Intellectual Property morality?

[thewanderer]

Aristotle and Thomas, wrong in so many other ways, would also be wrong here. of course I routinely steal Ari’s and Tom’s work, passing it off as my own, because, why not? its not real property. right?

all of the lame arguments justifying stealing other’s works have been looked at in detail by legislatures and courts, which have struck a balance in the law that protects authorship while allowing fair use. we can say that obeying the laws of the land is moral, so that fair use is moral, stealing is sinful.

You are misunderstanding my opinion on this matter. I will never be an advocate of plagiarism. That is clearly wrong and immoral. I am talking about the very clear difference in the nature of intellectual objects vs material objects. I do not yet fully understand the implications of the differences here, but it is very clear that there is a difference and it is wrong to completely and entirely equate the two in all respects.

 

[Fairwinds]

You are misunderstanding my opinion on this matter. I will never be an advocate of plagiarism. That is clearly wrong and immoral. I am talking about the very clear difference in the nature of intellectual objects vs material objects. I do not yet fully understand the implications of the differences here, but it is very clear that there is a difference and it is wrong to completely and entirely equate the two in all respects.

the idea that Aristotle (wrong in so many other ways) has something worthy of considering on modern copyright law is just idiotic. copyright law is a work in progress by modern legislatures and courts, responsive to modern situations that he could not have fathomed.

some of his nonmaterial objects are worthy of theft, and therefore I oblige him.

 

[Rete]

you’re not a working musician, are you?

No, but I can surely point out all of the artists who prospered prior to the twentieth century who produced art far better than the commercialized rubbish we endure today.

There are lots of natural and just means of compensating artists that do not involve creating unstable and coercive markets. The only thing that keeps me from outright condemning it is that there is no necessity to it. But when we instead look at medical research, the evil of it becomes much more clear. I remember a talk a few years back when professor Lessig mentioned how his wife was giving birth to an infant with the potential for some kind of illness that would warrant a potentially deadly procedure. He wanted to find out more about this to understand it himself, and couldn’t access the information from his personal laptop because it was behind a paywall and costs hundreds of dollars to access. The only reason he got to it was that he could log in through his university account.

There are lots of reasons why this type of market is utterly pernicious. When we only focus on music, it might seem superfluous, so why not, but when you look at what it means for essential information, you can see how immoral it truly becomes. Information which can mean the difference between life and death is not a market. It’s vital information that ought to be shared because sharing information costs you nothing.

And to those who think it should be so because somebody has to be paid for the research… they were already compensated for their work. It was called a salary with the potential for a comfortable tenure. The people profiting from it had nothing to do with producing it. They simply control access to the information, which is not a real market.

Not any more. We have an internet now.

 

[thewanderer]

the idea that Aristotle (wrong in so many other ways) has something worthy of considering on modern copyright law is just idiotic. copyright law is a work in progress by modern legislatures and courts, responsive to modern situations that he could not have fathomed.

some of his nonmaterial objects are worthy of theft, and therefore I oblige him.

Again, I think you really have completely failed to understand my position. Instead of trying to understand and address it you assume that because I refer to something that Aristotle and St. Thomas held that my position must be antiquated and false. Trust me, I get it, Aristotle and St. Thomas are not infallible and I in no way take them to be so, but they were pretty darn intelligent and have had at least a few good thoughts worthy of considering. They didn’t mention anything about intellectual property as such, but they brought up the point that there is a difference between immaterial and material goods. Immaterial goods can be shared without lessening the goods of the person sharing whereas this is not the case with material goods. This is just a fact. But because this is true it is also clear that we cannot assume that everything which is true of material goods is also true of immaterial goods. So taking someone else’s material goods is not the same as taking their immaterial goods. what exactly the difference in their natures means with respect to the morality of partaking in the goods themselves is still unclear, but it is absolutely wrong to just assume that they must necessarily be treated the exact same way.

 

[Fairwinds]

No, but I can surely point out all of the artists who prospered prior to the twentieth century who produced art far better than the commercialized rubbish we endure today.

There are lots of natural and just means of compensating artists that do not involve creating unstable and coercive markets. The only thing that keeps me from outright condemning it is that there is no necessity to it. But when we instead look at medical research, the evil of it becomes much more clear. I remember a talk a few years back when professor Lessig mentioned how his wife was giving birth to an infant with the potential for some kind of illness that would warrant a potentially deadly procedure. He wanted to find out more about this to understand it himself, and couldn’t access the information from his personal laptop because it was behind a firewall and costs hundreds of dollars to access. The only reason he got to it was that he could log in through his university account.

