tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post6084630508567723652..comments2023-10-31T03:18:26.963-07:00Comments on Great Guys Weblog: The Patent is the PropertyBrethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-35827804197516192142016-04-15T14:27:51.343-07:002016-04-15T14:27:51.343-07:00Exactly, a transaction between two or more willing...Exactly, a transaction between two or more willing participants. My objections might be submerged if the need were great, failing that, not likely.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-31841097278999713592016-04-15T14:12:10.314-07:002016-04-15T14:12:10.314-07:00Bret, erp:
I am quite certain there is a price at...Bret, erp:<br /><br />I am quite certain there is a price at which you would submerge your objections.<br /><br />Then it wouldn't be theft, it would be a transaction.<br /><br />Which gets exactly to the point I have been making all along. Theft is not a transaction.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-67187728894115428292016-04-15T14:09:40.007-07:002016-04-15T14:09:40.007-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-17052871794203673582016-04-15T13:45:14.158-07:002016-04-15T13:45:14.158-07:00I'm with Bret here. My property, including my...I'm with Bret here. My property, including my car, and I have a history. In fact, my 20 year old Chrysler Concorde that has 200,000 miles of our life imprinted in it is worth less than $2,000 for resale, but I wouldn't sell it for ten times that amount. In fact, it costs a fortune to keep it in prime condition, but my plan is for me and my car to go out together and I would take unkindly if someone were to interfere with that plan.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-5378834697570318302016-04-15T11:56:14.003-07:002016-04-15T11:56:14.003-07:00Hey Skipper: "That is exactly what I'm sa...Hey Skipper: "<i>That is exactly what I'm saying.</i>"<br /><br />Well, that explains our disconnect. For me, ownership is about control of the property. I would still be livid and call the police and press charges even if completely compensated for the value of the car and the time to replace the car and the time and inconvenience for not having the car there when I expected it. My guess is you'd find a whole lot more people with my attitude than yours. And note that because I could still press charges even though fully compensated, the law agrees with me as well.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-12600234537144223152016-04-14T23:26:50.313-07:002016-04-14T23:26:50.313-07:00[Bret:] You're saying that if I took your car ...<i>[Bret:] You're saying that if I took your car but left you a lump of gold that would've required you the exact same "efforts" "to make" your "property" you'd have no problem with that? That would be true if "what matters isn't the car itself." </i><br /><br />That is exactly what I'm saying.<br /><br />If, to follow your hypothetical, if you took my car and left me with a lump of gold big enough to replace the car, <i>and</i> compensate me for the time, effort, and opportunity cost to replace it, then I would have no problem with it. Why should I? Under those circumstances, your stealing the car did not in any way make me a slave to you, because your theft did not affect my ability to commodify my time and effort.<br /><br />Similarly, if you stole my car, and left a brand new version of it in its place, or left a materially identical version of the one you stole, that would not constitute theft, for the same reason.<br /><br /><i>[erp:] As for ebooks, here's an avid user's take. My legitimately purchased ebook should be mine. I didn't rent it with strings attached and there should be a way to easily dispose of it anyway I want to whomever I want and all the rights and responsibilities of ownership transferred to the beneficiary of my munificence. </i><br /><br />Exactly. ebooks should be treated no differently than tangible books. If the point of copyright is to protect intellectual property, then the form that property takes is completely beside the point, provided the form does not unduly impact copyright protection.<br /><br />Near as I can tell, ebooks fit that description. Movies and music are a different matter.<br />Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-61214679048843314602016-04-14T12:05:34.436-07:002016-04-14T12:05:34.436-07:00Bret, when I left academia 25 years ago, a certain...Bret, when I left academia 25 years ago, a certain portion of a book could be copied, but it was a hot issue and I'm not sure what the copyright law about copying books is now. <br /><br />IMO you certainly shouldn't be able copy a book or anything else and sell it as the original product.<br /><br />As for ebooks, here's an avid user's take. My legitimately purchased ebook should be mine. I didn't rent it with strings attached and there should be a way to easily dispose of it anyway I want to whomever I want and all the rights and responsibilities of ownership transferred to the beneficiary of my munificence. <br /><br />Note: I didn't copy the book and no longer have access to it -- in exactly the same way everything else I own can be given away, loaned, sold, etc. without jack-booted feds getting in on it.