[UFO Chicago] Intellectual property

[Neil R. Ormos]

Nate Riffe wrote:
> 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.

Oversimplification rarely clarifies anything, and it doesn't
clarify anything here, in my opinion.  If, on the other
hand, Nate, you have thought so little about these issues
that you need the quote to clarify your understanding of the
matter, then I guess Larry's elaboration was all worth
it. :-)

>> 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.

I didn't say intellectual property was identical to real
property, merely that they are arguably analogous, and the
legislature is entitled to resolve those differences, or
not, however it wants.  Obviously, no analogy is perfect.
But to the extent they are different, the law already
reflects those differences, at least in the opinion of the
legislature.  If you and others happen to think that under
no circumstances should concepts of real property be applied
to intellectual property, you're (obviously) entitled to
your opinions.  There's nothing so emininently correct about
your postion that requires others adopt it.  There is ample
evidence that others disagree with you.

>>> 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.

And by all indications, it's perfectly natural in our
culture for those who originate ideas and their expression
to seek to control who gets the commercial value from them.
So what's your point?

>>> (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/

Nate, now you've really confused me.  If I understand your
position, you object to the application of property law
concepts to ideas/creative output.  But now you seem to be
trying to apply the law of water rights to ideas/creative
output.  Why is that supposed to be any better?  And how is
that Evian stuff relevant to any of this?

>>>>> 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.

Heh.  the evidence doesn't support your position so you haul
out a conspiracy theory?  I suppose poorly paid dictionary
editors, or college professors who are even further removed
from the mother lode of publishing, have conspired to
incorporate changes in the dictionary to infiltrate their
publishers' nefarious intellectual property ideas into the
minds of the American public?  Give me a break.

And while you're at it, spare me the holier than thou,
"you're biased, tainted, and irrational but I'm unbiased,
untainted, and rational" baloney.  You have an awfully big
axe to grind, yourself, Nate.

>> 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.

Baloney.  The opposite has not been shown.  Nick's position
was that "notions of theft cannot be attributed to ideas".
Note the absolute *cannot*.  All I have to do to disprove
that is show that notions of theft *can* be attributed to
ideas, and one way of doing that is to provide some evidence
that notions of theft *have*, in fact, been attributed to
ideas.  Which I've done, at least twice.