Human Rights

[FoolKiller]

You can bet the lawyers will.

After $1.5 million.

And this is where loser pays should be implemented. The EFF is currently challenging the patent on prior art grounds. Personal Audio tried to have the courts force them to give up their donor information in retaliation.

What I don't get about Personal Audio is the whole going after a content creator who is using the technology provided by another company, who would be the patent violator. Pod asters didn't steal the episodic content format, they are using the system provided by hosting sites, like iTunes.

 

[Danoff]

After $1.5 million.

That'd be the total potential litigation cost. The damning prior art should be found early in the process.

 

[FoolKiller]

That'd be the total potential litigation cost. The damning prior art should be found early in the process.

I edited while you were responding.

According to Adam Carolla, they've already paid out a few hundred thousand just trying to get the venue moved out of the patent-troll-friendly east Texas.

 

[BobK]

I highly doubt the second one. I'm going to need a citation for that. Most of what examiners do (and I think are encouraged to do) is deny.

My source for the first part of the statement would be Dr. Dobbs Journal although I can't cite a specific issue other than "sometime in the early eighties". I'd like to say the second statement also came from DDJ but I honestly don't recall. It may even have come from discussions on one of the programming-oriented BBSs I was involved in at that time and hence not an authoritative source. Accordingly I'll withdraw that statement.

 

[Danoff]

My source for the first part of the statement would be Dr. Dobbs Journal although I can't cite a specific issue other than "sometime in the early eighties". I'd like to say the second statement also came from DDJ but I honestly don't recall. It may even have come from discussions on one of the programming-oriented BBSs I was involved in at that time and hence not an authoritative source. Accordingly I'll withdraw that statement.

For reference, today examiners get paid in part by the number of applications they respond to. And the easiest response they can give is "no".

 

[LeMansAid]

With you it's all about yes or no. The decision seems to be between allowing people to build a 20 story bonfire in a suburb or banning candles from the entire nation.

Someone has to decide yes or no, and I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of that someone. Also, I'm not going for the hyperbolous here.

You used to live in Texas, right? Hot and dry. Recipe for fires to all too easily burn out of control. Say your neighbour Cletus is a complete imbecile, and your other neighbour Becky Sue is upstanding and very sensible. Turns out that they both like to cook over an open camp fire in the back yard. They do it right, they may both never have an issue. Do it even slightly wrong, and maybe your house with whoever happens to be inside it, burns down.

The hot and dry place that I live in has laws that would prohibit any such fires on days with conditions deemed to be at too high a risk level. The law would ignore any competence that Becky Sue might have over Cletus and deprive everyone equally. Since it's a law that denies indiscriminately, and is ruling on risk rather than absolutes, I'd imagine it would be a law that goes against the libertarian ethos. Does it? And if so, what is a feasible real world alternative? At some point someone has to step beyond theorising and get down to brass tacks.

I'm listening to a cover of Radiohead's creep right now and thinking you're already living in that reality. Honestly, the "remixes" are out of control with copyright. That you can "sample" basically the whole song is ridiculous. I'd like to see copyright protection be more like patent protection. You can't just take someone's song, make a few tweaks, call it a remix, and release it as your own. That's crap and everyone knows it. It doesn't stand in movies, I have no idea why it stands in music.

An out and out cover of a song will provide the original writer with mechanical royalties. The sampling thing is of course completely different, and kind of all over the place. I do have friends that have sued producers of songs that used samples of their music, and made lots of money though.

You obviously separate intellectual property from other types of property? Also, given the 20 year generational theory, shouldn't we be well and truly past the point where anyone can make and sell their own product branded as Coca Cola? I asked you in the SOPA thread back in the day about your view on trademarks, but didn't end up with a response.

 

[Danoff]

I'd imagine it would be a law that goes against the libertarian ethos.

Yes.

what is a feasible real world alternative?

Deed restrictions (which has the same result but does it morally).

You obviously separate intellectual property from other types of property?

Not fundamentally. But from a practical standpoint enforcement gets difficult.

Also, given the 20 year generational theory, shouldn't we be well and truly past the point where anyone can make and sell their own product branded as Coca Cola? I asked you in the SOPA thread back in the day about your view on trademarks, but didn't end up with a response.

