Aside from noting that you're confusing physical property (which exists in reality; only one person can have or use it at a time) and "intellectual property" (which is a legal construct, as it has no such limitations)
I don't think I'm confusing the nature of physical and intellectual property. While it is true that intellectual property can be used by two people at the same time you must agree that only one person can originate the idea, which is intellecutal property, first. Just as real property historically was given to those that first staked their claim, intellectual property status is awarded to inventors, artists, and other creators for first staking their claim to an idea or creation. I use that language to show the consistent nature of intellectual and real property, but in fact I think it dehumanizes the process of creation. These ideas aren't just found, they are the product of the tireless effort and amazing creativity of man.
By the way, real property is a "legal construct" also. Socialist states, and Native American tribes have no concept of private real property as all property is commonly owned. Capitalist societies recognize the legal importance of private property and construct laws to protect it.
I'll ask you if you're also demanding that society provide its courts and police to IP owners for free in perpetuity
Why not? We don't restrict the protection of real property to some statute of limitations. Last time I checked I can't come kick you out of your house 30 years hence. But also let's be clear that society isn't providing anything "for free". Intellectual property owners pay far more in income taxes than the cost of protection of their intellectual property.
If society is allowed to demand property taxes on the value of the IP in return for these services.
I don't favor property taxes in general, but I suppose to be consistent it is not unreasonable to levy a property tax on intellectual property. The problem however is that property taxes are contrived more from expediency than economic efficiency. A local taxing authority has real property which it can steal if the real property holder fails to pay his levy- this makes real property easily taxes in that it is fixed and visible. Intellectual property has no such mechanism. A local taxing authority will have a hard time taxing intellectual property because the intellectual property isn't localized. They will be better off charging sales taxes on the products that result from the intellectual property which are sold within their local taxing district.
how it benefits society to allow such monopoly rents to go on to the Nth generation of heirs to the creator while the rest of society pays the on-going costs of making certain that they aren't infringing and the opportunity costs of avoiding the use of such items which they cannot justify the cost of researching and paying for.
Again I don't view society as paying any excess costs. As I stated above the taxes resulting from the income taxes on the intellecutal property more than offset the cost of its protection. Also I don't see why anyone needs to justify the cost of his creation. The farmer doesn't have to make a moral appeal to justify the cost of his wheat- the market sets the price. Likewise, the market will set the price for a piece of intellectual property. If Intel values their intellectual property so highly that it is prohibitive to use it, you can be assured that people will flock to AMD etc.
I'd also like you to say what the incentive would be to make new inventions, when one could live off the old ones in perpetuity. Whither progress?
Why do you assume that the only innovators are those that innovated before? Maybe those innovating in the future will be motivated to avoid paying the innovators of the past. Isn't it just as likely that the potential for great profits encourages much more investment in hopes of controlling a truly world altering technology or drug?
And to the Moderator. I know I am complaining but you have been very unfair in ranking my posts. There is no way my posts are only a (1) when other crap on this board is getting a (5). I understand that you disagree with my view, but what is the point of a message board with only one homogenous view? I can't imagine the social benefit of posting to the boaard "me too", and "you're right", and you will never find me do it.
As I asserted originally I just think we should be consistent between intellectual and real property. We allow people to bequeath, upon their death, real assets. I think the ownership of intellectual property should work in the same way in that the author or creator could pass those assets to his heirs.
To be honest, I'm actually not opposed to a 100% death tax in which all of one's assets, real and intellectual, would pass on to society at death. I don't believe that a son or daugther has any greater moral claim on the assets of their parents than the rest of society does. Hence, I would eliminate the income tax in favor of a 100% death tax. In this instance upon the death of an author the government could continue to reap the royalty revenue and use that revenue to offset government expenditures, the government could auction the intellectual assets off to the highest bidder and again use the proceeds to offset expenditures, or lastly the government could make the intellectual property public assets with no further enforcement. Of these I would probably favor the last one because it eliminates the monopoly that you reference.
But even in the abscence of a 100% death tax I think it is consistent and not unreasonable for the author and his chosen heirs to continue to reap the royalty revenues into perpetuity. Of course many of the discoveries you mentioned have been known to man since time immemorial, so it would be hard for anyone to make a credible claim to those discoveries.
I don't think that society ever has a claim over the author. As I conceded with the death tax example I think one can argue that society's claim is not much worse than an heir's, and for the expediency of providing funds for workings of government the death tax may be an acceptable solution. But society's claim cannot ever extend to the author himself in my view.
You imply that the author is somehow stealing from society by extracting monopoly rents. Firstly, individuals in society purchase the author's creation of their own free will. One must conclude that these individuals are extracting more value from the creation they borrow than what they pay, for if it were not so they wouldn't purchase the invention. Hence, I don't think anyone is being exploited.
Secondly, I think you can only make the argument of exploitation if the creation is of society and not of the creator. It is the argument that the creator was just lucky, or at least more devious than the rest of society in getting his name on the patent. If Hendrix didn't write 'Hey Joe' someone else would have, and hence Hendrix has no greater claim on that creation than the rest of society because he came up with it first. Given enough time even an ape with a type-writer will write all of Shakepeare's sonnets.
