4 ms·

My point is that you are picking and choosing which parts of nature you value. The idea of "having", of ownership, is not natural. Many people like Locke have t

My point is that you are picking and choosing which parts of nature you value. The idea of "having", of ownership, is not natural. Many people like Locke have tried to connect it nature, but with limited success — it's still a human construct. In the natural world ownership is defended purely by force or guile. So you are taking this idea of ownership, protected by human constructs of law, and then adding a caveat that it only applies to physical objects. But that's not a natural consequence of the idea of ownership. We make up laws based on the outcomes we desire. One of those outcomes, to promote the progress of science and useful arts, is explicitly called out in the US Constitution. Maybe you don't think promoting those things are important, or maybe you don't think copyright is effective at doing that, but you are not making that argument. You are making some novel, unsupportable argument about natural law and physics that frankly doesn't stand up to any sort of rigorous argument.

agalunar 4y ago
I believe I understand what you're saying, but I feel we're talking about different things, so I may have miscommunicated my point. I'm not talking about ownership as recognized or enforced by people (in fact, I never used the word "own" or "ownership"). All I mean is that if something is over here by me, it can't be over there by you, because things can't be in two places at once. On the other hand, the exact same spatial arrangement can be in two places at once (e.g. the state of bits on a disk, or the idea of a shovel, i.e. the pattern of a shovel as exemplified by two distinct shovels). All of that's obvious. I think what OP was trying to suggest is: Despite the obvious difference between physical things and ideas, we often treat them similarly (specifically, we treat ideas like physical objects). And perhaps that would seem a bit strange if we weren't so used to it.
- fhsm 4y ago
  I am similar unclear on where this supposed bright line sites but to try and steal man your argument a bit is it possible you looking for the distinction between excludable and rivalrous goods?
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    Just reading through, the distinction seems pretty obvious to me. It doesn’t reinforce several of my ideological perspectives, even contradicts some, but the distinction is plain as day. Physical things are subject to the laws of physics (can’t be in two places at once), idea “things” are much more ephemeral and thus much less restricted by those same rules (an idea can propagate basically infinitely and be “had” by basically all who wish to have it, barring arbitrary rules to the contrary). The former has concrete, immutable scarcity, and the latter only has scarcity people assign to it.
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      As a general rule we don't enforce copyright at the point of having an idea, but rather at the point of putting that idea into some sort of medium that can be transmitted to others, and then we enforce copyright at the transmission point. The transmission has concrete, albeit somewhat mutable scarcity.
      - philipps 4y ago
        The characterization that IP law is only intended to spur creative activity is incorrect. It was designed to balance the interests of the creator with those of society. And that balance is off, IP regulation has become a tool for rent seeking.
        bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        >The characterization that IP law is only intended to spur creative activity is incorrect. It was designed to balance the interests of the creator with those of society. I will just note that characterization is a very American one, and that different cultures have different characterizations.
        damoe 4y ago
        You are actually incorrect here as far as the US goes. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US constitution states: To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. The whole constitutional purpose of IP law is to spur creative activity. The interests of the creator are only a means to this end. This has, unfortunately, been perverted by regulatory capture.
- irjustin 4y ago
  Agreed that you're talking about physics, but how does that translate into society? At some point you have to move away from physical requirements. The barter system simply doesn't scale.
  - posterboy 4y ago
    The monopoly on violence is a fundamental concept of state theory. Formulaicly, the people constitute the state and exert power based on democratic principles. Since intelectual property rights do not reflect a democratic process and were rather restricted because they threatened the power of the estate, their merrit is questionable.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  >Despite the obvious difference between physical things and ideas, we often treat them similarly (specifically, we treat ideas like physical objects). And perhaps that would seem a bit strange if we weren't so used to it. ok but they way that we treat them the same are both constructs, we don't treat them the same in that if A has the idea you can't have it (in the same way that if A takes the bite of bread you cannot have that bite of bread), we treat them the same that if A has the idea they have a right to profit from it by selling you the idea in the form of a book etc. just as if A has the bread they have a right to profit from it by selling you a bite. And you don't have the right to take the bread from A just because you can. As noted while it is physically impossible for an object to exist in two places at the same time it is the social construct of ownership that we transfer from physical objects to non-physical objects.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
danShumway 4y ago
Okay. If all ownership is arbitrary, then definitely we can limit IP when its not benefiting society. IP is arbitrary and made up, just like everything else. Calling out all property ownership as arbitrary doesn't mean IP suddenly deserves more protection. If anything, it gives more permission to be skeptical about its value to society. An IP law that prevents digital libraries isn't an outcome we desire, so... case closed, let's change the law. You're arguing about whether natural rights exist, but regardless of whether or not there is such a thing as a natural right -- intellectual property is not a natural right. And getting rid of the entire category of natural rights just makes IP even more obviously not a natural right. It's not something that people are universally entitled to regardless of the social impact.
ramblenode 4y ago
> The idea of "having", of ownership, is not natural. > In the natural world ownership is defended purely by force or guile There is a third view which is that human law is a continuum ranging from things we are genetically predisposed to expect as members of a social species to constructs which are mostly cultural. For example, almost every human civilization has some prohibition on killing and stealing from other members of the community. These are more foundational than laws about how to dress or speak. Even communities of non-human primates recognize stealing as a transgression and may collectively punish a thief. So the idea of personal property has deep roots and is not exclusively human. "Property" which includes constructs like probhibitions on copying what someone else has done without paying them tribute is an abstraction of personal property, which is much closer to an innate human concept.

