Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 02:04:09 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 01:40:26 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 01:35:11 PM
"There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege."

And that's why I told you to answer simply, yes or no.

What you want is to have some vague non-answer, that you can dance around with. And I'm not having it.

So, one more time: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP have a right to profit from it? Yes or no?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Have you?

I want a simple answer, yes or no.

One more time: Have you stopped beating your wife, Ghostmaker?

If you reject the fundamental assumptions behind a question, you can't answer it with a simple yes or no. Pretending you can makes you a wife beater, just because I asked you a question.

Blocked and reported.

I'm glad you think the proper response to someone wanting an answer to a pertinent question is to crack wise about spousal abuse.

Now go do a flip, you worthless fucktard.

Quote from: Literally Wikipedia
A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence, the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it were asked during a trial in which the defendant had already admitted to beating his wife.[2]

Is this the part where I tell you to do a flip?

Quote from: Oddend on October 12, 2021, 02:41:13 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 02:04:09 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 01:40:26 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 01:35:11 PM
"There are desirable reasons for granting people who come up with new ideas a limited monopoly privilege, but it's a privilege."

And that's why I told you to answer simply, yes or no.

What you want is to have some vague non-answer, that you can dance around with. And I'm not having it.

So, one more time: does a person who conceives of and develops an IP have a right to profit from it? Yes or no?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Have you?

I want a simple answer, yes or no.

One more time: Have you stopped beating your wife, Ghostmaker?

If you reject the fundamental assumptions behind a question, you can't answer it with a simple yes or no. Pretending you can makes you a wife beater, just because I asked you a question.

Blocked and reported.

I'm glad you think the proper response to someone wanting an answer to a pertinent question is to crack wise about spousal abuse.

Now go do a flip, you worthless fucktard.

Quote from: Literally Wikipedia
A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence, the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it were asked during a trial in which the defendant had already admitted to beating his wife.[2]

Is this the part where I tell you to do a flip?

You can if you want.

Doesn't change that Pat is a worthless fuck who kept trying to dodge the question. I wasn't accusing him of ANYTHING, or trying to throw a 'loaded question' at him. I wanted to pin him down on whether he thought intellectual property was something that a person could profit on, because he kept giving strange 'well but' answers.

Christ, it's not like I can get on my high horse regarding IP considering I've repeatedly condoned piracy targeted at wokeists.

But since he's a dipshit, he gets treated like one. Fuck him.

If somebody doesn't understand the principle philosophy behind your idea, you don't accuse them of supporting slavery or insisting that they are engaging in loaded questions:
You explain yourself better. If you believe that your conversational partner is not engaging on good faith, make it known to them or stop the conversation.

A flipped version of that aimed at dismantling capitalism might be something akin to 'if you support capitalism you support indentured servitude and slavery'.

Regardless of your other beliefs its a shitty debate tactic.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 02:41:04 PM
Well I will admit its a grey-zone, but I feel a purely materialistic view of reality doesn't super make sense because our interaction with it is primarily mental.

Saying profit off a mental product is ok but enforcement or protection of your claims to it isn't is a platitude.
Its true that law enforcement is a privilege, but nobody talks about it in those terms. A pure materialistic worldview ignores the concept of ideas or conceptual laws at all.

Claim to property at all is purely conceptual.

What it means that you can't apply the concepts of property to anything that not tangible.

For example you create a song. You write up the song and its musical arrangement.

If I hear you singing the song and then in turn sing that song I have not deprived you of anything. You still have the song to sing and you still have the paper on which you wrote and its musical arrangement.

If I however took that piece of paper from you without your permission and sung the song then I would be guilty of theft. As I have deprived you of a piece of property, the piece of paper on which the song is written and composed. The fact I sung the song is irrelevant,

What society has to consider for the first situation is different than what society has to consider for the second situation. So far what they have done is granted people who have a created song a set of separate monopolies on the following.

1) Who can copy the words of the song and its composition.
2) Who can copy a performance of a song.
3) Who can copy a recording of a performance of the song.

For example Taylor Swift, has the right to control how the works and arrangement of her music are copied. Has the right to perform or license the performance of her music. But does not have the right to the first series of albums she recorded. The studio she had a recording contract with has those rights. Since she doesn't get along with that studio she is re-recording all her earlier albums.

All of this isn't about property or rights, it is about society giving her the incentive to created finished works for the rest of us to enjoy. In return society grants her and other specific and limited monopolies.

Part of monopoly privilege theory is the issue free riding, which perhaps isn't clear from my reading of the back and forth (or it is implied, but I tend to put it front and center).  The key issue is that the creator has less incentive to be productive if others benefit from their work without supporting the creator). I'll say this is definitely implied in much of the more sane side of the discussion on this topic.

Quote from: estar on October 12, 2021, 03:06:42 PMWhat it means that you can't apply the concepts of property to anything that not tangible.

Im not being a shit here: what is tangible? Following pure materialism: your body and mind. Everything else is a logic construct. What gives you any claim to anything based purely on the fact you found it first? Things you can hold- maybe. But what makes a 'zone' yours. What gives you any magic reason to claim that zone? Even citing utalitarianism - utalitarianism is just another set of pure logic concept constructs.

Rights (including negative rights) are just a set of ethical agreements (intangible logic constructs) that underpin a logic construct law system.

