Should Intellectual Property Exist?

I must disagree entirely with your statement that "all rights are a legal fiction". Any true rights are ethical in nature, and exist whether there is any law or not. Law should enshrine and institutionalize the protection of rights, and should never be viewed as a replacement for them or conflated with the rights themselves. The fact that law is often viewed as being the source of rights is a pretty big part of the reason that individual rights get the short end of the stick so often, I think.

Who is writing code and whether it's convenient for them to have copyright law to help them enforce nondisclosure is immaterial to the matter of rights, anyway. That's a question of efficacy, and not of ethicality. In any case, your argument in that regard doesn't seem to hold up so well from where I'm sitting: I, too, write code for money, and I too am not a corporate drone. I do so without maintaining standard copyright restrictions on the code I write, though, and it isn't hurting my income any. The fact that you think it would hurt yours probably says more about how little you've thought about how you can make money with code in ways other than the standard extortionary model than it does about the importance of copyright.

Considering that I write a lot of XHTML, CSS, PHP, and Perl for my clients, it would generally be rather difficult to hide the code from them in any case, so the question of whether or not I can disclose my code to them is nicely answered: I have to, insofar as it's effectively impossible to hide it.

The only lawyers I talk to, generally, are friends of mine who are not doing pro bono work for me.

My clients are all aware, when I give them working code, that they can do what they want with it.

These are, indeed, simple and practical side-effects of copyright, and they aren't stopping me from making money at all. Why are they stopping you?

I'm not saying you can't benefit from your creations. I'm just saying you can't initiate force to do it.

I'm just unwilling to grant ethical "right" status to something that was magicked up because it is merely thought to be effective at inspiring innovation, particularly when it also has the effect of allowing innovation to be suppressed, and it furthermore conflicts with other, previously existing, property rights.

There's nothing "foolish" about my position. It's well considered, thoroughly reasoned out, and based in principles of individual rights. The fact that my position is unpopular isn't in any way convincing as an argument that it's invalid or "foolish".

No-one has the "right to be free from initiations of force" in toto. Nor is there any complete right to self-determination without reference to others. And your right to say "that's mine" about tangible goods immediately breaks down when two people say the same thing, which is the origin of law.

In any case, violence is only required to take something from me if I determine to resist you physically, and the situation is appropriate. It's perfectly possible for you to steal my (physical) book without hurting me. Burglary springs to mind. And theoretically, assuming I knew enough about something for it to be worthwhile, where does torturing me to obtain information or ideas from me fit into your over-neat scheme?

If a majority of people think that they have a 'right' to determine what happens to their ideas, then that's as good a basis as any for arguing that such a right exists. Better, anyway, than an argument from 'ethics', which just recedes into 'things that I feel are right'.

If you or we came up with an idea that gave you a considerable market advantage.
Aside from being in my opinion unethical to sell it on to your competitors, it would be stupid. You'd never trust me again, and your competitors knowing for a fact I was stupid and unethical wouldn't trust me in the first place, and have me straight out of the door upon the end of milking me.
However if I could develop/extend the idea into another area by myself and you did not or would not enter into an explicit agreement with me, then I would not feel as though I'd shafted you.
Yet you could tie me up in legal waffle because the foundatioon on which I built the extension to the idea was 'yours'.

Many of my previous posts were attempts to strip out the fluff of this thread. The ethics of this matter can't be aduquately demonstrated by example. Thus I have restated what I beleive in its most basic form.

1. An unethical person would be someone who knowingly violates the first to priciples I've stated. (Or other ethical priciples mot relavent to this discussion.)

2. Of course it has to be taken into account that his intentions are ethical. I suppose I could have described it as a sort of pre-contract. When you purchase a product (protected by patent or copywrite) you in effect enter into a contract with the owner of the idea. That contract will stipulate what your obligations in reguard to the product are.

Really? Nobody has a right to be free from initiations of force "in
toto"? Give me an example of an instance in which a person
doesn't have such a right, then logically justify that exception.
All it takes to support your statement is one exception. Let's see
it. Keep in mind that the word "initiation" is part of my
statement, meaning that reciprocal force does not constitute an
exception.

What do you mean by your statement that there's no right to
self-determination "without reference to others"?

It's true that violence isn't always directly necessary for such acts
as burglary. Of course, I didn't say "violence", I said "initiation of
force", which can consist of "violence, threat of violence, or
fraud". In short, by "initiation of force" I refer to coercive
influences. A system of mutually supporting circumstances,
combined with the logical consequences of the ethical premise
that initiations of force are wrong, leads to the justification for
proprietary rights even in absentia. Granted, the law doesn't
really address that as well as it should in practice, but the
principle in theory is still valid, and the proper handling of that
would be to fix the law, not to A) discard protection of property
rights entirely or B) start making up new proprietary privileges,
label them rights, and enforce them, without logical justification.

It should be fairly obvious where torturing someone to obtain
information fits the ethical system to which I refer: it's an
initiation of force. It is, after all, violence and threat of violence
applied to coerce compliance. I would have thought that would
be blindingly obvious. It's pretty neat, by the way, how you try
to imply the invalidity of an ethical system by calling it an "over-
neat scheme". You should be working for the Microsoft
marketing department, generating good FUD like that.

responses to two quotes from your post:

1. "If a majority of people think that they have a 'right' to
determine what happens to their ideas, then that's as good a
basis as any for arguing that such a right exists."

Wrong. That would justify slavery, genocide, inquisitions, and
anything else you like, at various points in history. That's the
very epitome of moral and ethical relativism, and under such
circumstances there's really zero justification for intellectual
property law anyway, since the mere fact that there are so many
people sharing music over the Internet would present a credible
challenge to your notion that popularity defines right and wrong.

2. "Better, anyway, than an argument from 'ethics', which just
recedes into 'things that I feel are right'."

Wrong again. There's a distinct difference between "morals" and
"ethics", which you seem to be conflating in your mind here, and
aside from that you seem to have missed my references to a
logical basis for a system of ethics. You have just made
sweeping assumptions and generalizations about ethicality,
implying that nobody ever considers matters of right and wrong
beyond gut reaction, all the while trying to justify intellectual
property law. Are you even aware of the contradiction there? If
ethicality doesn't mean anything, maybe you can enlighten us as
to why there is [b]any reason at all[/b] to obey intellectual
property law aside from mere self-centered short-sighted
conformity.

.
.....in the fuzzy middle.

The scenario you describe is similar to how Microsoft got its start. When you said, ".....if I could develop/extend the idea into another area by myself and you did not or would not enter into an explicit agreement with me, then I would not feel as though I'd shafted you", it reminded me of the Bill Gates relationship with IBM.

Gates and Allen were contracted by IBM to write an operating system for their newly developed PC. They wrote the operating system for IBM, calling it PC-DOS. IBM was sitting there fat, dumb, and happy, making the initial inroads into the fledgling PC market. However, Gates and Allen (Microsoft) retained the licensing rights for the software they developed for IBM. I don't know all the particular details, but I believe it had to be different to some degree, and it couldn't be called by the same name, or something like that. (Colin would know for sure.) So presto, a few changes to the basic operating system, and given a different name, which was MS-DOS, and Microsoft was born.

So in that case, it was bound to be either IBM who was destined to take-off with the PC operating system market, if they had retained all related licensing rights, or Microsoft. And we all know the "rest of the story".

By the way, as yet another side-tangent, what if IBM had maintained those rights. How would the industry be different today? And what if Microsoft hadn't been able to hold onto those rights themselves? (Oh no, I think I may have opened up a "blast Microsoft" tangent.)

Actually you've prompted me to re-think some comments in regards to looking at SOftware in the same context.

Bottom line, I agree this is not theft.

I appreciate the reply ( and the view)

According to Copyright Clearance Center (2005) "The legal concept of the public domain as it applies to copyright law should not be confused with the fact that a work may be publicly available, such as information found in books or periodicals, or on the Internet. The public domain comprises all those works that are either no longer protected by copyright or never were."

Section 107 of the United States Copyright Act lists four factors to help judges determine, and therefore to help you predict, when content usage may be considered ?fair use.?

1- The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit, educational purposes.
If a particular usage is intended to help you or your organization to derive financial or other business-related benefits from the copyright material, then that is probably not fair use.

2-The nature of the copyrighted work.
Use of a purely factual work is more likely to be considered fair use than use of someone?s creative work.

3-The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyright protected work as a whole.

There are no set page counts or percentages that define the boundaries of fair use. Courts exercise common-sense judgment about whether what is being used is too much of, or so important to, the original overall work as to be beyond the scope of fair use.

4-The effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyright protected work.
This factor looks at whether the nature of the use competes with or diminishes the potential market for the form of use that the copyright holder is already employing, or can reasonably be expected soon to employ, in order to make money for itself through licensing.

At one extreme, simple reproduction of a work (i.e., photocopying) is commonly licensed by copyright holders, and therefore photocopying in a business environment is not likely to be considered fair use.

At the other extreme, true parody is more likely to be considered fair use because it is unlikely that the original copyright holder would create a parody of his or her own work. "

I consider every case independet, but you need to be alert because every knowledge or works published since 1989 are by protected by copyright law. If you need to use information of publics domains is better ask and obtain permission, because if you infringe the law you will be criminally liable, and depends of the value of work you may be sentenced to jail (5 years) plus fines cost.

See the Web site of the U.S. Copyright Office
to view detailed information of "U.S. Copyright Act of 1976". www.copyright.gov.

From your previous response:
"Really? Nobody has a right to be free from initiations of force "in
toto"? Give me an example of an instance in which a person
doesn't have such a right, then logically justify that exception.
All it takes to support your statement is one exception. Let's see
it. Keep in mind that the word "initiation" is part of my
statement, meaning that reciprocal force does not constitute an
exception."

"What do you mean by your statement that there's no right to
self-determination "without reference to others"?"

Hmm - the two of these go together, so, for example:
1. government compulsory purchase orders where the work that is to be completed is to the benefit of the wider community.
2. restraint of persons from committing pollution on their own land.
3. arrest or restraint of persons guilty of tax offences.

