RoR: Forum

I will try to define "Rights". I will start with a need, then try to work from there to Rights.

A need is a thing that must be fulfilled for a person to achieve their goals. Unfortunately, if we fulfilled a certain being's goals to the greatest extent possible, we would hinder the fulfillment of the goals of other individuals. Which individual should we choose to fulfil the goals of? Until everyone can agree, I suggest that we not initiate force that results in hindering other's fulfillment of goals.

Examples:
1. Initiating force to persuade another into labor
2. Initiating force to take another's product of labor
3. Initiating force that reduces another's productivity
4. Initiating force that damages another's product of labor

A Right is a property that a being has. A Right results from the respect of others, realizing that we cannot agree on who's goals should be hindered by force. To break a Right is to have no respect for another's pursuit of goals. When you initiate a break in the Rights of another, you loose other's respect for your Rights, and hence a forfeit of your own Rights.

One has the Right:
Not to be forced to act. To have full ownership of one's own body. To have full ownership of the product of one's own labor. Not to be physically attacked, stolen from, murdered, raped, or cheated. Not to be vandalized. To do what one wants, to act and think freely, and to do anything so long as it does not break another's Rights.

Interestingly for me, "not to be lied to" and "not to be insulted" did not make the list. These are nuisance, but neither of them are an initiation of force. To lie or insult may have negative effects on another person, but only if that person allows it. A lie does not force a person to have a false sense of reality. An insult does not force a person to think they are less competent then they actually are.

I wrote this as I was collecting my thoughts. It was more for me then anything, but I posted it here just incase someone else might get something out of it.

Post 41

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 12:58am

Fix up of my previous posts to match my new views:

1. I think a person (A) can own non-physical property. This is where (A) does not tell anyone else.

2a. The person (A) can tell person (B) by agreement that (B) will not tell anyone or use the idea for themselves OR (B) pays (A). In this case, (A) and (B) now together have full ownership of the idea.

2b. There can be many (B)'s, and nothing changes. (A) and the (B)'s will have full ownership of the idea together.

3a. Now lets say that one of the (B)'s tells (C). Now (B) must pay A, or else he made a lie. If (B) does not pay (A) then the whole situation is quite unfortunate for (A). (B) has not initiated force, and hence not committed a crime, but (B) may forever be un-trusted by everyone. The decision on whether to do business with or trust (B) in the future is up to each individual individually.

3b. What about (C)? (C) now has a copy of what ever he experienced. (C) did not agree to any limited rights on this copy. (C) may not have (A)'s consent to distribute or sell the idea/media, but (C) is free to do so without initiating force. The decision on whether to do business with or trust (C) in the future is up to each individual individually.

(B) and (C) did not initiate force. Using force to protect patents or other forms of IP rights is an initiation of force. Intellectual Property rights may exist, but only if a person steals the IP. In IP, stealing only occurs when the original owner looses all copies of the IP.

The invention "stealer" (copier), the trespassing copier, the publisher (copier), and the P2P "IP" media copier are all doing something that the original artist/inventor/developer do not like. They may even be lying, but not initiating force (except for the trespasser?).

Post 42

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 1:03am

Is trespassing an initiation of force? What is your definition of stealing? Does stealing include copying without consent? Mine does not, because I do not view copying as an initiation of force.

Patents and other forms of "Intellectual Property" laws are currently being used to justify using force against anyone who decides to use a copy without permission. Who decides who should profit from an idea? Does being the originator decide? Does being the originator justify using force to prevent other's from profiting from the idea? Others profiting from the idea is not an initiation of force.

How about this. If you think IP should be protected by force, then you prove that copying and profiting from IP in an initiation of force. The person that makes a claim carries the burden of proof.

A person is guilty as soon as an initiation of force is committed. To force responsibility for a an initiation of force, one must first prove that a person initiated force.

Post 43

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 3:28pm

Dean, that's a lot of posts. I'm not going to be able to respond to them all in detail, but it looks more like you were working it out for yourself. You seem to have come to agree with my position that property rights are all or nothing. Unfortunately, you've come down on the wrong side, declaring "nothing". That's fine...one step at a time.

Let's talk a little more about right. There's a classic little problem of property rights. Imagine I have something, like a computer, that I only use part of the time. And say I offer to let you use it for $5 an hour when I'm not using it. You refuse to pay, but when I'm not using it you hop on and use it, maybe in secret. Are you violating my property rights? What if you do no damage? What if, by some weird product of technology, using it actually improves my product slightly. Are you initiating force?

