Having a grant of monopoly privilege does not make non-scarce information your "property".
So no one should have the right to protect anything they create? They don't own their creations?
That's an odd conclusion to draw from what I said...
Anyway, to your point, I can think of scenarios where someone wouldn't own something just because they created it. For example, if I steal a gold bar from you and carve a figurine out of it, I don't therefore own the figurine by mere virtue of having created it. So we can see that right of ownership doesn't derive from the fact of creation—it must derive from something else.
Property is a concept born from scarcity. We value the concept of property as a means to reduce conflict over scarce resources. If something isn't scarce (information, for example), and therefore X can make use of it without infringing on Y's capacity to do the same, then Y can't just ask the government to point a gun at X and call that a solution. In any event, the fact of having the gun pointed doesn't cause non-scarce information to be "property".
No, you're either making things up or delusional...
Developer makes app. App is developer's.
Since ownership, therefore exclusive sales right.
YOU: Having exclusive sales right ? ownership.
Which is all well and good, except it's not the argument at hand here. The apps are being stolen. How do we know they're being stolen? Because it's not the developer doing the distribution.
You're saying that if I create something that never existed before, it's not mine. That's ludicrous.
Which is all well and good, except it's not the argument at hand here. The apps are being stolen. How do we know they're being stolen? Because it's not the developer doing the distribution.
You're saying that if I create something that never existed before, it's not mine. That's ludicrous.
Just imagine if it were different than this? How could any company ever justify putting money into R&D? How would we continue to evolve?
Just imagine if it were different than this? How could any company ever justify putting money into R&D? How would we continue to evolve?
And that's exactly why Apple has both the right and the drive to keep suing companies that steal their IP. Because if Samsung (Microsoft, Google, et. al.) is allowed to get away with straight up theft, what's the point in creating something new?
So if I buy an app, I own it? Its mine to do whatever I want to do with it? Like maybe share it with others? I dont want any monetary compensation, just want to share it.
Just imagine if it were different than this? How could any company ever justify putting money into R&D? How would we continue to evolve?
Not sure if serious... Polio vaccine, anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Developer makes app arranges pattern of information. App Pattern of information is developer's [property].
No. A pattern of information isn't property. If anything is the developer's property here, it is the data on his hard drive (scarce), but not the pattern of information (non-scarce).
Since ownership, therefore exclusive sales right.
Rights don't derive from ownership, I already told you that. For example, a bank robber owns a lot of paper money, but that doesn't mean he has a right to that money.
YOU:Having exclusive sales right ? ownership.
No, don't lie. What I said was, "Having a grant of monopoly privilege does not make non-scarce information your "property"."
The apps patterns of information are being stolen copied.
That's what human beings do. We learn and copy, and improve. If someone is too lazy or immature to find a way to thrive, then it isn't a solution to ask government to point guns at the competition.
How do we know they're being stolen?
They're not being stolen, lol. You're just confused about what property is. Copying non-scarce information ? stealing property.
You're saying that if I create something that never existed before, it's not mine. That's ludicrous.
No, you're just confused about what property right's derive from. Property right doesn't stem from the fact of creation, for example: if I steal a gold bar from you and carve a figurine out of it, I have created a figurine but that doesn't mean I have a right to it.
Developer makes app arranges pattern of information. App Pattern of information is developer's [property].
No. A pattern of information isn't property. If anything is the developer's property here, it is the data on his hard drive (scarce), but not the pattern of information (non-scarce).
Do you have kids? NO YOU DON'T. THEY'RE MINE NOW. JUST A PATTERN OF DNA.
You can't win this argument because there isn't another side.
a bank robber owns
Do you know what words mean?
They're not being stolen, lol. You're just confused about what property is. Copying non-scarce information ? stealing property.
I want to find out that you create software for a living. Heck, even plants. Be a botanist or something. I'll make it a goal to steal as much from you as humanly possible, since you're perfectly fine with that.
I said, "Having a grant of monopoly privilege does not make non-scarce information your "property"."