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-55974129021252760842016-04-14T11:25:00.936-07:002016-04-14T11:25:00.936-07:00Hey Skipper: "If you steal my car, what matte...Hey Skipper: "<i>If you steal my car, what matters isn't the car itself, but the theft of my efforts that were required to make that particular car my property.</i>"<br /><br />I don't think so. Or maybe that's true for you, but then you're really, really unusual.<br /><br />You're saying that if I took your car but left you a lump of gold that would've required you the exact same "efforts" "to make" your "property" you'd have no problem with that? That would be true if "what matters isn't the car itself."Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-8289092183377987742016-04-14T10:17:24.609-07:002016-04-14T10:17:24.609-07:00[Hey Skipper:] "Bret argues that tangibility...<i>[Hey Skipper:] "Bret argues that tangibility defines theft."<br /><br />[Bret:] Did I? It's funny, then, how no form of the word "tangible" appears in my original post. </i><br /><br />From the OP:<br /><br /><i>My belief is that intellectual creations and knowledge are not usually property without completely distorting the meaning of the word 'property.' In order to argue this point, I'm going to focus on just one aspect of intellectual creations as an example: the creation of knowledge that forms the "meat" of method patents. <b>I'm also going to focus on a single attribute of property: that it can be stolen</b>. If something cannot be stolen, as defined by law, then it's not property. </i><br /><br />How else did you mean property in that sentence, except as something a) valuable and b) tangible?<br /><br /><i>My definition of theft is depriving someone else the use of the thing being stolen. If I make a copy of a song you wrote, you still have your copy so it's not theft. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's tangible. </i><br /><br />And I believe your definition is ill founded, because it completely ignores how property comes into being. If you steal my car, what matters isn't the car itself, but the theft of my efforts that were required to make that particular car my property. In essence, your theft made me a slave to you for the amount of time it took me to earn enough of an intangible — money — in order to obtain the car in the first place.<br /><br />If you take a song I wrote, instead of paying for it, then you have made me a slave to you in exactly the same way. If you take a song I wrote, and sell copies of it to other people, you have violated the most fundamental property right of them all — my time.<br /><br />It isn't the use of something that is the issue, it is the commodification of my effort.<br /><br /><i>[Clovis:] There again, that ability is not dependent on the authors own effort alone, but on the effort of the rest of society upon (i) agreeing with giving it protection and (ii) paying up the system that enforces said protection. </i><br /><br />That is true of all property rights.<br /><br /><i>To the extent (i) and (ii) are only achievable through the effort of very many other people … </i><br /><br />To be clear, I'm not trying to justify any particular IP regime, only to assert that misunderstanding the core meanings of property and theft won't help understand why IP exists, or what the problems are.<br /><br /><i>Some are attempting to impose that view? That's an interesting way to describe what is already law, to say the least. </i><br /><br />I can't cite chapter and verse, but I'm pretty certain the law isn't nearly as stringent as you think it is.<br /><br />For instance, I can make copies of copyrighted material for my own personal use. The entertainment industry strongly fought this, and decisively lost. Therefore, I can rip a DVD onto my iPad, or copy songs from my library to CDs. (Although, anymore, I'd be hard pressed to say why I'd do such a thing, but still.)<br /><br />I can loan, or even give, a book to anyone I choose. I can sell a book to used book store. <br /><br />Sometimes I can loan an ebook, but I can never sell one. (There is perhaps an interesting discussion between IP and tangibility to be had there.)<br /><br />If erp was to make copies of an actual book, it would be just as illegal as with an ebook. However, she can quote portions of a book without concern.<br /><br />Apple's approach, allowing 5 AAC copies of copyrighted material, is completely legal. <br /><br />I can make as many mp3 copies as I wish, without breaking any laws.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-23956933301909831152016-04-13T16:49:31.589-07:002016-04-13T16:49:31.589-07:00The wild west in the ether. I love it.The wild west in the ether. I love it.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-59345845073976485092016-04-13T14:34:48.918-07:002016-04-13T14:34:48.918-07:00Bret,
---