I reject this argument because it is inheriently dehumanizing. It separates the creation from the creator. Man is not just the randomly chosen receptical of invention. A real and great mind is making these technologies and works of art. We can't reject them. We can't reject the nobility of that creation by dehumanizing it and reducing it to just another random event in the history of time. I view these authors and inventors as Man's greatest heroes. We should treat them as such, not like apes in a cell with a type-writer.
- J McLane
I actually work for a company with only 6 employees. I only wish I were a "troll" because then I wouldn't have to lament the complete abdication of rights and justice that we find today in our fair nation.
Whether anyone agrees with my opinion or not is irrelevent to me for I aspire to a single higher purpose - the truth. It is unfortunate that you responded so unconstructively without challenging a single argument that I've put forth. I am reminded of a little boy that revels in the adoration bestowed upon him by his drones, but who suddenly becomes muted when confronted with ideas not only different from his own, but better reasoned.
It's not really relevant to me that Jefferson didn't write "life, liberty, and property" in the Declaration. I'm arguing against Jefferson, and since you are unable to offer any intelligent arguments of your own apart from Jefferson, I am also arguing against you. I do know that Locke, who was clearly Jefferson's biggest influence, did write "life, liberty, and property" and it is apparent from my reading of the Second Treatise on Government that Locke would have supported the protection of intellectual property on the moral grounds that I have offered.
Okay maybe you aren't the Wolf as it pertains to real property, but you offer no logical argument as to why real property should be protected while intellectual property should not.
My argument is that there is no moral obligation "to serve" anyone. I refuse to embrace that slave ethic that has been responsible for countless millions of lives as society has sought to build a better more compassionate state. You have no right to better car technologies. Where do you get the idea that simply by your existence you are entitled to the creation of another man. I think it's fine if someone wants to sell you a fuel cell, but let's be clear, there is no obligation for anyone to do so.
So what if you only said "burdensome" copyright. You failed to define "burdensome", and I posit that you will be unable to provide an objective definition. My argument is that all copyright should be strictly enforced because it is the creation of another individual that is not your slave. I wouldn't even have expiration limits on copyright or patents. Think about the incentives that creates in a marketplace. Firstly, anyone that develops something has the ability to accumulate great rewards, and secondly, there are huge incentives for everyone else to develop competing technologies.
I hate to tell you but individuals working in companies are just as complicit in its crimes. It was only 2 years ago that the Justice Department was trying to jail tobacco company employees. Don't defend an ethic that ignores personal responsibility, we have faced this before with Hitler's willing executioners.
I completely acknowledged in my comment "of government" that it was my opinion and not Madison's. I wasn't trying to make an interpretation. I was refering to the most nuissance of all monopolies- government created and sanctioned monopolies.
I don't believe in fair use as it relates to intellectual property, just as I don't advocate the fair use of your home, your car, your labor. Again you fail to recognize the difference between the difficulty of replication and duplication. I can make a great product which cannot be replicated by other minds in society, but any 13 year old moron can take the drafting plans and build it and sell it- ie. duplicate it. This is why protections are needed.
I would accept your comment that my arguments are "shoddy" if only I read a refutation of them instead of a simple restatement of your unreasoned opinion.
If I am un-American for defending the rights of man so be it, I am an advocate for a higher law.
It is very dangerous to accept "everything" that Jefferson, or for that matter anyone, wrote as truth. I am a big fan of Jefferson and was surprised by his views on this issue. But that's okay, Jefferson was human too and like all humans makes mistakes. I think Jefferson would have valued honest reasoned disagreement rather than blind embrace.
Oh yeah, since you couldn't think of "anyone, conservative or not" I suggest you read some Patrick Henry, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton.
> "I feel the need with all the horrible
> rights violations going recently to
> highlight..."
Unfortunately, it is clear you have a misconception of "rights". In your ethos the individual exists to serve society. It cannot be otherwise if the product of one's mind, his intellectual property, is deemed to be the property of society. I prefer a framework in which society exists only to protect the rights of the individual (those being life, liberty, and PROPERTY), or in Rand's words: "to protect man from man." In this framework the only rights being violated are the rights of Adobe and the copyright holder to be secure in the protection of the products of their own mind.
> "I feel it is important to this case,
> especially from the American prospective, to
> point out that one of the most ingenious,
> prolific and outspoken forefathers of the
> USA, where the DMCA and other vile laws
> live, believe firmly that the bill of rights
> should have included and explicit reference
> to freedom from burdensome and unfair
> copyrights and legislation thereof."
I recognize that you are asserting Jefferson's opinion here but it is nonetheless illogical to say that banning copy right preserves a freedom. You are simply manipulating language to confuse an issue and further a position that is inherently contradictory. You can't be free from something if you don't have a right to that which is being protected in the first place. For example, you should be free from me hitting you because you have the right to be secure in your person. However, you cannot be free from me denying you healthcare because you have no right to healthcare in the first place, and I have no obligation to provide you healthcare. To say that one has a right to healthcare is to say that another has an obligation to provide it. It is a perversion of language and what rights mean.
