The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

Christopher Wright dhasenan at gmail.com
Sun Aug 17 12:44:57 PDT 2008


Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:47:46 -0400, Christopher Wright wrote:
> 
>> Jesse Phillips wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:59:08 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>>> There are no inherit rights that allow the author to control
>>>> distribution. The way it actually works is this: a) you came up with
>>>> new exciting idea/poem/article/software/etc.. b) either you keep it to
>>>> yourself or you publish it. c) once it was published it is in the
>>>> public domain. you cannot tell me: I have an idea such as <some idea>
>>>> BUT since I just told you my idea it is mine alone and you cannot use
>>>> it. If you do not want me to use your idea just keep it for yourself
>>>> and don't tell anyone about it. This is what Coca-Cola does with its
>>>> secret recipe. (it's secret!)
>>> Yeah, they are natural rights given by nature. A farmer produces corn,
>>> and low and behold he has control over distribution of it.
>> Unless someone else decides to take away that corn by force. Which is my
>> right, given by nature, if I can pull it off.
> 
> Ok, so you claim that stealing is your right if you can get away with it. 
> This indicates we should start there with are argument.

That is my natural right, since it is my ability. I do not claim that it 
is right or good or just; society defines those, and society is not the 
source of natural rights.

But it's pointless to talk about natural rights. You can talk about 
societal rights or, if you're so inclined, God-given rights.

>> The notion of property requires some enforcing mechanism, whether it be
>> brute force or legal convention (and the law is backed up by brute
>> force). But physical property doesn't require any great amount of
>> communication; I live in a place, and I actively prevent other people
>> from living there.
> 
> Ok, so as long as you have some sort of force to use, you can claim 
> anything to be yours.

Well, yes. If fifty armed men showed up at your door and said that all 
your pillow cases were now theirs, you wouldn't be inclined to argue.

>> Intellectual property is a much more recent invention. For example,
>> William Shakespeare didn't publish any of his plays. One of the few
>> early English playwrights to publish their own works, Ben Johnson, was
>> ridiculed for having done so -- it was polite and properly modest to
>> allow others to publish your works, with no compensation to you.
>>
> 
> Who cares if it is recent or not. The US Constitution is a recent 
> invention, and yet us Americans don't criticize it for that. Actually 
> some may claim it is too old.

Being a recent invention, intellectual property protection is clearly 
not a basic right of humans. Not all societies will require it.

> I'm not trying to defend how the legal system is set up to handle the 
> issue. Many will agree the legal system is crap.

Because intellectual property is a recent invention, its implementations 
may not be optimal. Unfortunately, a well-defined legal system predates 
intellectual property, so it's harder to try out different mechanisms 
for IP protection.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list