There're some interesting loopholes...Bret,<br /><br />---<br />There're some interesting loopholes, however.<br />---<br />There are, but not quite the one you described.<br /><br />Just as with lending ebooks within the Kindle system, what your daughter's friend did may have been quite OK. Apple does not define which are the 5 devices it allows sharing of the iTunes music - actually, they have a 'Family' function by which you can share content from those devices registered as 'Family'. Obviously, they can not define whom you call family.<br /><br />I am assuming this is how she did the copying. If otherwise she just unlocked the files and directly copied them, she did break the rules.<br /><br /><br /><br />---<br />The important thing I learned (other than that daughters will often find a way to get around parents' edicts) was that in that generation, copying stuff is simply not wrong in any way. They can't even begin to grasp how it could possibly be wrong. She can't get why anybody would think she took something from someone. After all, everybody else still has their copy and she wasn't going to buy it anyway.<br />---<br /><br />I am not only from such a generation, but from a whole culture where there has never been much respect for copyrights. And I grew up hearing how that was a hallmark of our underdevelopment. If only we could respect copyrights like the Americans and Europeans did...<br /><br />IMHO, the above view is itself the hallmark of underdevelopment. Very few cultures, if any, grew out of poverty by paying their due copyrights to whatever idea came from abroad. The best example of fast growing economies in the 20th century - Japan, South Korea, China - did a lot of copying and, upon learning the trade by copying so much stuff, started figuring out how to do new things themselves.<br /><br />It's been always thus. Or would your tribe first pay to buy the new best sword bulding technique from the next tribe before being slaught by them?<br /><br /><br />I am not quite preaching anarchy to the world system of IPs, but since the whole thing has been built on so much lack of transparency, I am not caring much for the better balance right now.<br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-15158144756320573832016-04-13T14:17:11.671-07:002016-04-13T14:17:11.671-07:00Skipper,
---
It was never the book itself, no mat...Skipper,<br /><br />---<br />It was never the book itself, no matter how material it may be, but rather impeding authors' ability to commodify their efforts.<br />---<br />There again, that ability is not dependent on the authors own effort alone, but on the effort of the rest of society upon (i) agreeing with giving it protection and (ii) paying up the system that enforces said protection.<br /><br />To the extent (i) and (ii) are only achievable through the effort of very many other people, it is quite a stretch to think of the author's 'right' to commodify his efforts as something 'natural' or obvious. Actually, it can - and has been - used nowadays to steal effort from others in order to protect special interests, or just to hinder competition.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />---<br />[Clovis:] If you ever sent one of those eBooks to others, and they were not in public domain, well, you just broke the law. And to some, you are a thief, if not worse. <br /><br />I know that some are attempting to impose that view of IP. However, so far as I know, doing such a thing constitutes "fair use".<br />---<br />Some are attempting to impose that view? That's an interesting way to describe what is already law. tp say the least.<br /><br />I am not talking about the lending system set up by Amazon to their kindle eBooks. <br /><br />What I've meant is, if Erp had in any way just directly copied one of her copyrighted eBooks files, and applied any technique to unlock it for others to use, she's certainly violated the Kindle user agreement and their copyright protections. She can be sued and jailed for that in your Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.<br /><br />Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-73384917440319554362016-04-13T10:35:27.573-07:002016-04-13T10:35:27.573-07:00... Err that's too old.... Err that's too old.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-60225373718585310902016-04-13T10:24:47.420-07:002016-04-13T10:24:47.420-07:00Hey Skipper wrote: "Bret argues that tangibil...Hey Skipper wrote: "<i>Bret argues that tangibility defines theft.</i>"<br /><br />Did I? It's funny, then, how no form of the word "tangible" appears in my original post.<br /><br />My definition of theft is depriving someone else the use of the thing being stolen. If I make a copy of a song you wrote, you still have your copy so it's not theft. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's tangible.<br /><br />If I steal "bits" from you such that you no longer have access to said bits, then it would be stealing. If, on the other hand, I merely make copies of those bits, then it is not.<br /><br />Also note, stealing and violation of contract are different. Non Disclosure Agreements are a type of contract. Violating them is not theft, but still prohibited.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-16569105857685039552016-04-13T10:24:41.582-07:002016-04-13T10:24:41.582-07:00Bret, my point about intangible property like the ...Bret, my point about intangible property like the thoughts that went into literally writing a book whether in software program, with pen/pencil or a quill, is once it's in a tangible form and sold, the creator has lost control. If it's still under copyright, he/she can sue if the words are used by others even with attribution.