agalunar 4y ago

I believe I understand what you're saying, but I feel we're talking about different things, so I may have miscommunicated my point. I'm not talking about ownership as recognized or enforced by people (in fact, I never used the word "own" or "ownership"). All I mean is that if something is over here by me, it can't be over there by you, because things can't be in two places at once. On the other hand, the exact same spatial arrangement can be in two places at once (e.g. the state of bits on a disk, or the idea of a shovel, i.e. the pattern of a shovel as exemplified by two distinct shovels). All of that's obvious. I think what OP was trying to suggest is: Despite the obvious difference between physical things and ideas, we often treat them similarly (specifically, we treat ideas like physical objects). And perhaps that would seem a bit strange if we weren't so used to it.

fhsm 4y ago
I am similar unclear on where this supposed bright line sites but to try and steal man your argument a bit is it possible you looking for the distinction between excludable and rivalrous goods?
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  Just reading through, the distinction seems pretty obvious to me. It doesn’t reinforce several of my ideological perspectives, even contradicts some, but the distinction is plain as day. Physical things are subject to the laws of physics (can’t be in two places at once), idea “things” are much more ephemeral and thus much less restricted by those same rules (an idea can propagate basically infinitely and be “had” by basically all who wish to have it, barring arbitrary rules to the contrary). The former has concrete, immutable scarcity, and the latter only has scarcity people assign to it.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    As a general rule we don't enforce copyright at the point of having an idea, but rather at the point of putting that idea into some sort of medium that can be transmitted to others, and then we enforce copyright at the transmission point. The transmission has concrete, albeit somewhat mutable scarcity.
    - philipps 4y ago
      The characterization that IP law is only intended to spur creative activity is incorrect. It was designed to balance the interests of the creator with those of society. And that balance is off, IP regulation has become a tool for rent seeking.
      - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        >The characterization that IP law is only intended to spur creative activity is incorrect. It was designed to balance the interests of the creator with those of society. I will just note that characterization is a very American one, and that different cultures have different characterizations.
      - damoe 4y ago
        You are actually incorrect here as far as the US goes. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US constitution states: To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. The whole constitutional purpose of IP law is to spur creative activity. The interests of the creator are only a means to this end. This has, unfortunately, been perverted by regulatory capture.
irjustin 4y ago
Agreed that you're talking about physics, but how does that translate into society? At some point you have to move away from physical requirements. The barter system simply doesn't scale.
- posterboy 4y ago
  The monopoly on violence is a fundamental concept of state theory. Formulaicly, the people constitute the state and exert power based on democratic principles. Since intelectual property rights do not reflect a democratic process and were rather restricted because they threatened the power of the estate, their merrit is questionable.
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
>Despite the obvious difference between physical things and ideas, we often treat them similarly (specifically, we treat ideas like physical objects). And perhaps that would seem a bit strange if we weren't so used to it. ok but they way that we treat them the same are both constructs, we don't treat them the same in that if A has the idea you can't have it (in the same way that if A takes the bite of bread you cannot have that bite of bread), we treat them the same that if A has the idea they have a right to profit from it by selling you the idea in the form of a book etc. just as if A has the bread they have a right to profit from it by selling you a bite. And you don't have the right to take the bread from A just because you can. As noted while it is physically impossible for an object to exist in two places at the same time it is the social construct of ownership that we transfer from physical objects to non-physical objects.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

danShumway 4y ago

Okay. If all ownership is arbitrary, then definitely we can limit IP when its not benefiting society. IP is arbitrary and made up, just like everything else. Calling out all property ownership as arbitrary doesn't mean IP suddenly deserves more protection. If anything, it gives more permission to be skeptical about its value to society. An IP law that prevents digital libraries isn't an outcome we desire, so... case closed, let's change the law. You're arguing about whether natural rights exist, but regardless of whether or not there is such a thing as a natural right -- intellectual property is not a natural right. And getting rid of the entire category of natural rights just makes IP even more obviously not a natural right. It's not something that people are universally entitled to regardless of the social impact.

ramblenode 4y ago

> The idea of "having", of ownership, is not natural. > In the natural world ownership is defended purely by force or guile There is a third view which is that human law is a continuum ranging from things we are genetically predisposed to expect as members of a social species to constructs which are mostly cultural. For example, almost every human civilization has some prohibition on killing and stealing from other members of the community. These are more foundational than laws about how to dress or speak. Even communities of non-human primates recognize stealing as a transgression and may collectively punish a thief. So the idea of personal property has deep roots and is not exclusively human. "Property" which includes constructs like probhibitions on copying what someone else has done without paying them tribute is an abstraction of personal property, which is much closer to an innate human concept.