4 ms·

I agree with you, partially. Ideas are real-- as real as anything. Intellectual property is a fiction applied to ideas, just like physical property is a fictio

by Cushman 16y ago

I agree with you, partially. Ideas are real-- as real as anything. Intellectual property is a fiction applied to ideas, just like physical property is a fiction applied to physical objects. But of course physical objects don't follow the same rules as ideas do, so IP needs to have different rules from property. (We're still figuring out what the best rules are.) But the hard question we're talking about here is what do we do when most of the value of a physical object is in the idea that it represents, rather than it's physical nature? Should that fall under the fiction of physical property, or intellectual property? Or some third abstraction that hasn't caught on yet? I think that's a hard question, and stopping after saying "I own it, it's mine" isn't doing justice to it or to the spirit of intellectual curiosity.

loup-vaillant 16y ago
> Ideas are real-- as real as anything Ideas aren't real by themselves, in the sense that they aren't even a part of reality. Now the fact that we have ideas is definitely real, in the sense that having a idea is a physical process (some sort of brain chemistry). I know I sound pedantic, but such confusion is the basis of many silly disputes, like the one that's about deciding whether ideas "out there" or "man made", while it doesn't actually change anything. Now, you keep saying "property", but do you really think that any rule we should come up with are closer to physical property than exclusivity or monopoly? Frankly, the only IP rules I can come up with are directly a form of exclusivity or monopoly, and have nothing to do with ownership. Now your question may be hard for you, but for me it's dead easy. I believe that all software should be free. That patents should be banished (including, if not especially, the pharmaceutical ones). That copyright length should be reduced down to 10 years tops, and it's scope limited to commercial exploitation. The only thing I'm not sure yet is whether we should abolish copyright altogether. Therefore, I believe that you should totally own what you rightfully hold in your hands, even if most its value comes from the idea it represents. I may make an exception for DVD and such, but when the object can do useful things beyond storing some pre-set data, then you should be allowed to do anything, including publishing the schematics and the firmware.
- Cushman 16y ago
  I was being pedantic in saying that ideas are real. An idea is the subjective experience of a brain state; there's nothing extra-real about that. It's not really possible to own an idea, but then if you deconstruct ownership, it's not really possible to own anything; all "property" is a legal fiction, so that by itself is a dead end. Now, personally, I believe having access to more information is better than less. Purely on utilitarian grounds, I feel like I've seen pretty strong arguments that short-term patents and copyrights are great at incentivizing creation, which then lapses to the public creating greater good for all. Our IP system may be pretty broken, but that's a different subject. You seem to be opposing IP categorically because of a moral judgment, but I don't understand what the principle is. You clearly have some consequentialist concerns, but they don't extend far enough to, say, allow a developer to earn a living by selling software. What's the moral value here? More on point, why doesn't the same thing apply to physical property? Why is it okay for the government to tell you you're not allowed to drive "my" car, but not for them to tell you you're not allowed to reprint "my" book?
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    It sounds like we both read lesswrong. Good. :) I now understand your notions of "ideas" and "legal fiction", and I obviously agree with you on those points. Now my moral judgement is mainly about freedom. More specifically where you draw the line between the freedoms of different people. Basically, I try to draw a reasonable one, where no one can significantly restrict the freedoms of others. I can exemplify this best with the BSD vs GPL dilemma. Individually, the BSD licence gives total freedom, while the GPL doesn't. So at this first glance, the BSD licence is "more free". However, when you look closer, you see that the only important additional freedom the BSD licence gives you is the ability to proprietarize the licensed software. In other words, the freedom to take away the freedoms (1, 2, and 3) of your customers. Using that freedom is crossing my line, because I mostly care about individual freedom for the masses. Therefore, something that forbids you to cross this line is perfectly OK for me. I would go as far as accepting a law that would forbid proprietary software (private and custom software would still be allowed), at least when it comes to "useful" software. I still hesitate when such software is mostly art (like games). Now, about selling software, well… The way we understand "selling" only applies to scarce stuff, like groceries, or books (the book itself, not it's embedded content). So, the only way to effectively sell software is to make it scarce. Scarce software is necessarily proprietary. So I view the sell of software as an immoral activity. Now I don't mind if you sell the labour of producing the first copy (as is the case with custom software). I don't mind if you charge $much for the privilege of getting a copy from you. I don't mind if you ask for donations. And I certainly don't mind if you sell support or hand holding (your time is scarce stuff). If I use your car (even when you don't need it), it will get… used. Which mean you will be less able to use it in the future. Your car is scarce stuff. For your book, it depends. If I need to "use" your book (piece of paper) to reprint it, obviously that means you will be less able to hold it in the future. Also, even if I can get a copy of your book from you without damaging it in any way, you could still want to keep it secret. That's privacy, and I think it's crucially important. But when the state forbids me to reprint your book (piece of knowledge), of which I have a copy that I have legitimately acquired, then it's a direct restriction of my freedom to do something that doesn't directly restrict your freedom. In this case, the state better have a damn good reason to forbid me to reprint your book (like, otherwise you would write much fewer books). In the end I'm not categorically opposed to IP systems. (I am opposed to the term "IP", because it's confusing.) But I think an IP system must have the burden of proof. It should present strong evidence that its benefits outweigh its costs, which in my opinion are quite high.