<br /><br />I agree that the more people read a book, the better off is the author.<br /><br />ebooks and other stuff on the internet can't be contained and book "lending" is a pain in the neck the way it's currently set up. <br /><br />Unfortunately I'm not as savvy as your daughter about getting around the rules and all the rich people I know are to old to care.<br /><br />:-)erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-31455771502869088042016-04-13T10:16:15.783-07:002016-04-13T10:16:15.783-07:00Clovis wrote: "If you ever sent one of those ...Clovis wrote: "<i>If you ever sent one of those eBooks to others, and they were not in public domain, well, you just broke the law.</i>"<br /><br />There're some interesting loopholes, however.<br /><br />A number of years back, one of my daughters discovered a site where you could illegally download music. I told her she couldn't do that (since it's illegal) and she said "ok, daddy."<br /><br />A couple months later I noticed that she had hundreds of songs on her iPod that I was certain she didn't buy. I was more than a little annoyed and was about to take a hammer to her iPod when she explained that she didn't download a single one of those songs. Rather, she gave her iPod to a friend and when she got it back from the friend it had those songs on it. So she didn't actually disobey I what I told her nor did she violate the "letter" of the law and she said she thought her friend bought all of those songs for her.<br /><br />So I looked it up. What she did is probably not illegal. What the friend did was borderline (assuming the friend didn't actually buy the songs for my daughter - the friend is rich so there's some small chance she did). iTunes allows download to 5 personal devices and the friends probably just used one of the 5 allocations for each song downloaded. So that wasn't illegal either. The possibly illegal step was when the friend gave my daughter her iPod back.<br /><br />The important thing I learned (other than that daughters will often find a way to get around parents' edicts) was that in that generation, copying stuff is simply not wrong in any way. They can't even begin to grasp how it could possibly be wrong. She can't get why anybody would think she took something from someone. After all, everybody else still has their copy and she wasn't going to buy it anyway.<br /><br />I'll be surprised if copyright, at least for music, survives even one-hundred years.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-85021697233085841772016-04-13T10:06:23.456-07:002016-04-13T10:06:23.456-07:00[Clovis:] To keep the analogy, it ought to happen ...<i>[Clovis:] To keep the analogy, it ought to happen that, if I take one of your ideas, you would lose it. Or if I copied your book, you would have none in your hands afterwards. </i><br /><br />Actually, what I wrote was an example, not an analogy.<br /><br />Bret argues that tangibility defines theft. If that is true, then emptying my bank account cannot be theft.<br /><br />Which is why his assertion fails. It isn't the "taking" of intangible bits which is theft, it is the theft of my ability to commodify those bits. Just so with intellectual property. Stealing a book, or publishing it without regard to compensating the author, did not stop being theft when the Kindle Nook was put on the market. It was never the book itself, no matter how material it may be, but rather impeding authors' ability to commodify their efforts.<br /><br /><i>To argue the contrary is to argue that a society that fails at directing its resources to punish the man copying books is just as immoral as any thief out there. And that's what Skipper is defending, knowingly or not. </i><br /><br />Wrong. I am not defending anything, I am attacking Bret's assertion as philosophically flawed, because it focuses on the wrong thing. There is no difference between the bits representing my bank balance, and the bits constituting a book. <i>The bits don't matter</i>. What does matter, and is what is getting stolen, is my ability to turn those bits into tangible commodities.<br /><br />To be clear, I think there are some serious issues with IP laws and enforcement. But, to the extent I'm right, making the concept of theft dependent upon tangibility does nothing to illuminate them.<br /><br />(As an aside, when I lived in Alaska, I paid my monthly subscription fee to Netflix. Now that I live in Germany, Netflix wants* to greatly reduce what I am able to get for my money, simply because of where I am.<br /><br />That is idiocy on stilts.)<br /><br />(*Actually, content providers are the real bozos. But it is NF that is still happy to take every bit as much money for providing a fraction of the choice.)<br /><br /><i>[erp:] It's not that simple. If I buy something, a book or a toaster, I can give it or lend it or sell it to someone without penalty. Why is it theft then if I merely copy my own property and give that copy to somebody else …<br /><br />[Clovis:] If you ever sent one of those eBooks to others, and they were not in public domain, well, you just broke the law. And to some, you are a thief, if not worse. </i><br /><br />I know that some are attempting to impose that view of IP. However, so far as I know, doing such a thing constitutes "fair use". In fact, Amazon explicitly allows e-book lending, and many libraries have copyrighted e-books available for checking out.