Property rights, and we can just talk about physical property right now, means ownership of it. It means deciding how it's going to be used. The fact that I'm not using my computer at the time does not make it open to public use. It's still mine. If I don't want you touching it, for any reason or whim, you can't touch it. If you do, you're violating my rights. I don't actually have to lose anything for it to be a rights violation. What I've lost is my control over it. For instance, I've lost the ability to charge for the use of my computer, since anyone can just hop on without paying. I've lost the ability to withhold the use of my computer from the marketplace to make my other computers more valuable. And on and on. All of this is a loss due to a property rights violation.

Another example is a movie theater. It costs them nothing if unused seats get taken, right? I'm not counting potential future gains from people who don't have to pay now since we're talking about damage loss. So then shouldn't anyone be able to take up a seat in a theater that's empty, assuming no paying person doesn't want the seat? If the property rights of the owner are not respected, that's what would happen. But we recognize that ownership means control of the theater. Someone barging in and taking an unclaimed seat is violating the rights of the owner.

And of course, this would apply to people living in your attic, people trespassing on your property, someone claiming unused land that you own, etc., etc.

Now, it should be obvious what my point is, but I'll make it explicit. The argument against IP that you and others use is that other people using the IP doesn't prevent you from using it, so it's not really a property rights violation. But if that were the benchmark, all of the above property rights violations would actually not be violations. Anyone could use anyone else's property if it's not being used at the time.

Are you willing to take the next step and proclaim each of these as not really violations of property rights?

Post 44

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 7:11pm

Excellent examples, Joseph.

I'm in a business--writing--in which protection of intellectual property is vital to my professional existence. For some parasite to come along and swipe my creations, then offer sophistry as rationalizations while he destroys my livelihood, is the sort of thing that would probably drive me to violence--if we had the anarchism advocated by many enemies of intellectual property rights.

ALL property rights are ultimately rooted in intellectual property rights, if you think about it. That's because no property rights can be claimed unless someone adds a creative element to some physical aspect of nature, transforming it into a human value.

It is that intellectual creativity that transforms nature to human use which we acknowledge when we honor property rights.

Post 45

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 11:08pm

Joe,

Now, it should be obvious what my point is, but I'll make it explicit. The argument against IP that you and others use is that other people using the IP doesn't prevent you from using it, so it's not really a property rights violation. But if that were the benchmark, all of the above property rights violations would actually not be violations. Anyone could use anyone else's property if it's not being used at the time.

Are you willing to take the next step and proclaim each of these as not really violations of property rights?

When you say IP, it seems like you imply that a person owns every single copy of an idea. This is where I think you are wrong. Also, it seems like you try to blur the difference between using a copy of another's property and using another's property.

Into
I will describe two situations to try to explain what it is to use a copy of another's property. Then I will ask how using a copy of another's property is an initiation of force.

Example 1. Using a Copy of Another's Physical Property.
Please imagine that I have a device which allows me to convert matter into energy, and convert that energy back to matter in any shape or form as I desire. Also, you willingly give me all of the plans to your movie theatre. (Or you willingly give them to B, and B willingly gives them to me).

Further, I make an exact duplicate of your movie theatre, but with my matter on my own property. Next, I sit in a copy of your theatre chair.

I have not been able to figure out where I have initiated force in this situation. I could just built a replica of your movie theatre, but that would not have been as exact of a copy as one gets when copying an idea or media.

Example 2. Using a Copy of Another's Idea
Lets say that you have a good idea of how to eat spaghetti, where the spaghetti stays on the fork, and doesn't get on your face when you eat it. It is super creative. Nobody has ever thought of using the fork and spoon like that!

You use it in front of me. I see you using your idea, and I learn it too. Now I have a copy of your idea. Now I use the idea when I eat spaghetti too.

With your idea of "IP" I would be using your copy of your idea. In reality, at least as far as I know, I am actually using an idea that is stored in my head, and my brain uses the idea after retrieving the copy of the idea from itself. When I use the idea that you created on how to eat spaghetti, I am using my own copy. Again, in this situation, I haven't been able to discover any way I have initiated force against you.

Extending IP to Physical.
Normally when people talk about "IP", they claim that a single person or small group of people own every single copy of that idea. What if we extend this to physical property? We get the original patent laws which are mainly applied to physical objects.

In the current patent system, if you create some new mechanical device with some new shape or use, you can patent that device and the way it is used. Now if I come along, and learn how your mechanical device works, and make a copy for my own use/to sell to others, by patent laws it is ok for you/the government to use force to prevent/stop me from such actions.

Question
How have I initiated force against you by making a copy of your movie theatre, elegant spaghetti eating method, or mechanical device? How have I initiated force against you by using that copy?