I don't remember that.

Trademarks are not property, not rights, and not philosophically significant. Trademarks are simply to help "organize" the market. They shouldn't expire - because that wouldn't be consistent with their purpose. Trademarks also are not (or at least shouldn't be) of harm to anyone. Each company should want a distinctive mark so that their brand can be recognized. The only reason why you wouldn't want one is to trade on someone else's reputation and confuse customers - which is potentially fraud. As long as you're not trying to defraud your customers, you're in good shape with the trademark office.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Trademarks are simply to help "organize" the market. They shouldn't expire - because that wouldn't be consistent with their purpose. Trademarks also are not (or at least shouldn't be) of harm to anyone. Each company should want a distinctive mark so that their brand can be recognized

Hmm... I see what you're saying... but thinking about it what about sounds. Or groups of words. When do you get out of "Coca Cola" and into "Kiss From a Rose". What about the Intel Inside earworm?

Large copyright cases have been settled on the same number of notes (or very close ).

I'm not sure we should separate them. I'm not saying I know what the answer is just yet... just thinking aloud

 

[Danoff]

Hmm... I see what you're saying... but thinking about it what about sounds. Or groups of words. When do you get out of "Coca Cola" and into "Kiss From a Rose". What about the Intel Inside earworm?

Large copyright cases have been settled on the same number of notes (or very close ).

I'm not sure we should separate them. I'm not saying I know what the answer is just yet... just thinking aloud

Keep in mind though that you can copyright a trademark.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Copyright, trademark, ... I believe the only purpose is to make an informed rational decision.

People should be able to be informed, if you pretend "to be something else then you are" the people can not take an informed decision, that would go against their rights. That is the way copyright or trademarks should work; to protect the consumer.

===

I have been working on the theme of the thread.
1) Rights are negative only = you do not have rights till an action is done against your freedom (an aggression). So rights are based on the Non Aggression Principle.
e.g.: the right to life does not make sense, nobody has to keep you alive. The right not be hurt does make sense.
2) Rights are about scarcity, if there is plenty for all, you can not have rights to it. (e.g. Kinsella´s case against IP) You are a scarce thing, for that you have rights.
3) Rights are reciprocal, it goes with the fact they are linked to Freedom which is reciprocal.
4) Any action has to assume innocence, you can not say you have a right on someone for what you think they might do (since all greens, solitary, with big families, ... are like that).
5) Only an aggression against your property gives you you a right (for compensation).
6) When there is a compensation for the aggression your right disappears.

So rights become easy: You have the right to defend against an action towards your property that limits your freedom, until you have been compensated for that aggression. (any other formulation is a more specific formulation of this)

Actually this just limits rights discussions to what property is and this remains very problematic (even if many believe it is not); as well as the compensation, since this is linked to what we value, what our plans and evaluations are, so the chance we agree on it is limited.

 

[Danoff]

Copyright, trademark, ... I believe the only purpose is to make an informed rational decision.

People should be able to be informed, if you pretend "to be something else then you are" the people can not take an informed decision, that would go against their rights. That is the way copyright or trademarks should work; to protect the consumer.

Trademark yes, copyright no. Very different animals.

I have been working on the theme of the thread.
1) Rights are negative only = you do not have rights till an action is done against your freedom (an aggression). So rights are based on the Non Aggression Principle.
e.g.: the right to life does not make sense, nobody has to keep you alive. The right not be hurt does make sense.

No. You always have rights, they just aren't violated until someone uses force against you.

2) Rights are about scarcity, if there is plenty for all, you can not have rights to it. (e.g. Kinsella´s case against IP) You are a scarce thing, for that you have rights.

No. Rights have nothing to do with scarcity and everything to do with labor.

3) Rights are reciprocal, it goes with the fact they are linked to Freedom which is reciprocal.

Yes, but not for the reason cited. Rights are reciprocal because of the subjective nature of rights violations.

4) Any action has to assume innocence, you can not say you have a right on someone for what you think they might do (since all greens, solitary, with big families, ... are like that).

Yes? Not sure I understand this.

5) Only an aggression against your property gives you you a right (for compensation).

No. Only aggression against your property violates your right.

6) When there is a compensation for the aggression your right disappears.

