Reality check
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| hkwint Nov 10, 2009 6:56 PM EDT |
Without going into political or ideological debate, please let me point out the following:Quoting:Without either the brain or the other mediums the software could not exist to begin with. How do you own something that doesn't really exist? This definition is flawed, because electro-magnetism, electrical currents, sound and electricity also don't exist without a medium. But concluding they don't really exist because they can't exist on their own is just plain denying reality. |
| jdixon Nov 10, 2009 8:01 PM EDT |
> because electro-magnetism, electrical currents, sound and electricity also don't exist without a medium... Eh? The "medium" for electromagnetism is merely space-time. You have to have something creating it, but you don't need a physical medium to transmit it. It passes through empty space with no problems. |
| montezuma Nov 10, 2009 8:17 PM EDT |
The electromagnetic waves that make up the microwave background from the Big Bang have lasted 13.7 billion years and still retain many of the characteristics they had when emitted. I would like to see a book last that long. That argument is rubbish. |
| Libervis Nov 11, 2009 4:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:But concluding they don't really exist because they can't exist on their own is just plain denying reality. What I was referring to is exactly it without that which enables its existence. It's in the sentence itself: "Without either the brain or the other mediums the software could not exist to begin with." So viewed distinctly, that is, without that which enables its existence, no it doesn't really exist. And that is how believers in intellectual property view it, as somehow distinct from the medium. That's an impossibility. They're imagining things. An idea distinct from the medium through which it exists is a concept describing absolutely nothing in reality. |
| hkwint Nov 11, 2009 5:24 AM EDT |
The problem is people can imagine concepts while disregarding the medium, it seems to be a property of human consciousness. Therefore, to people those concepts are real - even though they don't refer to something which exists in the 'real' physical world. People can imagine ideas to exist without a medium, and that seems to be the problem you're fighting. |
| Libervis Nov 11, 2009 5:32 AM EDT |
Yep. Because reality still takes precedence. |
| caitlyn Nov 11, 2009 3:40 PM EDT |
I also found the argument that the fact that you are paying for the medium means that IP violates property rights to be specious. It just doesn't fly. I can buy all the blank media I want and it has a fixed value. What makes the disc containing a movie, music or software more valuable is the content. Think of it as a value-added service. The bulk of the value is what is added. The value of the media itself is very low. What the consumer is paying for is the intellectual property and that generally represents >99% of the cost. I am a supporter of IP. I want creative people (musicians, artists, filmmakers and yes, developers) to be able to profit from their work. All work has to be delivered on a medium of some sort. Whether that's the airwaves (radio or TV, for example) or on a physical medium really doesn't matter. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 11, 2009 4:31 PM EDT |
> What makes the disc containing a movie, music or software more valuable is the content. Couldn't agree more. And I have no problem paying for that content. Then I own it, and can do with it what I want. |
| Libervis Nov 11, 2009 4:43 PM EDT |
Quoting:I also found the argument that the fact that you are paying for the medium means that IP violates property rights to be specious. That wasn't my argument. You're straw manning. My argument has to do with the fact that software doesn't exist without the medium, that it is always tied to it. In fact the medium and the software are a single thing physically. If we're talking about a CD what we call software (or any other kind of data for that matter) is a specific arrangement of microscopic or nanoscopic dents on a CD. If software cannot exist without the media that means that any claim of ownership in reality must come down to a claim over the physical media. This may be fine if the media in question is yours, but if the media in question is somebody elses property and you then assume that you own it or have some exclusive rights to it just because it has the same arrangement of dents on it you're indeed initiating a conflict with real property. Where exactly is this "intellectual property" of yours? Can you point to it without pointing to the media? Can you take it back from me if I supposedly "stole" it without taking my CD? Can you separate the two? Can you in any way get only the software distinct from the media? If not, and I can guarantee you that you cannot since it's utterly impossible, then this ownership is ownership of nothing. In reality it only translates to a fiction that you use to justify giving yourself the supposed "right" to violate somebody elses property. As for why creative people are in no trouble whatsoever if this foolish concept were to stop being followed you can refer to my first post here: http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/29955/ in response to Kagehi. Individual agreements still matter. What changes is that you can't criminalize people who had nothing to do with *you*. |