In these cases the general principle is that the right of the individual to self-determination is abrogated for the 'wider good' (the 'reference to others'), and the abrogation is generally carried out by the initiation of force. I'm pretty certain that a tax offender is not initiating any coercive influences, anyway. If, being a minarchist, you feel that these examples simply indicate the problem with government, then I'll add that they would be the same from an anarcho-syndicalist perspective, except that government would be replaced by group or community.

"You should be working for the Microsoft
marketing department, generating good FUD like that."

Thanks!

Your responses to two quotes from my post:

1. "If a majority of people think that they have a 'right' to
determine what happens to their ideas, then that's as good a
basis as any for arguing that such a right exists."

Your response: "Wrong. That would justify slavery, genocide, inquisitions, and
anything else you like, at various points in history. That's the
very epitome of moral and ethical relativism, and under such
circumstances there's really zero justification for intellectual
property law anyway, since the mere fact that there are so many
people sharing music over the Internet would present a credible
challenge to your notion that popularity defines right and wrong."

Well, all of those bits of nastiness were regarded as ethically justified in their time. On the popularity question - there might be, say, 25 million people sharing music illegally over the Internet (an inflated figure, I think) - that still leaves 6 billion people not doing it. No worries, as they say.

2. "Better, anyway, than an argument from 'ethics', which just
recedes into 'things that I feel are right'."

Your response: "Wrong again. There's a distinct difference between "morals" and
"ethics", which you seem to be conflating in your mind here, and
aside from that you seem to have missed my references to a
logical basis for a system of ethics. You have just made
sweeping assumptions and generalizations about ethicality,
implying that nobody ever considers matters of right and wrong
beyond gut reaction, all the while trying to justify intellectual
property law. Are you even aware of the contradiction there? If
ethicality doesn't mean anything, maybe you can enlighten us as
to why there is any reason at all to obey intellectual
property law aside from mere self-centered short-sighted
conformity."

I haven't missed your references to a logical basis for a system of ethics, but I haven't seen any such thing in my short and immoral life. I did see that you referred to "the ethical premise that initiations of force are wrong" - but that's just a premise. It doesn't matter if the system built on top of such a premise is logically pure and stringently correct - I disagree with the premise as much as you disagree with intellectual property rights.

So if I resold your ideas without lying and saying they were mine it would be OK (by your logic)?

I might not say they were your ideas, but (per Star Trek Vulcan logic) an omission is not a lie.

And I'd like to say that the IDEAS in a book are not copyrighted, it is the implementation of them, i.e. the text that is. If you want to read and summarize and reprint this is OK. Society has ALREADY made many concessions to let free flow of information this way.

The whole idea of a book is to 'spread info'. Just not copy the actual books for resale. (and there are even allowances for fair use such as a teacher copying portions for a class).

In spirit of living together in harmony, I propose you record that, I'll steal it (since according to apotheon) that's just an idea and publish it. That way I could afford to buy a home with some apple trees and honey bees (don't forget the doves).

Then we'd all be incredibly happy together;
Till you got ticked off and threw an anthraxed pig in my well (biowarfare from the middle ages).

I'd of course give up all my possessions (nothing to live or die for, no religion too), wouldn't need them if I was dead.

So all the electricity and servers and communication lines and routers and web developers and middleware and people to maintain them all should mysti-magically pay for themselves?

(Insert here picture of utopian Noch culture from Stargate wandering thru the woods grooving then waving their hand to make visible their sparkling incredibly advanced floating city)

In order to get a patent, one has to PUBLISH sufficient detail so that another, sufficiently skilled in the trade, can reproduce the invented item.

Such is required so as to induce innovators to share information, while not risking immediate loss of the economic benefits of their inventions. Such sharing affords the opportunity for further innovation, based on the newly disseminated knowledge.

On the other hand, trade secrets sequesters such knowledge, so that others cannot benefit from it.

Chemical formulations are amenable to being held as trade secrets because there are any number of similar formulations which might produce the same or sufficiently similar results; patenting such would result is the rapid dissipation of any economic benefits gained from discovery.

first, you're never going to see a license on book that you can only read in your living room. What your talking about instead is copying the book.

Since that would be more expensive and harder it rarely happens. In case it did they still have copyright laws.

For computer software, it isn't the individual they're really worried about if they wouldn't end up buying it anyway (except for new xp w/ key), it's business that think this way... I've bought one copy so why shouldn't 500 people use it.

I have no problem copying OS for all my PCs. However realize it is copying since it is now on two PCs at same time. So what happens when you have a kid or significant other and they are actually using 2nd PC at same time, it is copying.

We do it because it is easy, so for XP case maybe not easy enuf for average person. Would it be illegal? probably. Who cares? perhaps a few people. Would I do same thing in a business? no way- would be stealing.

Yes all laws are coercive, they are a societies imposition of order on individuals. After all far too many of us need more than a carrot to do right by others.
Coercion is not necessarily a bad thing as long as the coerced come to accept the reasoning behind this use of force.
Having said that I'm pretty much in agreement with Apotheon on this subject though for different reasons.
I'm a thieving commie.
Tee Hee

interested, IBM would have been interested once they'd realised they'd missed out. But for them to claim the idea as theirs would have been wholly wrong. They had the chance and they blew it through stupidity or cowardice, either way they deserve nothing, no matter what legal right they may have been construed to have.

I knock ms daily for what they've done with the idea, but the idea itself and the balls to go for it, that was cream.

.
I already stole it. Do you like my song? IT'S MINE, ALL MINE - I STOLE IT FAIR AND SQUARE!

Quite frankly, I'm puzzled.

Elsewhere, you've stated that you are a Libertarian.

Below is an exerpt from the Encyclopaedia Britannica on Libertarian philosophy re. Free Markets.

Note the emphasis on economic growth and the creation of wealth.

It seems to me that your position re. intellectual property works to the contrary.

How do you reconcile this conflict?
==================================================

Libertarian philosophy > Free markets

According to libertarians, free markets are among the most important (but not the only) examples of spontaneous order. They argue that individuals need to produce and trade in order to survive and flourish and that free markets are essential to the creation of wealth.

Libertarians also maintain that self-help, mutual aid, charity, and economic growth do more to alleviate?

Any benefit of the "wider community" is meaningless without consideration for individuals. That consideration must, where some form of authority structure is created, take the form of rules. Those rules constitute law. To provide a method of fine-tuning the law is only the reasonable thing to do, as long as that mechanism for altering the law stops short of altering the fundamental guidelines that are in place to give structure and purpose to the law (and, in the United States, that set of guidelines is the Constitution). Any part of such a set of guidelines that grants "rights" to the "wider community", however, creates an untenable situation where the guidelines can be misused and abused to produce essentially any set of laws you want, and the result is the breakdown of the system of laws as regards the purpose of them set forth in those guidelines. This is why Article I, Section 8 conflicts with the right of the people to be secure in their persons and property (as enumerated in the Bill of Rights). Collective "rights" inevitably end up conflicting with each other and with individual rights, because the good of the collective is mutable, open to wildly divergent interpretation, and generally up to the whims and vagaries of the moment. Furthermore, they reduce individual people to nothing more than means to an end, stripping them of significance, value, and dignity. Collective "rights" can kiss my lily-white ass.

Anarcho-syndicalists can kiss my ass, too. At least anarcho-capitalists base their theories off a self-consistent set of premises, rather than basing them off an arbitrary and constantly shifting set of knee-jerk reactions and self-justifications, though they may be a bit too optimistic about human nature for their theories to get any real practical traction.

When I pointed out that your arguments basically make every single argument of political philosophy wholly meaningless by throwing everything into a huge moral and ethical relativism pot and stirring, I certainly didn't expect you to take the examples of such atrocities as slavery and genocide in stride. You said "Well, all of those bits of nastiness were regarded as ethically justified in their time." Don't forget the word 'regarded' in that. Just because someone has some kind of illusion or delusion that something is so does not make it true. Slavery, genocide, and inquisitions are not, have never been, and never will be ethically justified, though there are people, were people, and certainly will be people who have regarded, do regard, or will regard them as justified. Their regard can (say it with me now) kiss my ass.

I've never gotten to a point in the discussion, by the way, where anyone has actually been willing to address premises. As such, I haven't gotten as far as an opportunity to explain the logical basis for the ethical premise that initiation of force is wrong. It surprises me to find someone arguing with both that and the right to self-determination as valid ethical premises, but I'll try to sum up the logic for you briefly:

1. I think, therefore I am. I hope you can agree with that. Everything has to start somewhere, and that's where I'm starting.

2. Others may or may not exist as well. I perceive others. In absence of conflicting evidence, I choose to behave as though others exist.

3. Upon the assumption that there are others, I choose to behave as though at least some of them are ethically significant beings. To do otherwise would, under the circumstances, be somewhat egocentric and myopic of me.

4. The one thing most of value to an individual with my (self-perceived) ethical significance and awareness, and upon which all other value is ultimately predicated, is my ability to exert my will in determining my own destiny.

5. Because I regard others as potentially being of equivalent ethical significance, I recognize the need for self-determination in others as in myself.

6. The realization of the need for self-determination in others then "interacts" with my own value for self-determination to produce a recognition of the need to determine some premise of interaction that respects the right of self-determination (that right being the positive application of the liberty to pursue the need/value of self-determination) between all participants.

7. Interfering with the right of self-determination of others is, in plain English, an application of force; one individual forces an abrogation of another's right of self-determination. Self-determination is supplanted by external determination.

8. Just as there is a positive right of self-determination, the limitations that places on others' interactions with one constitute one or more "negative" rights, in this case the right to freedom from initiations of force.

9. As one has a right to self-determination, and abrogations of that by application of force violate the negative application of that right, reciprocal force merely in defense of the individual right are, if not strictly justified, at least excused. Thus, reciprocal force is excusable and/or justifiable, while initiation of force is not.

10. This all constitutes a basis for a system of ethics, whose initial premise is "Initiation of force is wrong," where "right" and "wrong" are used as qualitative standards of the ethicality of action.

. . .

Well. So much for short.