No.

Mostly the parts where I consider your argument to have gone astray are benign. For the most part they won't cause you to arrive at the wrong conclusions (except the scarcity one). So it's not a terrible way to think of it, but it's not correct either. You always have rights - but you are right that they are unimportant until they are violated.

Actually this just limits rights discussions to what property is

No. Property becomes a major factor of rights (I would call contracts, for example, property). But rights still protect against slavery, compulsion and incarceration.

 

[BHRxRacer]

All of them. Property, for example.

This is not the proper thread for this discussion. The Human Rights thread exists for this reason.

Please enlighten me. How is the right to own property "correct" and undebatable?

 

[Danoff]

Please enlighten me. How is the right to own property "correct" and undebatable?

Property rights are derived from your right to your labor. Denying someone the right to their labor is force - specifically, slavery. The initiation of force against an innocent person is a violation of their right. More specifically, it is your choice to absolve yourself of your own right against the initiation of force - it is all documented in this thread (multiple times).

 

[BHRxRacer]

Property rights are derived from your right to your labor. Denying someone the right to their labor is force - specifically, slavery. The initiation of force against an innocent person is a violation of their right. More specifically, it is your choice to absolve yourself of your own right against the initiation of force - it is all documented in this thread (multiple times).

Yo dawg!

Ok let me get this straight. Property right exists because your right to labour. Right to labour exists because of right to be free. Is that correct?

 

[Danoff]

Yo dawg!

Ok let me get this straight. Property right exists because your right to labour. Right to labour exists because of right to be free. Is that correct?

"Be free", sortof.

Property rights are indeed derived from right to labor, which is derived from a right against the initiation of force. Your right against the initiation of force is actually the acknowledgement that someone who initiates force against you subscribes to a subjective value system, which allows you to conclude that they accept subjective values as a basis for interaction. What this means is that someone who violates your right against the initiation of force is actually announcing that their values allow you to use force against them.

All human rights are is an acknowledgement of the logical consequences of particular actions.

 

[BHRxRacer]

"Be free", sortof.

Property rights are indeed derived from right to labor, which is derived from a right against the initiation of force. Your right against the initiation of force is actually the acknowledgement that someone who initiates force against you subscribes to a subjective value system, which allows you to conclude that they accept subjective values as a basis for interaction. What this means is that someone who violates your right against the initiation of force is actually announcing that their values allow you to use force against them.

All human rights are is an acknowledgement of the logical consequences of particular actions.

This just keeps getting better and better. LOGICAL consequences? Please tell me the "logical" consequence of raping someone.

 

[Danoff]

This just keeps getting better and better. LOGICAL consequences? Please tell me the "logical" consequence of raping someone.

Others can objectively use force against you.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Others can objectively use force against you.

Objectively how?

 

[Danoff]

Objectively how?

I already explained that:

Your right against the initiation of force is actually the acknowledgement that someone who initiates force against you subscribes to a subjective value system, which allows you to conclude that they accept subjective values as a basis for interaction. What this means is that someone who violates your right against the initiation of force is actually announcing that their values allow you to use force against them.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I already explained that:

So your right against the initiation of force exists because of the obligation not to initiate force. Right.

Let's cut to the chase, what you said is not "correct". Someone can voluentarily want to be a slave. Someone can initiate force against you with their value system allowing it. Hey I agree, if you punch me in the face I have the "right" to punch you back. So yeah, it's subjective, it's your opinion, and it's not mathematics. Deal with it.


Signing out of this topic.

 

[Famine]

Let's cut to the chase, what you said is not "correct". Someone can voluentarily want to be a slave.

Nothing @Danoff said precludes that. It is your right, if you wish, to surrender your property rights. Or your body rights. Or your life.

So that's not a good example of why you think what he said is not correct.

Someone can initiate force against you with their value system allowing it.

That's a violation of your rights if you do not agree to it.

 

[Danoff]

So your right against the initiation of force exists because of the obligation not to initiate force. Right.

No. Read. Otherwise ask more questions.

Someone can voluentarily want to be a slave.

Then they have not had force initiated against them.

Someone can initiate force against you with their value system allowing it.

...didn't I say that?

Hey I agree, if you punch me in the face I have the "right" to punch you back.