| Libervis Nov 11, 2009 4:44 PM EDT |
Bob.. sweet and short, but good point. :) |
| caitlyn Nov 11, 2009 6:11 PM EDT |
I disagree with literally EVERYTHING you've written here Libervis. I canot even find one word to agree with.Quoting:That wasn't my argument. You're straw manning. That was precisely your argument and you even reiterate it here. Quoting:My argument has to do with the fact that software doesn't exist without the medium, that it is always tied to it. In fact the medium and the software are a single thing physically. Once again, a specious argument and one that is demonstratively false. The software can be tied to any of a number of physical media. I can often get the same software in digital format, on CD, or directly downloaded and installed across the net without purchasing a distinct piece of physical media to hold the software exclusively. I can use existing, shared media. The ONLY thing being purchased is the software in that case, not the media at all. Quoting:If software cannot exist without the media that means that any claim of ownership in reality must come down to a claim over the physical media. Same specious and, IMHO, ridiculous argument repeated. I just pointed out that I can purchase the software without purchasing distinct media. The claim is strictly based on the software, not the media. That is, essentially, a definition of IP. Quoting:Where exactly is this "intellectual property" of yours? Can you point to it without pointing to the media? Can you take it back from me if I supposedly "stole" it without taking my CD? Can you separate the two? Can you in any way get only the software distinct from the media? IP can be in any of a number of places at once. It is not tied to a specific copy. If I write music which is copyrighted then the IP exists anyplace the music exists. The answer to all your other questions is "yes". If I can compel you to erase the one given piece of music in my example from your hard drive I have taken back the stolen property without taking your media. I don't deny the media is yours. Let's put it another way. Let's say you rent an apartment from me. I own the physical building including the closets. If you store shoes in a closet I don't own the shoes; you do. I do still own the closet. Similarly I may own the song which you stole without owning the storage media which is essentially the same as the closet. As such the two can be most certainly separated from one another. Quoting:If not, and I can guarantee you that you cannot since it's utterly impossible, then this ownership is ownership of nothing. It's not impossible at all as I have already demonstrated. Quoting:Individual agreements still matter. What changes is that you can't criminalize people who had nothing to do with *you*. Actually no individual has the power to criminalize anyone regardless of the law involved. That can only be done by lawmakers and enforced by courts. Another specious argument. |
| dinotrac Nov 11, 2009 6:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:Actually no individual has the power to criminalize anyone regardless of the law involved. Tut, tut! Don't go clouding the issue with fact. |
| jezuch Nov 12, 2009 3:15 AM EDT |
Quoting:My argument has to do with the fact that software doesn't exist without the medium, that it is always tied to it. In fact the medium and the software are a single thing physically. You're like the people who confuse numbers with digits. Numbers are abstract beings that just are. Digits are the medium you're talking about. "10" is not a number; its a sequence of digits that requires a crapton of assumptions for us to believe that it "is" a "number". It might not even be "ten", depending on another set of assumptions, like the default base. My point here is that our inability to use numbers without a medium[1] is not an inherent property of numbers - it's a limitation of our faulty selves. Numbers are perfect; we're imperfect. [Do I sound like Plato already?] [1] It depends on whether our thoughts are a medium too. When I think of numbers, I think of numbers, not digits; likewise when I'm programming, I'm manipulating abstract beings that later have to be translated to my lagnuage of choice - and it's always a narrowing conversion, due to unavoidable limitations of the medium. |
| Libervis Nov 12, 2009 6:19 AM EDT |
Quoting:I disagree with literally EVERYTHING you've written here Libervis. I canot even find one word to agree with. Now that's just being emotional and extremely hyperbolic. Quoting:Once again, a specious argument and one that is demonstratively false. The software can be tied to any of a number of physical media. But not to no media at all. Since media is physical it is inevitably somebody's property that is being used. Quoting: I can often get the same software in digital format, on CD, or directly downloaded and installed across the net without purchasing a distinct piece of physical media to hold the software exclusively. But all of these other forms of media are physical too. You said it yourself after all; "the software can be tied to any number of physical media". My argument doesn't depend on there being a single program on a single CD, only that software cannot be without any physical media at all. Direct download uses somebody's own server and your own computer in the process. Thus the agreement must be between you and the