Intellectual Property is not property

OK, got it. Being a writer I am familiar with copyright and did not realize it is now called intellectual property.

 

So you favor entitlements. Interesting. Sounds like something the far left would say.

You use lots of normative statements like "entitled" and "have to give" but you don't make any intellectual defense of these things. I think it's honorable to give credit for the work of others, but I cannot find any logical conclusion by which they are entitled or they must be given credit whether by words or compensation. It's up to you provide that logical conclusion. I know you claim to believe in natural rights, so explain how natural rights entitle people to claim ideas as property.

 

You're wrong. It doesn't have anything to do with collectivism.

It has to do with corporativism, that if you want to relate with something, is with the fascism.

But not with the leftism. Most people of the left defends the abolition of the IP, or important changes in its application.

I defend its total abolition, for example.

 

Another Marxist idea? The individual is the inventor of some idea or product and can not then be owned by the collective. That why collectivism fails everytime. Because if what you produce is absorbed by the whole with no benefit to the creator then why create anything? Thats why leftists are destroyers and not creators. It is true every where that system is employed.

 

I agree that the "idea" should be acted on and the person should produce a product within a set amount of years or risk losing the rights.

 

Natural rights are the result of being alive and free to pursue what ever path in life suits your abilities and talents and the fruit of those abilities and talent are yours for yourself and for no other. It is decidedly illogical to asume that what I create and the profits that I derive from that creation belongs to you because you do not have the talent to create your own idea and pofit from it yourself.

 

Ideas don't belong to anyone, they just are. You can profit from your idea by being first on the market with the product. If you don't want people to duplicate your idea then don't share it with anyone.

 

Hollywood and the music industry, not to mention software developers would disappear without intellectual property.

 

The same argument is used against physical property as property by the hard left and assorted types of anarchists. What's the distinction here?

 

Did you read the OP? The distinction is that ideas aren't tangible and can be in many places at once. Reread the OP.

They would make less money, they wouldn't disappear. Artists could still hold concerts and sell merchandise, they just wouldn't make hundreds of millions of dollars. If an industry can't compete and make money without enforcing IP laws that violate peoples rights then they shouldn't be in business at all.

 

where do you draw the line in regards to intellectual property? Do have the right to make spaghetti sauce or fried chicken if we have downloaded the recipe from the internet? I figure that once a thing is out there, it's out there for all to share. Otherwise, don't make it accessible.

 

Good point about the recipes, anyway everything has been done before in one way or another.

Neverleft, should we have to pay the guy who first struck an E minor chord if we want to play that same chord? Should it be illegal to cover songs and sell them? Nothing is original. Should it be illegal to sell new types of shoes because someone already came up with the idea of shoes?

 

If you think of it, it belongs to you, and you are free to profit from your own efforts and ingenuity, as am I, or Bill Gates, Steve Jobs...

PS, if I improve upon your idea and can market that then I have innovated and am free to profit from it.

 

They are not intangable, but have an origen, my mind and furthered by my ingenuity and earned a profit by my industry. Very tangible indeed.

 

You don't know what IP is. The discovery of an E minor chord doesn't qualify as IP. A unique series of notes and words (lyrics) that makes a composition (a song) does.

 

Sure you are, you already can profit from it by being first to the market with your ideas. So, should selling shoes be illegal because you are stealing the idea from the original inventor? If not, why?

 

Sure it does, if you strike the cord then write it down on paper before anyone else then it is unique. It doesn't have to have words in it or be a series of notes. Why wouldn't that be IP?

 

False. And purely false.

More considering that when USA has been more productive even more than now, was when USA didn't have almost any intellectual property law.

And your theory is false just observing how in many areas the leader is the free software, for example servers, embedded machines,...

No, that is a falacy that without intellectual property would disappear software developers or the music. In many ways the enemies to the music are the industry, or aberrations like the RIA. They are the menace to production. And musicians, filmers and all that without IP would continue producing and living. That is a fact.

If that was true, then a few hundred years ago would have not existed any writter, neither musicians...

The IP basically serves to protect the industry, the discographies and that, not to the authors of the music.

 

Thats a little extreme, but if he composed original music because he understood its composition and what it takes to make it sound melodic, then he has a right to charge admission to people who wish to hear his music. I would still pay to see Led Zeppelin, even though I already own their music. No one has improved upon what they did, and no one ever will, though many have tried. It is their inellectual property from which they derive their living because of the unimitatable inovation through their the possesion of their unique talent.

 

It isn't extreme, it's IP taken to its logical conclusion. So what about the shoes? Should it be illegal to sell shoes because that would be stealing the idea of shoes from the person who invented them?

 

No, because it is an idea that defies possession because my shoe may be better than your shoe. I do not like Reebok shoes but I do like New Balence, they are both shoes after the same idea, but because of inovation and product development they are soul owners of the idea, and to copy on or the other exectly would be patent infringment if not outright fraud.

 

IP = inventions in specifically claimed forms and specific original works. An E minor chord is not an original work and any credible IP expert would laugh at you suggesting such a thing.

 

Because of innovation and product development they are the sole owners of the idea? What?

Let's use this as an example: William Cullen invented the refrigerator in 1748. He came up with the idea, if you then assume that the idea belongs to him, why should anyone be allowed to sell refrigerators? If it was up to you, his family would still own the rights to refrigerators and the product would never be improved upon. That is what IP is.

 

If you patent a shoe, I can not make the same shoe as you because it is your design and property, but if I have an idea about how to make your shoe better than you by innovation and I patent that improvement then that is my shoe and if you wish to use my improvement to your shoe then you have to pay me for that because that improvement is my property, unless you make an improvement to my improvement then that would be yours.

 

Perfect, under intellectual property and patent laws if the idea of that sport shoes were patented only that company that patented that could create that style of shoes.

That is the greatest thing of patents and IP.