Yes, you could ethically profit from my ideas, providing your access to them was gained ethically as well. This means not engaging in fraud, which consists of more than simply not actively lying: passively encouraging misunderstanding is deception as well. You certainly don't need to claim you wrote something to sell it, though. I'm pretty sure nobody thinks a sales representative at the bookstore actually wrote all those books he's selling.

Try paraphrasing an entire novel sometime and selling it. I'm pretty sure that doing so would cause you to show up on some publishing house's legal department's radar. Copyright law extends beyond mere 100% faithful reproduction. Besides, implementations are technology. Would you like to have to reinvent the wheel every week because you're only allowed to copy theory, and not technology?

Unfortunately, patents stifle innovation more often than they promote it. The patent system is rapidly killing reverse-engineering, which produces multiple options and alternative implementations of ideas, often leading to great leaps forward as reverse-engineering and reimplementing an idea tends to give rise to beneficial variations. A published, patented technology, however, is used to squash competing implementations and research, and to strictly control and suppress reimplementation.

I'd rather have a trade secret I'm allowed to try to reverse engineer than an openly published patent that I'm not allowed to touch without paying millions of dollars to the patent-holding corporation, then find that they won't let me implement it differently because they don't want to be outsold. Screw that noise. So much for innovation and advancement.

Anything is amenable to similar implementations, not just chemicals. It's just true that chemical patent case law hasn't gotten so far out of hand that a chemical patent on an antidepressant produces a governmentally enforced monopoly on antidepressants.

I actually favored at one time a rewriting of intellectual property law such that copyright adhered to the individual originator for the span of his life and no more. This proprietary "right" (privilege, actually) would be non-transferrable, period. The point was to keep the right and the inducement to innovation where it seemed to belong: with the innovator.

Then, about two years ago, I started talking to a friend of mine (a new friend at the time) about various issues of ethics and property rights, and this friend indicated that she didn't regard intellectual property as a valid right. She laid out some simple summations of her ideas, and referred me to some writings that had originally gotten her thinking about it, and I decided to examine the matter. Now, as you can see, I've arrived at a new perspective on the matter, and in retrospect I see that there was an uncomfortably arbitrary factor in my previous opinion on intellectual property law.

The mind evolves. It evolves much faster if you're willing to examine the merits of what others say to you, and judge them for their own value, both alone and within the context of other views, facts, and ideas.

If it wasn't for that friend getting me to think about that hole in my reasoning, I probably would still have arrived at the belief that intellectual property law is invalid, but it probably wouldn't have happened by now, and it would probably be another five years or so beyond this before it did. She came along with a well-reasoned set of observations and beliefs at the right time. I credit that opening of my eyes (in part) for my ability to piece together a fully self-consistent, logically supported premise for a system of ethics that can trace its rational lineage all the way back to the canonically self-realizing axiom of epistemology "cogito ergo sum".

Did I mention that I'm working on a book that addresses the importance, logical development, and validity of a system of ethics?

Many laws are coercive in nature. They don't have to be. I support reform of the legal system, not the complete absence of law. Of course, I won't ever see a fully ethical system of government in my lifetime unless someone creates one from scratch, but I'm content to work on moving what we've got in that direction if that's all I can accomplish. Just making progress, and seeing events put into motion that should ultimately lead to a more-ethical form of government in time, would be a good thing.

With crap like the DMCA, USA PATRIOT Act, and DSEA floating around, though, I do despait at times.

If you think my definitions make all laws coercive, you have misunderstood them, though I don't know what part(s) you misunderstood, so I don't really know what to address to disabuse you of that notion.

which is amenable to generally accepted standards; specifically, it seeks to compel one to choose to not act in a manner that is harmful to others.

Per definition quoted below, such is coercive.

Law is the embodiment of the social contract; in fact, it is a contract of adhesion. One is not constrained to accepting any particular such contract; but has the options of seeking out a society which offers a different contract as well as, in many jurisdictions, the opportunity to seek to amend the contract.

However, one does not have the unilateral right to benefit from such contract while been free of the responsibility to abide by its terms.
==================================================

Main Entry: co?erce
Pronunciation: kO-'&rs
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): co?erced; co?erc?ing
Etymology: Latin coercEre, from co- + arcEre to shut up, enclose -- more at ARK
1 : to restrain or dominate by force
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat
synonym see FORCE

.
Especially those who can be honest with their core principles, be consistent, and simply agree to disagree with me. But people, like you, who aren't consistent and play silly word games aren't worth my time. Besides, I gave it a good effort until you proved your true colors.

I won't argue, I think, about the US Constitution, because a) it's not my constitution, and b) there are obviously some bits you don't agree with anyway (Article VIII, Section 8, presumably). Nor will I argue about anarcho-syndicalism, since I would agree that "they may be a bit too optimistic about human nature for their theories to get any real practical traction". So, on to the main points:

1. I think, therefore I am. I hope you can agree with that. Everything has to start somewhere, and that's where I'm starting.
No problem - most of the other starting points rapidly disappear up their own asses (possibly kissing yours en route).

2. Others may or may not exist as well. I perceive others. In absence of conflicting evidence, I choose to behave as though others exist.
OK.

3. Upon the assumption that there are others, I choose to behave as though at least some of them are ethically significant beings. To do otherwise would, under the circumstances, be somewhat egocentric and myopic of me.
OK.

4. The one thing most of value to an individual with my (self-perceived) ethical significance and awareness, and upon which all other value is ultimately predicated, is my ability to exert my will in determining my own destiny.
Problem 1 for me. This is your choice of a 'thing of most value', and not a given. Other people, at other points in history, might have said 'my ability to act in accordance with the will of the Gods', 'my ability to promote the interests of my people' or variants thereof. However, I agree with you as a personal preference.

5. Because I regard others as potentially being of equivalent ethical significance, I recognize the need for self-determination in others as in myself.
OK.

6. The realization of the need for self-determination in others then "interacts" with my own value for self-determination to produce a recognition of the need to determine some premise of interaction that respects the right of self-determination (that right being the positive application of the liberty to pursue the need/value of self-determination) between all participants.
Problem 2. The anarchist regards the right of self-determination as absolutely inviolable, the archist does not, the religious submissive cited above abandons him/herself entirely to the will of God. Neither side has to be wrong. For me, this is not a black-white issue, but a gradient of solutions of varying stability and acceptability.

7. Interfering with the right of self-determination of others is, in plain English, an application of force; one individual forces an abrogation of another's right of self-determination. Self-determination is supplanted by external determination.
Again, different people draw the line of 'acceptable' external determination in different places.

8-10. No problems with these as logical extensions of the above.

In brief(ish), then, I think that your reasoning is solid, but conceals a specific choice which is a matter of preference - viz, where to draw the line as regards the balance of the 'individuals right to self-determination' and 'the need to determine some premise of interaction that respects the right of self-determination'. For a libertarian, there is only one possible place to draw the line, and the word 'respect' can be replaced by 'does not in any way conflict with'. Unfortunately, libertarianism has not proved to be one of the stable solutions for human communities - it can exist, briefly, in a homesteading environment below a certain population density in an unpopulated landscape of reasonable fertility, conditions met briefly in the US (and in Viking Iceland), which makes it meta-stable. Unfortunately, it appears to break down into feudalism/plutarchy/oligarchy outside this special situation - in the US, for example, it has largely gone to plutocratic oligarchy.

Interestingly, the breakdown to plutocratic oligarchy can be proven to be a normal course of evolution for the anarcho-capitalist system without perversion of that system by application of force: all that is required is different levels of ability and/or energy between individuals. In a free market, some will come to the point where by incompetence, ill-luck, or lack of application they are forced to sell their real property. Note that this 'forced' is not 'externally forced' by anything other than the premises of the system. Once they have no real property, their ability (although not their right) to self-determination is severely compromised, since no other anarcho-capitalist is obliged to assist them except on their own terms. The choice of the unsuccesful becomes one of starvation or indentured servitude (I include most employment here), unless more virgin land is available to be taken up.

To me, the existence of intellectual property rights is the only way of achieving a perpetual supply of 'virgin land' to be taken up by individuals, and therefore a necessary part of ensuring my right to self-determination within a geographically limited world. Only if you treat intellectual property as equivalent to real property is there always somewhere for me to go to escape the farms and factories of others. The lands of the mind are the only lands that are limitless, and not already in the hands of oligarchs. Which is why, in various posts through this discussion, I have argued (not always coherently) for the intellectual property rights of the individual and against their assignation to governments or corporations. I hope this refutes the charge of 'mere self-centered short-sighted conformity'.

1. no process that is in commercial use can be entirely secret - at the very least, its effects can be seen, and reverse engineering applied

2. even if a process is secret, there is nothing, except a patent, that prevents me from having the same idea and applying it

3. in certain fields, patents cover ideas rather than, for example, specific formulae - as if you could patent the 'same or sufficiently similar results' rather than the chemical - a good example is Amazon's one-click patent - it doesn't matter HOW I achieve the effect, the idea is patented. That has to be wrong.

I'd say, rather, that the (proper) purpose of law is to codify and institutionalize the ethical protection of individual rights. For the use of "ethical" in that phrase to hash out properly, law must provide for its enforcement in a manner that is defensive, rather than coercive, in nature. While you might split hairs with some dictionary definitions to define law enfocement as "coercing" one person to respect the rights of another, you might also split the hair the other way and separate actively coercive activity from the application of defensive force, discriminating between the two by referring to them as "coersion" and "defense against coersion".

It should be pretty clear that I speak from the second (and, I think, more ethically meaningful) perspective.

---
from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (the best dictionary of which I'm aware for accuracy and precision of definitions):

SYLLABICATION: co?erce
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: co?erced, co?erc?ing, co?erc?es
1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel. 2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See synonyms at force. 3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.

4. "Problem 1 for me. This is your choice of a 'thing of most value', and not a given. Other people, at other points in history, might have said 'my ability to act in accordance with the will of the Gods', 'my ability to promote the interests of my people' or variants thereof. However, I agree with you as a personal preference."

Granted. However, those all fall under the greater heading of an ethical valuation of self-determination. While an individual may not consciously value self-determination as greatly as other things, without that ability all other values become essentially meaningless. One's "ability to act in accordance with the will of the Gods" is only available as an option because that person chooses it, exercising its right of self-determination in making such a choice. Further, in any religious system wherein one makes a choice between obeying higher powers and disobeying or disregarding, self-determination is an integral and necessary part of that.