You responded, "So no one should have the right to protect anything they create? They don't own their creations?"
Your response is a non sequitor.
The problem is, you don't understand the concepts of property or rights. Like I pointed out several times, a person doesn't have a right to something by mere virtue of the fact that he created it. For example, I could steal a gold bar from you and carve a figurine out of it, but the mere fact of having created the figurine doesn't mean I have a right to it—it's your gold.
And property is a concept that applies to scarce resources; to have a "property" in a non-scarce resource is an incoherent concept. The concept of property is valued by humans naturally (as opposed to artificially, for example requiring a government to invent and impose, like IP) as a means to reduce conflict over scarce resources. You can't have a "property right" to something if someone else can control (own) it without reducing your capacity to do the same (conflict). So if someone creates an arrangement of information (code), he may have a right to the scarce medium which carries that arrangement (disk), but he doesn't have a right to the information itself (letters) nor to the pattern—it isn't scarce, several people can control it without conflict.
"Having a grant of monopoly privilege does not make non-scarce information your "property"."
They don't own their creations?
Your response is a non sequitor.
I fail to see how.
Because a fact of ownership is utterly independent of whether an institution even exists, no less a grant from that institution. For example, I own my body because I do as a matter of fact, not because anyone says I'm allowed to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So your argument boils down to "all software should be free" and "an idea cannot be owned".
I'm not talking about how things should be. Have you heard of the fact-value dichotomy? I'm talking about how things are, as a matter of fact, not as a matter of opinion.
"all software should be free"
No. I never said that.
"an idea cannot be owned"
You're repeatedly conflating very many concepts...ugghhhh....
"own" ? "right to own"
Since an idea is electricity in a brain, obviously it is of course owned, in this case by the person whose brain the idea resides in.
"idea" (electricity in a brain) ? "app" (pattern of information on a medium)
With an app there are several possible situations:
1. I own the server, but I rent the space to individuals who therefore have the rights to their contents (apps, for example) on my server.
2. Various individuals own their own hard drives, and each accesses their own copies of patterns of information without conflict.
3. I own the server, and various individuals own their own copies of the same pattern of information without conflict.
What does any of this have to do with you being against punishment for stealing apps from developers?
You speak in fallacies. Your original complaint was a non sequitor, followed up by red herrings and putting words in my mouth. Now this is your latest red herring. I didn't claim to be against punishment for theft; for the umpteenth time, what I said was, ""Having a grant of monopoly privilege does not make non-scarce information your "property"."
- Please quote me saying I was against punishment for theft, or else stop putting words in my mouth.
- When did you demonstrate that making use of non-scarce information = theft?
And what happened to your whole creation equals ownership argument? If you're going to abandon it, at least acknowledge that I demonstrated why it's untenable.
"Having a grant of monopoly privilege does not make non-scarce information your "property".
Which translates, in regard to the App Store, which is the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IN THE SCOPE OF THIS CONVERSATION, to: "you created it, but you don't have the right to stop others from using it"
And what happened to your whole creation equals ownership argument?
Have any laws been passed in the last few hours that override it? If not, nothing.
And what happened to your whole creation equals ownership argument? If you're going to abandon it, at least acknowledge that I demonstrated why it's untenable.
Have any laws been passed in the last few hours that override it? If not, nothing.
I'm not sure you understand what a logical argument is. When you make an untenable argument, then it doesn't need government regulation to declare it moot. For the umpteenth time, property rights don't stem form fact of creation, which is why a thief can steal your bar of gold and carve a figurine out of it without thereby gaining the property right to the figurine.
Again, creation equals property right is untenable. Give it up.
Having a grant of monopoly privilege does not make non-scarce information your "property".
Which translates, in regard to the App Store, which is the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IN THE SCOPE OF THIS CONVERSATION, to: "you created it, but you don't have the right to stop others from using it"
No. It just seems like you're trolling because if you had payed attention you would realize that I already pointed out:
An app is a pattern of information stored on a medium. Whoever has the property right to that medium, if he hasn't rented out the contents of it, has the property right to the information stored there. But that doesn't mean he has the property right to the PATTERN. He can stop others from violating his property—the hard disk that contains the pattern he arranged—but he can't stop others from arranging the same pattern on their own hard disks.