You can't preserve "freedom" when the means of preservation is the enslavement of another. There is no preservation of freedom in this case because there is no right to the product of another man's life. One could just as easily bastardize what it means to be free by saying: "I believe firmly that the bill of rights should have included an explicit reference to freedom from burdensome and unfair protections of the Negro to be secure in the ownership of the product of his own labor." You don't want freedom "from" anything, you want the freedom "to take" another man's creation, just as slave owners wanted the freedom to take the life's work of their slaves. It is a leech ethic that ignores the primacy of the individual and the right of the individual to be secure in his person, to own and control his creations and do with them as he will.
> "We are railroading an expatriate to whom > our laws do not bind."
The product he sells is sold in the U.S. He was giving a speech that for all intents and purposes was advertising for the technology which is sold in the U.S. The argument that the U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction to arrest him is tantamount to suggesting that I am exempt from criminal prosecution if I smuggle drugs from Amsterdam into the U.S. and then brag about at the latest "High Times" conference. I'm against drug criminalization but it is ridiculous to suggest that either I or Dmitry are necessarily exempt.
> "With regard to monopolies they are justly
> classed among the greatest nuisances in
> government."
I find it interesting that Madison used "in government" rather than "of government". I know that I am ascribing a difference which in context was not his intention, but it is obvious to me that the most nuisance of all monopolies are the monopolies in government.
> "But is it clear that as encouragements to
> literary works and ingenious discoveries,
> they are not too valuable to be wholly
> renounced? Would it not suffice to reserve
> in all cases a right to the public to
> abolish the privilege at a price to be
> specified in the grant of it?"
Madison was exactly right to make these arguments. The only way to create market incentives for creation is if the creators have some means to profit by that creation. This is the very nature of intellectual property protection. It works! Moreover it is just.
> "Is there not also infinitely less danger of
> this abuse in our governments than in most
> others? Monopolies are sacrifices of
> the many to the few. Where the power is in
> the few it is natural for them to sacrifice
> the many to their own partialities and
> corruptions."
Madison makes a big mistake here. Monopolies ARE NOT sacrifices of the many to the few. The "many" don't lose anything when the "few" create a new product, in fact they gain in the wealth creation that accrues from the trade and use of that new product. To say that the "many" are sacrificed is a ridiculous assertion which can only be true if the "many" had an inalienable right to the creations of the "few" even in advance of those creations being created. It's a right to something that doesn't exist. Where does that right come from? Why does my creation, born of my own hands or mind, become the property of society. How much do I have to pay to be free. Tell me because I will pay it now so as to not live under this yoke one day longer.>
> "Where the power, as with us, is in the many
> not in the few, the danger can not be very
> great that the few will be thus favored. It
> is much more to be dreaded that the few will
> be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many."
This is exactly why the Bill of Rights was created. Democracy, for all of you that have yet to figure this out yet, IS NOT FREEDOM. Democracy is a very small part of a system that keeps us free. Democracy is valuable only in so far as it is not its alternatives: monarchy and oligarchy. The Bill of Rights was added to protect minorities from the general will of the majority, and it is this very instance where it becomes abundantly clear that these protections are needed. Everyone wants something for free. Only nothing is ever free- anything that appears free is really stolen, which is what the vast majority of you Marxists want. The "many" wants to take the songs, and books, and articles, and ideas of the "few" without any compensation to the individual responsible for its creation.
>"I like the declaration of rights as far as
> it goes, but I should have been for going
> further. For instance, the following
> alterations and additions would have pleased
> me... Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed
> to persons for their own productions in
> literature, and their own inventions in the
> arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years,
> but for no longer term, and for no other
> purpose."
>"The blank was to be filled in at some future
> date, obviously. The law is written with the
> sense that this right would be the right of
> the people to protect themselves against
> intellectual fraudulence by companies, e.g.,
> the theft of the 'little man's' ideas. In
> addition to which, there is always the
> stance that the people of the fledgling USA
> would be safeguarded in the Bill of Rights
> against unduly long copyrights."
I have no idea how you possibly concluded that Jefferson was anti-corporation and pro-individual from that passage. If you draw that conclusion from the word "persons" I think you are making a big stretch which is wholly ungrounded in Common Law which ascribes to the Corporation the status of "person" for purposes of law. Jefferson was a lawyer don't forget.
>"This principle that the earth belongs to the
> living, and not to the dead, is of very
> extensive application... Turn this subject
> in your mind, my dear Sir... Your station in
> the councils of our country gives you an
> opportunity for producing it to public
> consideration... Establish the principle...
> in the new law to be passed for protecting
> copyrights and new inventions, by securing
> the exclusive right for 19 instead of 14
> years."
Jefferson again is poorly reasoned in this instance. Jefferson basically argues that because the earth belongs to the living, the intellectual property of the dead should be used by the living, thereby extracting its utility. But Jefferson isn't just saying that "earth is for the living" he is saying that one has no right to confer his intellectual property to his progeny. The reason this is poorly reasoned is because Jefferson makes no consistent assertion for real property. Jefferson certainly didn't argue that upon death all of one's assets become the property of the "many". It makes no sense to segregate intellectual from real property. To be honest I don't have a big problem with 100% death taxes (although I would expect a 0% life tax in exchange), which is effectively what Jefferson seems to be advocating here when taken to its logical end, though if we go down that road we should be consistent between intellectual and real property.
