I am strongly convinced that the possession of ideas and creations of the intellect is not possible. In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the concept of possession. This does not mean, however, that one must expose everything openly. It is ultimately the difference between proprietary solutions, where the “construction manual” is kept to oneself, and the open source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone.

As the title says, I would oppose this thesis to your arguments and hope that together we can rethink and improve our positions. Please keep in mind that this can be an enrichment for all, so we discuss with each other and not against each other ;)

  • PropaGandalfOPM
    link
    English
    -11 year ago

    I think there is more than just that. In my opinion it’s not theft if something is openly accessible and is not in itself affected by copying or modifying the copy. Either you protect you property well or it may get shared.

    If you develop a new medication for example you still have the advantage that only you know how to produce it. It’s your right to keep this a secret and binding all your workers to keep this secret. But if somebody leaks this info why shouldn’t anybody be able to copy it freely? Of course the comapny could still sue the leaker for breaking their agreement but not the people using or redistributing it.

    • @Rottcodd
      link
      English
      21 year ago

      It was a very simple question.

      By what right do you claim the fruits of somebody else’s labor?

      Let me clarify a bit:

      When you say that intellectual property should be abolished, you’re saying that the creator of a product of intellect should be afforded no claim to control over that product - that you should be free to use it as you please. Since it’s demonstrably the case that the creators of products of intellect generally believe themselves entitled to the fruits of their labors, when you assert that they should have no such right, you’re effectively asserting that your claim to the fruits of their labors trumps even their own.

      So again, by what right do you make that claim?

      • PropaGandalfOPM
        link
        English
        0
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s exactly the point: I believe that you cannot exclusively own the ideas or the fruits of your intellect. You can’t own them because you have no ultimate control over them. And if you have no ultimate control over them you can’t restrict them getting used by somebody else. More precisely: You still have control over your idea as the fruit of your labor and it is under your control exactly what you do with it. But you cannot control someone else’s idea, even if it is exaclty the same. Any information that is open in any way can and probably will also be used openly.

        Some examples that illustrate this:

        1. Suppose a physicist goes for a walk every evening and observes the sky attentively. As he ponders the fundamental processes of our universe, he experiences an epiphany and begins to better understand one of these processes. He goes home and fiddles around with a mathematical formula that could support this insight. Finally, he finds it and happily publishes it in a scientific magazine. Even if you can now say that you would have to buy this magazine, it will eventually leak out and the whole world can benefit from his findings. Can the discoverer then say that he owns this knowledge because he has put a lot of work into it?
        2. Assume that two people are studying at the same university with the same professor. They don’t really know each other, but both are doing research on the same topic based on the same assumptions. They come up with two fundamentally identical results to solve the problem. Who owns this idea now? The one who runs to the patent office first?

        I think the core aspect is to realize that work does not necessarily have to be followed by a reward. Just as a tinkerer can spend days working on a device only to discover later that someone else has already solved the same problem, one cannot say that an idea, no matter how innovative or fundamental it may ultimately be, can necessarily be rewarded monetarily. Or in short: work does not necessarily create wages. Is it not rather the decision of the customers whether they entrust their money to whom? Whether they prefer to give it to the original inventor or to a soulless copycat?

        I think that in a world that is becoming more and more automated and where machines are slowly taking over the discovery of new formulas and processes, the story behind the products is becoming more and more important.

        • @Rottcodd
          link
          English
          01 year ago

          Yes - it is certainly the case that once a thing that exists only conceptually - an idea or composition - is loosed into the world, control of it is difficult at best.

          So let’s narrow the scope.

          TO THE DEGREE THAT the thing might be controlled after being loosed into the world, who has the more reasonable claim to exercise that control? The person who created it or someone else?

          • PropaGandalfOPM
            link
            English
            11 year ago

            nobody/everybody has the right to claim it. Why should anybody be able to restrict the freedom of somebody else if its own freedom isn’t diminished by any degree?