by Cushman 16y ago

loup-vaillant 16y ago

> Ideas are real-- as real as anything Ideas aren't real by themselves, in the sense that they aren't even a part of reality. Now the fact that we have ideas is definitely real, in the sense that having a idea is a physical process (some sort of brain chemistry). I know I sound pedantic, but such confusion is the basis of many silly disputes, like the one that's about deciding whether ideas "out there" or "man made", while it doesn't actually change anything. Now, you keep saying "property", but do you really think that any rule we should come up with are closer to physical property than exclusivity or monopoly? Frankly, the only IP rules I can come up with are directly a form of exclusivity or monopoly, and have nothing to do with ownership. Now your question may be hard for you, but for me it's dead easy. I believe that all software should be free. That patents should be banished (including, if not especially, the pharmaceutical ones). That copyright length should be reduced down to 10 years tops, and it's scope limited to commercial exploitation. The only thing I'm not sure yet is whether we should abolish copyright altogether. Therefore, I believe that you should totally own what you rightfully hold in your hands, even if most its value comes from the idea it represents. I may make an exception for DVD and such, but when the object can do useful things beyond storing some pre-set data, then you should be allowed to do anything, including publishing the schematics and the firmware.

Cushman 16y ago
I was being pedantic in saying that ideas are real. An idea is the subjective experience of a brain state; there's nothing extra-real about that. It's not really possible to own an idea, but then if you deconstruct ownership, it's not really possible to own anything; all "property" is a legal fiction, so that by itself is a dead end. Now, personally, I believe having access to more information is better than less. Purely on utilitarian grounds, I feel like I've seen pretty strong arguments that short-term patents and copyrights are great at incentivizing creation, which then lapses to the public creating greater good for all. Our IP system may be pretty broken, but that's a different subject. You seem to be opposing IP categorically because of a moral judgment, but I don't understand what the principle is. You clearly have some consequentialist concerns, but they don't extend far enough to, say, allow a developer to earn a living by selling software. What's the moral value here? More on point, why doesn't the same thing apply to physical property? Why is it okay for the government to tell you you're not allowed to drive "my" car, but not for them to tell you you're not allowed to reprint "my" book?
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  It sounds like we both read lesswrong. Good. :) I now understand your notions of "ideas" and "legal fiction", and I obviously agree with you on those points. Now my moral judgement is mainly about freedom. More specifically where you draw the line between the freedoms of different people. Basically, I try to draw a reasonable one, where no one can significantly restrict the freedoms of others. I can exemplify this best with the BSD vs GPL dilemma. Individually, the BSD licence gives total freedom, while the GPL doesn't. So at this first glance, the BSD licence is "more free". However, when you look closer, you see that the only important additional freedom the BSD licence gives you is the ability to proprietarize the licensed software. In other words, the freedom to take away the freedoms (1, 2, and 3) of your customers. Using that freedom is crossing my line, because I mostly care about individual freedom for the masses. Therefore, something that forbids you to cross this line is perfectly OK for me. I would go as far as accepting a law that would forbid proprietary software (private and custom software would still be allowed), at least when it comes to "useful" software. I still hesitate when such software is mostly art (like games). Now, about selling software, well… The way we understand "selling" only applies to scarce stuff, like groceries, or books (the book itself, not it's embedded content). So, the only way to effectively sell software is to make it scarce. Scarce software is necessarily proprietary. So I view the sell of software as an immoral activity. Now I don't mind if you sell the labour of producing the first copy (as is the case with custom software). I don't mind if you charge $much for the privilege of getting a copy from you. I don't mind if you ask for donations. And I certainly don't mind if you sell support or hand holding (your time is scarce stuff). If I use your car (even when you don't need it), it will get… used. Which mean you will be less able to use it in the future. Your car is scarce stuff. For your book, it depends. If I need to "use" your book (piece of paper) to reprint it, obviously that means you will be less able to hold it in the future. Also, even if I can get a copy of your book from you without damaging it in any way, you could still want to keep it secret. That's privacy, and I think it's crucially important. But when the state forbids me to reprint your book (piece of knowledge), of which I have a copy that I have legitimately acquired, then it's a direct restriction of my freedom to do something that doesn't directly restrict your freedom. In this case, the state better have a damn good reason to forbid me to reprint your book (like, otherwise you would write much fewer books). In the end I'm not categorically opposed to IP systems. (I am opposed to the term "IP", because it's confusing.) But I think an IP system must have the burden of proof. It should present strong evidence that its benefits outweigh its costs, which in my opinion are quite high.