Get it now? You don't copyright "an app", you copyright a pattern of information. That's copyright law, get used to it. I'm saying it's ludicrous to threaten violence and charge "theft" against people for peacefully arranging identical of information. That's what sociopaths and psychopaths do, so it's incredibly ironic to see such people defending IP as though it's some morally superior position.
Ah, so creation ? ownership, huh? Except every copyright law says otherwise.
An app is a pattern of information stored on a medium.
So is DNA.
But that doesn't mean he has the property right to the PATTERN. He can stop others from violating his property—the hard disk that contains the pattern he arranged—but he can't stop others from arranging the same pattern on their own hard disks.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard on this subject, and it's patently false. It's the polar opposite of what our laws exist to protect.
Ah, so creation ? ownership, huh? Except every copyright law says otherwise.
You're conflating positive law—manmade rules—with fact. If the government enacts a law that says 'giraffes are now whales', that doesn't therefore mean giraffes are whales as a matter of fact, it just meants the government has enacted a law. If the government says that whenever you create something then you gain a property right to it, that doesn't mean you gain a property right to it as amatter of fact.
Again, if I steal your gold bar, and carve a figurine out of it, I've created a figurine. But that doesn't mean I have property right to it—it's your gold. The fact of property right doesn't stem from creation, or you can justify theft. That's a reductio ad absurdum. Case closed. The end. Stop bringing it up. Nor does the fact of property right stem from government dictate, or literally anything goes as long as it comes from the government—another reductio ad absurdum.
The fact of property right is a function of scarcity and the homestead principle. The government's opinion is utterly irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngrlvr
An app is a pattern of information stored on a medium.
So is DNA.
No, DNA is a medium which carries a pattern. You don't even know what you're talking about, this is painful...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It's the polar opposite of what our laws exist to protect.
Yes, governments enact some very silly laws, as I've been pointing out. Only a bunch of sociopaths would threaten violence and charge theft against peaceful people for arranging information into patterns, lol...
If the government enacts a law that says 'giraffes are now whales', that doesn't therefore mean giraffes are whales as a matter of fact…
Talk about painful.
Again, if I steal your gold bar, and carve a figurine out of it, I've created a figurine. But that doesn't mean I have property right to it—it's your gold. The fact of property right doesn't stem from creation, or you can justify theft. That's a reductio ad absurdum.
It's a good thing you're the only one who ever claimed anything like that, then. Otherwise I'd look pretty foolish.
Look, all that matters is everything you've said is either wrong or completely irrelevant. I have no idea why you decided to bring up your conditional statements in the first place, but come off it with the nonsense you're trying to push on software developers.
Again, if I steal your gold bar, and carve a figurine out of it, I've created a figurine. But that doesn't mean I have property right to it—it's your gold. The fact of property right doesn't stem from creation, or you can justify theft. That's a reductio ad absurdum. Case closed. The end. Stop bringing it up. Nor does the fact of property right stem from government dictate, or else literally anything is justified as long as it comes from the government—another reductio ad absurdum.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Look, all that matters is everything you've said is either wrong or completely irrelevant.
My argument, logical: a + b = c
Your argument: "I'm right because I said so, and you're wrong because I said so."
You must be right though, because you said so. You've stated your opinion, and I must be wrong because you clearly said, "everything you've said is either wrong or completely irrelevant." It was a pleasure arguing with someone of your caliber, with your distinguished intellect. Good day
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngrlvr
Having a grant of monopoly privilege does not make non-scarce information your "property".
So no one should have the right to protect anything they create? They don't own their creations?
That's an odd conclusion to draw from what I said...
