The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Jesse Phillips]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:44:57 -0400, Christopher Wright wrote:

> 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.

I will move this to the "does IP exist" thread.