Post 46

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 11:25pm

Dean, I only had a single argument in that last post, and I don't think you've addressed it. One argument against Intellectual Property (not just the specific way it's implemented now, but in general) is that you making a copy doesn't hurt my copy. I still have it, and so nothing's been stolen. I'm saying simply that the same argument applies to physical property not in use. Before branching off into copies of copies or whatever, just look at this. is there any harm done? Hypothetically lets say no. Are you prevented from using your own property? Again no.

These arguments are the ones used to say that it isn't a violation of rights to take IP because I haven't prevented you from using it. But they apply to physical property as well. It's all or nothing again. Either the argument is sound and applies to IP and physical property (I don't really want to start talking about PP...the conversation might go downhill), or it is not an shouldn't work on either.

It tells us a little more if it doesn't apply to physical property. It tells us that harm or prevention of you using it is not the only form of property rights violation. It tells us that property rights includes the right to control the use of the property. Control of the property is the important characteristic, and violating that control is a violation.

All of this is orthogonal to your copy of an original question. It doesn't attempt to prove the validity of IP. It does attempt to better define property rights (control vs. harm), and it does attempt to challenge a typical argument against IP. As I said, one thing at a time. If we get lost on faulty views of property rights, we'll never get to a meaningful answer, whichever way it goes.

So the question for you is, does the "lack of harm" argument seem less plausible now, or do you think that a person's physical property can be used by anyone if they're not currently using it?

Post 47

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 11:51pm

I agree with you that using a another person's property against their will is an initiation of force (even if the use lacks damage, or even improves it). I am sorry that I did not state my agreement on this.

I think it is an initiation of force if someone were to:
read your book
use your computer
sit in your chair
As long as:
1. You are against them doing so.
2. You own those instances/copies of those entities

As well, if someone were to somehow read your mind, and learn your ideas/thoughts against your will, then they are initiating force on your property (your own ideas).

Also, with my new understanding of an initiation of force with property, the trespasser who copied the plans for your engine would also be initiating force by the act of using your own plans to copy.

The reason why I consider something that "lacks harm" as still being an initiation of force is: Under whose judgement will we decide it is an initiation of force? The owner? The user? Some third party? To be truly free, the owner must have the unanimous decision on what is considered an initiation of force on their own property.

Thanks,
Dean

Post 48

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 12:24am

Thanks for the ealier comment, Robert. Interesting idea regarding all property rights as an extension of intellectual property rights. I'll have to think about it more.

Thanks for the comments, Dean. Glad we made some progress.

I don't have much more to add at this point, though. I haven't worked it all out to my own satisfaction.

My inclination is to start with the needs behind property rights. They're not just conventions, but human needs, right? If our property rights are not secure, our life is not secure either. We need to be able to take the results of our productive work and utilize them to our own ends. To do that, we need to control the output of our work. I don't see how intellectual property is different from physical property in this respect. And as more and more of the world deals explicitly with idea or data, more and more people are making a living through the use of their minds by trading the product of their mental labors. Once the harm argument breaks down, I don't see any reason not to treat it like any other form of property. If I made it, I should control it. In fact, I need to. It is the means by which I live. Someone who violates my control over my mental output is attacking my life just as if he were to violate the control of my physical property.

It's pretty simple, and yet I suspect it won't be convincing to anyone who thoroughly rejects IP. That's all I have for now, though.

Post 49

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 2:23am

Joe,

My inclination is to start with the needs behind property rights. They're not just conventions, but human needs, right?

I think this applies to any being's needs.

If our property rights are not secure, our life is not secure either. We need to be able to take the results of our productive work and utilize them to our own ends. To do that, we need to control the output of our work. I don't see how intellectual property is different from physical property in this respect. And as more and more of the world deals explicitly with idea or data, more and more people are making a living through the use of their minds by trading the product of their mental labors.

I am still in agreement.

Once the harm argument breaks down, I don't see any reason not to treat it like any other form of property.

I agree, I think that everything is matter/energy. Even ideas are actual physical property.

If I made it, I should control it. In fact, I need to. It is the means by which I live. Someone who violates my control over my mental output is attacking my life just as if he were to violate the control of my physical property.

I agree.

It's pretty simple, and yet I suspect it won't be convincing to anyone who thoroughly rejects IP. That's all I have for now, though.

I think I still accept property rights. "IP" is still an issue for me. I would like to discuss the exact reality of what happens in the case of IP.

Through labor, a man creates an idea. He is free to do what he wishes with that idea. No one has the right to force that man to give another man his idea. Until he tells another, he is the sole owner of that idea. There is no one else that exists that has a copy of that idea. He is absolutely free to do what ever he wishes with that idea. At this point, he does have absolute control over the product of his labor, his idea.