Anyway, to your point, I can think of scenarios where someone wouldn't own something just because they created it. For example, if I steal a gold bar from you and carve a figurine out of it, I don't therefore own the figurine by mere virtue of having created it. So we can see that right of ownership doesn't derive from the fact of creation—it must derive from something else.
Property is a concept born from scarcity. We value the concept of property as a means to reduce conflict over scarce resources. If something isn't scarce (information, for example), and therefore X can make use of it without infringing on Y's capacity to do the same, then Y can't just ask the government to point a gun at X and call that a solution. In any event, the fact of having the gun pointed doesn't cause non-scarce information to be "property".
Originally Posted by ngrlvr
That's an odd conclusion to draw from what I said...
Well, it's exactly what you said, so…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Well, it's exactly what you said, so…
No, you're either making things up or delusional... The whole interaction is right here written in stone, feel free to read it again...
Originally Posted by ngrlvr
No, you're either making things up or delusional...
Developer makes app. App is developer's.
Since ownership, therefore exclusive sales right.
YOU: Having exclusive sales right ? ownership.
Which is all well and good, except it's not the argument at hand here. The apps are being stolen. How do we know they're being stolen? Because it's not the developer doing the distribution.
You're saying that if I create something that never existed before, it's not mine. That's ludicrous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Developer makes app. App is developer's.
Since ownership, therefore exclusive sales right.
YOU: Having exclusive sales right ? ownership.
Which is all well and good, except it's not the argument at hand here. The apps are being stolen. How do we know they're being stolen? Because it's not the developer doing the distribution.
You're saying that if I create something that never existed before, it's not mine. That's ludicrous.
Just imagine if it were different than this? How could any company ever justify putting money into R&D? How would we continue to evolve?
Originally Posted by gamingdiva
Just imagine if it were different than this? How could any company ever justify putting money into R&D? How would we continue to evolve?
And that's exactly why Apple has both the right and the drive to keep suing companies that steal their IP. Because if Samsung (Microsoft, Google, et. al.) is allowed to get away with straight up theft, what's the point in creating something new?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamingdiva
Just imagine if it were different than this? How could any company ever justify putting money into R&D? How would we continue to evolve?
Not sure if serious... Polio vaccine, anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Developer makes app arranges pattern of information. App Pattern of information is developer's [property].
No. A pattern of information isn't property. If anything is the developer's property here, it is the data on his hard drive (scarce), but not the pattern of information (non-scarce).
Since ownership, therefore exclusive sales right.
Rights don't derive from ownership, I already told you that. For example, a bank robber owns a lot of paper money, but that doesn't mean he has a right to that money.
YOU: Having exclusive sales right ? ownership.
No, don't lie. What I said was, "Having a grant of monopoly privilege does not make non-scarce information your "property"."
The apps patterns of information are being stolen copied.
That's what human beings do. We learn and copy, and improve. If someone is too lazy or immature to find a way to thrive, then it isn't a solution to ask government to point guns at the competition.
How do we know they're being stolen?
They're not being stolen, lol. You're just confused about what property is. Copying non-scarce information ? stealing property.
You're saying that if I create something that never existed before, it's not mine. That's ludicrous.
No, you're just confused about what property right's derive from. Property right doesn't stem from the fact of creation, for example: if I steal a gold bar from you and carve a figurine out of it, I have created a figurine but that doesn't mean I have a right to it.
Originally Posted by ngrlvr
Developer makes app arranges pattern of information. App Pattern of information is developer's [property].
No. A pattern of information isn't property. If anything is the developer's property here, it is the data on his hard drive (scarce), but not the pattern of information (non-scarce).
Do you have kids? NO YOU DON'T. THEY'RE MINE NOW. JUST A PATTERN OF DNA.
You can't win this argument because there isn't another side.
a bank robber owns
Do you know what words mean?
They're not being stolen, lol. You're just confused about what property is. Copying non-scarce information ? stealing property.
I want to find out that you create software for a living. Heck, even plants. Be a botanist or something. I'll make it a goal to steal as much from you as humanly possible, since you're perfectly fine with that.
