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