> "Another thing, imagine if the copyrights
> were in fact awarded to the people who
> invented them, not the companies who
> subsidized them. It would be interesting to
> see a world where companies like DuPont and
> Merck (and every other chemical and drug
> exploitation companies, because that's what
> they are, the money is in the treatments,
> not the cure) are made to treat their patent
> holding scientists with the utmost respect
> and regard, even more so than the greedy
> shareholders, because if they left for
> another company, so leaves their patents!"
Those scientists could alternatively develop their patents without the use of corporate facilities in which case there is no contractual obligation to the corporation. Why don't they simply do that? Could it be that the scientists are in fact exploiting the companies for use of their labs and research budgets? I can't imagine it otherwise, because the scientists are free to go elsewhere but for some reason they do not. Damn those exploiting scientists!
> "The most important of all the Jefferson
> arguments is this: If IP is so unique, so
> wonderful and so great, why does it need
> protection? I don't believe I had quoted
> this particular argument above, I will work
> to find it, but the statement is true. If
> something is obvious, then it really isn't
> IP. Would you like Bob Metcalfe, the Linux
> is a piece of crap Windows 2000 rules moron
> who founded 3COM to hold the patent
> on 'Ethernet'?"
This is just plain stupid. Whether something is "wonderful and great" is completely unrelated to the ease of copying it and hence stealing it. Milan Kundera's "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" is surely unique and beautiful and though its greatness is all the more pronounced by the fact that it will never be 'replicated' by another mind it is easily 'duplicated' and hence stolen.
> "Don't you think its nice that other
> companies compete with 3COM for the Ethernet
> space, such as Intel, CISCO, et al? Doesn't
> the standard referred to as "Ethernet" get
> better and better because these companies
> compete for your business in the same
> segment?"
I'm assuming by your argument that 3Com created the Ethernet standard. If this is true, 3Com has no moral obligation to open their technology up to competitors. That being said standards are important, so it is likely that if 3Com took such a stance their competitors and customers would have a strong interest in colluding to develop a competing standard that was "open". The point is that just because standards are valuable it doesn't follow that society must appropriate the property of another.
> "He who receives an idea from me, receives
> instruction himself without lessening mine;
> as he who lights his taper at mine, receives
> light without darkening me. That ideas
> should freely spread from one to another
> over the globe, for the moral and mutual
> instruction of man, and improvement of his
> condition, seems to have been peculiarly and
> benevolently designed by nature, when she
> made them, like fire, expansible over all
> space, without lessening their density at
> any point, and like the air in which we
> breathe, move, and have our physical being,
> incapable of confinement or exclusive
> appropriation."
> Thomas Jefferson, in Writings of Thomas
> Jefferson, vol. 6, H.A. Washington,
> Ed.,1854, pp. 180-181. Link:
> http://www.lib.virginia.edu/copyright/"
Let's say this is true, and assume that he who "lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me". Further, lets assume that half of the world has a lit taper and the other half do not but need their tapers lit. Those in need will go to those that have and bargain for the borrowing of their light. Yet, since the marginal cost of allowing one use of the taper is zero the market will bid down the cost of this service to approximately zero. Light spreads everywhere at almost zero cost. No problem. The market works, and property rights are preserved in that no one with a lit taper was coerced by law to provide their taper to another for free. In other words this statement gives no argument either moral or practical for abandoning property rights.
Just because intellectual property rights exist doesn't mean that ideas won't spread. In fact, the author of the property has a vested interest in their spread, and will even promote the spread if he is compensated justly for it.
>"Among the latter, under pretence of
> governing they have divided their nations
> into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not
> exaggerate. This is a true picture of
> Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our
> people, and keep alive their attention. Do
> not be too severe upon their errors, but
> reclaim them by enlightening them. If once
> they become inattentive to the public
> affairs, you & I, & Congress & Assemblies,
> judges & governors shall all become
> wolves. " Thomas Jefferson To Edward
> Carrington Paris, Jan. 16, 1787"
There is no doubt in my mind you represent the wolf.
I am sooo sick of people who claim to be defenders of liberty espousing such unreasoned lawlessness.
1. Russia is notoriously weak in virtually all areas of intellectual property protection. In fact this is the primary reason they have yet to be admitted into the World Trade Organization. If you want a comparison of how bad they must be are just consider that Red China IS being admitted to WTO. It really isn't surprising that Russia would have weak intellectual property rights, since it wasn't that long ago that the socialist state didn't have any property rights at all.
If Adobe is illegal in the Russia then why does Russia allow its import?
The product he sells is sold in the U.S. He was giving a speech that for all intents and purposes was advertising for the technology which is sold in the U.S. The argument that the U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction to arrest him is tantamount to suggesting that I am exempt from criminal prosecution if I smuggle drugs from Amsterdam into the U.S. and then brag about at the latest "High Times" conference. I'm against drug criminalization but it is ridiculous to suggest that either I or Dmitry are necessarily exempt.
2. This is the most ameturish logic I've seen in some time. You are saying "because I can do it and you can't stop it, it can't be illegal." Well I can steal your car without you stopping it but that doesnt mean it too should be legal.
3. The difference is that the Pen has uses beyond its use as an instrument of violence. Code written to crack someone else's software and the contractual protection arrangement underlying, has no use apart from the violation of both the contract underlying and the terms of the software license. It is entirely reasonable to outlaw the tool in this instance- just as it is entirely reasonable to outlaw the building of a nuclear weapon.