Now you're just talking gibberish man...
I said, "Having a grant of monopoly privilege does not make non-scarce information your "property"."
You responded, "So no one should have the right to protect anything they create? They don't own their creations?"
Your response is a non sequitor.
The problem is, you don't understand the concepts of property or rights. Like I pointed out several times, a person doesn't have a right to something by mere virtue of the fact that he created it. For example, I could steal a gold bar from you and carve a figurine out of it, but the mere fact of having created the figurine doesn't mean I have a right to it—it's your gold.
And property is a concept that applies to scarce resources; to have a "property" in a non-scarce resource is an incoherent concept. The concept of property is valued by humans naturally (as opposed to artificially, for example requiring a government to invent and impose, like IP) as a means to reduce conflict over scarce resources. You can't have a "property right" to something if someone else can control (own) it without reducing your capacity to do the same (conflict). So if someone creates an arrangement of information (code), he may have a right to the scarce medium which carries that arrangement (disk), but he doesn't have a right to the information itself (letters) nor to the pattern—it isn't scarce, several people can control it without conflict.
Originally Posted by ngrlvr
"Having a grant of monopoly privilege does not make non-scarce information your "property"."
They don't own their creations?
Your response is a non sequitor.
I fail to see how.
…steal…
Do you know what words mean?
You can't have a "property right" to something if someone else can control (own) it without reducing your capacity to do the same (conflict).
So your argument boils down to "all software should be free" and "an idea cannot be owned".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by ngrlvr
"Having a grant of monopoly privilege does not make non-scarce information your "property"."
They don't own their creations?
Your response is a non sequitor.
I fail to see how.
Because a fact of ownership is utterly independent of whether an institution even exists, no less a grant from that institution. For example, I own my body because I do as a matter of fact, not because anyone says I'm allowed to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So your argument boils down to "all software should be free" and "an idea cannot be owned".
I'm not talking about how things should be. Have you heard of the fact-value dichotomy? I'm talking about how things are, as a matter of fact, not as a matter of opinion.
"all software should be free"
No. I never said that.
"an idea cannot be owned"
You're repeatedly conflating very many concepts...ugghhhh....
"own" ? "right to own"
Since an idea is electricity in a brain, obviously it is of course owned, in this case by the person whose brain the idea resides in.
"idea" (electricity in a brain) ? "app" (pattern of information on a medium)
With an app there are several possible situations:
1. I own the server, but I rent the space to individuals who therefore have the rights to their contents (apps, for example) on my server.
2. Various individuals own their own hard drives, and each accesses their own copies of patterns of information without conflict.
3. I own the server, and various individuals own their own copies of the same pattern of information without conflict.
Originally Posted by ngrlvr
1. I own the server, but I rent the space to individuals who therefore have the rights to their contents (apps, for example) on my server.
2. Various individuals own their own hard drives, and each accesses their own copies of patterns of information without conflict.
3. I own the server, and various individuals own their own copies of the same pattern of information without conflict.
What does any of this have to do with you being against punishment for stealing apps from developers?
- Please quote me saying I was against punishment for theft, or else stop putting words in my mouth.
- When did you demonstrate that making use of non-scarce information = theft?
And what happened to your whole creation equals ownership argument? If you're going to abandon it, at least acknowledge that I demonstrated why it's untenable.
Originally Posted by ngrlvr
"Having a grant of monopoly privilege does not make non-scarce information your "property".
Which translates, in regard to the App Store, which is the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IN THE SCOPE OF THIS CONVERSATION, to: "you created it, but you don't have the right to stop others from using it"
And what happened to your whole creation equals ownership argument?
Have any laws been passed in the last few hours that override it? If not, nothing.
I'm not sure you understand what a logical argument is. When you make an untenable argument, then it doesn't need government regulation to declare it moot. For the umpteenth time, property rights don't stem form fact of creation, which is why a thief can steal your bar of gold and carve a figurine out of it without thereby gaining the property right to the figurine.