Short of enforcing a worldwide primary value, possibly at gunpoint, self-determination becomes the unavoidable meeting-point of all belief systems that allow for interaction. The very fact that you refer to variations in personal valuations of ideas points out the importance of self-determination.

Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for me to refer to self-determination as "the one thing most universally valuable" rather than "the one thing of most value". The point is that it pretty much trumps anything else, ultimately, with which it comes in direct conflict, even if only by granting value to obedience by making it possible to disobey.

6. "Problem 2. The anarchist regards the right of self-determination as absolutely inviolable, the archist does not, the religious submissive cited above abandons him/herself entirely to the will of God. Neither side has to be wrong. For me, this is not a black-white issue, but a gradient of solutions of varying stability and acceptability."

Please see my discussion of 4 above and let me know if, with this explication, how your objection in 6 changes.

Your explanations of the apparent instability of libertarian social orders is (as I'm sure you're expecting me to say) flawed. On one hand, libertarian principles don't survive true anarchy because a truly perfect beginning state must be reached where everyone is good and pure, and nothing must interfere significantly with that state in the future for it to be sustainable. On the other hand, libertarian principles don't survive structured social orders (governments) where the core structure is self-contradictory, as parts of the US Constitution are (as far as I'm concerned, the Preamble and the Bill of Rights are great, and everything else, as being essentially bureaucratic nitpicking, is suspect).

Just like anarcho-syndicalism and other spontaneously structured collectivist political philosophies only work in small, isolated populations of like-minded individuals for limited periods of time, so too does anarcho-capitalism (essentially libertarian anarchism) suffer from lack of scalability and potential longevity. Meanwhile, any governmental system that doesn't jealously guard individual rights strictly and without compromise (which is all of them so far, basically) will tend toward authoritarianism* in time. The United States had some things going for it at the beginning in ensuring some sense of libertarian minarchistic ethical government, but the fact that the core protections of individual rights (the Bill of Rights) were codified at the same level of sacredness in foundational documents as other, conflicting details of the organization of government, and that further conflicting details could be added without limit later (again, at the same level of sacredness, as amendments to the Constitution), guaranteed the ultimate devaluation of individual rights in law. That's why you don't see libertarian political philosophy currently running a successful state: it has never been a foundational principle of a well-defined government without the definition of that government also incorporating directly conflicting (usually collectivist) principles.

The "plutocratic oligarchy" you see developing in the US is the fault of provision for such concepts as intellectual property, in fact, along with the creation of legal "entities" (corporations) with rights that directly conflict with those of indidividuals and a slew of other governmental interferences of the disposition of individual rights for "the common good". It is not, as you seem to believe, in any way the fault of libertarian principles or their application to government: plutocratic oligarchies were mainstays of early 20th century dictatorship politics, for example, among other places such has arisen. Plutocracy occurs anywhere that the haves get to use what they have to affect the core structure of the government, and that applies to the US in that Congressional Representatives are bought and sold on the open market and have the power to amend the Constitution such that the protections promised in the Bill of Rights are, to varying degrees, negated.

Your conflation of "free market" and "anarcho-capitalism" is counterproductive, by the way. Anarcho-capitalism's goal is a free market, but that is not necessarily what it achieves in the long run. A truly free market is one in which initiations of force are effectively guarded against, whether by government or simple economic law. What anarcho-capitalism actually seeks to create isn't a "free market", per se, but a "laissez-faire free market". The difference is that a laissez-faire free market admits no introduction of any authority structure whatsoever, even insofar as is necessary to investigate, arrest, and otherwise deal with criminal behavior that disrupts the market. The larger a market, the more it will tend toward a robust state of freedom, because it will become more difficult for a single enterprising and unscrupulous individual to upset its balance, but no market yet exists that is large enough to be capable of sustaining that free state naturally, so a non-laissez-faire free market is necessary at this time to ensure its longevity and resilience. If there were enough of such a market in existence, the "plutocratic oligarchy" developing in the United States would never have come into being, because simple economic forces would have made irrelevant any attempts to manipulate the market as the US government has done.

Your equation of "intellectual property" with "virgin land" certainly bears thinking about, and has far more merit than any other justifications I've yet seen, but it strikes me as ethically flawed because it requires a widespread prior restraint violation of individual rights (and, ultimately, of the right of self-determination). Two wrongs do not make a right. While it would be nice if we could be sure to grant unfettered right of self-determination to all people, and government aims to do this, there is a line beyond which government should not go: this is the point at which to grant the protection of one person's right it must violate another's. Just as the Hippocratic Oath requires that a doctor first do no harm, so too must the ethical government's charter require that it first violate no unsurrendered rights (I use the term "unsurrendered" here only because of considerations basically unconnected with this conversation, relating to theory of jurisprudence within libertarian political philosophy). The short version is this: Two wrongs do not make a right. Committing a wrong to address another wrong is not ethically acceptable practice.

Your argument certainly holds far more water than others I've encountered here, and it leads to more palatable results than most (specifically, the direct protection of the innovator's privilege, and not that of organizations, heirs, and so on). It just falls short of perfect, as far as I'm concerned.

* authoritarianism: that class of political philosophy wherein a position of authority is regarded as justification for itself

NOUN:

A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes.

From the on-line American Heritage dictionary.

LOL

I (read) you as a man of honor integrity and ethics......so your position was 'curious' to me.

Actually, your clarification had me think & see things with a diferent lens (however) I like to believe I'm cut from the same cloth, therefore I now believe it is not 'theft' and my cloth isn't any more torn than it was yesterday.

IMO it has one less hole. So thanks!

I think that this topic falls into two primary veins.
First, if the idea/concept/product was concieved on company time, then that idea belongs to the company - that is part of what you are there for. If the employer wants no part of it and you secure the rights, then absolutly.
If your idea is conceived and produced on your time, it belongs to you.
I think that this line is clear enough.
Intellectual Property is absolutly a real commodity and should be treated as such.
We have identified that so many "new" jobs are mental/thinking jobs as opposed to labor jobs.
If I develop a new widget I am credited as being the creator, if I develop a new script...
Even though it is the product of my mind, it is still my product, if people a willing to pay to use it, I should be entitled to reap benefits...

.
First of all, the message on the other side of the following link......

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=9&threadID=169191&messageID=1728731

...is the equivalent of a verbal shell-game. Whaaaaat?

Second of all, it IS theft because most "intellectual property", that was created by others, is acquired with the agreement that it is not intended to pass ownership, but rather only the right to use the product.

You don't "buy" software, for example, but only "lease" the right to use it. If you're not willing to abide by the agreement, no one is forcing you to use it or to buy the right to use it. If you do agree to abide by the agreement, and purchase the right to use it and subsequently accept the product, but do it with the intention to later attempt to nullify the agreement by some sort of "shell-game" justification, then you acquired the product by fraudulent means in the first place.

Just try to lease a house or a car, and then sell it or give it away to someone else. In most cases, you can't even sublease that property. You don't own the software; you only purchase the right to use it under certain conditions.

So you might not be guilty of "theft", per se, but you would certainly be guilty of fraud if you don't abide by the agreement that you, yourself, entered into by accepting the product in the first place. And if you acquire something by fraudulent means, it's certainly tantamount to theft.

I REALLY enjoyed singing along with you, it's almost like Friday again!

Thank you for making it so.......colourful (sorry, colorful)and entertaining. Yes you SHOULD be paid for this work as it is yours but, DOH.....public forum and all that. :(

I have refrained from commenting here as you know where I stand on THIS issue, though it's not really a file sharing/copyright issue.

But had I been up to offering such an indirect yet telling story as you did, I would have.

kudos

"So you might not be guilty of "theft", per se, but you would certainly be guilty of fraud if you don't abide by the agreement that you, yourself, entered into by accepting the product in the first place. And if you acquire something by fraudulent means, it's certainly tantamount to theft."

I think your last paragraph says it all & it's what (I) strugled with. It is fraud & "tantamount to theft" but it is NOT theft.

In describing what I (used) to call theft, Microsoft & others refer to it as 'Piracy' and more recently 'casual sharing'. When taking legal action against individuals they are not charged with 'theft'.

To be clear: We are all agreed it is a lot of things....but it is not 'theft'.

"One's 'ability to act in accordance with the will of the Gods' is only available as an option because that person chooses it, exercising its right of self-determination in making such a choice."

Neatly put, and fully accepted.

Problem 2. The anarchist regards the right of self-determination as absolutely inviolable, the archist does not, the religious submissive cited above abandons him/herself entirely to the will of God. Neither side has to be wrong. For me, this is not a black-white issue, but a gradient of solutions of varying stability and acceptability.

"Please see my discussion of 4 above and let me know if, with this explication, how your objection in 6 changes."

This one remains an issue - perhaps I can rephrase that as 'the anarchist will not voluntarily accept any abrogation of this right, the archist believes that it is necessary to do so in order to live socially, and the religious submissive (and perfect communist) values it only to discard it.' That is, the right remains, but what you do with it, is, by virtue of the right itself, up to you. Of course, that doesn't give you any right to abrogate the rights of others, but it does allow you to say that you will exclude from your society any who will not accept a voluntary abrogation of their right to self-determination as part of the founding social contract of the society. Some (many?) would apply this to the US constitution as being the founding social contract of your country, and say, you can take it, or you can leave it. There is relatively little territory left that can be settled without expropriation.

"That's why you don't see libertarian political philosophy currently running a successful state: it has never been a foundational principle of a well-defined government without the definition of that government also incorporating directly conflicting (usually collectivist) principles."

Personally, I ascribe this to the fact that the majority of people are archists - also, where governments have been founded de novo, legal systems are rarely replaced at the same time. Written constitutions are often social contracts - for example, the Preamble to the Irish Constitution contains:

'And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,'

"The 'plutocratic oligarchy' you see developing in the US is the fault of provision for such concepts as intellectual property, in fact, along with the creation of legal "entities" (corporations) with rights that directly conflict with those of indidividuals and a slew of other governmental interferences of the disposition of individual rights for "the common good". It is not, as you seem to believe, in any way the fault of libertarian principles or their application to government".