4. First of all not all speech is protected. Theoretically "political speech" is protected, though the courts, and now the legislature have gone to great lengths in its restriction through unjust campaign finance reform. Slander and lible are speech but are also restricted. Commercial speech is commonly restricted. Ever wonder why there are no tobacco ads on television? Commercial signs are subject to numerous local restrictions. This might be speech, but it is commercial speech and it is completely reasonable to restrict its expression as it serves no purpose but to violate the contractual and statutory protections afforded its victim.
5. What in the hell is wrong with protecting one's bottom line. I cannot stand this demonization of corporations. A corporation is simply a vehicle of it's shareholders. Those individual shareholders are no less entitled to the protection of their property than you are. You are intent on attaching collectivist characterizations to individuals that have no grounded basis and as such you are no better than any other racist demagogue.
Slashdot Mirror
By the way, real property is a "legal construct" also. Socialist states, and Native American tribes have no concept of private real property as all property is commonly owned. Capitalist societies recognize the legal importance of private property and construct laws to protect it.
Why not? We don't restrict the protection of real property to some statute of limitations. Last time I checked I can't come kick you out of your house 30 years hence. But also let's be clear that society isn't providing anything "for free". Intellectual property owners pay far more in income taxes than the cost of protection of their intellectual property. I don't favor property taxes in general, but I suppose to be consistent it is not unreasonable to levy a property tax on intellectual property. The problem however is that property taxes are contrived more from expediency than economic efficiency. A local taxing authority has real property which it can steal if the real property holder fails to pay his levy- this makes real property easily taxes in that it is fixed and visible. Intellectual property has no such mechanism. A local taxing authority will have a hard time taxing intellectual property because the intellectual property isn't localized. They will be better off charging sales taxes on the products that result from the intellectual property which are sold within their local taxing district. Again I don't view society as paying any excess costs. As I stated above the taxes resulting from the income taxes on the intellecutal property more than offset the cost of its protection. Also I don't see why anyone needs to justify the cost of his creation. The farmer doesn't have to make a moral appeal to justify the cost of his wheat- the market sets the price. Likewise, the market will set the price for a piece of intellectual property. If Intel values their intellectual property so highly that it is prohibitive to use it, you can be assured that people will flock to AMD etc. Why do you assume that the only innovators are those that innovated before? Maybe those innovating in the future will be motivated to avoid paying the innovators of the past. Isn't it just as likely that the potential for great profits encourages much more investment in hopes of controlling a truly world altering technology or drug?And to the Moderator. I know I am complaining but you have been very unfair in ranking my posts. There is no way my posts are only a (1) when other crap on this board is getting a (5). I understand that you disagree with my view, but what is the point of a message board with only one homogenous view? I can't imagine the social benefit of posting to the boaard "me too", and "you're right", and you will never find me do it.
As I asserted originally I just think we should be consistent between intellectual and real property. We allow people to bequeath, upon their death, real assets. I think the ownership of intellectual property should work in the same way in that the author or creator could pass those assets to his heirs.
To be honest, I'm actually not opposed to a 100% death tax in which all of one's assets, real and intellectual, would pass on to society at death. I don't believe that a son or daugther has any greater moral claim on the assets of their parents than the rest of society does. Hence, I would eliminate the income tax in favor of a 100% death tax. In this instance upon the death of an author the government could continue to reap the royalty revenue and use that revenue to offset government expenditures, the government could auction the intellectual assets off to the highest bidder and again use the proceeds to offset expenditures, or lastly the government could make the intellectual property public assets with no further enforcement. Of these I would probably favor the last one because it eliminates the monopoly that you reference.
But even in the abscence of a 100% death tax I think it is consistent and not unreasonable for the author and his chosen heirs to continue to reap the royalty revenues into perpetuity. Of course many of the discoveries you mentioned have been known to man since time immemorial, so it would be hard for anyone to make a credible claim to those discoveries.
I don't think that society ever has a claim over the author. As I conceded with the death tax example I think one can argue that society's claim is not much worse than an heir's, and for the expediency of providing funds for workings of government the death tax may be an acceptable solution. But society's claim cannot ever extend to the author himself in my view.
You imply that the author is somehow stealing from society by extracting monopoly rents. Firstly, individuals in society purchase the author's creation of their own free will. One must conclude that these individuals are extracting more value from the creation they borrow than what they pay, for if it were not so they wouldn't purchase the invention. Hence, I don't think anyone is being exploited.
Secondly, I think you can only make the argument of exploitation if the creation is of society and not of the creator. It is the argument that the creator was just lucky, or at least more devious than the rest of society in getting his name on the patent. If Hendrix didn't write 'Hey Joe' someone else would have, and hence Hendrix has no greater claim on that creation than the rest of society because he came up with it first. Given enough time even an ape with a type-writer will write all of Shakepeare's sonnets.
