[ExI] New IP thread

Ryan Rawson ryanobjc at gmail.com
Tue Jul 20 09:32:55 UTC 2010


Yes I am against what you are arguing for. Ultimately its unrealistic
anyways.... if I read your words I have copied them into my neural net where
they will continue to live on and affect future output of mine.... have I
just made an unauthorized derivative work by criticing your emails? Will you
seek to sue me and repossess portions of my brain? Or have them erased
perhaps?

On Jul 20, 2010 2:24 AM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Ryan Rawson <ryanobjc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ### The general meaning of efficiency is the degree of achievement of
>>> goals, given available resources. Your paragraph above seems to be
>>> bereft of meaning in our context.
>>
>> But what are the goals?  You have one set of goals, maybe I have
>> another? Which are valid? Your position is that strong IP may create
>> efficient outcomes (whatever "outcomes" means), but I am saying that
>> while strong IP may create YOUR desirable outcomes, I say that overly
>> strong IP causes loss of efficiency in other areas, not to mention
>> absurd outcomes like patent "trolls" and weird lawsuits and takedowns
>> of children's birthday videos.  These are not mythical outcomes, they
>> are very real and happen on a daily basis in the US and other
>> countries.
>>
> ### The notion of efficiency does not pertain to the content of goals,
> only to the degree to which they are satisfied. You may want to peruse
> some of the common definitions of efficiency as used in economics. It
> is not a part of our discussion (yet) to make normative statements
> about the relative validity of goals espoused by diverse entities. To
> understand our daily life, you first need to take many inferential
> steps away from it, so as to return where you started with your eyes
> wide open. At the elementary level we are on, simple exercises devoid
> of emotional content are needed first, before tackling potentially
> confusing issues.
>
> I notice you persist in using emotional imagery. "Takedowns of
> children's birthday videos" - what could be a better way to sabotage a
> rational mind? I never progressed beyond superficialities until I
> engaged in analytical exercises untainted by emotions. Neither will
> you.
>
> ------------------------------
>> Ignoring your insults, I would claim that getting a casual
>> lay-understanding of a simple system does not help in fully analyzing
>> complex systems. In engineering areas perhaps understanding basic
>> mechanical principles leads to greater understanding, but complex
>> socio-economic interactions challenge simple approaches - after all
>> micro and macro economics are not taught together and use different
>> principles to achieve their understandings.
>
> ### Are you saying you can understand complex systems without first
> being able to analyze simple analogues? That you feel empowered to
> make insightful statements about the real world without first taking
> it apart in your mind?
>
> -------------------------
>
>> Well I'm glad you've come to a place of understanding with your piracy
>> tendencies, but I was really talking about things like software
>> patents on obvious things, over-reaching copyright (which originally
>> was a balancing deal) and remix rights.  Never forget that patents and
>> copyrights are NOT natural rights, and the government gives those
>> rights to individuals (and companies) and takes on the enforcement
>> arbitration in return for something.  That being the timely return of
>> inventions, books, movies, etc to the public domain so that future
>> generations can take the works of "the greats" and build on it.
>>
> ### I do not recognize "natural rights" as a useful category. Rights
> are efficient, or not, and that is what matters.
>
> If a "thing" is obvious, it cannot be legally patented. If there is a
> patent on an obvious invention, the patent itself goes against IP law.
> In a previous post you explicitly came out against "strong IP" (which
> I assume pertains to what I postulated in the initial post of this
> thread), now you claim you are against patents that violate current
> patent law, and some peripheral issues like copyright and remix
> rights.
>
> What is it then that you oppose?
>
> Rafal
>
> PS. Let me restate my postulates: In order to achieve maximum
> efficiency, all thoughts should enjoy very high levels of protection
> against unauthorized intrusions, such as overwriting, editing, and
> copying. This also pertains to agreements between entities, which are
> overt expressions of thoughts, and are binding on the entities. Based
> on my analyses of both simple models and observations of actual
> societies, a pluralist society which protects each individual's
> thoughts is likely to be able to generate more numerous, diverse and
> useful ideas, compared to societies that do not afford such
> protections to thoughts. Current IP law is a partial embodiment of
> this notion, despite being limited by technological and other
> deficiencies.
>
> By a high level of protection I mean, among others, unlimited in time
> protection from any unauthorized copying whatsoever, with legal
> recourse available to extract both restorative and punitive damages.
> Obviously, such damages cannot be imposed on independent reinvention.
>
> Is this what you are against?
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100720/18d475dc/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list