Hmm - sorry, I hadn't intended to imply that plutocratic oligarchy is a specific outcome of anarcho-capitalism only. I agree that it arises in many different places - I think in general it would arise anywhere that one generation can provide the next with an advantage and that said advantage can be used to influence the organs of government.

"Your equation of "intellectual property" with "virgin land" certainly bears thinking about, and has far more merit than any other justifications I've yet seen, but it strikes me as ethically flawed because it requires a widespread prior restraint violation of individual rights (and, ultimately, of the right of self-determination)."

Ahem - only if you accept that intellectual property doesn't exist, or isn't to be valued as much as real property. I think this is a premise, not a conclusion. If I stated as a premise that the my rights over the works of my mind, which proceed from me directly, are far more important than your rights over a piece of real property, which does not proceed directly from you (as opposed to one that you have actually created yourself, which would be both your intellectual and your real property, and proceed entirely from you), then that would also simply be my premise. Note however that I can cite a previous premise, that of proceeding from me directly, as being a superior source of rights to mere non-expropiate possession. To put it another way, how can you say that the work of my mind is not mine? Without me, it would not exist, whereas a piece of land would. I note that in another post you state that you do not apply copyright to your code, but is that not simply an exercise of your right of self-determination over something that is your property? I cannot deny your right to dispose of your works-of-mind as you wish, just as I cannot argue against your rights over a chair you made yourself (unless you made it out of wood stolen from me, but let's not go there).

The sale of an item is a contract, comprised of three basic required elements; Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration. The mere act of payment, the Consideration, does not confer unlimited rights to the Buyer.

As the Seller, I will Offer to sell a copy of my invention, subject to the condition that the Buyer may neither reproduce such, use any knowledge gained from his possession of said copy to produce a functionally equivalent object, nor incorporate my invention into a new item, for any purposes not authorized by me. If you Accept these conditions, you have entered into a Contract of Adhesion.

If you desire a right or rights which I have not Offered, you may make a Counteroffer for such rights. I will then insist on a larger Consideration, in an amount sufficient to compensate for the resulting economic loss as valued by me. If you accept, you have entered into a Negotiated Contract.

In either case, I will not agree to sell to you any rights for which I have not received from you a Consideration satisfactory to me. And, if you choose to buy, you will be obligated to abide by the terms of the sale.

Should my terms not be to your liking, your only remaining choice is to not buy.

.
All too often people take something said in a message and stretched it totally out of context as to obscure the real intent. Please don't make that mistake, or don't play that game, whichever one it is you are doing.

What I said applied to the example I mentioned, no more, no less. And in the example I gave, the person accepting the software would be guilty of theft. The person providing it would be guilty of either fraud or facilitating a theft -- or both. And people who download music from the Internet without paying for it (if, of course, they are required to pay for it), are guilty of theft.

Call it fraud; call it theft; call it facilitating a theft; it all boils down to one thing -- it's wrong.

1. "I can rephrase that as 'the anarchist will not voluntarily accept any abrogation of this right, the archist believes that it is necessary to do so in order to live socially, and the religious submissive (and perfect communist) values it only to discard it.' That is, the right remains, but what you do with it, is, by virtue of the right itself, up to you."

Agreed, as far as it goes, if by "archist" you mean "authoritarian". Neither the anarchist nor the religious submissive would, by these terms, disagree philosophically with the valuation of self-determination, which leaves only your authoritarian archist to disagree in effect (if not in principle) with the ethical inviolability of the right of self-determination.

Note: I suggest "authoritarian" instead of "archist" for the more appropriate term because, strictly speaking, a minarchist is a form of archist (and I'm a minarchist libertarian myself, rather than any type of anarchist in a political sense).

To continue . . . still assuming we're talking about people with some grasp on reasonability, let's examine the hypothetical authoritarian's position: He believes that, while people have some basic right of self-determination, social interaction gives rise to conflicts that can only be solved by the rule of law, and that rule can only be effective if individual rights are sacrificed to the sanctity of the social order. Thus, authority structures take precedence over individual rights, thus creating a collective right of authority over individuals. Would that be a fair assessment of the situation, from your perspective?

Assuming that's the case, new problems arise. For instance, authoritarian power breeds corruption. This occurs not because people are corrupted, but because those with proclivities toward corruption quickly start trying to "game the system" to get a piece of that authoritarian pie. It typically becomes very easy for them, in turn, to corrupt the slightly less corruptible by giving them convenient (and specious) self-justifications to do things they wouldn't do without some ability to excuse their actions. This then is guided toward self-perpetuating feedback systems that entrench and empower a status quo, such as what has happened with several forms of nanny-state social programs, keeping the "disadvantaged" on the dole so that they'll be increasingly dependent on the welfare handouts they get from the Democrats for whom they vote. Similar things have happened with corporate subsidies as well, mostly at the hands of the Republicans for whom corporate board members vote.

In addition to uncountable problems with unexpected growth and entrenchment of authority structures that aren't limited so that they're secondary to individual rights, there's also the issue of the actual state of contention between individual rights and authoritarian government. You can draw a definite line where individual rights stop, but if you say that you can actually violate said rights to some arbitrarily small degree in exchange for some theoretical benefit of social order (which is, ultimately, dependent upon the incorruptibility of the authoritarian government's officials), you then run into the problem that arbitrary limits can always be revised. As a result, creeping tyranny grows like a fungus as the malleability of the line between rights and authority is consistently tested.

The "social contract" option then arises, as you point out. First of all, it should be noted that yours was a misuse of the term: the proper use of the term "social contract", according to its origins (with Rousseau), relies not to an implicit agreement to give up rights, but an agreement to respect the rights of others. More specifically, liberty is increased by limitations on freedoms. A liberty is, in essence, a freedom coupled with responsibility, such that a freedom might be the freedom to swing your fist, but a liberty would be the liberty to swing your fist as long as it doesn't strike or threaten a disengaged bystander, as Justice Holmes would have it. In other words, the proper philosophical meaning of the term "social contract" is precisely what I've already described as part of the procession of ideas that constitute the logical basis for a system of ethics.

We'll call what you described a "contract of authority" instead. Yes?

So. This contract of authority suggests that an individual actually allows some arbitrary amount of violation of individual rights to occur, so long as it is accomplished in the name of the authority structure in place, presumably for the good of society at large. That being the case, then, we run up against a number of objections, first and foremost being that two wrongs do not make a right, and violation of one person's rights does not constitute proper address of another person's violation of rights. Second, it can only be justified by positing that the "greater good" must be served, which in essence translates as a numbers game where a positive act is judged on the merits of how much "good" is accomplished as weighted against the "bad" that is also accomplished. This quickly produces an unending slide into dehumanization of individuals as they are regarded as statistical phenomena used to measure the "good" of an act of government, and in any case there's no way to consider [b]all[/b] factors affecting the right and wrong of an act such that an evaluation of its goodness quotient can be determined before it is enacted. All that can ultimately be determined with any certainty is whether an act is [b]unethical[/b] (meaning, in this case, "possessed of unethical characteristics") or, by a negative answer to that, ethically acceptable. Thus, one looks at a possible act and determines whether it is directly unethical in any way, disregarding for the moment whether it has the potential to cause good, and if the act is found to be unethical in nature it must be avoided. If it is not, one can then evaluate its "goodness" to determine whether it's an act worth performing.

To sum up the spaghetti of that last paragraph: There's no way to precede a decision with an accurate evaluation of how an act's unethicality measures against its potential for good effect, and as such taking the attitude that something has a good enough effect to justify direct violations of rights is nothing more than shouting loudly that your next roll of dice will come up snake-eyes without any actual evidence to justify it.

2. "Personally, I ascribe this to the fact that the majority of people are archists - also, where governments have been founded de novo, legal systems are rarely replaced at the same time."

I won't disagree with that. Your statement coexists nicely with mine about the likely causes of the historical failure to implement a proper, enduring, libertarian sociopolitical order.

3. "I hadn't intended to imply that plutocratic oligarchy is a specific outcome of anarcho-capitalism only. I agree that it arises in many different places - I think in general it would arise anywhere that one generation can provide the next with an advantage and that said advantage can be used to influence the organs of government."

This is, in fact, one of the dangers of authoritarian government. In fact, in authoritarian governmental structures, the first generation can provide itself with that advantage, and the degeneration of a system into plutocracy can be made a much quicker process. Meanwhile, what I advocate is a [b]strictly minarchist[/b] governmental system, where government's power is strictly limited and its ability to appropriate power by overregulation of other power-gathering systems is also strictly limited. This includes such things as a prohibition against governmental endorsement and protection of business interests through the granting of legal entity status to concentratiosn of economic power. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the initial structuring of government should be accomplished with defense against overconcentration of power as its primary aim, aside from ensuring that it doesn't have the power to violate the rights of individuals. Being an effective governing body comes after these concerns, because "effectiveness" in no way guarantees desirability, and the pursuit of it will almost certainly lead to extreme undesirability.

4. Rather than quote here, I'll simply address what you've said and trust that the connection is obvious.

The idea that something proceeding from an individual guarantees that individual's right over it is an attractive one, to be sure, but it is flawed. While a hunk of wood, for instance, existed before the carpenter, the shape and function he gives it proceed from him. Thus, a chair proceeds from the carpenter. It is, indeed, his, until he sells it or gives it away. At that point, it is no longer his.

So-called "intellectual property" is the only thing called property that one can sell and keep at the same time. On one hand, the law lets one "sell" it, making money by granting access to others, while still letting one "keep" it by granting power to punish others for doing with their copies as they wish. On the other hand, even if you sell or give away your ideas, you still have them, thus allowing another to have power over the disposition of that "intellectual property" while still retaining the "intellectual property" yourself.

In neither case does it act like "property", and regardless of this, the concept of something proceeding from oneself doesn't affect its transferrability in any way. The real issue here isn't whether you have a "right" to control it, but rather whether someone else has such a "right" after it has been given or sold to him or her. How can you sell something to someone and not grant that person the right to dispose of it as he or she wishes?