There are lots of reasons why this type of market is utterly pernicious. When we only focus on music, it might seem superfluous, so why not, but when you look at what it means for essential information, you can see how immoral it truly becomes. Information which can mean the difference between life and death is not a market. It’s vital information that ought to be shared because sharing information costs you nothing.

And to those who think it should be so because somebody has to be paid for the research… they were already compensated for their work. It was called a salary with the potential for a comfortable tenure. The people profiting from it had nothing to do with producing it. They simply control access to the information, which is not a real market.

Not any more. We have an internet now.

that’s the most elaborate ad hom argument (modern music as 'commercialized rubbish" not worth of protection) I’ve seen this week.

you have the internet and expect to do what, raid patents? “information” costs me plenty. -]sharing/-] stealing information costs you nothing. get something else for free? that’s fantasy at work. you’d get sued and either be shut down or pay royalties on top of damages.

what possible motivation would a public company have for pouring millions of risk capital into developing and testing a drug, or any invention if it didn’t have a protected market for a period of time? just so another company could start manufacturing the same product without the research, design, licensing, CQ and marketing costs? that’s not going to happen.

 

[Rete]

that’s the most elaborate ad hom argument (modern music as 'commercialized rubbish" not worth of protection) I’ve seen this week.

you have the internet and expect to do what, raid patents? “information” costs me plenty. -]sharing/-] stealing information costs you nothing. get something else for free? that’s fantasy at work. you’d get sued and either be shut down or pay royalties on top of damages.

what possible motivation would a public company have for pouring millions of risk capital into developing and testing a drug, or any invention if it didn’t have a protected market for a period of time? just so another company could start manufacturing the same product without the research, design, licensing, CQ and marketing costs? that’s not going to happen.

Huh?

That was not my argument. Please be honest about what I wrote. I mentioned the music is mostly rubbish as an aside. We had great music for centuries before this industry came along. I addressed the insinuations that somehow music would never be produced without this legal construct, which is obviously false according to the historical record and the fact that music has mostly declined in quality because of this industry.

And that wasn’t even really the crux of my argument.

The actual argument I made is right there, and if you don’t want to actually respond to it, then why even respond?

 

[Fairwinds]

…So taking someone else’s material goods is not the same as taking their immaterial goods. what exactly the difference in their natures means with respect to the morality of partaking in the goods themselves is still unclear, but it is absolutely wrong to just assume that they must necessarily be treated the exact same way.

according to someone from the middle ages and someone else who believed in aether. I think modern copyright law strikes a good balance.

as a published author, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t steal my work because its “immaterial”. I put a lot of time and effort into it. just buy the book.

 

[Fairwinds]

Huh?

That was not my argument. Please be honest about what I wrote. I mentioned the music is mostly rubbish as an aside. We had great music for centuries before this industry came along. I addressed the insinuations that somehow music would never be produced without this legal construct, which is obviously false according to the historical record and the fact that music has mostly declined in quality because of this industry.

And that wasn’t even really the crux of my argument.

The actual argument I made is right there, and if you don’t want to actually respond to it, then why even respond?

your music line was a throwaway? then don’t waste my time with it.

perhaps your browser cut off the rest of my comments, which I repeat:

you have the internet and expect to do what, raid patents? “information” costs me plenty. -]sharing/-] stealing information costs you nothing. get something else for free? that’s fantasy at work. you’d get sued and either be shut down or pay royalties on top of damages.

what possible motivation would a public company have for pouring millions of risk capital into developing and testing a drug, or any invention if it didn’t have a protected market for a period of time? just so another company could start manufacturing the same product without the research, design, licensing, CQ and marketing costs? that’s not going to happen.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

One group within the church that takes this very seriously is the publishers of liturgical music. See for example archdiocesesantafe.org/Offices/Worship/Music/CopyrightBrochureEng.pdf for information.

Choir directors and volunteers sometimes (in good faith, or ignorance of the rules, or whatever) will freely copy sheet music, etc for the whole choir, or reprint music in form of a songsheet and run off 1000 copies to stick in the pews, or whatever, without proper permission. Catholic music publishers have sued Catholic diocese over stuff like this.

 

[Rete]

your music line was a throwaway? then don’t waste my time with it.

perhaps your browser cut off the rest of my comments, which I repeat:

you have the internet and expect to do what, raid patents? “information” costs me plenty. -]sharing/-] stealing information costs you nothing. get something else for free? that’s fantasy at work. you’d get sued and either be shut down or pay royalties on top of damages.

what possible motivation would a public company have for pouring millions of risk capital into developing and testing a drug, or any invention if it didn’t have a protected market for a period of time? just so another company could start manufacturing the same product without the research, design, licensing, CQ and marketing costs? that’s not going to happen.