In the act of telling another the idea, the creator makes two new instances of the idea. One new instance is in the means of communication used, and the other is made when another receives that communication. Each person now has a very separate, unique instance of the idea. The instance created in means of communication can be discarded.

I think we will agree so far.

Now my question is, whose property is the instance of the idea that is in the other's head? I think this is the important question that decides whether a lot of IP laws are moral. For now I will assume it is still Joe's property even though it is in the other's head. I still question who owns the copy.

If the creator (Joe) just said the idea without making a deal with Dean, surely Dean is free to do as he wishes with the idea. If Dean made a deal to pay $X in exchange for the idea, then the idea is Dean's as well.

If Dean made a deal to listen to the idea, give a suggestion, receive $X, and never use the idea or tell another being... Can "never telling another being" be considered a service? I think it can. In this case, Joe would still control the idea. If Dean were to tell another, he would not be providing the service agreed upon, and hence he would be stealing the idea.

If Dean made a deal to use the idea once, or only use it for himself, and never give it to another being, and pay $X, then I think the idea is still owned & controlled by Joe.

I think we still agree to this point. I think that everything above is morally fine- if Joe own's the idea that is in Dean's head. Still continuing with this assumption...

The government makes a deal to receive $X, display the idea to everyone, and force everyone to only use the idea on Joe's terms. Is the governments use of force justified even if no one agreed not to use the idea?

Goodnight for now.

Post 50

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 5:00am

In a patent, you make a deal with the government. You pay the government $X, and it displays the idea for all to see, then forces everyone to only use it as you choose.

Using patents is unjustified because no one agreed to know the idea. The government simply assumes that if a patent is made, then any individual that uses the idea must have gotten the idea from the patent. Surely this is not always the case, there are other ways to discover an idea then reading a patent or copying someone else's idea.

You deserve the full and complete rights products of your own labor and your own idea. If someone came up with the same idea by their own labor, independent of your labor, without knowing your idea, then they should have the freedom to use the product of their labor without paying you. They should have complete rights to the products of their own labor, just as you have the rights to your own labor.

In my previous post I said "I still question who owns the copy." Now I am confident that the ownership depends on the terms of the deal made when the copy of the idea was transferred.

Post 51

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 5:17am

Much earlier I talked about person (A), (B), and (C). Now I will claim that if (C) uses the idea, he is using an idea that he gained through an initiation of force (stealing the product of labor), and hence his use of the idea is also immoral. (C)'s right to come up with the idea for himself was taken away by (B), so depending on whether (C) willingly learned of the idea or not, (B) may have initiated force against (C) as well. (C) can only morally force (B) to pay for whatever losses (C) may have due to loosing the ability to come up with the idea for himself. (C) cannot justify his use or ownership of the idea since it was not the product of his labor.

This reasoning is simular to the case where a man uses money that was given to him from the government. At first, receiving money from a willing source (the government) seems fine. But the money was gained through an initiation of force (stealing the product of labor of other men). He cannot justify his use or ownership of the money since it was not the product of his labor.

Post 52

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 11:15am

Robert,

ALL property rights are ultimately rooted in intellectual property rights, if you think about it.

That is one hell of a statement and it rings true even for real estate (for instance, it starts to give some legitimacy to why land was confiscated from wild native Indians - although intellectual property per se in land use was not specifically addressed back then).

One thing copyright and patent law has addressed that is much more fuzzy in other legal areas is that it establishes a time frame for ownership, including inheritance - with public domain being the final outcome of all intellectual property. Human beings are not eternal, thus ownership cannot be either. Even Ayn Rand once wrote something to that effect.

As a side issue, Brazil suffers tremendously from land property rights that have been handed down since colonial times. There are "owners" who have inherited tracts of land where a small state could fit into from almost 10 generations ago - and they do absolutely nothing with it but sit on it - they won't even sell it to those who are willing to pay for it. To my way of thinking, after that much time, they become somewhat like wild Indians themselves.

The issue of time frames for ownership is an extremely important one in order to avoid abuses like that.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/29, 11:19am)

Post 53

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 12:24pm

Well, in this country, doing such a 'sitting on the land' amounts to a preservation of the land - nothing necessarily wrong there......

Post 54

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 1:36pm

"wild native Indians"
In the past, people came to the Americas and slaughtered the native human beings that lived here. They did not allow them property rights like they did foreign settlers, instead, they forced them to live on "reservations". Or did they allow indians to buy, settle or claim their own property?