I don't know of any justifying example for "proceeded from me" as the basis of rights over something, anyway, discounting "intellectual property". There just doesn't seem to be any reason to expect that such is a logically supported concept. Very well, this idea seems to proceed from you, but there is no previous premise that grants that any ethical meaning. It is not a part of you, and thus it is not protected directly by the right of self-determination, and it is not something that can be defended against by interposing yourself between it and another party, thus rendering it unprotected indirectly by the right to be free from initiations of force. Mere awareness of it by others means that it is now irretrievably beyond your direct sphere of influence. You cannot remove it from someone else's head to reclaim it. It's gone, and ultimately "it" is not the idea itself but, rather, control over it.

To address your comparison of ideation with land, directly:
It is your mind itself that is comparable to your claim over land as property, and not the ideas produced by it. The ideas are more comparable to the use you make of the land. You can sell chairs you've made from trees on that land and vegetables you've grown in the garden there, but the fertile ground of the land, the plants that grew the vegetables, and the stand of trees at large, all still remain. Those vegetables and chairs are a record of the effort you've expended in producing from that land, just as a book is a record of the effort you've expended as a thinker and writer. Once you sell or give away either, though, it's gone. Only your own copy remains, if you created one, or the idea itself, if you haven't.

5. "I cannot deny your right to dispose of your works-of-mind as you wish, just as I cannot argue against your rights over a chair you made yourself (unless you made it out of wood stolen from me, but let's not go there)."

Note the word "dispose". That's the important part. You have disposed of either a chair or a book when you sell it. Now it is in the possession of the next person in line. The record of the ideas that produced both book and chair is there for others to see, and to reproduce if they have the capability. The fact that current technology makes one easier to produce than the other is simply an accident of advancement, as there was a time when a book was far more difficult to reproduce than a chair.

Once I dispose of the fruits of my labors, they belong to their recipients. They're gone. C'est la vie. Time to make another.

If there's an explicit contract between individuals when property and consideration change hands, that's all well and good. Enforcement of that contract is then justifiable. An agreement has been made, and to break faith with that agreement is fraud.

The property, though, is not the idea represented on a recording medium, but rather the recording medium itself. The agreement might cover whether or not you're allowed to make copies or derivative works, and thus effectively limit the spread of the ideas, but the actual property is the recording medium. The limitation on disposition of the ideas is a condition of the exchange, rather than the core of the exchange itself. Certainly, the representation of ideas might be what is most valuable to the purchasing party, but the actual purchased property that changes hands is the recording medium: the passing on of ideas is, in effect, a service rather than a product.

In other words, an explicit agreement to refrain from redistributing an idea is effectively an agreement to refrain from providing a given service to others once you are granted such a service yourself, and see how it's done. If you enter into a contract with me (absent coersion), I'll abide by the terms of that contract and consider that the only ethical course of action, but if you just "sell" me something I feel no ethical obligation to sit on it and pretend I don't own it just because someone declared that ideas are property more than a couple hundred years ago.

Actually, acting in a manner conducive to promotion of oneself is not "in a manner contrary to Libertation(sic) philosophy", even if that manner involves refraining from offering everything you do for free if it'll help advance economic strength in general. The adoption of free market capitalism by libertarian political philosophies is due to the fact that free markets don't by their nature violate individual rights. The free markets aren't the ultimate goal of libertarian political philosophy: the protection of individual rights is, however.

In any case, a cheaper, better product advances the market as a whole. You don't have to tell anyone else how you did it to produce that product. Keep your trade secrets to leverage greater profits, if you must.

In any case, real competition and advancement occurs when someone tries to achieve similarly valuable effect in an innovative manner, not when someone licenses the rights to something someone else came up with and duplicates it endlessly. I think you've got the likely effects on the strength of the market a little bit turned around.

When I spend a lot of time inventing or developing something I should have the right to obtain a FAIR return on my efforts. However, there is also a social obligation and a level of reasonable community usage to be taken into consideration as well.

When copyright and patents are used to restrict or inhibit business or development processes, then the reasonable boundaries have been exceeded. Nor should legislation be used to stop people from developing alternatives to the copyrighted system.

Abuses of the use of copyright abound at present and will eventually elad to major loses by those abusers. A classic example is the entertainment industry.

Movie makers and singers (and their companies) have a right to copyright and get a return on their efforts. However it is wrong to charge the same prices for a modern CD as for the old vynle records when the CD's cost less than 1% of the vynle production costs; this is worse with DVDs and VHS tapes. Reduces manufacture should lead to lower prices not higher.

Also where people lever programs to become standards then the software should be made public domain will the full code made free to all. Efforts are underway to make Java and PDF files industry standards but the code remains proprietary and secret - this leads to troubles with anyone trying to secure their Internet access as the files can not be readily read and scanned by all AV software due to the proprietary code. Want this as a standard then release the code.

.
I must ask him, Aren't YOU paying attention?

(Link to his message for reference)

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=9&threadID=169191&messageID=1728592

Yes, there is indeed shoplifting going on if someone downloads music without paying for it - IF - IF - IF - IF - the person/company/creator who made that music available FROM THE VERY BEGINNING - The one who CREATED IT - Intended to sell it and not give it away.

If I write a piece of music and record it, and I want it to go to people who only pay me for it, who in the hell are you to trump my desires? Screw you! And if you take it without paying for it, you're stealing -- plain and simple. If you don't want to pay me for it because I'm a greedy S.O.B., that's fine and dandy; nobody's forcing you to.

And when are YOU going to get it?

You said that you have been, "talking about the ethicality of intellectual property law, and addressing the principles and premises of the matter, all along. Nobody has offered a counter-argument to the most fundamental issues of this discussion. I'm still waiting."

Well quit waiting. Are you dense? Are you a total idiot? There's the rebuttal. And just because you say that "nobody has offered a counter-argument to the most fundamental issues of this discussion" doesn't mean that nobody has -- because I have, and I just did AGAIN!

You asked, "Let's start at the beginning: Would you say that 'initiation of force is wrong' is a good initial premise of a system of ethics?"

No, I do not agree. That's the dumbest assumption I've ever heard. And again, just because YOU say as much, doesn't make it so.

You said, "Simply stating that intellectual property law should exist doesn't make it so." Well guess what, lame-brain, simply stating that intellectual property law SHOULD NOT exist doesn't make it so either.

MY premise is this:

If I write a piece of music and record it, and I want it to go to people who only pay me for it, who in the hell are you to trump my desires? Screw you! And if you take it without paying for it, you're stealing -- plain and simple. If you don't want to pay me for it because I'm a greedy S.O.B., that's fine and dandy; nobody's forcing you to. I'm not forcing you to succumb to my desires, and I'll be damned if you'll force me to succumb to yours -- so leave your greedy and thieving little hands off my property - whether that property's tangible or intangible, or whether it's something that you can see or something that you can only hear, without my permission and without complying to my conditions. You're infringing on ME, not the other way around.

"The property, though, is not the idea represented on a recording medium, but rather the recording medium itself."

Does it follow that...
If you sign a nondisclosure agreement and receive specifications for a new product in return, the only thing you are prohibited from doing is copying the specifications directly, and you are allowed to verbally relay the specifications to an eager public? If not, why is one form of contract any less binding than another form?

No, that doesn't follow. A nondisclosure agreement is an agreement that you [b]won't disclose[/b] something, regardless of how you might do so. That typically means you can't explain it verbally, write it down, copy it to CD, or otherwise convey it into the possession of another person without violating the agreement.

In point of fact, you have it completely backwards. There may not be any prohibition in the agreement against copying the specifications you were given in accordance with the agreement. There is, however, a prohibition against providing that copy to others. Thus, it is a "nondisclosure agreement", and not a "noncopying agreement".

Where did the tone of disrespect ("gubmint") go?

Do you have an accurate understanding of government? If so, please enlighten us further.

You seem to accept that contract law is ethical, but you seem to reject that copyright law is ethical. Could copyright law be thought of as a universal, generic, and automatic form of contract that a civilized society accepts as a minimal amount of protection for those who make their intangible creations available to the public?

Let's see where this leads:

1. my mind = my land (my property).

2. idea (as 'pure concept') = product of the mind (equivalent to, say, a tree as a product of my land)

NB. not a product in the market sense, but in the sense of something produced. No specific intention to sell/rent etc is implied.

3. private reified idea (a concept turned into a creative work) = finished product of my land and my effort (same as, say, a chair) used only by me (my chair)

NB. this is the point at which patent protection would intervene. I can have the idea but I can't use it in any way or turn it into a finished product. I don't defend patents in any way and I lobby my MEP to prevent software patents in Europe. Ideally, I would like patent law repealed entirely. Sorry about 'reified' - it literally means 'thing-ified'.

NB. at this point, there is no 'awareness' of the creative work by others. I could destroy it now, and no-one would ever know it had existed. My rights over it remain pristine.

4. I decide to make a living selling chairs. While I'm only a single artisan, and can only produce a limited number of chairs, I think I will do well because I make damned good chairs - a good design, well executed.

5. At this point I have a decision to make. Do I sell the chairs to you in an absolute way, so that they become entirely and utterly your property to do with as you wish? Or do I rent you the chair for a limited period, or with specific exceptions to its use? Can I even do that?

NB. from this point I'm only following option B, the rental. Your points with respect to outright sale are undeniable.

6. I think I can rent you a chair, so that you enjoy its use but no other rights (rental is, I think, acceptable in the libertarian view). Certainly you may not destroy it, and since, let us say, I've stated specifically that you may not copy it, you can't do that either. Can this be "defended against by interposing yourself between it and another party"? Well, if the 'it' is the chair (and in this example, what else can it be), I think the answer is yes.

NB. note that at this point we're not dealing with limitations to your rights over your property. I have not transferred any property to you, only a limited use of it. As far as I'm aware, this is allowable even by ancaps in the form of a rental agreement.