Why don’t you just read the thread?

In summary: information is not a material object. Only material objects are naturally subject to the problem of scarcity and limitations of use. The reason property arises from natural law is because not everyone can own a piece of property. Nor can they all use that piece of property at the same time. That is why we have property rights.

Information does not have intrinsic traits of scarcity and limitations of use. Those traits are artificially imposed upon information by irrational and unjustifiable laws, posited merely for the benefit of those who would peddle information as gatekeepers.

If material objects had the attributes of information, then we wouldn’t even have the institution of property rights in the first place. So how can you justify demanding that I accept information as property when that is the case?

In the case of music, it seems innocuous because there is no necessity. I agree that it would be immoral to copy music without paying for it because (a) the government has passed laws against it, and (b) that is currently the way those particular artists are being paid. However, that doesn’t mean I can’t point out the ridiculousness of it.

Nor does that mean I cannot point out the perniciousness of it when applied to essential information like scientific research and medical information. Or to drug patents that exist for the sole purpose of creating an artificial scarcity to drive up prices in a market where scarcity – by definition – is going to lead to human suffering and death. That’s not a moral institution. Defend it all you want, but don’t try to take the high horse with me for pointing out how immoral it really is.

There are many different ways to compensate artists that have nothing to do with copyrights. Just imagine what would happen if the government no longer was in the business of propping up entire industries with force. People wouldn’t stop producing art and culture. They would go about it and organize it in different ways. Natural and economically justified ways I might add.

And beyond the ethical dimension of this, consider the practical dimension. It is typically an awful idea to base an entire industry around the idea of the government coercing people to behave or spend money in certain ways, or to somehow prop up that industry which would otherwise fail without the government participation in its business model. That’s what leads to most of these economic catastrophes we see today. We should at least limit economic sector’s dependence upon government to those sectors explicitly in the government contracting business.

 

[thewanderer]

according to someone from the middle ages and someone else who believed in aether. I think modern copyright law strikes a good balance.

as a published author, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t steal my work because its “immaterial”. I put a lot of time and effort into it. just buy the book.

As I said before, you are misunderstanding my position on this whole matter. If you think for one minute that I’m about to go out and steal your work then you truly have no idea of what I think about this whole thing.

I don’t understand why you are again taking a potshot on my position by implying that anything said by aristotle is likely to be false just because he believed in aether. Seriously, that is just a cheap shot to try and make my position less convincing to others without actually making an effort to understand or address the actual position which I hold.

I understand that you believe modern copyright law strikes a good balance. I personally am not convinced one way or the other about modern copyright law, but I certainly do not think it is immoral, and, as such, it is a law that ought to be obeyed and followed. I am not trying to encourage anyone to disobey modern copyright laws or to steal your work. I am trying to encourage discussion about the actual principles behind this matter so that I can get some more insite into it and get a better understanding of the principles behind it and hopefully come to some more determinate conclusions about it all. Simply claiming that it is wrong to break a copyright and that anybody who dares suggest that there is any sort of difference between immaterial and material property ( which there very clearly and obviously is) must be wrong and ignorant is not in any respect helpful. If modern copyright laws are the best balance I want to understand why. And that means going back to the principles, not just ignoring them.

 

[Fairwinds]

Why don’t you just read the thread?

In summary: information is not a material object. Only material objects are naturally subject to the problem of scarcity and limitations of use. The reason property arises from natural law is because not everyone can own a piece of property. Nor can they all use that piece of property at the same time. That is why we have property rights.

Information does not have intrinsic traits of scarcity and limitations of use. Those traits are artificially imposed upon information by irrational and unjustifiable laws, posited merely for the benefit of those who would peddle information as gatekeepers.

If material objects had the attributes of information, then we wouldn’t even have the institution of property rights in the first place. So how can you justify demanding that I accept information as property when that is the case?

In the case of music, it seems innocuous because there is no necessity. I agree that it would be immoral to copy music without paying for it because (a) the government has passed laws against it, and (b) that is currently the way those particular artists are being paid. However, that doesn’t mean I can’t point out the ridiculousness of it.

Nor does that mean I cannot point out the perniciousness of it when applied to essential information like scientific research and medical information. Or to drug patents that exist for the sole purpose of creating an artificial scarcity to drive up prices in a market where scarcity – by definition – is going to lead to human suffering and death. That’s not a moral institution. Defend it all you want, but don’t try to take the high horse with me for pointing out how immoral it really is.