<br /><br />Going back to my argument that commodification is what matters, it is an interesting question as to whether lending books helps, or hinders, authors' ability to commodify their work. (On balance, helps, I think.)Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-70868224472310451132016-04-13T06:57:50.310-07:002016-04-13T06:57:50.310-07:00I wish they’d come with the media and handcuffs to...I wish they’d come with the media and handcuffs to arrest me. They’d have a video worth going viral.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-36080163601889355702016-04-13T06:06:42.991-07:002016-04-13T06:06:42.991-07:00Still a criminal, Erp. Or so says your law codes.Still a criminal, Erp. Or so says your law codes.Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-41989788968915477782016-04-13T05:11:19.491-07:002016-04-13T05:11:19.491-07:00I don't know how to share ebooks not in the pu...I don't know how to share ebooks not in the public domain other than the cumbersome system Kindle provides, however, I have no compunction watching pirated new movies online because the film industry is so heavily subsided by me and my fellow taxpayers, that I feel that as an unwilling investor in something that in the main produces a product that trashes We, the People, I am entitled to seeing the products without being tortured by sitting in a theater seat.<br /><br />BTW since I have zero interest in modern film, we only watch those my math/theater arts combined major college student granddaughter wants us to see for various technical stuff she admires.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-55189135245755167252016-04-13T04:26:40.019-07:002016-04-13T04:26:40.019-07:00Erp,
If you ever sent one of those eBooks to othe...Erp,<br /><br />If you ever sent one of those eBooks to others, and they were not in public domain, well, you just broke the law. And to some, you are a thief, if not worse.<br /><br />The only thing barring you from paying heavy penalties and serving prison is lack of State resources to chase and prosecute you. At least for now.Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-79539454559209963282016-04-12T19:46:17.578-07:002016-04-12T19:46:17.578-07:00It's not that simple. If I buy something, a b...It's not that simple. If I buy something, a book or a toaster, I can give it or lend it or sell it to someone without penalty. Why is it theft then if I merely copy my own property and give that copy to somebody else, something that will apply to objects even more tangible than books with the new "printers" I've heard can "print" anything -- I hope I live long enough for replicators to replace kitchens.<br /><br />I have come to love reading ebooks on my very lightweight ASUS for a lot of reasons like holding a heavy book is hard on my hands, font size and brightness can be adjusted, Google is there for instant lookups, ditto time and date, email as well, but what is irksome is that I can't merely send the book to another reader without making elaborate arrangements beforehand.<br /><br />We need some very smart people fixing this problem before the meddling busy bodies mess it up irrevokably.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-78288583388808606392016-04-12T18:34:00.685-07:002016-04-12T18:34:00.685-07:00Erp,
Exactly: because we both would have a copy, ...Erp,<br /><br />Exactly: because we both would have a copy, nothing was subtracted from you, contrary to Skipper's example of missing money from his bank account.<br /><br />To argue the contrary is to argue that a society that fails at directing its resources to punish the man copying books is just as immoral as any thief out there. And that's what Skipper is defending, knowingly or not.Clovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921327103613284595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-1039711136402964722016-04-12T11:32:12.959-07:002016-04-12T11:32:12.959-07:00All the rules about intellectual, I like to think ...All the rules about intellectual, I like to think of it as intangible, property need to be rethought in light of new technology. Short pieces, art, photos, etc. cannot be protected because even if they're behind firewalls, they can be so easily copied and pasted into an email or document and sent off to the known world.<br /><br />Don't know the answer, but I sure hope draconian measures aren't taken to "regulate" the internet and put a stop to any, but official information, being allowed to reach us cogs.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-14297358662093795152016-04-12T11:17:39.076-07:002016-04-12T11:17:39.076-07:00Clovis: ... if I copied your book, you would have ...Clovis: <i>... if I copied your book, you would have none in your hands afterwards.</i> <br /><br />Is that correct? Wouldn't it mean, that both of us would have a copy??erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.com