server owner (or the one to whom server space was rented) regarding this particular use of your properties. Quoting:Same specious and, IMHO, ridiculous argument repeated. I just pointed out that I can purchase the software without purchasing distinct media. The claim is strictly based on the software, not the media. That is, essentially, a definition of IP. Yeah you did, and still agreed with me that it requires physical media, just different kinds of physical media. You did nothing to my argument since it still stands that a claim of ownership of software comes down to a claim of ownership or exclusive rights over a medium on which it resides, regardless of what it is. I know IP claims are strictly based on software. That's the problem. You badly want to see software as distinct, as if it could exist on its own, but it doesn't compute in reality. Quoting: IP can be in any of a number of places at once. It is not tied to a specific copy. If I write music which is copyrighted then the IP exists anyplace the music exists. You mean any physical media whose properties (like dents on a CD) cause the reproductor to produce the same sounds? Right. Quoting:The answer to all your other questions is "yes". If I can compel you to erase the one given piece of music in my example from your hard drive I have taken back the stolen property without taking your media. Doesn't matter. By compelling me you've already violated my property. If I own the hard drive then I get to decide what I will or will not do with it, not you. You apparently have to violate my property in order to exercise your own supposed "intellectual property". It's not like I had something that is yours in my house and you came and took it back. It's like you saw a house painted by a specific pattern of colors which you claim as your "intellectual property" and then forced me to repaint my own house because of it. There's no fundamental difference except instead of forcing me to repaint my house you're forcing me to change the arrangements of dents or electromagnetic charges (or whatever is the method HD's use to store data) on my own HD. It's my house and my HD and my having it repainted that way or having this program on HD has nothing to do with you whatsoever except if, as I already explained, I actually got the coloring idea or a program from you and agreed to certain terms before you used your own brain or your own computer or server to convey it to me. Quoting:I don't deny the media is yours. Obviously you do given that you give yourself the right to dictate what I may or may not do with it even if the two of us didn't have an agreement. Quoting:Let's put it another way. Let's say you rent an apartment from me. I own the physical building including the closets. If you store shoes in a closet I don't own the shoes; you do. I do still own the closet. Similarly I may own the song which you stole without owning the storage media which is essentially the same as the closet. As such the two can be most certainly separated from one another. Like I pointed out with a house example this is not at all what "intellectual property" represents. Shoes are separate from the closet and the building. Your song isn't separate from the CD. It is reproducible only because the CD is in a specific physical state with a specific arrangements of dents. You can't take those dents back. If your example were to be a true representation of "intellectual property" you would have to be able to indeed separate those dents, "the song", from the CD and take it home just as you're separating the shoes from the closet. That of course is impossible. Quoting:It's not impossible at all as I have already demonstrated. Your "demonstration" only helps strengthen my argument since it illustrates just how disconnected your concept of intellectual property is from reality. Quoting:Actually no individual has the power to criminalize anyone regardless of the law involved. That can only be done by lawmakers and enforced by courts. Another specious argument. Would you be happy if I restated it by saying that without "intellectual property" laws, "the law" wouldn't criminalize people who had nothing to do with you? Btw, you're repeating that word "specious" as if it's a magical word and an argument onto itself rather than a useless sound bite thrown out as a knee jerk reaction to the "he *must* be so wrong even if he sounds right" feeling. Cheers |
| Libervis Nov 12, 2009 6:30 AM EDT |
Jezuch, that sounds like using one abstract concept to describe another. Ultimately you need to demonstrate the exact relation of that concept to something physical it's supposed to represent, something scientifically observable and measurable. In which case I don't see how this "digit" ultimately represents anything other than a specific property of a medium or an individual thing. If I understand correctly, if you see 10 bricks on the floor the "number" is 10 as a concept representing all of these bricks at the same time whereas a "digit" would represent a single brick? In that case it's basically like zooming in to a CD to consider a single dent representing a single "1" in a binary system. You still had to have the bricks and you still had to have a CD. You still couldn't point to IT as if IT existed by itself. Also, I wouldn't quite say that thoughts are a medium, but I would say the brain is a medium. But it's another case of one not being able to exist without the other. You wouldn't have a thought to begin with if neuron's didn't fire to cause specific energy patterns. Without these measurable energy patterns you wouldn't have any thoughts or ideas for that matter. This is why I say that If you consider software as distinct from the storage media or memory in which it remains you're essentially using one medium, your brain, to conceptualize the arrangements within another". |