There are many different ways to compensate artists that have nothing to do with copyrights. Just imagine what would happen if the government no longer was in the business of propping up entire industries with force. People wouldn’t stop producing art and culture. They would go about it and organize it in different ways. Natural and economically justified ways I might add.

instead of dogmatic assertions about what’s unjustifiable or immoral, or even music, which neither one of us cares about, let’s try this one more time.

what possible motivation would a public company have for pouring millions of dollars of risk capital into developing and testing a drug, or any invention – that’s “information” – if it didn’t have a protected market for a limited period of time? without patent or other protection, another company could start manufacturing the same product without the research, design, licensing, CQ and marketing costs. a free rider. with a patent, I can assure investors that there will be a return on their investment either because of a temporary market monopoly or because I can license it out to other companies for a fee. without investors, you’re not going to have your next cancer cure.

in the world away from internet forums, confidential or trade secret information – information that a company develops, distills or derives from information publically available – is universally protected. this could be manufacturing processes or ideas. the point is, someone paid to have this information developed, and you want it for free. but I’m not going to share it with you. if you want the tylenol 4, you’ve got to pay for it.

I get that this is a society where you think or want everything to be a free download, whether programs, apps, songs. but that’s a mistaken and harmful expectation based on bad habits.

 

[Luna_de_Colores]

From the YouCat, 429:

What rules apply to intellectual property?

**The misappropriation of intellectual property is theft also. **

Not just plagiarism is theft. The thefts of intellectual property begins with copying other students’ work in school, continues in the illegal taking of materials from the Internet, applies to the making of unauthorized copies or trafficking in pirated copies in various media, and extends to business dealing in stolen concepts and ideas. Every acquisition of someone else’s intellectual property demands the free consent and appropriate remuneration of the author or inventor.

 

[Fairwinds]

As I said before, you are misunderstanding my position on this whole matter. If you think for one minute that I’m about to go out and steal your work then you truly have no idea of what I think about this whole thing.

I don’t understand why you are again taking a potshot on my position by implying that anything said by aristotle is likely to be false just because he believed in aether. Seriously, that is just a cheap shot to try and make my position less convincing to others without actually making an effort to understand or address the actual position which I hold.

I understand that you believe modern copyright law strikes a good balance. I personally am not convinced one way or the other about modern copyright law, but I certainly do not think it is immoral, and, as such, it is a law that ought to be obeyed and followed. I am not trying to encourage anyone to disobey modern copyright laws or to steal your work. I am trying to encourage discussion about the actual principles behind this matter so that I can get some more insite into it and get a better understanding of the principles behind it and hopefully come to some more determinate conclusions about it all. Simply claiming that it is wrong to break a copyright and that anybody who dares suggest that there is any sort of difference between immaterial and material property ( which there very clearly and obviously is) must be wrong and ignorant is not in any respect helpful. If modern copyright laws are the best balance I want to understand why. And that means going back to the principles, not just ignoring them.

there’s not a word by aristotle or thomas who have nothing to add to intellectual property law, but the link below is how it works in the music biz in these newfangled times. if you want to understand the how and why of modern IP law, then read an IP primer. I swear, we Catholics treat the law the way protestants treat the bible, making up our own interpretation as needed.

timberens.com/essays/copyrightessay.htm and see the links at the bottom of the page.

 

[thewanderer]

there’s not a word by aristotle or thomas who have nothing to add to intellectual property law, but the link below is how it works in the music biz in these newfangled times. if you want to understand the how and why of modern IP law, then read an IP primer. I swear, we Catholics treat the law the way protestants treat the bible, making up our own interpretation as needed.

timberens.com/essays/copyrightessay.htm and see the links at the bottom of the page.

You really haven’t read my posts at all if you think I claimed that Aristotle or St. Thomas had anything to say directly about intellectual property, I already said that in my earlier posts. I will read this link later, but, if its just an explanation of what the current copyright laws are then it is unfortunately not really what I was looking for, though it will still certainly be an interesting read.

