when it's forced. In your example, YOU are choosing to loose money but are not being forced to.

Continuing the crusade:
"You can say that because you came up with the idea. Apparently, it took a particular set of skills (among other things) that you posses to come up with the idea and ownership of the idea is a reward"

Being the 'cause' of something does not logically lead to a normative right of exclusive access, pretty clear 'is/ought' mistake.

I am the cause of something =/= I have the right to own it, presumably
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 12:12:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I fear that in the future of a post-scarcity world, where all our needs may simply be printed and copied like data, with the opportunity to enrich all of humankind, we will still resort to this same irrational behavior of enforcing false scarcity in order to preserve the status quo. We may have the ability to supply food and technology to everyone with little to no effort or energy and yet still require them to pay for it anyway. This is the reality of intellectual property. It's absurd and inhuman, that's all there is to it. It serves only to uphold the economically debilitating influence or multinational corporations.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 12:16:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The very notion that you may OWN an IDEA is insulting and degrades what it means to live in a human society.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 12:20:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 10:54:45 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 4/11/2014 3:13:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2014 10:37:29 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Personally, I struggle to grasp why intellectual property exists. Property requires scarcity, there's no scarcity to it. When I tell you an idea of mine, you have a copy of that idea, so how could I say that I actually own the idea?

Additionally, it's like having ownership over the economic value of something rather than the something. If I were to buy a house with the intent of selling it, and it depreciates in value, I'm not exactly being stolen from.

Intellectual property exists for the same reason any property does: the right to one's own labor. Imagine a situation in which someone wants to be an author for a living, but lives in a society in which they have no right to intellectual property, and thus cannot. Now compare this to a situation in which someone wants to make chairs for a living, but has no right to their labor, and thus cannot. For the individuals in question, how are these situations any different? Since rights are properly individualistic to begin with, this is the only perspective that need be considered, no?

The right to one's own labour is sentimental nonsense.

Okay, but is IP not a logical extension of it?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 7:33:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 12:20:12 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/15/2014 10:54:45 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 4/11/2014 3:13:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/11/2014 10:37:29 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Personally, I struggle to grasp why intellectual property exists. Property requires scarcity, there's no scarcity to it. When I tell you an idea of mine, you have a copy of that idea, so how could I say that I actually own the idea?

Additionally, it's like having ownership over the economic value of something rather than the something. If I were to buy a house with the intent of selling it, and it depreciates in value, I'm not exactly being stolen from.

Intellectual property exists for the same reason any property does: the right to one's own labor. Imagine a situation in which someone wants to be an author for a living, but lives in a society in which they have no right to intellectual property, and thus cannot. Now compare this to a situation in which someone wants to make chairs for a living, but has no right to their labor, and thus cannot. For the individuals in question, how are these situations any different? Since rights are properly individualistic to begin with, this is the only perspective that need be considered, no?

The right to one's own labour is sentimental nonsense.

Okay, but is IP not a logical extension of it?

Not really, I mean... It just doesn't make any sense. Certain combinations of words can be owned but others can't?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:59:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 4:13:19 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/12/2014 2:43:51 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/11/2014 1:20:24 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/11/2014 10:37:29 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Personally, I struggle to grasp why intellectual property exists.
It is an interesting concept who's understanding didn't come so naturally to me.

Property requires scarcity, there's no scarcity to it.
I don't see how property requires scarcity at all. If I own a bag of rice, it is my property even though rice isn't exactly scarce. The only thing that scarcity seems to determine is price: the more scarce the higher the price.

But rice is potentially scarce, while ideas are not scarce fundamentally. : It's like comparing "rice" to "the wheel".
Uh, no. Ideas can be scarce too: Dark Ages vs Enlightenment; Communism vs Free Market Capitalism, etc.

Your examples are rather unconvincing.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 3:15:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 10:37:29 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Personally, I struggle to grasp why intellectual property exists. Property requires scarcity, there's no scarcity to it. When I tell you an idea of mine, you have a copy of that idea, so how could I say that I actually own the idea?

The scarcity comes in the time it takes to develop the idea/concept that is protected by property rights. That time is irreplaceable, and for which compensation is seen as just.

Additionally, it's like having ownership over the economic value of something rather than the something. If I were to buy a house with the intent of selling it, and it depreciates in value, I'm not exactly being stolen from.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?