I reject this argument because it is inheriently dehumanizing. It separates the creation from the creator. Man is not just the randomly chosen receptical of invention. A real and great mind is making these technologies and works of art. We can't reject them. We can't reject the nobility of that creation by dehumanizing it and reducing it to just another random event in the history of time. I view these authors and inventors as Man's greatest heroes. We should treat them as such, not like apes in a cell with a type-writer. - J McLane
Whether anyone agrees with my opinion or not is irrelevent to me for I aspire to a single higher purpose - the truth. It is unfortunate that you responded so unconstructively without challenging a single argument that I've put forth. I am reminded of a little boy that revels in the adoration bestowed upon him by his drones, but who suddenly becomes muted when confronted with ideas not only different from his own, but better reasoned.
It's not really relevant to me that Jefferson didn't write "life, liberty, and property" in the Declaration. I'm arguing against Jefferson, and since you are unable to offer any intelligent arguments of your own apart from Jefferson, I am also arguing against you. I do know that Locke, who was clearly Jefferson's biggest influence, did write "life, liberty, and property" and it is apparent from my reading of the Second Treatise on Government that Locke would have supported the protection of intellectual property on the moral grounds that I have offered.
Okay maybe you aren't the Wolf as it pertains to real property, but you offer no logical argument as to why real property should be protected while intellectual property should not.
My argument is that there is no moral obligation "to serve" anyone. I refuse to embrace that slave ethic that has been responsible for countless millions of lives as society has sought to build a better more compassionate state. You have no right to better car technologies. Where do you get the idea that simply by your existence you are entitled to the creation of another man. I think it's fine if someone wants to sell you a fuel cell, but let's be clear, there is no obligation for anyone to do so.
So what if you only said "burdensome" copyright. You failed to define "burdensome", and I posit that you will be unable to provide an objective definition. My argument is that all copyright should be strictly enforced because it is the creation of another individual that is not your slave. I wouldn't even have expiration limits on copyright or patents. Think about the incentives that creates in a marketplace. Firstly, anyone that develops something has the ability to accumulate great rewards, and secondly, there are huge incentives for everyone else to develop competing technologies.
I hate to tell you but individuals working in companies are just as complicit in its crimes. It was only 2 years ago that the Justice Department was trying to jail tobacco company employees. Don't defend an ethic that ignores personal responsibility, we have faced this before with Hitler's willing executioners.
I completely acknowledged in my comment "of government" that it was my opinion and not Madison's. I wasn't trying to make an interpretation. I was refering to the most nuissance of all monopolies- government created and sanctioned monopolies.
I don't believe in fair use as it relates to intellectual property, just as I don't advocate the fair use of your home, your car, your labor. Again you fail to recognize the difference between the difficulty of replication and duplication. I can make a great product which cannot be replicated by other minds in society, but any 13 year old moron can take the drafting plans and build it and sell it- ie. duplicate it. This is why protections are needed.
I would accept your comment that my arguments are "shoddy" if only I read a refutation of them instead of a simple restatement of your unreasoned opinion.
If I am un-American for defending the rights of man so be it, I am an advocate for a higher law.
It is very dangerous to accept "everything" that Jefferson, or for that matter anyone, wrote as truth. I am a big fan of Jefferson and was surprised by his views on this issue. But that's okay, Jefferson was human too and like all humans makes mistakes. I think Jefferson would have valued honest reasoned disagreement rather than blind embrace.
Oh yeah, since you couldn't think of "anyone, conservative or not" I suggest you read some Patrick Henry, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton.
And I mean it.
- J McLane
Unfortunately, it is clear you have a misconception of "rights". In your ethos the individual exists to serve society. It cannot be otherwise if the product of one's mind, his intellectual property, is deemed to be the property of society. I prefer a framework in which society exists only to protect the rights of the individual (those being life, liberty, and PROPERTY), or in Rand's words: "to protect man from man." In this framework the only rights being violated are the rights of Adobe and the copyright holder to be secure in the protection of the products of their own mind.
> "I feel it is important to this case, > especially from the American prospective, to > point out that one of the most ingenious, > prolific and outspoken forefathers of the > USA, where the DMCA and other vile laws > live, believe firmly that the bill of rights > should have included and explicit reference > to freedom from burdensome and unfair > copyrights and legislation thereof."
I recognize that you are asserting Jefferson's opinion here but it is nonetheless illogical to say that banning copy right preserves a freedom. You are simply manipulating language to confuse an issue and further a position that is inherently contradictory. You can't be free from something if you don't have a right to that which is being protected in the first place. For example, you should be free from me hitting you because you have the right to be secure in your person. However, you cannot be free from me denying you healthcare because you have no right to healthcare in the first place, and I have no obligation to provide you healthcare. To say that one has a right to healthcare is to say that another has an obligation to provide it. It is a perversion of language and what rights mean.
You can't preserve "freedom" when the means of preservation is the enslavement of another. There is no preservation of freedom in this case because there is no right to the product of another man's life. One could just as easily bastardize what it means to be free by saying: "I believe firmly that the bill of rights should have included an explicit reference to freedom from burdensome and unfair protections of the Negro to be secure in the ownership of the product of his own labor." You don't want freedom "from" anything, you want the freedom "to take" another man's creation, just as slave owners wanted the freedom to take the life's work of their slaves. It is a leech ethic that ignores the primacy of the individual and the right of the individual to be secure in his person, to own and control his creations and do with them as he will.
> "We are railroading an expatriate to whom > our laws do not bind."
