Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Intellectual Property

wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2009 6:41:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Here's a new topic.

Intellectual Property is a proposition that individuals have rights to their original thoughts, as if they were private property.

Examples would be:
-the patent system
-copyrights
-royalties
Naturally, such a provision would require government.
This is especially applicable in the music industry, with the new popularity of music sharing, etc.

So, the question is:
Should individuals be entitled to own their original thoughts?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2009 6:52:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Unnecessary. You can copyright any product of a thought, so why copyright the thought itself?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2009 6:56:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/13/2009 6:52:40 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Unnecessary. You can copyright any product of a thought, so why copyright the thought itself?

They are the same thing.

When there is copyright, the idea is treated as property and cannot be used by others. The thought can still be thought, but it cannot be used. MY THOUGHT.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2009 6:56:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't know enough about copyright laws and etc. to say much, but I believe individuals have certain rights with original thoughts. This should be and is recognized by law under the patent/copyright system.

That being said, I'm trying to look up this "Pirate Party," to see what they're all about. If you don't know what I'm talking about, here: http://en.wikipedia.org...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2009 6:58:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Wikipedia article on the criticism of intellectual property.

The argument that I've heard about it is that it makes innovation more profitable; therefore, encouraging it.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2009 7:04:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/13/2009 6:58:00 PM, wjmelements wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Wikipedia article on the criticism of intellectual property.

The argument that I've heard for it is that it makes innovation more profitable; therefore, encouraging it.

fixed.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2009 7:20:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/13/2009 7:07:08 PM, iamadragon wrote:
How is this different from what is in place?

Intellectual property protection laws ARE in place.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
iamadragon
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2009 7:26:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Oh, I thought you were proposing someone.

Who would go against this? Maybe the extent is in question, but that seems pretty minor.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2009 9:07:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
beem0r would.

So would people against property in general of course.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2009 9:08:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Incidentally, so would most Austrians, though apparently not WJM.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2009 10:10:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I would, at least, to the extent it is currently practiced (In the U.S). The laws we have, and the way they are applied have gone beyond the original intent, which is to protect ideas, into actually intruding into other's lives, as well as attacking legitimate use. For example, there are several cases of record companies suing cryptologists, for cracking the codes they place on C.Ds, despite the fact that this actually helps those companies. Other examples include the way the DRM software on most music C.Ds actually acts like a virus and prevents your computer from making more than three (usually) copies of the C.D, which, given the methods that are used, is a clear violation of privacy.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2009 6:15:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
IP rights do not protect thoughts, actually, but rather either the provision of a best method application of a novel approach (patent) or an original idea fixed in a tangible medium of expression (copyright). Mere ideas (thoughts) alone may be stolen at will.

IP rights provide an incentive the value of which must be weighed against the cost of innovation that would occur if derivative works (copyright) or improved methods (patent) were not prevented. The current system is overly stifling of innovation, but would not have to be reduced much to make it effective.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2009 1:27:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/13/2009 9:08:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Incidentally, so would most Austrians, though apparently not WJM.

I'm undecided. I wanted to hear y'all's arguments.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2009 7:47:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If there are no intellectual property rights, there would soon be no intellectual property.

It is obvious that the music industry, the publishing industry, the video game industry, and the filming industry all rely on intellectual property rights. The removal of intellectual property rights wouldn't help anyone, because there would be no intellectual property to no longer have rights, as nobody would bother to have intellectual property.

In conclusion, the only way to go is intellectual property rights, assuming that you value music, writing, video games, movies, TV shows, and/or ect.
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2009 10:08:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/14/2009 7:47:07 PM, mongeese wrote:
If there are no intellectual property rights, there would soon be no intellectual property.

It is obvious that the music industry, the publishing industry, the video game industry, and the filming industry all rely on intellectual property rights. The removal of intellectual property rights wouldn't help anyone, because there would be no intellectual property to no longer have rights, as nobody would bother to have intellectual property.

In conclusion, the only way to go is intellectual property rights, assuming that you value music, writing, video games, movies, TV shows, and/or ect.

Agreed, but there need to be limits. Currently, there are far too few.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2009 10:09:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/14/2009 7:47:07 PM, mongeese wrote:
If there are no intellectual property rights, there would soon be no intellectual property.

Well, that's not true. There would be, it just wouldn't be as good. There has been art and music since the time of the cave men. People produce intellectual property as a matter of course. They just don't devote significant resources to producing good intellectual property without an additional incentive.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2009 10:21:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The notion of there "Were" no intellectual property rights is absurd. The existence of rights as such could not cease unless a-- everyone took a course of action to lose them or b-- there was no such thing as a human.