Not exactly. If I punch you in the face, you can punch me in the face using my own reasoning.

So yeah, it's subjective, it's your opinion, and it's not mathematics.

Nothing you have said so far even indicates that you understand it, let alone supports your conclusion.

Signing out of this topic.

Your choice.

 

[niky]

There is nothing subjective about the survival imperative. Simply, if another human is willing to take your life or threatens your survival by taking the fruits of your labor by force, then logic dictates that, to survive, you should be willing to do the same to them if they threaten you so.

Lots of topics to sign out of, eh?

 

[Danoff]

There is nothing subjective about the survival imperative. Simply, if another human is willing to take your life or threatens your survival by taking the fruits of your labor by force, then logic dictates that, to survive, you should be willing to do the same to them if they threaten you so.

I'd adjust that slightly. Logic doesn't dictate that you should be willing to do the same. It dictates that you can do the same within their own framework.

 

[BHRxRacer]

It is your right, if you wish, to surrender your property rights.

And who gave you that right?

Then they have not had force initiated against them.

Stockholm syndrome.

Not exactly. If I punch you in the face, you can punch me in the face using my own reasoning.

So it differs person to person then. I'll have to use each person's reasoning when dealing with them. If it's not universal, it's not logic. It's an opinion.

I appreciate your attempts, but I think I'm out of this. Really. I'm just waiting for @Famine to surprise me with an answer to the above question.

 

[Famine]

And who gave you that right?

Logic defines that right.

 

[Danoff]

And who gave you that right?

Look, all rights are is a recognition of the nature of your own actions. Nobody gives them to you, the nature of your actions simply exists. If you surrender your "rights", the nature of someone's initiation of force against you changes due to that context.

Your questions keep assuming you know the answer - but they indicate to me that you haven't begun to think about this sincerely.

Stockholm syndrome.

Your choice.

So it differs person to person then. I'll have to use each person's reasoning when dealing with them.

Yes and no. Whether or not someone has initiated force against another person differs from one person to the next. For example, a murderer has done so, and someone who is not a murderer has not done so (at least in regards to murder). So in that respect, yes it is a case-by-case basis. But no you do not need to understand their reasoning to know that it is subjective, and that by accepting a subjective value basis they open themselves to the same (a subjective value system... not necessarily the same one).

If it's not universal, it's not logic. It's an opinion.

Again, until you actually understand what is being said, you should probably not jump to your desired conclusion. I hope you don't do this in other subjects...

 

[DQuaN]

Again, until you actually understand what is being said, you should probably not jump to your desired conclusion. I hope you don't do this in other subjects...

What do you think?

 

[BHRxRacer]

Logic defines that right.

Elaborate

all rights are is a recognition of the nature of your own actions. Nobody gives them to you

Which one is it? By recognizing the nature of your own actions, you're giving the right to yourself.

context.

Not a word to associate with logic, correct/incorrect.

Your questions keep assuming you know the answer - but they indicate to me that you haven't begun to think about this sincerely.

I did. You just don't want to destroy the world you've created for yourself.

Yes and no. Whether or not someone has initiated force against another person differs from one person to the next. For example, a murderer has done so, and someone who is not a murderer has not done so (at least in regards to murder). So in that respect, yes it is a case-by-case basis. But no you do not need to understand their reasoning to know that it is subjective, and that by accepting a subjective value basis they open themselves to the same (a subjective value system... not necessarily the same one).

Lol. Okay.

Again, until you actually understand what is being said, you should probably not jump to your desired conclusion. I hope you don't do this in other subjects...

What conclusion? Everything you said is your opinion. I don't see anything close to 1+1=2.

 

[Danoff]

Which one is it? By recognizing the nature of your own actions, you're giving the right to yourself.

No. "Incorrect" if you prefer. The nature of your actions simply exists.

Not a word to associate with logic, correct/incorrect.

Read the sentence again.

I did.

This is a lie. I don't know whether it's a lie to me or to yourself.

Lol. Okay.

Well crafted. I suppose you thought seriously about this rebuttal.

What conclusion? Everything you said is your opinion. I don't see anything close to 1+1=2.

You answered your own question immediately. Again, this is a strong indicator that you're not actually considering anything that is being said.