Could I realistically do this with code? Yes, I could if necessary interpose myself between you and my code, physically, so that you could not see it, and you would have to initiate force against me to view it. In fact, let us say that I always ensure my code runs on a server to which only I have access (this is my normal practice in web development with parties untrusted or unknown). To gain access to my code you will have to resort to force or fraud against my server, and by extension, me (if you like, I can run it from my server at home, to leave no loophole). Code, therefore, becomes something that remains my real property - the fact that you always resign your rights in code by selling it in toto (and presumably physically transferring possession of it), whereas I sometimes do and sometimes don't, is a matter of preference. I guess here you could say that I'm just renting use of the chair, while retaining the chair physically.

Web-based code, however, is the easiest case here - I can physically protect it, and I do, and it doesn't in any way impinge on your rights in any case. If I am writing code to be compiled for use on your machine, this is slightly different, but I would say that, as long as it's clear I am renting use and only use to you, and specifically prohibiting copying beyond the single copy you have now in your possession, then the case can be made. One can disagree by stating that this is not a fair condition, but then you don't have to agree to it. If you do agree to it, you're stuck with it. You could say that your physical property rights override the agreement, but again you shouldn't then enter into it. In short, although this may not be particularly nice (and people will say - hey, it doesn't cost you anything if I copy this, why should you get to say no?), the catch is your voluntary agreement to the deal. If you agree to the conditions, intending to override it later with other concerns, then you're initiating use of force or fraud.

Creative works reified into publicly distributed products such as books are tough. After all, this is where we hit pure 'intellectual property' issues - you bought the book, not rented it. But, did anyone say that you couldn't copy it, or that you had it on the conditions noted for distributed code above (use only, no copying)? Hmm, well, there it is inside the flyleaf, and it's usually explicit. So again, a book is actually sold to you subject to certain conditions. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the basis of these restrictions (ie that the book contains intellectual property), because you're at liberty to express that disagreement by not purchasing such a limited-right product. Nor does anyone necessarily force the author or publisher to set such restrictions, or to enforce them. But as long as they do, and you purchased the book subject to the limitations to your rights clearly indicated in the object itself, I don't think you can object in any very sincere way. In theory, I could 'sell' you a book subject to the condition that you prayed to Dagon the Fish God on stipulated nights of the year. If you bought the book, subject to my conditions, and then said that you were a committed Christian and couldn't carry out my conditions, I would have to say that you acquired something that was originally my property (before you bought it) by initiating fraud against me (by not intending to carry out my conditions of purchase). Your right to self-determination, as you would agree, does not nullify mine. Could I protect my property by "interposing myself between it and another party" if the other party would not agree to my conditions? Yes. In fact the whole question of intellectual property can be bypassed here - Borders could refuse to sell you a book unless you wore purple - Starbucks could refuse to sell you coffee unless you sang a comic song. The ridiculousness of the demand is irrelevant.

In summary, then, I think that you either have to deny someone the right to make any use of their property that they wish (by renting or selling it under a set of specific conditions), or else you have to accept their right to do so, whether that property is a piece of land or a book. If you deny it, then clearly there are limits to the rights of an individual over their property - that they cannot sell or rent it subject to conditions. If you accept it, then you have to accept that once you have voluntarily entered into this arrangement, you are obliged to respect the provisions of that arrangement, whatever they may be. If you deny that, you once again deny that this is a right that property owners have over their property. Your participation in the abrogation of your rights in a book is voluntary, not forced. If you don't want to have your rights over a purchase limited, and you don't wish to initiate force or fraud to obtain the purchase without entering into the agreement, your only option is to refuse the purchase. The question of 'intellectual property' is in fact irrelevant to this abrogation. Where am I wrong?

"Regarding EULAs: If you read the license agreement, understand it, have the opportunity to opt out, all before you have in any way made use of the software CD, and proceed to violate it willfully, you have violated an implicit agreement."

So you accept that agreements can be entered into implicitly?

"Intentionally avoiding reading a EULA because you don't want to be bound to its terms constitutes an unethical act as well, because you are acting upon knowledge that the intent is to not relinquish proprietary rights to the CD without agreement to the license's terms."

So you accept there is a common understanding (without reading the EULA) of restrictions being placed on the use of the product?

"If you can't read, or never saw the side of the package with the EULA on it, and made thirty copies of the software for your friends before you found out there was an expectation of agreement to terms of use, you haven't done anything unethical, and you can't undo it either. The copies exist, the effort and money was put into creating them, and there's no way to recover that. The terms of the agreement are essentially voided by the fact that a contract can't be enforced retroactively on someone that hasn't agreed to it."

But you pardon yourself for failure to comply with the commonly understood restrictions that you implicitly agreed to, and you hold yourself inculpable for the consequences?

"To continue . . . still assuming we're talking about people with some grasp on reasonability, let's examine the hypothetical authoritarian's position: He believes that, while people have some basic right of self-determination, social interaction gives rise to conflicts that can only be solved by the rule of law, and that rule can only be effective if individual rights are sacrificed to the sanctity of the social order. Thus, authority structures take precedence over individual rights, thus creating a collective right of authority over individuals. Would that be a fair assessment of the situation, from your perspective?"

In fact, I agree with your entire summation here, and have abandoned that line of defence to regroup on the conflict of individual rights as per my main post.

"You can draw a definite line where individual rights stop, but if you say that you can actually violate said rights to some arbitrarily small degree in exchange for some theoretical benefit of social order (which is, ultimately, dependent upon the incorruptibility of the authoritarian government's officials), you then run into the problem that arbitrary limits can always be revised. As a result, creeping tyranny grows like a fungus as the malleability of the line between rights and authority is consistently tested."

In particular, the last sentence here defines part of my very vague political position - I am opposed to this creeping growth, and the growth of the nanny state. I believe it to be incumbent on every citizen to resist encroachment by the social order on their right of self-determination (I use 'social order' rather than government or state because I think that the effects of social conformity can be much stronger than the decrees of government - Ireland, for example, has a lot of 'dead' laws, more or less officially recognised as such, that were promulgated by the state and ignored by the people - a good demonstration is to watch people crossing the road here, and realise that we do actually have a law forbidding jaywalking). Good call.

First of all you were hilarious in your comment about the Brooklyn Bride, Friday Yuk material for sure!

You even included Max's comments and THEN used your example as if to counter it.

Did you CREATE the Brooklyn Bridge? If so the YOU can sell it. Are you in OWNERSHIP of the Brooklyn Bridge? If so you can sell it.
You do not own the Brooklyn Bridge, though? Did not create it? You want to sell it you can, right? WRONG.

And that was never even implied.

To counter such a comment, if YOU have a MS disk in your pocket and someone takes it, is THAT not theft then, especially if they want to sell it back to you. (I know you never said that, that's the whole point).

You cannot use this as an example to counter a statement that clearly stated a CREATOR has a right to sell his product and nobody else, how the hell does the Brooklyn Bridge fit THAT as a counter argument? Have another coffee or something you simply DID NOT think before you posted that, it is impossible. IF you DID think, then you are pretty stupid, but I doubt you did, just formed a rash analogy in your head and typed it out without a thought.

And in order to defend your use of the term PREMISE, you would need to offer a LOGICAL conclusion. Someone said that if you OWN a property you can sell it, but others cannot. Your understanding of that comment was that if you wanted to sell the Brooklynn Bridge you could?

That would HARDLY constitute a 'premise' being derived from a logical conclusion. That would be a FALSE premise but not a conclusive logic. ROFL!

Wow, how do some people ever get throught high school?!

Damn. Posted this in the wrong place, so it appears twice.

Let's see where this leads:

1. my mind = my land (my property).

2. idea (as 'pure concept') = product of the mind (equivalent to, say, a tree as a product of my land)

NB. not a product in the market sense, but in the sense of something produced. No specific intention to sell/rent etc is implied.

3. private reified idea (a concept turned into a creative work) = finished product of my land and my effort (same as, say, a chair) used only by me (my chair)

NB. this is the point at which patent protection would intervene. I can have the idea but I can't use it in any way or turn it into a finished product. I don't defend patents in any way and I lobby my MEP to prevent software patents in Europe. Ideally, I would like patent law repealed entirely. Sorry about 'reified' - it literally means 'thing-ified'.

NB. at this point, there is no 'awareness' of the creative work by others. I could destroy it now, and no-one would ever know it had existed. My rights over it remain pristine.

4. I decide to make a living selling chairs. While I'm only a single artisan, and can only produce a limited number of chairs, I think I will do well because I make damned good chairs - a good design, well executed.

5. At this point I have a decision to make. Do I sell the chairs to you in an absolute way, so that they become entirely and utterly your property to do with as you wish? Or do I rent you the chair for a limited period, or with specific exceptions to its use? Can I even do that?

NB. from this point I'm only following option B, the rental. Your points with respect to outright sale are undeniable.

6. I think I can rent you a chair, so that you enjoy its use but no other rights (rental is, I think, acceptable in the libertarian view). Certainly you may not destroy it, and since, let us say, I've stated specifically that you may not copy it, you can't do that either. Can this be "defended against by interposing yourself between it and another party"? Well, if the 'it' is the chair (and in this example, what else can it be), I think the answer is yes.

NB. note that at this point we're not dealing with limitations to your rights over your property. I have not transferred any property to you, only a limited use of it. As far as I'm aware, this is allowable even by ancaps in the form of a rental agreement.

Could I realistically do this with code? Yes, I could if necessary interpose myself between you and my code, physically, so that you could not see it, and you would have to initiate force against me to view it. In fact, let us say that I always ensure my code runs on a server to which only I have access (this is my normal practice in web development with parties untrusted or unknown). To gain access to my code you will have to resort to force or fraud against my server, and by extension, me (if you like, I can run it from my server at home, to leave no loophole). Code, therefore, becomes something that remains my real property - the fact that you always resign your rights in code by selling it in toto (and presumably physically transferring possession of it), whereas I sometimes do and sometimes don't, is a matter of preference. I guess here you could say that I'm just renting use of the chair, while retaining the chair physically.