Perhaps you mean if there were no recognition of such rights?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2009 10:35:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/14/2009 10:21:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The notion of there "Were" no intellectual property rights is absurd. The existence of rights as such could not cease unless a-- everyone took a course of action to lose them or b-- there was no such thing as a human.

Perhaps you mean if there were no recognition of such rights?

Depends on whether you apply an analysis of rights based on foundational reasoning or on a meta-analysis of that reasoning. Under the constitution, there are inalienable rights assumed the effects of which can not be overridden except in exceptional circumstances. The reason for positing rights, however, is really just to provide a society that appeals to individuals who would prefer to be free of imposition in certain aspects of their lives (i.e. all rights really are incentives to join the group). So arguably rights can be done away with if the group modifies the agreement granting recognition of those rights (as we've already nearly seen with George Bush II's attempt to define marriage in the Constitution to eliminate "rights" that would arise otherwise under state laws.)

Of course, this is irrelevant because there are no rights to intellectual property granted to individuals under the US Constitution or recognized thereunder. Instead, Congress is granted a limited monopoly power that it utilizes to create causes of action under the law that are referred to colloquially as rights. In actuality, no US citizen has any true 'right' to preclude any other citizen from using his or her intellectual 'property.' In fact, every US citizen is granted the right, subject to Congress' monopoly power, to do whatever he or she wishes with the intellectual developments (re: property) of another. This is why an unprotected work is said to be in the public domain. The public has access to it, and any member thereof may exploit it as is his or her right.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2009 6:46:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Under the constitution, there are inalienable rights
Which by definition have little or nothing to do with inalienable rights, since inalienable rights can neither be granted nor taken away by any document.

We are speaking essentially two different languages.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2009 6:48:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Of course, the inalienableness of rights is itself an absurdity. If rights had no means of alienation, they would effectively have no possible means of enforcement, and even the Constitution realizes this about its particular corruption of the phrase, though it might choose to contradict it before and after recognizing it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2009 8:01:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/15/2009 6:48:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Of course, the inalienableness of rights is itself an absurdity. If rights had no means of alienation, they would effectively have no possible means of enforcement, and even the Constitution realizes this about its particular corruption of the phrase, though it might choose to contradict it before and after recognizing it.

I agree with you on this. Place inalienable in quotation marks. Like this. 'inalienable.' As in assumed but not really. The inalienable part just means at best that, barring modification of the social contract, there is no way to impose upon those 'rights.'
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2009 9:59:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
As a socialist I'm inclined to say "all property is theft" but I'm not far left!

If I designed and built my own car (based on a lightweight tubular steel chassis with the running gear of Porsche Boxter S and carbon fibre bodywork) and someone stole it, I'd feel very aggrieved because I had spent a lot of time and money on it.

It's the same with intellectual property rights. You could spend months researching and writing a book and have it published for sale at £10 each only to find some miserable twister has scanned it and is knocking out moody copies on a laser printer and flogging them on the street corner at a Pound a pop.

Little incentive for you to write your next book then, which would be a shame, because I'm sure it would be a very good one!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2009 5:13:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Guys, it was the Declaration of Independence that acknowledged inalienable rights, not the Constitution.

That's the second history epic fail I've seen on this website so far.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2009 5:16:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/16/2009 5:13:29 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Guys, it was the Declaration of Independence that acknowledged inalienable rights, not the Constitution.

That's the second history epic fail I've seen on this website so far.

What was the first?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2009 5:20:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/16/2009 5:16:13 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/16/2009 5:13:29 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Guys, it was the Declaration of Independence that acknowledged inalienable rights, not the Constitution.

That's the second history epic fail I've seen on this website so far.

What was the first?

On the 4th of July. http://www.debate.org...
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2009 12:05:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/16/2009 5:13:29 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Guys, it was the Declaration of Independence that acknowledged inalienable rights, not the Constitution.

That's the second history epic fail I've seen on this website so far.

I take Lincoln's view that the Constitution is to be interpreted through the lens of the Declaration of Independence. I further see all Constitutional rights as fragments of those found within the DoI. The right to privacy, for example, is grounded for me in the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, to the extent that the free exercise of such rights is not modified by the filter of the social contract, such exercise can not be restricted by government.

I never said that the Constitution acknowledged them as inalienable in its text. Just that they could be found within. The right to life is even recognized directly, although clearly, its exercise has been modified by the social contract (it is subject to extinguishment).
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.