 

[Rete]

instead of dogmatic assertions about what’s unjustifiable or immoral, or even music, which neither one of us cares about, let’s try this one more time.

what possible motivation would a public company have for pouring millions of dollars of risk capital into developing and testing a drug, or any invention – that’s “information” – if it didn’t have a protected market for a limited period of time? without patent or other protection, another company could start manufacturing the same product without the research, design, licensing, CQ and marketing costs. a free rider. with a patent, I can assure investors that there will be a return on their investment either because of a temporary market monopoly or because I can license it out to other companies for a fee. without investors, you’re not going to have your next cancer cure.

in the world away from internet forums, confidential or trade secret information – information that a company develops, distills or derives from information publically available – is universally protected. this could be manufacturing processes or ideas. the point is, someone paid to have this information developed, and you want it for free. but I’m not going to share it with you. if you want the tylenol 4, you’ve got to pay for it.

I get that this is a society where you think or want everything to be a free download, whether programs, apps, songs. but that’s a mistaken and harmful expectation based on bad habits.

You still failed to respond to what was actually argued. Can you at least do that?

With respect to trade secrets, though, you exactly made my point. Information operates under the framework of the properties of private and public information. It is unethical to copy and distribute trade secrets because that information is private. So are your medical records private data. Even if somebody were to copy them onto the internet, it would remain unethical for another person to copy them onto their computer. Despite those records being rendered, in effect, public information, they remain intrinsically private information. It is immoral to copy that data not because the information is your “property”, but because it is private.

It’s the same principle that our fourth amendment was instituted to protect. The unjust government doesn’t steal your privacy without probable cause and due process, but rather it invades your privacy. It violates your privacy by accessing private information that it ought not possess. It might also steal property (i.e. your computer, papers, etc.), but the information is the heart of that amendment.

Information does not work like property in the least. Property relates to physical artifacts, or a process which requires the consumption of physical artifacts (such as labor). Because physical artifacts are limited in number and can be used only once at any given time, the need for property rights arises. But because information lacks those properties, there exists absolutely no need for property rights with respect to information. What instead exists is a right to keep private information private. We have such laws in the form of medical privacy laws, trade secret laws, attorney confidentiality laws, confidentiality of journalistic sources, and so on. That’s the kind of just approach to information issues I advocate here.

Treating information as property simply because it enriches a few to the detriment of the many represents no legitimate argument at all. You have offered nothing to justify these arbitrary laws. They don’t even arise from natural law to begin with. They were included in our Constitution as an aside for Congress to regulate. If Congress so chooses, they could render all patents and copyrights worthless tomorrow precisely because they are not natural rights (i.e. fundamental rights).

 

[Fairwinds]

You still failed to respond to what was actually argued. Can you at least do that?..

Information does not work like property in the least. Property relates to physical artifacts,…

that’s it for me,

apart from your personal beliefs, you don’t have a grasp on the concept of property; you can’t define it the way you want to. I can’t address your dogmatic assertions that are dead wrong and ignore the purpose and utility of IP laws, which you continue to ignore.

**every excuse for theft **you’ve made has already been disposed of by US and international IP law.

 

[Brendan]

Why don’t you just read the thread?

In summary: information is not a material object. Only material objects are naturally subject to the problem of scarcity and limitations of use. The reason property arises from natural law is because not everyone can own a piece of property. Nor can they all use that piece of property at the same time. That is why we have property rights. .

But under Natural Law, each person is entitled to the fair trade of the fruits of their labor and just compensation for their work.

When an information economy arises, where information itself has value, how then does one insure that the originator of that information receives their rights under Natural Law.

 

[Brendan]

And FYI, Copyright law was known at least in the 6th Century (AD 561).

St. Finnian took St. Columba to court over the copy St. Columba made of a psalter and commentary that St. Finnian had made.

The High King ruled in favor of St. Finnian ('to each cow her calf, to each book it’s copy")

St. Columba’s supports engaged in the battle of Cúl Dreimhne against the High King, where a number of men died… A council of clerics sent St. Columba into exile, to which he went willing as a penance for the deaths.

This is known in Ireland as ‘the war of the books’

opensource.com/law/11/6/story-st-columba-modern-copyright-battle-sixth-century-ireland

So copyright law is not a modern invention at all.

 

[bsroufek]

One example where copyright law fails, IMO, is where a drug company invents a cure
for a mental illness, for REAL example. They are millions who suffer the illness worldwide,
not just in America. They charge $500 a month for the medicine, which most American mental patients can’t afford. However, outside of America, they charge $50 a month for the
medicine. Worse yet, all american drug companies are doing the same.

My psychiatrist says, “They have been sticking it to Americans for years.” So, I order my
medicine from Canada at $35 (about) a month. The drug companies are trying to get Congress to make my act illegal.

On my blog, righteousnation.wordpress.com, I have a (Moral) Law that says, “Criminal hoarding is unlawful.”