Again, creation equals property right is untenable. Give it up.
No. It just seems like you're trolling because if you had payed attention you would realize that I already pointed out:
An app is a pattern of information stored on a medium. Whoever has the property right to that medium, if he hasn't rented out the contents of it, has the property right to the information stored there. But that doesn't mean he has the property right to the PATTERN. He can stop others from violating his property—the hard disk that contains the pattern he arranged—but he can't stop others from arranging the same pattern on their own hard disks.
Get it now? You don't copyright "an app", you copyright a pattern of information. That's copyright law, get used to it. I'm saying it's ludicrous to threaten violence and charge "theft" against people for peacefully arranging identical of information. That's what sociopaths and psychopaths do, so it's incredibly ironic to see such people defending IP as though it's some morally superior position.
Originally Posted by ngrlvr
When you make an untenable argument…
Ah, so creation ? ownership, huh? Except every copyright law says otherwise.
An app is a pattern of information stored on a medium.
So is DNA.
But that doesn't mean he has the property right to the PATTERN. He can stop others from violating his property—the hard disk that contains the pattern he arranged—but he can't stop others from arranging the same pattern on their own hard disks.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard on this subject, and it's patently false. It's the polar opposite of what our laws exist to protect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ah, so creation ? ownership, huh? Except every copyright law says otherwise.
You're conflating positive law—manmade rules—with fact. If the government enacts a law that says 'giraffes are now whales', that doesn't therefore mean giraffes are whales as a matter of fact, it just meants the government has enacted a law. If the government says that whenever you create something then you gain a property right to it, that doesn't mean you gain a property right to it as a matter of fact.
Again, if I steal your gold bar, and carve a figurine out of it, I've created a figurine. But that doesn't mean I have property right to it—it's your gold. The fact of property right doesn't stem from creation, or you can justify theft. That's a reductio ad absurdum. Case closed. The end. Stop bringing it up. Nor does the fact of property right stem from government dictate, or literally anything goes as long as it comes from the government—another reductio ad absurdum.
The fact of property right is a function of scarcity and the homestead principle. The government's opinion is utterly irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngrlvr
An app is a pattern of information stored on a medium.
So is DNA.
No, DNA is a medium which carries a pattern. You don't even know what you're talking about, this is painful...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It's the polar opposite of what our laws exist to protect.
Yes, governments enact some very silly laws, as I've been pointing out. Only a bunch of sociopaths would threaten violence and charge theft against peaceful people for arranging information into patterns, lol...
Originally Posted by ngrlvr
If the government enacts a law that says 'giraffes are now whales', that doesn't therefore mean giraffes are whales as a matter of fact…
Talk about painful.
Again, if I steal your gold bar, and carve a figurine out of it, I've created a figurine. But that doesn't mean I have property right to it—it's your gold. The fact of property right doesn't stem from creation, or you can justify theft. That's a reductio ad absurdum.
It's a good thing you're the only one who ever claimed anything like that, then. Otherwise I'd look pretty foolish.
Look, all that matters is everything you've said is either wrong or completely irrelevant. I have no idea why you decided to bring up your conditional statements in the first place, but come off it with the nonsense you're trying to push on software developers.
Originally Posted by ngrlvr
Again, if I steal your gold bar, and carve a figurine out of it, I've created a figurine. But that doesn't mean I have property right to it—it's your gold. The fact of property right doesn't stem from creation, or you can justify theft. That's a reductio ad absurdum. Case closed. The end. Stop bringing it up. Nor does the fact of property right stem from government dictate, or else literally anything is justified as long as it comes from the government—another reductio ad absurdum.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Look, all that matters is everything you've said is either wrong or completely irrelevant.
My argument, logical: a + b = c
Your argument: "I'm right because I said so, and you're wrong because I said so."
You must be right though, because you said so. You've stated your opinion, and I must be wrong because you clearly said, "everything you've said is either wrong or completely irrelevant." It was a pleasure arguing with someone of your caliber, with your distinguished intellect. Good day