The product he sells is sold in the U.S. He was giving a speech that for all intents and purposes was advertising for the technology which is sold in the U.S. The argument that the U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction to arrest him is tantamount to suggesting that I am exempt from criminal prosecution if I smuggle drugs from Amsterdam into the U.S. and then brag about at the latest "High Times" conference. I'm against drug criminalization but it is ridiculous to suggest that either I or Dmitry are necessarily exempt.
> "With regard to monopolies they are justly > classed among the greatest nuisances in > government."
I find it interesting that Madison used "in government" rather than "of government". I know that I am ascribing a difference which in context was not his intention, but it is obvious to me that the most nuisance of all monopolies are the monopolies in government.
> "But is it clear that as encouragements to > literary works and ingenious discoveries, > they are not too valuable to be wholly > renounced? Would it not suffice to reserve > in all cases a right to the public to > abolish the privilege at a price to be > specified in the grant of it?"
Madison was exactly right to make these arguments. The only way to create market incentives for creation is if the creators have some means to profit by that creation. This is the very nature of intellectual property protection. It works! Moreover it is just.
> "Is there not also infinitely less danger of > this abuse in our governments than in most > others? Monopolies are sacrifices of > the many to the few. Where the power is in > the few it is natural for them to sacrifice > the many to their own partialities and > corruptions."
Madison makes a big mistake here. Monopolies ARE NOT sacrifices of the many to the few. The "many" don't lose anything when the "few" create a new product, in fact they gain in the wealth creation that accrues from the trade and use of that new product. To say that the "many" are sacrificed is a ridiculous assertion which can only be true if the "many" had an inalienable right to the creations of the "few" even in advance of those creations being created. It's a right to something that doesn't exist. Where does that right come from? Why does my creation, born of my own hands or mind, become the property of society. How much do I have to pay to be free. Tell me because I will pay it now so as to not live under this yoke one day longer.>
> "Where the power, as with us, is in the many > not in the few, the danger can not be very > great that the few will be thus favored. It > is much more to be dreaded that the few will > be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many."
This is exactly why the Bill of Rights was created. Democracy, for all of you that have yet to figure this out yet, IS NOT FREEDOM. Democracy is a very small part of a system that keeps us free. Democracy is valuable only in so far as it is not its alternatives: monarchy and oligarchy. The Bill of Rights was added to protect minorities from the general will of the majority, and it is this very instance where it becomes abundantly clear that these protections are needed. Everyone wants something for free. Only nothing is ever free- anything that appears free is really stolen, which is what the vast majority of you Marxists want. The "many" wants to take the songs, and books, and articles, and ideas of the "few" without any compensation to the individual responsible for its creation.
>"I like the declaration of rights as far as > it goes, but I should have been for going > further. For instance, the following > alterations and additions would have pleased > me... Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed > to persons for their own productions in > literature, and their own inventions in the > arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, > but for no longer term, and for no other > purpose."
>"The blank was to be filled in at some future > date, obviously. The law is written with the > sense that this right would be the right of > the people to protect themselves against > intellectual fraudulence by companies, e.g., > the theft of the 'little man's' ideas. In > addition to which, there is always the > stance that the people of the fledgling USA > would be safeguarded in the Bill of Rights > against unduly long copyrights."
I have no idea how you possibly concluded that Jefferson was anti-corporation and pro-individual from that passage. If you draw that conclusion from the word "persons" I think you are making a big stretch which is wholly ungrounded in Common Law which ascribes to the Corporation the status of "person" for purposes of law. Jefferson was a lawyer don't forget.
>"This principle that the earth belongs to the > living, and not to the dead, is of very > extensive application... Turn this subject > in your mind, my dear Sir... Your station in > the councils of our country gives you an > opportunity for producing it to public > consideration... Establish the principle... > in the new law to be passed for protecting > copyrights and new inventions, by securing > the exclusive right for 19 instead of 14 > years."
Jefferson again is poorly reasoned in this instance. Jefferson basically argues that because the earth belongs to the living, the intellectual property of the dead should be used by the living, thereby extracting its utility. But Jefferson isn't just saying that "earth is for the living" he is saying that one has no right to confer his intellectual property to his progeny. The reason this is poorly reasoned is because Jefferson makes no consistent assertion for real property. Jefferson certainly didn't argue that upon death all of one's assets become the property of the "many". It makes no sense to segregate intellectual from real property. To be honest I don't have a big problem with 100% death taxes (although I would expect a 0% life tax in exchange), which is effectively what Jefferson seems to be advocating here when taken to its logical end, though if we go down that road we should be consistent between intellectual and real property.
> "Another thing, imagine if the copyrights > were in fact awarded to the people who > invented them, not the companies who > subsidized them. It would be interesting to > see a world where companies like DuPont and > Merck (and every other chemical and drug > exploitation companies, because that's what > they are, the money is in the treatments, > not the cure) are made to treat their patent > holding scientists with the utmost respect > and regard, even more so than the greedy > shareholders, because if they left for > another company, so leaves their patents!"
Those scientists could alternatively develop their patents without the use of corporate facilities in which case there is no contractual obligation to the corporation. Why don't they simply do that? Could it be that the scientists are in fact exploiting the companies for use of their labs and research budgets? I can't imagine it otherwise, because the scientists are free to go elsewhere but for some reason they do not. Damn those exploiting scientists!
