[UFO Chicago] Intellectual property

[The Archduke of Chicago and Subjugator of Michigan]

Just now Neil R. Ormos made 15 LEDs in my apartment flash with this:
[snipt a lot]
> 
> Sheesh, Larry.  For the record, I understood, even without
> your extensive elaboration, the distinction being made in
> Jordan's quote.  Although the sentiment it expresses is
> nice, it oversimplifies the issues.

That is an opinion.  It is equally valid to say that the quote clarifies
the difference between real and intellectual property.

> This is false, at least as to the application of law.  The
> fact that you can find some distinction between physical
> property and intellectual property does not mean that others
> can't find similarities.  Whatever differences there may be
> between intellectual property (or ideas or creative output)
> and real property, there is nothing so fundamentally
> different about them that demands that the legislature
> classify intellectual property and real property separately,
> just as there is nothing fundamental that requires that the
> legislature classify them as the same.

The cost of making copies of real property is phenomenal compared to the
cost of making copies of intellectual property.  If that's not a
fundamental difference, then I don't know what is.

> 
> > We may choose to pretend that it is to make the writing of
> > law easier, or perhaps in a vain attempt to protect
> > ephemeral future possibilities (also known as derivative
> > works), but understand that such treatment is not natural,
> > and is in fact contrary to the fundamental nature of
> > information.
> 
> If the attempts to "protect ephemeral future possibilities"
> were so vain, you would not find them so threatening.  And
> classifying the law's treatment of protection of ideas,
> information, creative output, or the like, as "natural" or
> "unnatural", is simply a matter of opinion.  After all, some
> cultures hold that any notion of property ownership is
> unnatural.

One such culture is the one we call "Pop Culture".  Witness how
naturally so many people install copies of whatever software they please
on whatever computers they please whether the license allows it or not.
Witness the proliferation of recorded broadcasts.  Witness brief orgasm
of sharing which was Napster.  Witness the speed with which memes spread
and how eager people are to share them.  By all indications, it's
perfectly natural IN OUR CULTURE for ideas and their expression to flow
like water.

> 
> > (That is the scientific version of "information wants to
> > be free" :-)
> 
> > And if for intellectual property the relevant exclusion
> > may be commercialization, then by definition
> > non-commercial use (e.g., use without selling for profit)
> > would be exempt from the property restriction.
> 
> And an approximation of that is the "fair use" doctrine,
> which, for example, allows certain copying that would
> otherwise be actionable infringement, and includes as part
> of the test for applicability such factors as whether the
> copying is for commercial purpose and whether the
> unauthorized copying significantly diminishes the market for
> authorized copies.

Evian water is still just water.  The fact that it has a label on it
which denotes some kind of authority may please some people,
particularly Evian, but in a world which is abundant with water, getting
water from Lake Michigan is better for the common welfare.  It is true
that the existence of Lake Michigan diminishes the market for Evian
water, but the truth remains that it is both more economical and more
feasible to get water from Lake Michigan.

s/Evian/(Disney|Microsoft|Sony|Random House|...)/
s/water/(software|recorded music|movies|essays|novels)/
s/Lake Michigan/shared media/

> 
> >>> Using terms like "property" and "stealing" are colorful
> >>> metaphors that distract discussion away from the issues
> >>> at hand.
> 
> >> I suppose the last resort of the misinformed pedant is to
> >> criticize an earlier post by reciting an 89-year-old
> >> dictionary definition of a word that was never used in the
> >> earlier post, and then to accuse the original poster of
> >> distracting "discussion away from the issues at hand".  What
> >> an amazing feat of hypocrisy!
> 
> > I suppose the last resort of the self-important pedant is
> > to criticize and earlier post by reciting an equally old
> > dictionary definition from the same source and then to
> > accuse the original poster of being "simply wrong".  What
> > an amazing feat of hypocrisy!
> 
> Larry, you are a liar, and your intellectual dishonesty
> knows no bounds.

See below regarding definition of "theft"

> 
> The definitions I recited are not "equally old"; in fact,
> they are relatively modern. 

And it is also relatively biased to reflect a change in the English
language that publishers of all kinds (including the publisher of the
dictionary) WOULD LIKE TO SEE, and they are propagating this defintion,
possibly without realizing that they are affecting a change.  You are an
intellection property lawyer.  Your livelihood depends on the regime of
intellectual property.  This taints your views in the same way that the
views of publishers are tainted.  Note that I have nothing to gain or
lose from intellectual property except my job.  I am a computer
programmer, and every day I contribute to non-free in exchange for the
money I survive on.  However, I am not so base in my judgement as to let
my individual dependency on intellectual property disturb my rational
analysis of right and wrong.

> In contrast to the definition of "theft" originally posted by Nick,
> which was (1) a definition of a word I hadn't even used and (2) posted
> as though that definition were the sole accepted definition of the
> concept, the definitions I posted for "steal" (which was the word I
> had used in the first place) were clearly marked as inclusive, and not
> exclusive.
> 
> Moreover, my assertion that that Nick was "simply wrong" did not rely
> solely on such definitions.  The statement which you criticised was:
> 
>   >> Third, the notion that "ideas" or creative output are somehow
>   >> fundamentally inconsistent with the application of property
>   >> concepts is simply wrong.

I believe the opposite has been shown.  See above regarding "natural"
vs. "unnatural" and comparison of the cost of copying.  Your assertion
that Nick is therefore wrong is hereby rendered invalid.

-Nate

-- 
--< ((\))< >----< inkblot@movealong.org >----< http://www.movealong.org/ >--
pub  1024D/05A058E0 2002-03-07 Nate Riffe (06-Mar-2002) <inkblot@movealong.org>
     Key fingerprint = 0DAC F5CB D182 3165 D757  C466 CD42 12A8 05A0 58E0