Web-based code, however, is the easiest case here - I can physically protect it, and I do, and it doesn't in any way impinge on your rights in any case. If I am writing code to be compiled for use on your machine, this is slightly different, but I would say that, as long as it's clear I am renting use and only use to you, and specifically prohibiting copying beyond the single copy you have now in your possession, then the case can be made. One can disagree by stating that this is not a fair condition, but then you don't have to agree to it. If you do agree to it, you're stuck with it. You could say that your physical property rights override the agreement, but again you shouldn't then enter into it. In short, although this may not be particularly nice (and people will say - hey, it doesn't cost you anything if I copy this, why should you get to say no?), the catch is your voluntary agreement to the deal. If you agree to the conditions, intending to override it later with other concerns, then you're initiating use of force or fraud.

Creative works reified into publicly distributed products such as books are tough. After all, this is where we hit pure 'intellectual property' issues - you bought the book, not rented it. But, did anyone say that you couldn't copy it, or that you had it on the conditions noted for distributed code above (use only, no copying)? Hmm, well, there it is inside the flyleaf, and it's usually explicit. So again, a book is actually sold to you subject to certain conditions. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the basis of these restrictions (ie that the book contains intellectual property), because you're at liberty to express that disagreement by not purchasing such a limited-right product. Nor does anyone necessarily force the author or publisher to set such restrictions, or to enforce them. But as long as they do, and you purchased the book subject to the limitations to your rights clearly indicated in the object itself, I don't think you can object in any very sincere way. In theory, I could 'sell' you a book subject to the condition that you prayed to Dagon the Fish God on stipulated nights of the year. If you bought the book, subject to my conditions, and then said that you were a committed Christian and couldn't carry out my conditions, I would have to say that you acquired something that was originally my property (before you bought it) by initiating fraud against me (by not intending to carry out my conditions of purchase). Your right to self-determination, as you would agree, does not nullify mine. Could I protect my property by "interposing myself between it and another party" if the other party would not agree to my conditions? Yes. In fact the whole question of intellectual property can be bypassed here - Borders could refuse to sell you a book unless you wore purple - Starbucks could refuse to sell you coffee unless you sang a comic song. The ridiculousness of the demand is irrelevant.

In summary, then, I think that you either have to deny someone the right to make any use of their property that they wish (by renting or selling it under a set of specific conditions), or else you have to accept their right to do so, whether that property is a piece of land or a book. If you deny it, then clearly there are limits to the rights of an individual over their property - that they cannot sell or rent it subject to conditions. If you accept it, then you have to accept that once you have voluntarily entered into this arrangement, you are obliged to respect the provisions of that arrangement, whatever they may be. If you deny that, you once again deny that this is a right that property owners have over their property. Your participation in the abrogation of your rights in a book is voluntary, not forced. If you don't want to have your rights over a purchase limited, and you don't wish to initiate force or fraud to obtain the purchase without entering into the agreement, your only option is to refuse the purchase. The question of 'intellectual property' is in fact irrelevant to this abrogation. Where am I wrong?

Well, I'm consistent, at least - posted this one in the wrong place as well.

"To continue . . . still assuming we're talking about people with some grasp on reasonability, let's examine the hypothetical authoritarian's position: He believes that, while people have some basic right of self-determination, social interaction gives rise to conflicts that can only be solved by the rule of law, and that rule can only be effective if individual rights are sacrificed to the sanctity of the social order. Thus, authority structures take precedence over individual rights, thus creating a collective right of authority over individuals. Would that be a fair assessment of the situation, from your perspective?"

In fact, I agree with your entire summation here, and have abandoned that line of defence to regroup on the conflict of individual rights as per my main post.

"You can draw a definite line where individual rights stop, but if you say that you can actually violate said rights to some arbitrarily small degree in exchange for some theoretical benefit of social order (which is, ultimately, dependent upon the incorruptibility of the authoritarian government's officials), you then run into the problem that arbitrary limits can always be revised. As a result, creeping tyranny grows like a fungus as the malleability of the line between rights and authority is consistently tested."

In particular, the last sentence here defines part of my very vague political position - I am opposed to this creeping growth, and the growth of the nanny state. I believe it to be incumbent on every citizen to resist encroachment by the social order on their right of self-determination (I use 'social order' rather than government or state because I think that the effects of social conformity can be much stronger than the decrees of government - Ireland, for example, has a lot of 'dead' laws, more or less officially recognised as such, that were promulgated by the state and ignored by the people - a good demonstration is to watch people crossing the road here, and realise that we do actually have a law forbidding jaywalking).

See my post at

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=9&threadID=169191&messageID=1730038

As the Buyer, you do NOT have ANY unilateral rights!

I urge you to study contract law.

I don't play games but I do make lots of mistakes. I was in a hurry & posted my reply without really 'reading' it.

My intent was an honest reply....not a 'cheap' one.

Having said that.....In your example where I give you a copy of software that I've copied:

Scenario 1:

I give you the copy......You say thank you, I say your welcome. If the police get involved, one or the two of us are charged with FRAUD.

Scenario 2:

If you break into my house and take that copy from me...........that's theft.

I completely agree that in both scenarios this is against the law and I DETEST the practice.In another discussion, I made my feelings on a similar topic known (rather crudely I might add) I called it theft myself. I am also a member of CAAST.

But it is not theft.

Sure that be great....I'll send you my E-mail address if you like....

It was funny when you where talking about your friend sharing some different views with you, I found myself remembering being in a meeting one time. (Last year I think)

At a meeting I had strong opinions to 'share', I told myself to just keep my mouth shut and just LISTEN.

I'll be damned if I didn't find myself looking at things in ways that I'd just never seen before.
So today, I try to view things from different angles........doesn't allways work but I am working on it. LOL

I have no points of disagreement with either of your two preceding posts. I have only two things to add:

The first is that the use contract to which you allude, whereby a customer is agreeing to limited use in exchange for access, must be explicit to be binding. This isn't because an implicit agreement isn't valid, but because you can't ethically enforce an implicit contract since you can't prove the agreement is clearly understood and accepted by both parties.

The second is that intellectual property law doesn't use such a use contract as its justification. It uses "ownership" of ideas after sale of their record, instead. That is not only not an explicit agreement, but avoids the entire concept of an agreement. Without an opportunity for free agreement, one is essentially attempting to force compliance on an unwilling party, and that attempt to initiate force negates any associated rights of the initiating party.

Give me an end-user license agreement and no intellectual property law, and we're fine.

My profile here is set up to allow contact through the "Send private message" link and I think I still have my public email address listed in the bio section as well. I don't check that email address regularly, but I try to remember to look into it every few days. The private message thing actually goes through to one of my primary email addresses, so I'm likely to get it more quickly.

Like I indicated, though, it's likely to be a bit before I have much done on the ethics text. Of the four books, the translation is the one I'm most likely to finish first, and if I get myself in gear I'll have it done this month.

"So you accept that agreements can be entered into implicitly?"

Yes. Implicit agreements aren't ethically enforceable, though. Thus, they're typically not worth discussion. One cannot be certain of the existence of another party's agreement to an implicit agreement, because without the explicit element there's no proof of the other party's understanding and acceptance of its terms.

"So you accept there is a common understanding (without reading the EULA) of restrictions being placed on the use of the product?"

No, actually, I don't. I accept that some individuals might understand, without reading the EULA, what sort of restrictions are enumerated therein, while others might not. As such, EULAs are even more tenuous than an implicit agreement because there's no observation of the purchaser's behavior to indicate whether or not he or she is aware of or understands the terms of the supposed agreement. Considering the legalese in which these things are written, the length of them, and the apparently contradictory language they often employ, I'd be inclined to assume that someone did [b]not[/b] meaningfully agree to their terms before using whatever it is to which they're attached. In short, then, there's a possibility of understanding in advance, but I wouldn't call it "common".

"But you pardon yourself for failure to comply with the commonly understood restrictions that you implicitly agreed to, and you hold yourself inculpable for the consequences?"

I didn't say that. First of all, as I already pointed out, they're not common, so your question is meaningless as phrased. Secondly, if I assume you didn't make that mistake and simply refer to my understanding (I suspect I understand the terms of EULAs rather more fully than most others), it doesn't matter because this question still isn't applicable to me: I don't copy proprietary software and go around distributing it. I have had legal licenses for the copies of Windows that I've used in the last few years, from my copies of '98 and NT in the late '90s to the XP Pro that I have installed on a computer about four feet to my left, even though I hardly ever turn the thing on. Most of what I do involves free and open source software, anyway.

Finally, it's useful to actually pay attention to the differences between the various parties involved in the matter. First, there's the person using software in violation of the terms of the EULA: this person may be willfully violating the EULA, in which case it is culpable ethically for its acts, or it may simply not understand the terms or have ended up using the software before discovering that there [b]were[/b] terms. Second, there's the person who is providing the software under the terms of that EULA: without being able to read minds, this person cannot be sure that the customer understood and agreed to the terms, or whether understanding of the terms occurred before or after the fact. Third, there's the law, which ignores all ethical concerns entirely and tries to enforce some kind of utterly screwed-up "ownership" that is transferrable but isn't transferred when it is sold: this amounts to a coercive means of monopolizing a subset of the market, and is wholly null and void ethically by virtue of the fact that it uses an initiation of force to accomplish what could be done by way of ethical agreement instead.

"Where did the tone of disrespect ("gubmint") go?"

Read it in context. It fit with the phrase in which I was using the term, and if anything was directed as disrespect to the argument that governmental decree makes something true. Government itself is nothing but an authority structure anyway, and is in and of itself worthy of neither respect nor disrespect. It simply is. It is, more often than not, broken and in need of fixing, but one doesn't "disrespect" a broken wrench because it's just a tool, even if in the process of breaking it drew blood from the person using it.

"Do you have an accurate understanding of government? If so, please enlighten us further."

I'm not writing a book here. To see what I meant by reference to an accurate understanding of government, I recommend you go back and read what I said in my last post in this branching of the discussion, rather than simply skimming it for phrasing with which you want to disagree.

"Could copyright law be thought of as a universal, generic, and automatic form of contract that a civilized society accepts as a minimal amount of protection for those who make their intangible creations available to the public?"

Not accurately. Contracts require specific agreement by all parties involved in each specific case of their applicability. When agreement isn't provably offered, of an individual's own free will without coercion, you're just running a protection racket when you try to enforce it.