> "The most important of all the Jefferson > arguments is this: If IP is so unique, so > wonderful and so great, why does it need > protection? I don't believe I had quoted > this particular argument above, I will work > to find it, but the statement is true. If > something is obvious, then it really isn't > IP. Would you like Bob Metcalfe, the Linux > is a piece of crap Windows 2000 rules moron > who founded 3COM to hold the patent > on 'Ethernet'?"
This is just plain stupid. Whether something is "wonderful and great" is completely unrelated to the ease of copying it and hence stealing it. Milan Kundera's "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" is surely unique and beautiful and though its greatness is all the more pronounced by the fact that it will never be 'replicated' by another mind it is easily 'duplicated' and hence stolen.
> "Don't you think its nice that other > companies compete with 3COM for the Ethernet > space, such as Intel, CISCO, et al? Doesn't > the standard referred to as "Ethernet" get > better and better because these companies > compete for your business in the same > segment?"
I'm assuming by your argument that 3Com created the Ethernet standard. If this is true, 3Com has no moral obligation to open their technology up to competitors. That being said standards are important, so it is likely that if 3Com took such a stance their competitors and customers would have a strong interest in colluding to develop a competing standard that was "open". The point is that just because standards are valuable it doesn't follow that society must appropriate the property of another.
> "He who receives an idea from me, receives > instruction himself without lessening mine; > as he who lights his taper at mine, receives > light without darkening me. That ideas > should freely spread from one to another > over the globe, for the moral and mutual > instruction of man, and improvement of his > condition, seems to have been peculiarly and > benevolently designed by nature, when she > made them, like fire, expansible over all > space, without lessening their density at > any point, and like the air in which we > breathe, move, and have our physical being, > incapable of confinement or exclusive > appropriation." > Thomas Jefferson, in Writings of Thomas > Jefferson, vol. 6, H.A. Washington, > Ed.,1854, pp. 180-181. Link: > http://www.lib.virginia.edu/copyright/"
Let's say this is true, and assume that he who "lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me". Further, lets assume that half of the world has a lit taper and the other half do not but need their tapers lit. Those in need will go to those that have and bargain for the borrowing of their light. Yet, since the marginal cost of allowing one use of the taper is zero the market will bid down the cost of this service to approximately zero. Light spreads everywhere at almost zero cost. No problem. The market works, and property rights are preserved in that no one with a lit taper was coerced by law to provide their taper to another for free. In other words this statement gives no argument either moral or practical for abandoning property rights.
Just because intellectual property rights exist doesn't mean that ideas won't spread. In fact, the author of the property has a vested interest in their spread, and will even promote the spread if he is compensated justly for it.
>"Among the latter, under pretence of > governing they have divided their nations > into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not > exaggerate. This is a true picture of > Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our > people, and keep alive their attention. Do > not be too severe upon their errors, but > reclaim them by enlightening them. If once > they become inattentive to the public > affairs, you & I, & Congress & Assemblies, > judges & governors shall all become > wolves. " Thomas Jefferson To Edward > Carrington Paris, Jan. 16, 1787"
There is no doubt in my mind you represent the wolf.
- J McLane
1. Russia is notoriously weak in virtually all areas of intellectual property protection. In fact this is the primary reason they have yet to be admitted into the World Trade Organization. If you want a comparison of how bad they must be are just consider that Red China IS being admitted to WTO. It really isn't surprising that Russia would have weak intellectual property rights, since it wasn't that long ago that the socialist state didn't have any property rights at all.
If Adobe is illegal in the Russia then why does Russia allow its import?
The product he sells is sold in the U.S. He was giving a speech that for all intents and purposes was advertising for the technology which is sold in the U.S. The argument that the U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction to arrest him is tantamount to suggesting that I am exempt from criminal prosecution if I smuggle drugs from Amsterdam into the U.S. and then brag about at the latest "High Times" conference. I'm against drug criminalization but it is ridiculous to suggest that either I or Dmitry are necessarily exempt.
2. This is the most ameturish logic I've seen in some time. You are saying "because I can do it and you can't stop it, it can't be illegal." Well I can steal your car without you stopping it but that doesnt mean it too should be legal.
3. The difference is that the Pen has uses beyond its use as an instrument of violence. Code written to crack someone else's software and the contractual protection arrangement underlying, has no use apart from the violation of both the contract underlying and the terms of the software license. It is entirely reasonable to outlaw the tool in this instance- just as it is entirely reasonable to outlaw the building of a nuclear weapon.
4. First of all not all speech is protected. Theoretically "political speech" is protected, though the courts, and now the legislature have gone to great lengths in its restriction through unjust campaign finance reform. Slander and lible are speech but are also restricted. Commercial speech is commonly restricted. Ever wonder why there are no tobacco ads on television? Commercial signs are subject to numerous local restrictions. This might be speech, but it is commercial speech and it is completely reasonable to restrict its expression as it serves no purpose but to violate the contractual and statutory protections afforded its victim.
5. What in the hell is wrong with protecting one's bottom line. I cannot stand this demonization of corporations. A corporation is simply a vehicle of it's shareholders. Those individual shareholders are no less entitled to the protection of their property than you are. You are intent on attaching collectivist characterizations to individuals that have no grounded basis and as such you are no better than any other racist demagogue.