I think that they just did not consider indians as worthy of respecting negative rights. They had the technology and manpower to pull it off and end up gaining from the destruction of the native americans' rights.

I think its a good question to ask though, what exactly makes a being deserve negative rights? Is it simply: if the being does not initiate force, then it deserves negative rights?

Post 55

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 1:50pm

Dean,

Regarding patents, and their current implementation, there's plenty people could argue about. But let's try to look at the philosophical case for their current implementation.

First, if I invent something and then someone copies it without my permission, they've violation my property rights. The question is, how do I prove it? They could simply say that they invented it on their own. It's an epistemological question.

The first thing to note in any of these IP scenarios (patents, copyrights, etc.), is that registering it with the enforcing agency is the most solid way of proving the timeline. If you have an invention, you file it with the patent office, and now they have a record of it. There are other ways to prove a timeline as well. Some people mail themselves a copy of the IP so it has a postal service mark. Engineers often keep a notebook and get witnesses to sign and date pages with patent-worthy inventions. Since the government has to do the judging of who violated who's right, registering it with them is the safest and most reliable way of establishing order.

Why do they need to establish order? Because if anyone could simply say that they invented it on their own, the property right would be a joke. There has to be a method of preventing others from just taking it. But if anyone can simply say "I invented it too", then the property rights would be unenforceable.

There's a question of burden of proof here. How do you prove that someone didn't invent it on their own? When a product becomes widely accessible can't anyone copy it and say they invented it? Again, the only possible way to protect it is to place the burden of proof on the "new" inventor. And that's still allowed. If you can prove you invented it independently, and some people do, then you're not prevented from using it.

To prevent abuse of this system, there has to be some special qualifications for patents. A patent has to be unique, non-obvious, and useful. That means solutions that any reasonable person would come up with can't be patented. If the idea is already in use, it can't be patented. The basic idea here is to limit patents to inventions that are not obvious to everyone, reducing the possibility of multiple inventors. If it's likely that more than one inventor would come up with the idea, the patent shouldn't be allowed through. And even if it is, it can be legally contested later if necessary.

So patent law attempts to only apply to really unique ideas. Given the strict standards, it becomes (more) reasonable to assume that someone who later "invents" the idea is really copying it, especially since it's widely available. It may not always be true, but that's a problem with any use of force. Epistemological certainty has to be contextual, not absolute.

Patents expire over time as well. I think this is aimed at the fact that even if it was a unique idea, over time there's a greater and greater chance someone may have invented it as well. One could make the argument that patents should never expire, but there's a case to be made that the limited length reduces the harm done by mistakes. Then again, it might be just so people can copy it and technological progress can be widespread.

If Intellectual Property rights exist, the current system isn't really that bad. I know lots of people have a problem with it, but they usually start with the assumption that IP is not valid, and the government is just granting "monopolies" or what-not. But in the framework of Intellectual Property rights, they're not so bad.

Post 56

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 2:14pm

If you can prove you invented it independently, and some people do, then you're not prevented from using it.

If that is the case, then patents are fine with me.

We just need some people with very good judgement to decide what is common sense and what is a non-obvious insightful new idea. Hmm... we also need some people with very good judgement to re-write our laws, enforce no initiation of force, and determine who has initiated force.

Post 57

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 2:23pm

We just need some people with very good judgement to decide what is common sense and what is a non-obvious insightful new idea.

I've seen the patent office do some surprisingly smart things (I've filed for roughly 30 patents), but the results probably vary. Lawsuits based on patents bring in experts to argue how obvious or insightful it is. So it's not like it's set in stone upon granting of the patent. As is typical of the judicial system, there are many levels that have to agree before it's finished. The more obvious it is, the less likely it'll stand up to scrutiny.

Post 58

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 2:24pm

Joe: Before I disagree with you about patents, I should first state that I fully support copyrights, and an idea that I'd call "design copyrights" that I think could largely fill the need that existing patents fill. I'm definitely an advocate of IP.

But, by what right can one man use the government to force another man to not be able to profit from his own thinking? In terms of principles of Objectivism, how can you justify the existing standards used for patents?

The non-obvious standard is just a recipe to shackle geniuses to what juries or the majority of experts consider to be "non-obvious", which is going to include things obvious to the genius. It's a standard that rests on collectivist epistemology.

I would say the burden of proof has to go in the reverse. You should have to prove that no one could have thought of your invention in order to patent it. It ought to be as unique to you as Atlas Shrugged is to Ayn Rand. If someone else could have thought of it -- especially if a genius could have -- then you have absolutely no right to prevent him from profiting from his thinking.

Post 59

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 2:44pm