| caitlyn Nov 12, 2009 12:40 PM EDT |
I wasn't being hyperbolic or emotional. I was describing how I see your ridiculous response to me and pretty much your ridiculous article as well.Quoting:But not to no media at all. Since media is physical it is inevitably somebody's property that is being used. Irrelevant. The point you are ignoring is that no specific media is required. You are only purchasing the software and you do not need to buy media to purchase the software. It is your choice what to put on media you already own and purchased separately. Quoting:By compelling me you've already violated my property. If I own the hard drive then I get to decide what I will or will not do with it, not you. Nonsense. Going back to the closet analogy (which is valid, IMNSHO), if you use that closet to store stolen property you can be arrested and the property confiscated. Using your hard drive to store stolen software/music/movies/etc... is precisely the same thing. Indeed, your entire article is a thinly veiled justification of theft. My main point, which you conveniently ignored, is that blank media has little or no intrinsic value. The real value is the software, the intellectual property, so that is where the law, quite rightly, places the greatest need for protection from theft. Quoting:Your "demonstration" only helps strengthen my argument since it illustrates just how disconnected your concept of intellectual property is from reality. I'm the one disconnected from reality? I think not. This is why it's impossible to argue with an idealog. Facts that contradict your libertarian ideology are summarilly ignored or dismissed. You can say "black is really white" all day long, say it in different ways, and repeat yourself ad infinitum. That won't ever make it so. Attacking my language and dismissing it as sound bites helps you avoid actually understanding or arguing against the points I've made. When you can't successfully argue against the message you attack the messenger. Nice. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 12, 2009 1:56 PM EDT |
> your entire article is a thinly veiled justification of theft. Theft:1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. What, specifically, was stolen? |
| caitlyn Nov 12, 2009 2:04 PM EDT |
Theft of intellectual property is slightly different from your definition. What you are denying to the rightful owner is a royalty or fee which he is entitled to under the law when you take/use his or her software/music/movie/etc... Under US law (and that of the EU and most if not all Western countries) that does constitute theft. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 12, 2009 2:46 PM EDT |
> What you are denying to the rightful owner is a royalty or fee So someone else has a prior claim to my money? That does sound like theft, but theft from me. > Under US law... Yes. I understand that the LAW creates the crime. What I am asking is what was taken. What was deprived, what was removed. By "law" I may not drive 100 mph. Yet if I do, having harmed no one, where is the crime? |
| caitlyn Nov 12, 2009 2:54 PM EDT |
Nobody has "prior claim to your money." They only have a claim if you take something that belongs to them, something that they created and have a right to control. The potential for you to harm or kill someone by driving at 100MPH is quite great. That is an example of preventing injury or death and protecting the citizenry, a proper role for government. |
| jdixon Nov 12, 2009 3:12 PM EDT |
> The potential for you to harm or kill someone by driving at 100MPH is quite great. Not if there's no one else around. > That is an example of preventing injury or death and protecting the citizenry, a proper role for government. Whether a proper role or not, it's well established that the federal government has no such authority or responsibility, at least not for the individual citizen. The Constitutional role in the US is "to promote the general welfare", which is in the preamble. Of course, speed limits are theoretically (though not in practice) a state matter and local matter, not a federal one; which muddies the water considerably. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 12, 2009 3:39 PM EDT |
