Do you support the legalisation of polyagmy and polyandry

[The Grand Nudger]

Copyright/ip laws are not strictly designed to protect the thing itself, but the value of the thing, a value which the holder owns as a product of their efforts.
(which explains why you are generally free to make millions of copies of something you have purchased provided that they are for personal use -not sale or distribution-..for example)

Not that I am completely onboard with IP laws, mind you. But under the entirety of our current system of property and ownership I prefer having them to not having them. Throw in some fundamental changes to the overarching theme of property and ownership and I would happily ditch copyrights and ip law, personally.

[genkaus]

How is intellectual property the same as physical property?

In the manner that it is the product of your labor.

If I write (My copyrighted/patented text here) and then start telling it to people of my choosing, who then retell it others, who then tell it to even more people, how is that in any way theft? My copies haven't been touched.

Their content has been touched. It won't be theft since you started the distribution yourself - anymore than letting people into your house is breaking and entering.

Breach of contract, maybe even fraud, I can see, because the first people may have signed/agreed/checked a box, saying that they wouldn't make copies. But theft? No, especially not the people further down the line.

The theft is that of the value of the content.

[Darth]

I started the distribution sure, so do film companies with their movies, so do publishers/authors and their books... its the (unauthorised) retelling that's the 'theft', no?*

There are PLENTY of things people can do, well within their rights, that will can lower (or increase) the value of your stuff. Something's value is not intrinsic, it is only valuable if others value it, the value is in the minds of others, how can that be owned (or stolen)?

E: *either the giving or receiving

[The Grand Nudger]

The value that a thing has, for the purpose of this discussion, is not the specific number attached and put on a price tag. That fluctuates, granted, the value is it's ability to have -anything- attached to that pricetag, even if it's only 1 cent. That the value of a thing drops to nil if that thing can be freely acquired I hope is not an area of disagreement for either of us. Would you pay me for air? Sure, there are ways that others might decrease the value of your property and quite a bit of that falls under the header of competition, the difference being that we have decided that competition (a better story, a cheaper app, better marketing- again, all products of your labor) is lawful, whereas lowering the value of someones property by aqcuisition or distribution without consent and/or compensation is not lawful.

[genkaus]

I started the distribution sure, so do film companies with their movies, so do publishers/authors and their books... its the (unauthorised) retelling that's the 'theft', no?*

Yes. And the same way, you can rent out your property with certain terms and conditions - such as no subletting and no alteration. If it is taken or used by someone who is not a party to the contract or outside the terms of the contract, then that comes under theft as well.

There are PLENTY of things people can do, well within their rights, that will can lower (or increase) the value of your stuff. Something's value is not intrinsic, it is only valuable if others value it, the value is in the minds of others, how can that be owned (or stolen)?

By owning the object to which the value is attached. The value is conceptual in nature - i.e. existing in people's minds, but it is a property of the object.

[Darth]

But that is exactly what IP laws prevent, competition!
Two companies working on the same disease, one gets there first, they now own that idea (for 4 years?)? The other's can't get there as well even if they were close? This is anti-competitive. The second company might make it better/safer/cheaper, but they aren't allowed to (for x amount of time).

That it is unlawful was not being questioned, I'm questioning the logic/morality of it being unlawful.

[genkaus]

But that is exactly what IP laws prevent, competition!
Two companies working on the same disease, one gets there first, they now own that idea (for 4 years?)? The other's can't get there as well even if they were close? This is anti-competitive. The second company might make it better/safer/cheaper, but they aren't allowed to (for x amount of time).

That it is unlawful was not being questioned, I'm questioning the logic/morality of it being unlawful.

Competition, by itself, is not the purpose of the market. A policy can be regarded as pro-competition and anti-competition in a variety of ways.

Suppose you have a product which dominates the market share because of its attributes like price, availability and quality. By its very nature, allowing you to keep on selling that product to the best of your ability is anti-competitive, because you are destroying your competition.

Not allowing others to use take your product without your permission and sell it as their own is anti-competitive.

The logic behind why we don't say anything goes in name of competition and innovation is that we also believe that you should get to enjoy the full benefits of your labor. If someone else is using your product without your permission and benefiting form it, then you are being denied that.

The problem with the current state of IP laws is that the question of theft/unauthorized use is not determined easily. To use your example, if two companies are working on a cure for the same disease and they come up with the same solution - but do so in completely independent manner, then, ideally, both should be allowed to market their product. However, the difficulty is in determining whether the second company actually did come up with it independently or whether if it would have come up with the same solution irrespective of the first company.

To err on the side of caution, we assume that the first company did come up with the idea on its own and the second one may have plagiarized it, therefore, the first one should have exclusive rights. However, we also assume that the same idea could have occurred to someone else independently within a given range of time and therefore it would be unconscionable to deny someone else the same opportunity.

[Violet]

The reason is the same as why you are allowed to hold any other piece of property for more than one year.

That's senseless, and you know it.

I disagree. Jealousy can be a great motivator for self-betterment. I'm usually jealous of all of my closest friends for what they've achieved and I didn't. In fact, if a person doesn't have something I'd be jealous of, I wouldn't respect him enough to build a friendship.

??? And that's fucking insane, but you probably don't know it.

[genkaus]

That's senseless, and you know it.

??? And that's fucking insane, but you probably don't know it.

So, you got any actual arguments?

[Ryantology]

A society which legislates morality is a flawed society.

Well, you don't want people killing or just hurting each other, do you?
Or "thou shall not kill" is not a moral rule?

There are undeniably good and practical reasons to legally disallow killing, or rape or theft or assault. The morality of these actions are really beside the point in a legal sense.

It is much harder to suggest that letting gay people marry causes any kind of harm to any individuals or to society. It does not lead to anyone losing property, safety or life. Laws against such a thing exist only because those who claim to represent the majority think it is icky.

I don't care what happens, concerning this particular piece of legislation, honestly. However, let's get something straight: You cannot trust humans to live in a society civilly, without some sort of moral backbone. That backbone comes from the state, church, traditional values, or what have you. In the end, men are beasts without principles. Stripping away all of the traditional morals and values is never a good idea, because there is no consensus on anything. Entropy is then the least of your worries. After a while, groups will start to form and bicker among each other, possibly leading to violence and/or excommunication.

You make the assumption that no morals exist without 'tradition'.

Men are not 'beasts without principles' unless they have severe mental disorders.