4 ms·

Just as an example, a really tight "intellectual property" regime would have to have... This is a logical fallacy: for an act to be illegal, it does not follow

by uvdiv 14y ago

Just as an example, a really tight "intellectual property" regime would have to have... This is a logical fallacy: for an act to be illegal, it does not follow that the state is empowered to preempt it from ever occurring at all, especially at the expense of basic civil rights. Conspiracy to commit murder is illegal; yet most police forces don't read every piece of communication to make sure it isn't a murder plan. Domestic violence is a crime; yet there are not spouse-monitoring CCTV cameras in every household.

bediger4000 14y ago
OK, it's a logical fallacy, but you're splitting hairs. What's the point of "intellectual property" except to get some government to enforce it? "IP" laws don't empower individuals, in the way that say, free speech rights do. "IP" laws empower enforcers. So, yes, strictly speaking, I made a logical fallacy. In real life, that's the way "IP" is going to play out: strictly enforced.
- rayiner 14y ago
  What's the point of "real property" except to get some government to enforce it? That doesn't mean you need to enforce it as strictly as you can possibly imagine. By and large there is no government enforcement of patents--it's all left to private suits.
  - bediger4000 14y ago
    You can uniquely possess real property. That's actually what distinguishes "intellectual" from "real" property. The computer on which I type this is mine: I possess it solely. When I'm using it, nobody else can, there's simply no room o the keyboard. The same holds true for my other real property, my stove, my refridgerator, my toaster. You can use my "intellectual property" at exactly the same time and pretty much in exactly the same way as I use it. The law about "IP" is not about property per se, it's about monopoly. Some government agrees to enforce your monopoly on some idea.
- uvdiv 14y ago
  I'm not splitting hairs -- suing a company for cloning a CPU, versus spying on citizens to preemptively check that they're not pirating -- the difference isn't a hair, it's an enormous gulf. I'm not hostile to slippery-slope rhetoric, but you have to make it credible; this is over-the-top.
  - bediger4000 14y ago
    But the spying/surveillance is what we see happening: Google for "six strikes" and see what you find. Google for "The Unbearable Lightness of Monitoring", let me know what you find. We also have a lot of "spying" precedents in the USA. Google "CALEA", "DCS-3000", "DCS-6000". Once something becomes illegal, almost nothing will be spared to suppress it. The NSA is almost certainly snooping on almost every US citizen, with the aid of telecomm companies. Google for "Room 641A". They aren't even looking for specific crimes, they're just monitoring. Google for "crypto wars" to see what the USA wanted to do. Read especially the specifics of Skipjack that you can find. Ask yourself why cryptography was so nearly suppressed. I don't really think this is over-the-top: it's almost factual, very little separates us from a really tight "IP" control regime.

by uvdiv 14y ago

bediger4000 14y ago

OK, it's a logical fallacy, but you're splitting hairs. What's the point of "intellectual property" except to get some government to enforce it? "IP" laws don't empower individuals, in the way that say, free speech rights do. "IP" laws empower enforcers. So, yes, strictly speaking, I made a logical fallacy. In real life, that's the way "IP" is going to play out: strictly enforced.

rayiner 14y ago
What's the point of "real property" except to get some government to enforce it? That doesn't mean you need to enforce it as strictly as you can possibly imagine. By and large there is no government enforcement of patents--it's all left to private suits.
- bediger4000 14y ago
  You can uniquely possess real property. That's actually what distinguishes "intellectual" from "real" property. The computer on which I type this is mine: I possess it solely. When I'm using it, nobody else can, there's simply no room o the keyboard. The same holds true for my other real property, my stove, my refridgerator, my toaster. You can use my "intellectual property" at exactly the same time and pretty much in exactly the same way as I use it. The law about "IP" is not about property per se, it's about monopoly. Some government agrees to enforce your monopoly on some idea.
uvdiv 14y ago
I'm not splitting hairs -- suing a company for cloning a CPU, versus spying on citizens to preemptively check that they're not pirating -- the difference isn't a hair, it's an enormous gulf. I'm not hostile to slippery-slope rhetoric, but you have to make it credible; this is over-the-top.
- bediger4000 14y ago
  But the spying/surveillance is what we see happening: Google for "six strikes" and see what you find. Google for "The Unbearable Lightness of Monitoring", let me know what you find. We also have a lot of "spying" precedents in the USA. Google "CALEA", "DCS-3000", "DCS-6000". Once something becomes illegal, almost nothing will be spared to suppress it. The NSA is almost certainly snooping on almost every US citizen, with the aid of telecomm companies. Google for "Room 641A". They aren't even looking for specific crimes, they're just monitoring. Google for "crypto wars" to see what the USA wanted to do. Read especially the specifics of Skipjack that you can find. Ask yourself why cryptography was so nearly suppressed. I don't really think this is over-the-top: it's almost factual, very little separates us from a really tight "IP" control regime.