> Nobody has "prior claim to your money." But you just said that if I give Bill $1 for that disk, I've stolen from Jim. I haven't taken anything from Jim, he's not involved. If I don't give Bill $1 for the disk, somehow I have not stolen from Jim. How can Jim have a prior claim to my $1? > The potential for you to harm or kill someone by driving at 100MPH is quite great. I live on a dead-end in a very residential neighborhood. Driving at 30mph through here, which BTW is 5mph below the "legal" speed limit, has far, far more potential to harm or kill someone than there ever was where I've driven 100mph+. That's the problem with all this statute law. It absolves people from being responsible for their own actions. They act surprised when people get hurt no matter how many laws they obey. > The Constitutional role in the US is "to promote the general welfare", which is in the preamble. If the writings of the people who wrote that preamble mean anything, they wrote the preamble in order to set the attitude by which the rest of the document was written. So "to promote the general welfare" is why these specific and limited powers are granted, and no more. It's the same phrasing structure as the 2nd Amendment. Going back and using "promote the general welfare" in order to justify greater powers is a reversal of the logical flow, the same as saying that only people who are in the military have a "right" to keep and bear arms. No matter how much of a turd Hamilton turned out to be, his Federalist Papers make great reading. Too bad he turned around and used them as a blueprint of exactly the abuses he would end up fostering! So yeah, being governments of "general" powers, the States themselves could impose speed limits, as restrained (or un-) by their own constitutions. But the Feds, being a government of "enumerated" powers, can't. Not that that has ever stopped them... |
| caitlyn Nov 12, 2009 5:13 PM EDT |
Way into TOS violation territory now and way distant from the original article. Of course, publishing this article was a TOS violation waiting to happen. |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 12, 2009 5:34 PM EDT |
> Of course, publishing this article was a TOS violation waiting to happen. Something on which we completely agree. |
| jdixon Nov 12, 2009 5:44 PM EDT |
> Way into TOS violation territory now and way distant from the original article. Of course, publishing this article was a TOS violation waiting to happen. True. There's no way to separate copyright, patents, and trademarks from politics. |
| hkwint Nov 12, 2009 6:16 PM EDT |
Quoting:In fact the medium and the software are a single thing physically. You believe your consciousness and your head are the same thing physically? You think your consciousness can be explained 'physically'? Well, your consciousness is not made up of physical matter. So ideas who might be in your consciousness are neither. You see, ideas can exist without a physical medium. |
| Libervis Nov 12, 2009 6:22 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, you're showing time and time again that you cannot be reasonably argued with. You brought no new points in your last reply to me, just repetition, and yet again brought "libertarianism" to it which was completely and utterly uncalled for. Apparently anything I say to you is ridiculous because you see a huge "libertarian" label on me even when I never even mention it. And then, of course what else can I expect, you speak of TOS violations, after bringing politics into it yourself. Unfortunately this is far from the first time you do that cr@p. To those who say copyright, patents and trademarks cannot be separate from politics, you might as well then just stop talking about licenses completely. No more talk about GPL. No more talk about Richard Stallman's crusades. No more talk about FSF's latest legal initiatives. No more talk about EU antitrust activities. If arguing against intellectual property is now banned on this site... well this is just utter and complete insanity. I was talking about philosophy, both here and in the article, not politics. I never suggested what my political position was. Caitlyn brought it up first and now we're back to the derailing business. You know, just great. Just effing great. Why the h*ll do I even bother EVER posting on these forums when I know that there are people just waiting to troll every discussion in which disagreeable points are brought in down, and nobody even flinches. Frak this cr@p. Seriously. The stench of intellectual dishonesty here is just utterly unbearable and offensive. |
| Libervis Nov 12, 2009 6:23 PM EDT |
I'm not responding anymore hkwint. If you want a civil debate better comment on my site because this troll happy place isn't for it apparently. Meh. |
| hkwint Nov 12, 2009 6:35 PM EDT |
Quoting:If you want a civil debate better comment on my site Funny you mention that, because that was what I thought in first place: Maybe better discuss this elsewhere, than have yet another interesting exploration into the intrinsic properties of property deleted because some people (probably me too?) went too far. Anyway Daniël, as always I'm glad to have been able to share my thoughts with you and vice versa. My thoughts and opinion are not coherent in any way and may change from week to week, but that's because I'm learning and trying to form an opinion. Discussing if consciousness is related to matter BTW is a religious debate I'm afraid, and LXer is not the place for that, so let me apologize for yet another TOS-violation on my part. |
| Libervis Nov 12, 2009 6:49 PM EDT |
Indeed. I'm glad for what good discussions we had as well, but I'm afraid this is it. All this pigeon holing of topics into no-no categories whose definitions not even staff have consensus on and which are used by dishonest people to derail otherwise respectful debates just doesn't work. And I think I'm just about done giving it any more chances. To be fair then I'll also stop submitting my articles to this environment as well. Can't have any more potential "TOS violations" now can we? You know the saying.. if you want something done right do it yourself. Enough said. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!