Thats why I say that something is unethical to do is more important then if its property or not. Because ethics as a concept are a more fundemental pin to what property even is then the idea of scarcity.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 02:41:04 PM

Edit: and yes Pat and Oddend, your method of conversation is extremly patronizing and evasive.

Fuck you. I've tried to explain my position clearly and without insulting anyone, and I've been repeatedly attacked in a very nasty way for it.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 03:02:00 PM
If somebody doesn't understand the principle philosophy behind your idea, you don't accuse them of supporting slavery or insisting that they are engaging in loaded questions:
You explain yourself better. If you believe that your conversational partner is not engaging on good faith, make it known to them or stop the conversation.

A flipped version of that aimed at dismantling capitalism might be something akin to 'if you support capitalism you support indentured servitude and slavery'.

Regardless of your other beliefs its a shitty debate tactic.

Yes it is.

I assume you're referring to GeekyBugle?

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 02:54:37 PM
Doesn't change that Pat is a worthless fuck who kept trying to dodge the question.

I answered it honestly and completely.

Asshole.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 03:14:24 PM
Im not being a shit here: what is tangible?

What is tangible is that which I can deprive the use of by taking adverse possession. Objects and Land.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 03:14:24 PMThats why I say that something is unethical to do is more important then if its property or not. Because ethics as a concept are a more fundemental pin to what property even is then the idea of scarcity.

Everybody who creates is drawing from humanity's cultural heritage. I view it as immoral not put back what you create for other to benefit from the same way you took other people's work to benefit from.

Everybody who has authored a work on this forum has taken from somebody else either living or dead, including myself. To this we add our own ideas resulting in something different. Morally that needs to be returned for others to benefit from. It not completely yours, it never was. Everybody's idea derives from somebody else's idea in a long chain extending back into prehistory.

However I understand that people are not going put in the time or resource for certain creative works without compensation due to magnitude of the investment. So I think it benefits society more to grant for a limited time a monopoly on an idea or an expression of an idea. Likewise it benefits society more if this process was simple and automatic. Hence I support granting a limited monopoly to an author for any expression of an idea that not recently derive from an existing monopoly (copyright).

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 03:46:12 PMI've tried to explain my position clearly and without insulting anyone, and I've been repeatedly attacked in a very nasty way for it.

True, some people threw shit your way. But you kinda have to power through it when debating over an incredibly complex topic like the idea of rights (natural vs unnatural) and property (on a public forum).
Like I could also discuss the historical reality of the concept of slavery and how not all of it is the same, and some people would call me a slavery supporter over it.

When somebody questions how stealing their ideas or replicating them without permission and you answer with the idea of effort=/=value, thats kind of a non-answer unless you directly link the concept to the ethics. True not all effort=value, but the question was about the ethics, not about the idea of value creation. And its a complex position (not one I think that makes you a bad person), but needs elaboration without calling people entitled.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 04:03:53 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 12, 2021, 03:46:12 PMI've tried to explain my position clearly and without insulting anyone, and I've been repeatedly attacked in a very nasty way for it.

True, some people threw shit your way. But you kinda have to power through it when debating over an incredibly complex topic like the idea of rights (natural vs unnatural) and property (on a public forum).
Like I could also discuss the historical reality of the concept of slavery and how not all of it is the same, and some people would call me a slavery supporter over it.

When somebody questions how stealing their ideas or replicating them without permission and you answer with the idea of effort=/=value, thats kind of a non-answer unless you directly link the concept to the ethics. True not all effort=value, but the question was about the ethics, not about the idea of value creation. And its a complex position (not one I think that makes you a bad person), but needs elaboration without calling people entitled.

More like he'd rather dance his little sidestep than explain himself. Hell, estar did a perfectly good job of laying out a cogent argument. One that I can agree with.

Eternal copyright is bullshit. But so is 'but information wants to be free, maaaaaan'.

Quote from: estar on October 12, 2021, 03:56:13 PMWhat is tangible is that which I can deprive the use of by taking adverse possession. Objects and Land.

Your answering a question about logic constructs with another logic construct. Adverse possession is a logic construct.
I understand about the nature of the development of ideas. Im not actually for eternal copyright.

I am just saying that its not that clear cut because everything 'started' free before somebody invented the idea of property and created privaleges for its enforcement.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 12, 2021, 04:07:48 PM

Quote from: estar on October 12, 2021, 03:56:13 PMWhat is tangible is that which I can deprive the use of by taking adverse possession. Objects and Land.

Your answering a question about logic constructs with another logic construct. Adverse possession is a logic construct.
I understand about the nature of the development of ideas. Im not actually for eternal copyright.

I am just saying that its not that clear cut because everything 'started' free before somebody invented the idea of property and created privaleges for its enforcement.

Isn't society itself a logic construct for us to interact with each other, though? Why look down on it?

Also, nothing's free, mate. Tanstaafl.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 12, 2021, 04:09:13 PM
Isn't society itself a logic construct for us to interact with each other, though? Why look down on it?

Thats kinda my point and I don't down apon society (outside of a general healthy disdain for collective behaviours). I engage in theoretical 'both sides' arguments.
Im saying scarcity isn't a good reason to say why one logic construct is immutable and another one is.

In adition this was kinda a rebuttal about the word game of right, property, or privalege. All are logic constructs.

Edit: A right without a privaledge of enforcement and a culture of support is completly worthless for instance.